Heart Broken
The thing about a Farrelly Bros movie is that spoilers are still spoilers, but they generally are shock laughs, so there is no great loss in being spoiled. I guess I would prefer to see, say, There
May 2, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
Excellent review Dave. I always felt with the Farrellys that their approach to all their films is the ‘throw pages of a script at a wall and see what sticks’ mentality – as there is no logical answer for how wildly ‘off’ they can be in approach and tone to their films. You cannot equate the sheer charm of MARY and sweetness of STUCK and the consistency of KING to the incomprehensible non-fun of both IRENE and HEARTBREAK. Sometimes they appear to direct like the titular character of IRENE.
I think Irene is one of their better films (mostly thanks to Carrey).
I think we’ve previously established your taste Jeff, no need to rub it in now.
Not sure what you mean. I have pretty good taste.
Jeff, everyone thinks they have good taste. There is no such thing as “good taste.” The only thing that you have is a taste for what you like.
Not that Nora Ephron is any authority on the subject, but for this, I quote when Harry Met Sally….
“Everybody thinks they have good taste and a sense of humor but they couldn’t possibly all have good taste.”
Didn’t care for Heartbreak either. But its central idea, that love/romance/relationships is all in the timing, is a good one. And I think most of the story is focused well around this thesis. Even the surprise cameo ending, more than being a cheapshot, supports the idea. It’s an awesome punchline.
Thing is, the Brothers Farrelly, like almost all comedy auteurs besides Woody Allen, have a really short expiration date in relevancy (see also Wes Anderson, after the excruciatingly redundant Darjeeling Ltd). Pretty soon, those who stay in their comfort zone eventually starting making the same movie over and over again (Mel Brooks, The Zuckers and Sonnenfeld). And there is no slow death like the slow death of a once hot comedy director. Hopefully someone will tell this to Judd Apatow.
David,
With that piece, you put more thought into the film than anyone working on it did.
Thank god Sinclair’s not here to make a “Me, Myself and Eli” jeffmcm/torture porn/masturbation joke.
Part of my taste is the determination that I have good taste, so it’s kind of an endlessly recursive thing to argue about. I would have been happy to discuss the finer points of the Farrellys’ oeuvre, but Jeffrey Boam’s Doctor apparently was interested in other things. (And yeah, Ian Sinclair’s absence is a blessing).
Irene has three rather large kids in it, that make that film. So it has moments. Nevertheless; anghus makes the best point about this review (Hey everyone! HEAT REVIEWED A PIECE OF SHIT! HE REVIEWED A PIECE OF SHIT!), and Jeff has to have some taste. HE JUST HAS TOO!
Jeff has taste: the trouble is it is a taste for movies in which women are tortured to death while he masturbates.
Excelent review by the way, David.
Ian, prove what you say with an exact quote or fuck off. I’m sick of you.
Apologies to everyone out there who would rather read about movies and not petty-minded individuals and their personal attacks.
jeffmcm – no need to go into more detail. If you think IRENE is one of their best films, I’m not going to spend much time trying to convince you otherwise because we obviously play at different ends of the schoolyard. IRENE made me smile with the ‘motherfucking atoms’ – but the film soon went off the rails and becomes an arduous task to get through. But what do I know, I’m the guy who thinks THE CABLE GUY is one of the best comedies of 90s and CADDYSHACK owns the 80s along with TOP SECRET.
regarding taste though..
all i’ll say is that some species eat their own faeces.
“caddyshack” rocks!
Doctor, I didn’t say ‘best’, I said ‘better’, which basically just means that it’s ahead of Dumb & Dumber, Fever Pitch, and Osmosis Jones, at about the same level as Stuck on You and Shallow Hal, and behind Mary and Kingpin. As I was saying, the story problems are in large part redeemed by Carrey’s fully committed performance.
Anyway I agree with you, except that in this country we spell the word ‘feces’.
oh shit.
Go back to Latium, you damn hippie.
Jeffmcm, you know as well as we all do that you admitted jacking off to Eli Roth’s HOSTEL 2 way back in the spring on Jeff Wells’ site, along with MiraJeffAICN. In the last couple of weeks you have suddenly denied saying it. Of course, such a bold-faced lie is nothing new for you, as you are always telling us you’re never posting here or on HE again and yet here you still are. If you have washed your hands of torture-porn, excellent; personally, I am just glad that you may have washed your hands.
