Michael'd have a great job, still have his 4 best friends, and be in love with a beautiful girl at 30. He loves Jenna but his life seems predictable until he meets a college girl. It seems that everybody's having relationship problems.
Andrew Largeman is a semi-successful television actor who plays an intellectually disabled quarterback. His somewhat controlling and psychiatrist father has led Andrew ("Large") to believe that his mother's wheelchair-bound life was his fault. Andrew decides to lay off the drugs that his father and his doctor made him believe that he needed, and began to see life for what it is. He began to feel the pain he had longed for, and began to have a genuine relationship with a girl who had some problems of her own.Written by
The headphones Natalie Portman was wearing, are Aiwa HP-X223. See more »
When Andrew lies in bed the morning after the party, sunlight is supposedly beaming through holes in the curtains. However the light beams are at varying angles obviously from several light sources. See more »
Los Angeles Tower, this is Transworld 22 Heavy. We are going down! Repeat, engines two and... L.A. Tower, this is... Mayday! Mayday!
See more »
Under the "Make-up" credits....Kabuki (a traditional style of Japanese theater and makeup) See more »
An Unpolished Movie With Blatant First-Timer Mistakes
Perhaps the most notable and visible issue with this film is the narrative structure. The writing is done in a sort of encounter-to-encounter style, like a layman's Odyssey. I feel though that this is not a result of a specific film styling but rather poor writing on the part of Zach Braff, who, mind you, is not the Epstein brothers (of Casablanca fame) but rather a TV actor who is breaking into the big screen for the first time. As a result, plot weaving becomes non-existent, and character development, even in the case of Large (the main character) is shallow and doesn't really show much change, or rather, the script doesn't provide an opportunity for change. When he then has an epiphany at the end of the film, a terribly contrived moment, he praddles off everything that he already knew as if it were terribly profound, and the moment entirely misses.
Also, characters, specifically Large, seem to go off on philosophical tangents which are neither profound nor insightful, but seem to be what he really wants the audience to derive from his movie. In this classic case of "Telling" instead of "showing," I personally was annoyed as I felt that as an intelligent viewer I didn't need to be spoon-fed these ideas but rather, as in any well-written movie or literary piece, could have derived them from the work itself without them being thrown into my face.
Please keep in mind that this was something of a Devil's advocate opinion as I did enjoy parts of the film, and certainly recommend it above most of the other films in theaters now.
13 of 19 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this