'3BlackChicks Review...'
DOWN WITH LOVE (2003) Rated PG-13; running time 100 minutes Studio: 20th Century Fox Genre: Romantic Comedy Seen at: Eastwood Neighborhood Cinema Group (Lansing, Michigan) Official site: http://www.down-with-love.com/ IMDB site: http://us.imdb.com/Details?0309530 Written by: Eve Ahlert, Dennis Drake Directed by: Peyton Reed Cast: Renee Zellweger, Ewan McGregor, David Hyde Pierce, Sarah Paulson, Tony Randall
Review Copyright Rose Cooper, 2003 Review URL: http://www.3blackchicks.com/2003reviews/bamsdownwithlove.html
DOWN WITH LOVE looks, pretty much, like a 60's "Pillow Talk" comedy.
Now I remember why I hated 60's "Pillow Talk" comedies so much.
THE STORY (WARNING: **spoilers contained below**) It's New York, 1962; a time when a theme song sang by a movie star could be enough to turn a nothing-book into a best seller.
Meet Barbara Novak (Renee Zellweger), author of that "nothing-book": "Down With Love". In it, Barbara rallies women of the Thoroughly Modern 60's to stop equating "sex" with "love", giving them a series of steps (including using chocolate instead of sex to bring about the same results) to eventually free themselves to be able to have unfettered sex - just like men.
Of course, this doesn't sit well with the guys. Not with publisher Theodore Banner (Tony Randall); not with the all-male Board at Banner House, where Barbara's editor Vikki Hiller (Sarah Paulson) thinks she has Power (but is still made to serve coffee to the Board). And most certainly not with milquetoast "Know Magazine" publisher Peter MacMannus (David Hyde Pierce), and his ace reporter, mondo playboy Catcher Block (Ewan McGregor). As men are wont to do, these men all think that a powerful woman is the death of a man. And with Catcher seeing his sex life crushed to death by chocolate-eating feminist women, he schemes with Peter to woo Barbara (while Peter tries to distract Vikki with some wooing of his own), and reveal her to her Sisters as just another woman looking for love in all the wrong places.
THE UPSHOT In these days when style usually wins over substance, DOWN WITH LOVE (if it were released before Summer Blockbuster Season) would probably rule the day - for it has Style up the wazoo.
But as I sat through unsubstantive frame after unsubstantive frame, not only was I reminded how vapid the flicks DOWN so eagerly emulated really were, I also came to realize what separates homage from parody. See, FAR FROM HEAVEN was homage: it knew the 50's as portrayed in cinema, and celebrated its vivid images on-screen, but also *subtly* let us see what those 50's filmmakers would never show. But the problem with DOWN is that instead of poking gentle fun at the goofiness of Rock's Man's Man and Doris' Virginal Virgin, it instead beats them down with a sledgehammer, and screams that These Days Are Different. Duh.
Case in point: the split-screen scene. We had just come off an elongated (no pun intended) double-entendre scene involving a secretary misunderstanding a conversation about men's socks - which was, admittedly, close to the types of Misunderstanding Scenes that predominated those Hip 60's flicks (and still today runs rampant in sitcom after sitcom), without being too over-the-top. But that wasn't good enough. No, director Peyton Reed had to drive the point home by going miles further than just double-entendre, and remind us in no uncertain terms that merely talking openly about sex (a taboo subject in most films then) is nothing; look what we can show you now! Bleah.
I understand the need to not simply reproduce PILLOW TALK, homage, lampoon or no; after all, it's not like those films were remarkable enough to remake (noooo, not when there's SCOOBY DOO available!). But what DOWN WITH LOVE failed to emulate most was the "innocent", if unrealistic, charm of those days. It had the decidedly low-tech look and sound of the early 60's, but not the heart; and that made all the difference. And what's most ironic is that Reed, along with writers Eve Ahlert and Dennis Drake, didn't seem to notice; after all, they paid so much attention to mimicking everything else about the era.
I was going to originally give this movie a flashing redlight, but upon reflection, I realized that was too harsh. Yes, DOWN WITH LOVE was too heavy-handed on the parody; but where its mimicry worked, it worked well. Ewan McGregor is no Rock Hudson, and Renee Zellweger, no Doris Day; but they're close enough for the 00's, I reckon. They look good together (though they never seemed to click), and they acted their parts as best they could, under the circumstances. The vastly underestimated David Hyde Pierce channeled Tony Randall-type characters expertly (though the similarities to his own "Niles" TV character made me keep looking for "Frasier" to pop up any minute), and Sarah Paulson has Paula Prentiss down cold. Even Tony Randall himself shows up as The Anti-Tony Randall - for what it was worth.
The music was also noteworthy. Though the original music score by Marc Shaiman often got on my nerves in overemphasizing certain scenes, the "masculine" and "feminine" versions of "Fly Me To The Moon" were superb, and the closing credits duet by McGregor and Zellweger was fun too. And as with FAR FROM HEAVEN, the set and art decorators outdid themselves.
Still, a pretty face only gets you so far...unless you're The Action Sequel Of The Year, that is. Then, you can be as pretty and empty as you want, and still get mega millions in the process. Who, me, bitter?
BAMMER'S BOTTOM LINE DOWN WITH LOVE gets style points - it certainly looks (on the surface) like a Rock'n'Doris shindig, and it even has the sound to match - but beneath its thin parodic veneer lies a meanness of spirit that those fluffy comedies never allowed themselves to show.
DOWN WITH LOVE rating: flashing yellowlight
Rose "Bams" Cooper Webchick and Editor, 3BlackChicks Review Entertainment Reviews With Flava! Copyright Rose Cooper, 2003 EMAIL: bams@3blackchicks.com http://www.3blackchicks.com/
========== X-RAMR-ID: 34920 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 1140089 X-RT-TitleID: 1122483 X-RT-SourceID: 447 X-RT-AuthorID: 3672
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews