The Hobbit: How Are They Making This Book Three Movies?

Would somebody buy Peter Jackson Final Cut Pro? I am worried he doesn't have the readily accessible editing software that is the industry standard. That is the only rational explanation on how The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is being broken up into three different movies.

You may remember Jackson's last crack at the J.R.R. Tolkien books, The Lord of the Rings trilogy. The series was near-perfect, and while the last movie had eight different endings his hard work was rewarded in the form of being named the Best Picture of the year by the academy.

It has been nine years but Jackson has now returned to Middle Earth to tell the story that happened before Frodo set off to destroy the one ring. And while each movie in his previous trilogy was one movie set to one book he has broken the smallest book from this world into three different movies. For example Fellowship of the Rings was 400 pages and all fit into one movie, meanwhile the first Hobbit instillation covers the first 100 pages. Perhaps worried that he would offend Tolkien by leaving out a comma from the source material. To no one's surprise the movie does tend to drag a little.

How does six chapters become a three hour epic, by adding tons of back story. The result is a lot of exposition that didn't need to be included. Jackson spent what seemed like the first hour of the movie having Bilbo answer the good 13 different times to introduce each dwarf that would be joining the journey. Each indistinguishable from the next, the only dwarf that seemed pertinent to the story was the dwarf king Thorin.

He also adds characters to the movie, such as Frodo who never appeared in The Hobbit but somehow took up 10 minutes of screen-time to set up a frame story that was completely unnecessary. Jackson takes literal footnotes from the book and makes the main antagonists when the story has a way better villain we never meet A TALKING DRAGON. For those who appreciate that kind of detail I expect you will love The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey; but whatever you do, DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE IN 3D.

Peter Jackson chose to shoot the movie at 48 frames per second this allows the 3D visuals to pop more on screen. There are many in the industry who believe this is where film-making is going. But with any new technology there are a lot kinks to it and it takes a while for the audience to get used to it.

The shooting style makes the movie look more like a well-done video game.  From the opening scene in the Shire when all the actors are standing and talking, it looks like the movie is on fast forward. None of the characters move naturally, its like they are all on five hour energies.

Jackson doesn't allow any of his scenes to breathe. You would think at that length a couple more minutes wouldn't matter. Shooting at this speed is supposed to help the action sequences but it just makes them all look like cartoons. This technique detaches the audience from the movie and that is the last thing you want in an epic at this length people checking their clocks.

If you can somehow get past these enormous problems you come to find the The Hobbit has a rich story with fantastic action and wonderful acting. Martin Freeman is the perfect Bilbo as he blends a charm with nerves to mail the character. He is a believable as a a hero just coming to terms with the task ahead of him. Ian McKellen returns a Gandolf the Gray and it seems to be more of the same from the original.

That is really where this movie fails from the first three. More of the same. No one was expecting the kind of world, the story arc that Jackson was able to craft in the original, it all came as a magical surprise. Here we already know what is coming and that leaves the audience wanting.

When the movie comes out to DVD you know what would be nice if instead of an Extended Director's Cut (which to me seems impossible there would be any scenes that were left out) it came out as an Editor's Abbreviated Cut. There is a good movie in here, it just needs a concise retelling and the special effects to be left out. If 2-D was good enough for Frodo, it should be plenty good for his Uncle Bilbo. C-

Skyfall

It has been four years since the last James Bond movie, and for a while there was a legitimate concern the Quantum of Solace would be the last James Bond movie with MGM going bankrupt.  That would have been a horrible way to end the series.  But here it returns to its glorious form a perfect mix of what we have come to expect from both the character in relation to the series and Daniel Craig's spin on the character.  Skyfall is a perfect blend of what we should expect from James Bond living in today's world.  

No matter what Daniel Craig does with the rest of his time as the world's most famous spy. All of his work will always be compared to Casino Royale.  And in that respect it probably doesn't live up to the near perfect reboot of the franchise.  But if you were to treat this movie independently of the franchise the story is compelling and the actors shine.  The only hint of hindrance comes from some of the moments that every James Bond movie has to have and the audience expects from a movie like this 

At 44 years old you have to wonder how many more movies Daniel Craig has in him.  Already in his third installment in the series they already play up the angle that he may be too old too still be a Double-0 agent.  Yet his haunting blue eyes and slick coolness still aid him in being perfect for the role, for now.  Cool as ever and he is still able to nail the action sequences even if they don't come as often from when he first started the series.  

