Movie thoughts & complaints

Being sick this past week, I watched a lot of movies.  Seven, to be exact, and I cannot remember the first one I watched no matter how hard I try, and I've been trying for a few days. 

But one of the movies I watched was The Bounty Hunter, and if you know me at all, you're surprised.  I really don't like romantic comedies (for the most part.  It's just easier to say that, like short stories & poetry, I don't like them.) and have very little tolerance for Gerard Butler.  But I realized that I also can hardly stand Jennifer Aniston anymore. 

I was trying to figure out what it is that irks me about her when I decided that it was the fact that she just keeps playing the same, just a step above Rachel Greene character in every freaking movie she's been in for the past 5 years or so.  And even her "real life" conversations and appearances just feel fake and forced.  I don't know.  So today, I happened upon this article on, in which Owen Glieberman talks about Jen and Michael Cera as the actors that most people harp on about always doing the same thing.  He calls the complainers on the carpet a bit because, if we think back to great actors of the past, such as my beloved Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn, we will find that they were always the same.  He says that before "range" was such a big deal, that is exactly what people went to the movies to see-- their favorite actors being the characters they like. 

Being that he called out 2 of my all-time faves, I had to think about his argument a bit.  I do believe that one of the big differences is that at least for myself, and I would wager a good number of the movie viewing public of today, we did not see those actors's movies when they came out.  We weren't going to see 5 Cary Grant movies in a row and thinking, "Sheesh!  They're all the same!"  We pick old movies out of a hat and watch what tickles our fancy whenever we like.  And, yes, the movie-going public has changed, I'd wager. 

His reasoning isn't wrong, though.  He does fault the mind-numbing (he says "teeth-grinding") crappy writing of Jen's chosen genre, romantic comedy.  Meaning that if the writing of the movies were better, we would be happier to watch the sunny, perfect Jen character.  Possibly.  I think that, just possibly, she's been doing it for entirely too long, though.  She's still trying to do the cutesy, innocent but wild young thang, and it doesn't work anymore.

Michael Cera?  Love love love him in Arrested Development.  He's great.  But, seriously, none of his characters have been any different than George Michael.  At all.  At least Aniston isn't playing exactly Rachel.  And I do think that, were I to sit down and watch a bunch of Cary Grant movies in a row, I would tire of his fast-talking, suavely handsome shtick, and I would need a break.  I know I can't handle too much Kate in a row.  The woman grates!  That is likely, Mr. Glieberman, why she was considered box office poison for a good portion of her career. 

In conclusion, I finally looked up the movies I rented because it was bugging me.  They are as follows:
Death at a Funeral  Meh. 
The Book of Eli Meh that was boring to look at.
The Ghost Writer Stupid with pretty faces in it.
Leap Year  Not any worse or better than most romcoms.  I am slightly embarrassed for the actors, though.
The Bounty Hunter Gah.  Not as painful as I thought it would be, but bad.
Invictus kind of boring, but I was quite moved at the end & may have shed a tear.
The Proposal I had already seen it & it was kind of a back-up.  Hey- Ryan Reynolds is pretty.