Reply to Topic
How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days (2003) review
Not the kind of movie I typically watch, but I figure I mix things up, give it a try and be open to all sort of movies. (light Spoiler warning)
The concept and premise are strong. A man tries to get a woman to fall in love with him in days, as a bet to advance his career. That same woman, coincidentally, tries to do everything in her power to lose him, so she can write a breakthrough article for her journalist career.
It's a game. The title is fascinating because people like games. We want a romantic game of chess. Standard plots aren't always bad, but they don't fit with the game premise. For a game to work there's needs to be some element of mystery. The stakes need to feel real.
The core issue is that the 10 day timer felt completely arbitrary. What happens on days 3-7 don't matter, because no matter what, Benjamin (McConaughey) will grovel and Andie (Hudson) will push-and-pull, and it'll be resolved on day 10. And if it doesn't matter what the characters do, why should I watch this?
Andie (Hudson) can do every obnoxious thing possible to try to lose him, some parts comedic, other parts so awkward and cringe-inducing that it's hard to watch. But at times, it just feels like busywork to watch because we know that whatever she does, it won't really change anything.
The supporting characters are thin, and mostly don't have much of any character development, but this is easily forgiven as each member of the cast is able to effuse so much personality and energy in the brief screentime they're given.
The rom-com tropes and gender tropes are at work here, which aren't bad, but it's rank-and-file for what we expect. Some parts are funny, though many of the jokes fall flat. And the punchline at the end just doesn't warrant the long scene of the family playing cards.
The directing is safe and competent, mostly transparent. Not a ton of memorable shots, but the characters do all look like the star of whatever scene they're in, and that's an accomplishment. Though I can't help feel like the ending seemed more epic on paper than in practice: a dramatic and time-sensative confrontation on one of the world's most iconic skylines just feels like a regular conversation in a regular city.
And does every rom-com really need the climax to be an intentionally poorly-sang musical or where the couple air out their grievances at a major public event? And they really had to pick You're So Vain; the most ironic song that it's not actually ironic. Situations where no one acts believably, but it's so over-the-top and cringe that it adds drama.
But the chemistry between the leads is genuinely entertaining - even if plot limits how impactful their actions feel - and the acting is well done across the board.
This movie has some merit. It had the ingredients to sell; it's mega formula, but does it well. For better or worse, it's a time machine into the early 2000's rom-com era.
Rating: 5/10 (average)
Not the kind of movie I typically watch, but I figure I mix things up, give it a try and be open to all sort of movies. (light Spoiler warning)
The concept and premise are strong. A man tries to get a woman to fall in love with him in days, as a bet to advance his career. That same woman, coincidentally, tries to do everything in her power to lose him, so she can write a breakthrough article for her journalist career.
It's a game. The title is fascinating because people like games. We want a romantic game of chess. Standard plots aren't always bad, but they don't fit with the game premise. For a game to work there's needs to be some element of mystery. The stakes need to feel real.
The core issue is that the 10 day timer felt completely arbitrary. What happens on days 3-7 don't matter, because no matter what, Benjamin (McConaughey) will grovel and Andie (Hudson) will push-and-pull, and it'll be resolved on day 10. And if it doesn't matter what the characters do, why should I watch this?
Andie (Hudson) can do every obnoxious thing possible to try to lose him, some parts comedic, other parts so awkward and cringe-inducing that it's hard to watch. But at times, it just feels like busywork to watch because we know that whatever she does, it won't really change anything.
The supporting characters are thin, and mostly don't have much of any character development, but this is easily forgiven as each member of the cast is able to effuse so much personality and energy in the brief screentime they're given.
The rom-com tropes and gender tropes are at work here, which aren't bad, but it's rank-and-file for what we expect. Some parts are funny, though many of the jokes fall flat. And the punchline at the end just doesn't warrant the long scene of the family playing cards.
The directing is safe and competent, mostly transparent. Not a ton of memorable shots, but the characters do all look like the star of whatever scene they're in, and that's an accomplishment. Though I can't help feel like the ending seemed more epic on paper than in practice: a dramatic and time-sensative confrontation on one of the world's most iconic skylines just feels like a regular conversation in a regular city.
And does every rom-com really need the climax to be an intentionally poorly-sang musical or where the couple air out their grievances at a major public event? And they really had to pick You're So Vain; the most ironic song that it's not actually ironic. Situations where no one acts believably, but it's so over-the-top and cringe that it adds drama.
But the chemistry between the leads is genuinely entertaining - even if plot limits how impactful their actions feel - and the acting is well done across the board.
This movie has some merit. It had the ingredients to sell; it's mega formula, but does it well. For better or worse, it's a time machine into the early 2000's rom-com era.
Rating: 5/10 (average)
Last edited by Stamina888; 06-16-23 at 01:10 PM.