Sam Mendes does a fantastic job with the story making it more of a thriller than a straight up action flick.  He forces his character to come to terms with who he is for the dramatic parts and still directs terrific action sequences.  Most notably the opening which immediately grips you in.  To his credit he finally gives Judi Dench a role she can firmly grab onto instead of just a bit part.  It is a shame to have wasted all the potential of the character throughout the series but it was wonderful that someone finally let Dench be Dench 

Hitting the 50th anniversary of the series the movie hits the moments that you have to.  From the drink order to the action sequences to the music.  But somehow after all this time it is still impossible to get sick of all the moments that we already know are coming.  What is different about this movie from the previous two installments is that they have fun with some of the cliches that we are expecting the movie to have.  This movie has a self-referential humor about it that was missing from Quantum of Solace.

The best part about this movie though is without a doubt Javier Bardem as the main Bond villain, Silva.  As he walks onto the scene with bleach blonde hair and knowing what he can do as a villain from his time at No Country For Old Men there is a high expectation, and he knocks it out of the park.  He plays the part completely over the top which is what you usually expect out of a Bond villain and that was a fun change of pace for the series.

This movie seemed to provide a solid mix of the realness that the other two Bond movies that garnered Casino Royale such praise with the campiness that we have come to expect.  Like the previous two movies, Craig still plays a darker, harder version of the Bond character. He leaves the over the top acting and many of the one liners to his nemesis   This is a Bond that is updated to the times, and for that I think we can all be thankful.  B+

Alex Cross

This review of Alex Cross is brought to you, much like the movie, by Cadillac: The New Standard Of The World.  It is also brought to you by the letters F and the letter C for completely cliche.  This movie offers nothing original to the genre, the writing is filled with one liners.  The plot and characters seem more like they come from serialized daytime TV dramas than they do from James Patterson.  And the camera work is too stylized for its own good.  I don't know if I can find one redeemable moment from this movie but I will do my best.  Tyler Perry tries to step outside of his usual comfort zone and perform to a much broader audience but the product that comes out is far beyond his control of anything close to bearable.

Some of you may remember Alex Cross from the Morgan Freeman movies "Kiss The Girls" and "Along Came A Spider."  In "Alex Cross" he plays a younger version of the character.  One that got his start in Detroit before moving to Washington D.C. to become a renowned profiler.  Tyler Perry seems to be a natural pick for the movie, he has a huge following and one would hope that a movie like this could supply him with a broader audience.   There just wasn't much for him to grab onto with this role and for that his potential big push for more on-scene roles without the Madea suit may be put on hold.

The story can't get anymore simple.  It is brilliant cop vs. a sadistic killer.  The story seems more along the lines of an episode of  CSI than anything else.  The story has almost every cliche cop moment in there.  There is just no depth to this movie.  In his first walk through of the murder he is investigating he has the entire scene figured out.  But we as the audience, unless you are familiar with the character, have no background to set this up.  We are just supposed to accept he is brilliant and move on.

Afterwards come a series of awful one liners from partner Eddie Burns which helps us connect to his character.  But he is supposed to be a little dopey so not too much credit can be given for nailing the one part that is supposed to seem simple.  Then Cross goes back home to a family we have no emotional attachment to.

The entire movie is a paint-by-numbers cop movie, you know every role to the movie.  As soon as Jean Reno walks on the scene you know he is destined for be a more integral part of the plot. Matthew Fox looks the part of a dangerous psychotic having underwent an intense diet for the role.  Fox's physical transformation into the role was actually one of the things I was excited to see but as soon as he opens his mouth he seems as out of place as everyone else.

We are supposed to fear Matthew Fox and he shows how dangerous he can be in the opening sequence.  But in an attempt to gain a larger audience they keep the movie to a PG-13 rating.  So instead of seeing any of the violence you get highly stylized camera work that become more distracting than anything else.

The only moment that comes close to being surprising happens half way through the movie when someone close to Alex dies (I guess I should have said spoiler alert, but you're not going to see this movie so who cares).  But there is just no emotional attachment so what should come off as a tender and possibly tear inducing moment comes off as forced instead.

