http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/movies/item_uW9Ffj7Anjua7p1Rnj4s1O;jsessionid=0DE12D00615B76D87F6B4647584141B7
These reviews were so vastly different that I don’t understand how they could be writing about the same movie. While Kyle Smith of the New York Post rips on the raunchy comedy, Richard Corliss of Time Magazine applauses its humor and actor choices. Both of these critics set up a basic summary of the film but the tones are very polar. Corliss focuses on the choice of Paul Rudd for the lead of this film and he is somewhat praising the decision. He said he “wondered why Apatow (director of previous films like I Love You Man) ha[d]n’t promoted the actor to star status” when clearly he was a solid choice. He had watched Segal, and Jonah Hill rise to the top while Rudd continued to get secondary roles. And the answer was that this film was the perfect choice to fulfill Rudd’s unique persona. Smith on the other hand could not disagree any more. He notes that the film was too “cliché” and that is “not the way to do it.”
Right off the bat Smith compares this film to a Apatow film in the same way that Brett Favre looked like a quarterback in a Jets uniform. Smith clearly has beef with the stereotypical bromance film that John Hamburg (director) had created. What really struck me as a low blow from Smith was when he says “We get dirty jokes that aren’t funny, and clean jokes that aren’t funny… etc. What we don’t get, ever, is a reason to care.” Unlike Corliss of Time Magazine, I think Smith just does not possess a knack for subtle comedies such as I Love You Man.
Corliss focused for a bit on why Paul Rudd had not become a star yet. I loved that he said “ Apatow recognized this [star] quality in Rudd, and didn’t know how to build a movie around it. I would have to agree with this because I also believe Rudd was perfectly casted for this role. He holds a certain kind of charm in the viewers eyes and a perfect genre for him is hard to come by I feel. On the other side of the spectrum, Smith stated that Segel is “ too mello, too much the punching bag he played in forgetting sarah marshall.” Smith is spot on with this, because in all honesty Segels character is far too stereotypical. Which brings up that maybe Smith was right by knocking on this movie for the stereotypical film he said it was.
These reviews both do a good job of portraying the film from both aspects of good and bad, but in all honesty I think Smith’s negative path of this movie would hit me harder had I not seen the film. He says “ what we don’t ever get, is a reason to care.” That is a very critical quote and had I not seen the film I don’t know if I would want to waste my time watching it after hearing that. He hits every aspect of the bad of this film and I feel as though it hits a lot harder than just hearing how clever and funny it was from Corliss.
Had I been writing my own review of this film I would definitely touch on the good and the bad because I Love You Man definitely has both. I would lay out the plot in a positive manner and then dig into the fact that Jason Segels character is a stereotypical moron, you can guess the end of this movie within the first five minutes, and you definitely will not come out with a higher meaning than a couple laughs here and there. But I would also touch on the fact that while you may not be laughing and falling off your seat, these two idiots work perfectly together and provide you with 90 minutes of solid chuckles.
