catholiclefty

A pretty standard but watchable teenage sex comedy style of film, Sex Drive has a few decent things going for it that makes it a bit better than the highly derivative movie this may first appear. It still is highly derivative, mind, but just not entirely so. Though I couldn't shake off the nagging realisation that 'kids steal a car and drive it to Knoxville' had already specifically been done, in The Simpsons. Which, of course, it was.

Josh Zuckerman is ok as our leading man, but 'inexperienced, worried about his lack of experience, typical horny teenager' is a character that's been done a billion times before and he doesn't bring anything new to it. Amanda Crew is equally somewhere around ok, though the 'slightly charming, destined to see the lead guy as a decent boyfriend though not until near the end of the film' isn't exactly original either. However, Clark Duke may have a reasonably stereotypical 'best friend who is rather more successful with women' role but makes the most of it and threatens to steal the film for the most part - think of him as a Jonah Hill-style character, but rather more fun than Jonah Hill usually manages to be. Though the real scene-stealer is Seth Green's extremely sarcastic Amish guy, who is so sarcastic you can't tell if he's actually being sarcastic or not. I've not seen him for a while, but this was a good performance. I'm not entirely sure what James Marsden is doing here as an angry 'very homophobic but actually gay himself' character - while he makes a good job of the material, it isn't exactly good material to start with.

The film tootles along at a reasonable speed, with some very obvious moments and some a little more surprising, and ends in a massive confrontation that is a bit overblown but does tie up the whole film in a neat package.

In the end, this raises some laughs and has a couple of fun performances, and is perfectly watchable while you're in the cinema. Which, as I've mentioned before, is often good enough. 6 out of 10.

I really haven't a clue what the intended audience for Bride Wars is supposed to be. It's not a man's film by any stretch of the imagination, but are women really going to be impressed by a film that portrays all women as bitchy, needy, fussy, miserable losers who have nothing more serious to worry about than the minutiae of wedding planning? About the only class of people I can think may have a chance of enjoying this film are masochistic misogynists!

Even taking into account the daft and tedious (lack of) motivations of two characters who absolutely must get married at about the same time, at the same venue, and neither can possibly consider anything else, the plot doesn't even make sense (why wouldn't the third bride want to swap back to the date she originally planned on, especially when offered an incentive to do what she's been intending to do all along?) The one-up-manship is tame, almost all of the back-and-forth has already been revealed in the trailer (though this is almost forgivable for once - there is so little to go into the trailer, that the people cutting it together must have been feeling pretty desperate), the resolution is obvious and simultaneously boring, and there is almost nothing to even raise a smile for the entire running length. Horrible, horrible story-telling.

Not so long ago I said of Kate Hudson 'I never complain about seeing her on the screen' - well, I don't like to prove myself wrong this quickly, but here we are. She's annoying, overacting, and unconvincing in this role. She has a horrible haircut, far too much makeup, and doesn't look a quarter as good as she ought to. Not only that, but she is the least convincing supposedly-big-shot lawyer I've ever seen on the big screen. Who came up with that piece of casting? Fortunately for Hudson's increasingly train-wreck of a career, she's got a couple of serious films coming up next, so maybe she can regain some reputation for decent acting that she probably still has in her. Here though, she's awful.

Anne Hathaway isn't a great deal better, but at least it is physically possible to imagine her doing the job she's supposed to be doing. Occasionally she manages to act too, but goodness knows why she wanted to be in this film when we all know she makes much better roles work well. Candide Bergen plays an awful part pretty neutrally and gives nothing to the character beyond making an irritating character especially irritating. I haven't seen Kristen Johnston in ages and on this dull performance of a tedious catty part I don't especially want to again anytime soon.

This was the first official 2009 film I saw (not by any means the first film I saw in 2009, but the first one that was released *anywhere* in 2009). Hopefully it will be one of the worst. Awful from start to finish in almost every way. 3.0, and only really as high as that because I don't want to tar Anne Hathaway with anything lower.