Hasn't Detroit gone through enough, just when you think they are getting somewhere with Detroit making the World Series a movie like Alex Cross comes out and they will have to claim it as its own.  Tyler Perry has no business being an action star and that is proven here.  But what may be most upsetting about the whole movie is that they have already green lit a sequel.  F

Argo

If Argo did anything besides make me grab a complete stranger in the movie theater for fear of the hostages lives, it was prove once and for all that Ben Affleck is a great director.  He has proven his stuff in the past with Gone Baby Gone and The Town, but Argo has affirmed that he can direct the crap out of anything.  It has the perfect mix of tension, action, drama, and laughs and may be one of the best movies I have seen all year.  You may expect a dry telling of a hostage negotiation you have never heard of, but Argo is a masterfully crafted story that will have you on the edge of your seat. 

The movie is a hodgepodge of emotions.  Going in I thought this would be a political drama mixed with action.  Here Affleck mixes everything from politics, to insider Hollywood humor, to a thriller-drama.  Anyone could have messed this movie up, but Affleck squeezes every possible drop of emotion out of every scene.   He captures the perfect feel of the movie, from panic in the embassy right down to a grainy camera work that movie goers would have seen in the late seventies.

Right as all the information seems overwhelming in DC, Ben Affleck's character Tony Mendez comes up with his plan to free the escaped hostages held up in a hostile Iran.  They plan to free the six that made it out of the embassy by going into Iran as a movie company looking to scout a desert location.  It is at this point that Mendez goes to Hollywood to create a back story for their fake movie.  There they meet two Hollywood producers played outstandingly by John Goodman and Alan Arkin.  Throughout the California scenes the dialogue is littered with inside Hollywood jokes that everyone in the audience is able to enjoy.  They create laugh out loud moments that help to relieve the audience from becoming too overwhelmed.  And while Goodman is good Arkin is great, he steals all the big laughs.  Laughs I wasn't even expecting to get when I first sat down to watch this movie.

If the first half of the movie is about the planning and the set-up then the last half of the movie is about the execution of the plan.  The drama and tension is set high in the first 10 minutes of the movie as the Iranians take over the U.S. embassy, so by the last 45 minutes of the movie I was literally on the edge of my seat and if I didn't biologically know I had to take in oxygen at least every three minutes I wouldn't be able to tell you if I breathed.  I didn't know this story at all before watching this movie, and since it was recently declassified chances are you didn't either.  My biggest suggestion is don't look anything up.  Allow this story to happen and allow yourself to experience the gamut of emotions that Mr. Affleck wishes you to experience.

The only mistake that Ben may have made is casting himself as the male lead.  I don't agree with all the criticism he has taken in the past about his acting, I actually believe he can be a good actor, especially when he is playing a d-bag.  Here he is supposed to be a patriotic stoic thinker.  And that is what he is, almost to a cardboard cut out precision.  He is so stiff in the movie, and it stands out even more by the cast he puts around him.  Even the hostages as unrecognizable actors do a better job than this household name.  I wonder if anymore could have been made of the movie if he had cast someone else in the lead, but hey he is directing, I'd probably cast myself too.

Argo has it all, and does a great job at hooking you into the material.  While every part of the movie was great, there was no point in which I was hoping they would cut to another scene.  I was engulfed in all of it.  Come award season expect some major praise coming for Argo.  A

2012 Emmy Predictions: Drama

Yesterday we discussed all the categories in the comedy field.  Today let's look at the actors competing for drama.

SUPPORTING DRAMA ACTRESS

Anna Gunn as Skyler White in "Breaking Bad"
Maggie Smith as Violet, Dowager Countess of Grantham in "Downton Abbey"
Joanne Froggatt as Anna in "Downton Abbey"
Archie Panjabi as Kalinda Sharma in "The Good Wife"
Christine Baranski as Diane Lockhart in "The Good Wife"
Christina Hendricks as Joan Holloway Harris in "Mad Men"

Right away you can take away the two actresses from "The Good Wife" which is a shame because both actresses do well on the show, they just can't deal with the same themes that the other shows do on cable.  If I had to pick one of the actresses from "Downton Abbey" I would have to pick Maggie Smith as the superior actress as the Countess, but she just won last year in the miniseries category.  I'm glad to see Anna Gunn finally nominated, but never deserved the award as much as she did this past season.  Unfortunately season five isn't for consideration, season four is.  So while I fully expect her to win next year for the scene below, she can't win yet but voters may forget about that.  Christina Hendricks is who I believe deserves the win, she has been nominated four times in the past.  The episode she submitted was also the same one Jon Hamm and Elisabeth Moss submitted and its a Joan centric episode, "The Other Woman" is a heartbreaking episode and worth the watch and she deserves the win for it, but Maggie Smith may just take the award anyway.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrtyYCWjR0s]