Ian: until you can find the quote, you are the liar.
“until you can find the quote, you are the liar.”
What are you, twelve?
I’m being perfectly reasonable and you’re calling me names and trying to smear my reputation in a public forum. So I say, put up or shut up.
I don’t get why there is a need for a big circle jerk fight over “The Heartbreak Kid”, or ‘what is the best Farrelly brothers movie?’.
I’m shocked that Dave spent so much time on this movie review in the first place. Dave-how are you going to treat a Ben Stiller “looks terrible” flick with the same word treatment (if not more serious) than “American Gangster”, starring two of the best actors of their generation, with one of the best and most interesting directors of the last 25 years??? If you are going to write sporadically, and expect an audience, at least know that they probably don’t give a shit about what you thought about “The Heartbreak Kid”, especially in the midst of a season when good films are starting to emerge.
You can’t take on more topics like “Eastern Promises is terribly overrated”, or “Why didn’t “The Kingdom” do better or worse at the box office? Even if you disagree with the former opinion, or have conflicting thoughts about the latter, can you spend your 2000 words on movies that people may actually remember 6 months from now? Do you really think that anyone who pays money to go to the Heartbreak Kid cares about how it reflects on the emotional psyche of the Farrelly Brothers? I felt like I just read Ebert write a 2000 word op-ed on the negative culture effects of Jackass 2.
You seem so obsessed with how the media plays things, but you don’t want to tackle why a hard-sell film with Jamie Foxx about the Middle East played better than a mainstream hard-sell Farrelly brothers comedy with Ben Stiller that bombed? Is Ben Stiller washed up? Is Jamie Foxx an opener, but going with the wrong subjects? I would rather read about that than read about the gender implications of the Farrelly brothers psychology that neither you, nor I, nor anyone really know anything about.
Why do I feel like I’m back at the Saenger Theatre in New Orleans, circa 1963, sitting in the balcony and watching King Kong vs. Godzilla? Uh-oh. Looks like Ian is getting ready to breathe fire again.
I don’t classify “fuck off” as “eminently reasonable,” creepo.
See what I mean?
Not for you, that last, Joe.
Time to catch a flight. Sayonara.
I think, under the circumstances, telling Ian to fuck off is not only reasonable, but also highly appropriate, and I’d like to thank him for obliging.
Did you come as you said that, Jeff? Wouldn’t be surprised, as it is would be par for the course for such a misogynistic, sadistic, masturbatory piece of garbage like yourself to take out his pathological fear and hatred of women by jerking off while cursing at strangers on message boards. The day I have to resort to foul language to deal with an inconsequential amoeba like you will be a cold day in hell. Hugs and kisses, cupcake.
My favorite thing is when someone says, “If you like Hostel 2, you’re turned on by images of women being tortured in film.” Really? You think so? Here’s a question for you. If I like the first Hostel, does it mean I get a boner from seeing dudes tortured? Wait, you have no answer for that? JeffMCM may hate women. He may be misogynistic. I have no idea. But liking Hostel 2 doesn’t mean any of those things. It just means he has low standards for horror (in my opinion).
As you probably guessed, I didn’t like Hostel 2. It was redundant and everything new it brought to the table ruined the first film. The more you demystify the villains the less scary the films become. How scary is Darth Vader now that you think of Jake Loyd in a pod racer? Or Syler after they have him drinking tea with his mom?
It was an unnecessary sequel and I would have much rather seen Eli Roth make another original instead of it.
“If I like the first Hostel, does it mean I get a boner from seeing dudes tortured? Wait, you have no answer for that?”
Yes, I have: it would depend on your psychosexual makeup. But there is all the difference in the world between “getting a boner” and doing as jeffmcm claimed he did, which was to masturbate to the torture scenes in HOSTEL 2 in a movie theater (a claim whose veracity I doubt as misogynists tend to be embarrassed by public displays of sexuality, especially onanism).
Did he really say he did that? No one could be that stupid.
Davis is hot! Definitely a bottom I think!
Jack Walsh – As always, thrilled to be told what to write.
The thing about “why” is complex. I would say that the reason Heartbreak didn’t open very big – and I love that people now think that $13 million in October is a capital-d Disaster – is that the campaign never found a target. It was too relationship-oriented for teen boys and too gross out humor for girls and many adults.