SUPPORTING DRAMA ACTOR

Aaron Paul as Jesse Pinkman in "Breaking Bad"
Giancarlo Esposito as Gustavo 'Gus' Fring in "Breaking Bad"
Brendan Coyle as John Bates in "Downton Abbey"
Jim Carter as Mr. Carson in "Downton Abbey"
Peter Dinklage as Tyrion Lannister in "Game of Thrones"
Jared Harris as Lane Pryce "Mad Men"

The "Downton Abbey" actors are out of their league in this category. It includes two past winners and two who very much deserve the win.  I would think because  Aaron Paul and Peter Dinklage have won in the past and probably had better seasons the previous years would not be serious contenders, though each episode they submitted were fantastic.  Dinklage submitted Blackwater which features a fantastic speech before a major battle which is what won him the award last year.  While Aaron Paul features a tense standoff between him and his partner, Walt.  When I think of this past season of "Breaking Bad" though I always think of Gus especially the last image of him from that season.  He was fantastic all year, as was Jared Harris who has a heartbreaking arc this season.  His episode also featured a very funny moment for him before the inevitable conclusion.  But Giancarlo Esposito had a better all around season and for that will get the win and become the first Afrian-American to win the award in this category.

DRAMA ACTRESS

Glenn Close as Patty Hewes in "Damages"
Michelle Dockery as Lady Mary Crawley in "Downton Abbey"
Julianna Margulies as Alicia Florrick in "The Good Wife"
Kathy Bates as Harriet Korn in "Harry's Law"
Claire Danes as Carrie Mathison in "Homeland"
Elisabeth Moss as Peggy Olson in "Mad Men"

Claire Danes is going to win for "Homeland."  The show is amazing and it is all her.  The episode she submits is called "The Vest" and it features an emotional breakdown which Emmy voters love.  But her last moments of the episode is what clinches the award.

DRAMA ACTOR

Steve Buscemi as Nucky Thompson in "Boardwalk Empire"
Bryan Cranston as Walter White in "Breaking Bad"
Michael C. Hall as Dexter Morgan in "Dexter"
Hugh Bonneville as Robert, Earl of Grantham in "Downton Abbey"
Damian Lewis as Nicholas Brody in "Homeland"
Jon Hamm as Don Draper in "Mad Men"

What is really impressive about this other inevitable win is that now Bryan Cranston has never lost the award.  Last year he was ineligable due to when the shows came out.  But he is now three for three and for anyone who saw this scene you realized immediately that this was not only a special actor but a once in a generation show.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMEq1mGpP5A]

P.S. Why is Dexter still on television.

DRAMA SERIES

"Boardwalk Empire" (HBO)
"Breaking Bad" (AMC)
"Downton Abbey" (PBS)
"Game of Thrones" (HBO)
"Homeland" (Showtime)
"Mad Men" (AMC)

This has been the "Mad Men" award for the past several years now, but could this finally be the year "Breaking Bad" takes down the king?  "Mad Men" was on point this season, and just as good as the previous years, my only knock on the show would be that it had too many final gotcha moments at the end of episodes that made it seem more like just another dramatic series than an analysis of society in the sixties in comparison to today.  Where as "Breaking Bad" has gone above and beyond.  And I didn't think it was possible to get any better.  Two years ago when the shows clashed I thought that "Breaking Bad" would win for Best Series as it was a down year for Don Draper and the gang where as "Breaking Bad" was on the rise of greatness.  Now there is no doubt what is the best series.  I know Emmy voters are loyal but it would be a crime to give the award to anyone else.  "Breaking Bad" is the greatest show on television and should win the award.  All hail the king.

Who do you think will win? Let me know and hit me up on twitter for your take on the Emmy Awards as they happen.  Thanks for putting up with me.  For that below is Neil Patrick Harris doing one of his many great musical numbers from 2009.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT1DZVn5h2Y]

Emmy Predictions 2012: Comedy

The Emmy Awards are this Sunday. And for those of you that don't watch nearly as much TV as I do but want to have an informed opinion here are who I think will win the awards. First up lets talk about the comedies.

SUPPORTING COMEDY ACTOR

Ed O'Neill as Jay Pritchett in "Modern Family"
Jesse Tyler Ferguson as Mitchell Pritchett in "Modern Family"
Ty Burrell as Phil Dunphy in "Modern Family"
Eric Stonestreet as Cameron Tucker in "Modern Family"
Max Greenfield as Schmidt in "New Girl"
Bill Hader as various characters in "Saturday Night Live"

Usually what happens is when several actors from the same show compete in the same category they steal each others votes.  In this case it allows voters to see more scenes from those actors who may only submit one episode each. This hurts Max Greenfield the most as Schmidt in New Girl steals literally every show and is the main reason this show is any kind of good. What hurts the most about this category is not seeing Nick Offerman's Ron Swanson here from Parks and Recreation, he should win this category easy but can't even get nominated because for some reason Jesse Ferguson keeps getting on the ballot. In the end it should come down to Ed O' Neil who is somehow still Emmy-less and Ty Burrell who won last year. Burrell really is the lead character on the show but because the show is an ensemble piece everyone submits in the supporting category. O'Neill submitted his episodes with the most heart, while Burrell was outright funny in his and for that reason I think Burrell will win.

SUPPORTING COMEDY ACTRESS

Mayim Bialik as Amy Farrah Fowler in "The Big Bang Theory"
Kathryn Joosten as Karen McCluskey in "Desperate Housewives"
Julie Bowen as Claire Dunphy in "Modern Family"
Sofia Vergara as Gloria Delgado-Pritchett in "Modern Family"
Merritt Wever as Zoey Barkow in "Nurse Jackie"
Kristen Wiig as various characters in "Saturday Night Live"

This could be the toughest category where really four of the six could win.  You can toss out Merritt Wever immediately mostly because the other women are so strong.  Mayiam Bialik started out as a guest star and is now considered a series regular, and while the episode she submitted involving a tiara is actually funny, she is still not in the episode all that much. The same is the case for Kathryn Joosten who passed away earlier this year, she has won Emmys before but it has never been in this category, but unfortunately Emmy voters usually don't get too sentimental.  It seems like it could come down to the reigning champion Julie Bowen and Krieten Wiig in her SNL swan song.   Kristen Wiig helped elevate SNL to new heights and when we look back I inagine her name will be one we remember, but the episode gets kind of sappy and her graduation moment with Mick Jagger is an average moment.  Where as once again Julie Bowen is outright funny.  If I had to pick one I would say Julie Bowen will win, but don't be surprised if Wiig walks away with the award.

COMEDY ACTOR

Jim Parsons as Sheldon Cooper in "The Big Bang Theory"
Larry David as Himself in "Curb Your Enthusiasm"
Don Cheadle as Marty Kaan in "House of Lies"
Louis C.K. as Louie in "Louie"
Alec Baldwin as Jack Donaghy in "30 Rock"
Jon Cryer as Alan Harper in "Two and a Half Men"

Forget the rest this is a two man race.  It is down to Jim Parsons and Louis C.K. and god does "Louie" deserve it.  This may be one of the smartest comedies out there.  For those still shying away, I understand, it can be an uncomfortable show to watch, sometimes there isn't one funny moment in the episode.  The show stands on its own and is just great television.  For those of you who have Netflix I encourage you to go back and watch this series.  He deserves this win for this show, since it somehow didn't get nominated as best series.  That being said I'm sure somehow Jim Parsons will win for "The Big Bang Theory" because people like stupid things.  That's not true, its not all stupid I just don't find this show funny and am amazed when people do, it does have its bright spots and like every Chuck Lorre show he finds fantastic actors to deliver his one or two funny lines in the episode which rely on snark and being loud. On the flip side at least Parsons is playing someone else unlike Louie who is playing a version of himself, and no actor has ever won for playing themselves.  For being a show about science there are a lot of smarter shows out there than "The Big Bang Theory," such as "Louie."  But the better actor is probably Jim Parsons because he is, you know, acting.