Let’s not forget that The Farrellys have only had two $100 million movies and both of them opened around this number. And this is only the third Ben Stiller-alone title in his history, Night At The Museum working on a completely different plane and Zoolander at $15.5m/$45m total domestic.
In any case, thanks for the advice on building an audience. And my
Heat; you should also not forget that some folks (CELLO!!!!!!!!!!!) wanted to know your opinion on films that just came out in the theatre, and not films coming out in weeks and months to come. YOU ACTUALLY DO IT — PUT SOME THOUGHT INTO IT — and you get knackered by someone who apparently missed that post a couple of weeks ago. Shenaynaygans, Heat. Shenaynaygans. Nevertheless; would Jeff really admit to masturbating to Hostel 2 in a theatre? Would he really?
If I did, it was in public, on a different movie blog with the initials H.E., and it’s there for some enterprising blogger to use his copy and paste functions for all the world to see.
Instead, though, the discussion reveals only that Ian Sinclair is an egocentric bully who goads people for his own satisfaction, ironic given his choice of movies to use as a club. I am sorry for having given him as much pleasure as I have and that everyone else has had to read his mindless blatherings.
I must be one of the few people out there who really dug FEVER PITCH. I haven’t known anyone quite so fanatic over their sports teams as Jimmy Fallon’s character, but some do come close. I thought it was a sweet comedy, and since I have my own geek obsession with movies I found it very relatable at times.
I will freely admit to masturbating in the theater while watching King Kong. Not the Peter Jackson film, though. No, sir. The 1976 version. Jeff Bridges with a Grizzly Adams beard. Rowr.
Alan, I too liked Fever Pitch. While no great movie, I have such fondness for Nick Hornby and portions of the book and the original Fever Pitch movie, as well as being a lifelong Red Sox fan, that I couldn’t help but really like it. It’s one of the few Farrelly Brothers movies I own and watch repeatedly.
I’ll throw in another “yea” for Fever Pitch. I give it all the more credit because I don’t think that Fallon or Barrymore are particularly strong actors — but their relationship in the movie works. Underrated film, that one.
I also like Stuck on You, and Me, Myself and Irene isn’t that bad — actually, except for the AWFUL, convoluted, not-even-trying-to-be-funny plot (something about corrupt Rhode Island land deals or something?!), it’s perfectly enjoyable with one of the better “crazy” Carrey performances.
Shallow Hal and The Heartbreak Kid, in fact, are the only Farrelly movies I wouldn’t give a pass to — Dave raises a lot of interesting issues that undermine the comedy above (my immediate reaction was more basic; the movie has some laughs but it sometimes feels like a series of second-tier Farrelly outtakes, and it has the horribly slack pace even their best movies share).
There’s kind of a weird latent conservatism in some of their films, despite all of the raunch, and some of the Heartbreak Kid plot points hit that especially hard. For example, the bit about her having an environmental science “job” that turns out to be a non-paying volunteer position. As Dave points out, they try to make the chief objection the fact that she doesn’t make any money from doing it. What a wasted opportunity — if you have a situation where Stiller doesn’t know much about his wife’s job and it turns out to be objectionable, why just make it turn out to not pay anything? There are a million funny twists you could throw out to make Stiller more legitimately appalled; they sacrifice all of them for the sake of saying that volunteering to help the environment is a waste of time. Real knee-slapping stuff there, guys.
Maybe they were going for something more realistic, but since Akerman’s character just sort of trails off once the movie is done with her, I’m not sure why realism would be the goal. I do think they do an admirable job of not exactly letting Stiller off the hook in the end, and found the last 20-30 minutes of the movie pretty funny. But by then it’s too little, too late.
The dude who said The Cable Guy is one of the best comedies of the 90s, I totally agree. I think it is Jim Carrey’s best comedy and one of the most underrated movies ever. It seems people hated it just because Carrey got 20 million for a dark comedy, as if that is any basis to hate a movie.
Is there an unwritten rule that stipulates one cannot/should not post on Hollywood-Elsewhere if they post here? I want to follow the rules of decorum and bloggery. The only name I’ve recognized on H-E is Ian’s, so you can understand my concern. Please advise.
One thing intriguing about this review is that it was written from a humanist perspective, versus a male perspective, and J. Walsh, you’re right – that’s what Roger Ebert does.
Aris P, you’re not reading HE carefully. Many of them are here and vice-versa, with meself jumping in recently due to Cadavra suggesting I should.