COMEDY ACTRESS

Lena Dunham as Hannah Horvath in "Girls"
Melissa McCarthy as Molly Flynn in "Mike & Molly"
Zooey Deschanel as Jess Day in "New Girl"
Edie Falco as Jackie Peyton in "Nurse Jackie"
Amy Poehler as Leslie Knope in "Parks and Recreation"
Tina Fey as Liz Lemon in "30 Rock"
Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Selina Meyer in "Veep"

HOW HAS AMY POEHLER NEVER WON.  A writer, a supporting actress on SNL and now as lead in "Parks and Recreation."  She has deserved it ten times over, and got upset by Melissa McCarthy last year when she likely won the award more for her performance in "Bridesmaids" than she did for "Mike and Molly."  Zooey Deschanel is irresistibly charming, loved my tons of fans, and the critics all like "New Girl."  Julia Louis Dreyfus could also win as a perennial Emmy favorite and a highly stylized show with "Veep."  But I'm going with my heart on this one, that being said I'm sure it is meant to be broken.

COMEDY SERIES

"The Big Bang Theory" (CBS)
"Curb Your Enthusiasm" (HBO)
"Girls" (HBO)
"Modern Family" (ABC)
"30 Rock" (NBC)
"Veep" (HBO)

"Modern Family" has won the past three years because the show is charming, heartfelt, family-friendly, and funny to boot.  "Girls" could be a contender in the future but the show has to develop more and was more worried about investing viewers in the characters.  If the actor's contract negotiations had gone on longer that could have left a sour note in people's mouths but it didn't so expect "Modern Family" to win the award again.

What do you think?  Do you think I guessed right?  Do you believe "The Big Bang Theory" is the greatest thing since you were able to slice a wheat compound? Let me know.  And tomorrow we'll discuss all the Dramas.

For A Good Time Call...

There has been a resurgence in funny female led comedies.  With stars like Tina Fey and Amy Poehler writing wonderful television, Girls getting critical acclaim on HBO and movies like Bridesmaids it's the perfect time for women everywhere to capitalize and show what they can do.  That is what writer and star Lauren Miller did, she worked alongside her friend Katie Anne Naylon who took her real life experiences as a phone sex operator in college and used that for the basis of two girls growing friendship as they grow their business in New York City.  I can actually hear the theme to The Mary Tyler Moore Show playing in my head.  For A Good Time Call... is a sweet enough movie and tries its best to be raunchy but really flourishes when you see a familiar face.

Miller stars as the uptight Lauren who from the film's outset is dumped by her boyfriend who she is living with and finds herself needing a place to live.  Meanwhile Katie, played by Ari Graynor can no longer afford her apartment by herself.  How do we remedy this problem just call in your BFF gay matchmaker, played outstandingly as he always does in this type of role by Justin Long, and boom he solves both problems in one fell swoop.  Obviously these two girls hate each other at first but at a running time of a little under 90 minutes we don't have time to hold grudges.

Overall the movie is a platonic love story about two women.  What makes the movie though is the raunchy dirty talk that is sprinkled throughout.  The girls are funniest when on the phone talking to their John's and telling them what they want to hear.  While they are great, it's even better seeing the guys on the other side as they were able to get some really funny cameos.  These interactions are laugh out loud funny, and watching these familiar faces really get into it are wonderfully surprising to see in a low budget movie like this.  These cameos alongside the performance of Justin Long who stole every scene he was in as the gay best friend were the best parts of the movie.

In order to get one of these big name actors it turns out someone on the cast had to sleep with a big name actor.  I talked to Ari Graynor, Lauren Miller, Katie Naylor and Jamie Travis the cast and crew of For A Good Time Call... And to hear that story, how this movie came to be and what it was like premiering at Sundance click here.

The movie has a rather typical falling out and resolution in the third act and that is when the movie falls flat, especially in the waning moment of the movie which contains so many double-entendres it is laughable.  While there are some raunchy parts in the first hour of the movie, nothing is all that dangerous.  While there is dirty talk and some toys flaunted around, by today's standards this just fits the regular mold of today's comedies.  But that doesn't make it any less funny.

The movie is really charming, and while the hearty laughs probably stop after the hour and then is replaced by a trite conflict and silly resolution throughout it remains cute.  Don't be surprised to be seeing a lot more of Ari Graynor she is a real talent and it comes out through the screen.  While not a must see movie, if you need something to clear your mind and be care free for about 90 minutes this is the perfect fluff movie to see.  B-