And Ian, I read the post with mirajeff saying he was going to go masturbate to HOSTEL 2 but jeffmcm never did unless i missed it. He’s hardly the guy who would throw that out there unless it was pure snark.
even as a sox fan, i didn’t like “fever pitch.” no chemistry between the leads at all. book and original movie much better.
as to the ian/jeff thing, i confess i’m tired of hearing about it. it’s been five/six months now. moving on, people
Dave-I’m not telling you what to write. I’m just stating a personal preference that there seem to be a lot more interesting stories going on out there than “The Heartbreak Kid”, and it frustrates me, as one of your audience members, to come to a column I’ve read for years and find that you spent 2000 words on a movie most die-hard film fans probably don’t care about. It also seems obvious with the Box Office numbers, that most filmgoers don’t either. I’m not saying $13 mil is terrible, but when Stiller is pulling down A-list money, he can’t keep having these duds. How many people are going to get on Denzel rather than Crowe if “American Gangster” doesn’t open well?
I mean no disrespect Dave-I guess I just miss the days when you were writing five columns a week and it seemed like there was always a real debate (Reader of the Day was always provoking or insightful).
I might be missing the boat on those debates occurring now, but I think it’s telling that the comments section on your 2000 words over “The Heartbreak Kid” focuses more on a debate about usernames and Jeff Wells’ comment section rather than comments on your writing.
I don’t get paid to write about Hollywood, and you do, so my opinion about what you write doesn’t matter. But as a reader of your columns for years, I would think you would have a better response to my arguments than (paraphrase) “thanks for telling me what to write!”. I was asking for your opinion on those topics I mentioned because I value it-you have an insiders perspective and a privilege that most of your readers dream of, but don’t have the balls or the means to pursue.
If you want to dismiss my questions about your opinions, that is your perogative. But, honestly, if you do know and value your audience, and know about audience building, do you think that writing 2000 words about “The Heartbreak Kid” instead of 10 other “film fan” (Eastern Promises, 3:10 to Yuma, Once) movies is the top priority, and if so, what does that say about your audience?
I’m not your enemy Dave, but I’m not gonna let you get off that easy. You can dismiss me all you want.
Jack; you may not be his ENEMY, but you are not paying attention. WE ALREADY WENT THROUGH THIS WITH HEAT, and he explained himself in terms of why he does not watcn all of these crappy movies anymore. This may be in one of the BYOB post. Nevertheless; you are stating something that the regular posters in this blog have already discussed with Heat, have received an explanation from Heat, and have moved on. That he actually decided to give this piece of crap a shot and be thoughtful about it in his review… is sort of a testament to Heat throwing a bone to the members of this blog who wanted him to discuss more recent films. So… lighten up man or check out the blog more than once week because this has already been covered. Oh yeah… the Jeff thing… Ian has it out for him because Jeff loves the Hostel films. So it’s a running bit of business on Jeff’s character that seemingly never ends.
No, Ian has it out for me because he enjoys taunting people and I made the mistake of responding to his stimuli. It has nothing to do with my character and everything to do with his.
“It seems people hated it just because Carrey got 20 million for a dark comedy, as if that is any basis to hate a movie.”
My own basis for hating anything about “The Cable Guy” is Matthew Broderick, who, whether it was the character’s fault or his own, I COULD-NOT-STAND in that movie.
Jeffmcm, I do not “enjoy taunting people.” You are the person who enjoys sadistic pictures, not I. As for character, a person like yourself who claims to have masturbated in public to a torture-porn movie is wholly lacking in it. This is the last post I shall make on this particular matter. Do not seek to extend it it further.
praise, jeebus!
Thanks! Now my hideous secret can rest again.
“so the premise of him marrying her because it is the only way they can be together in America is flawed. But the joke is not played that she lied to him to catch him in marriage.”
Lila’s lies (or omissions) to Eddie formed the basis of their marriage. They made her look better to a prospective mate, so whether or not he was interested in the truth at the time doesn’t mitigate the fact that they were lies. The couple meet cute based on a lie. She purposely doesn’t tell Eddie until they are married that the crazy guy who mugged her was her ex-boyfriend who just wanted his wallet back (that she originally stole from him).
As for expanding his sexual tastes, Eddie doesn’t seem to care that Lila’s pubis resembles Cousin Itt on a humid day. He can overlook that. What he can’t overlook is that she wouldn’t shut her yap during a long road trip.
Extra spoiler warning!
“But the movie really doesn