Anybody seen this yet? I just saw it last night, it was an okay romantic comedy. Jack Nicholson is wonderful and people have been saying that Diane Keaton might get an Oscar nomination. Writer/Director Nancy Meyers is still doing her usual agressive bright and sunny direction. Amanda Peet and Keanu Reeves were pretty good as well.
Poster:
http://www.impawards.com/2003/somethings_gotta_give.html
Trailer:
http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/somethings_gotta_give/
Havent seen it yet but really want to... maybe I will tonight... but I also want to see Bad Santa so we'll see...
I'd recommend Bad Santa over this, but they're both good.
Good performances by both of the lead actors.
The film had me for the first hour or so, but after that it got repetitive and clunky. I can't complain about predictability, because with a film like this, you know the two leads will get together, it's all about HOW instead of IF. And after the first hour it just became redundant. There are a few tryuly funny moments, but all in all it was only okay.
Why they chose to use Crazytown's song "Butterfly" for the opening credits, I'll never know. And I'd love to smack the fuck outa the marketing people that thought it was a good idea to put "Jack and Diane" on the the poster.
SOMETHING'S GOTTA GIVE DIRECTOR SUED FOR PLAGIARISM
Hollywood hotshot Nancy Meyers has been slapped with a multimillion-dollar plagiarism lawsuit that accuses her of "a pattern and practice of engaging in such behavior."
Katherine Reback claims she wrote and rewrote a script called "Runaround Sue" that eventually became "Something's Gotta Give," the new movie starring Jack Nicholson and Diane Keaton - credited as being written by Meyers, who also directed and produced it.
To make its case for a "pattern," Reback's lawyers seem ready to argue that Meyers also plagiarized the screenplay of "What Women Want," the Mel Gibson movie from 2000. Sources say Paramount ended up having to pay $700,000 to settle the dispute with screenwriter Diane Drake over that film.
According to a Paramount insider, Meyers received a script from Drake in 1996 titled "Ladies Man" as a writing sample.
In 1999, Meyers signed on to direct and rewrite the script "Head Games," by Josh Goldsmith and Cathy Yuspa.
Meyers, in rewriting the script - about a man able to hear women's thoughts, just as in Drake's screenplay - changed the title of "Head Games" to "What Women Want."
Paramount sources say the rewritten script was very similar to Drake's "Ladies Man" (not to be confused with the 2000 comedy that starred "Saturday Night Live" veteran Tim Meadows.)
"Nancy was hired by Disney to rewrite a draft of a pitch and used Drake's material to rewrite it," a Paramount insider said. "Even the title 'What Women Want' was taken directly from a line of dialogue in Drake's original screenplay, 'Ladies' Man.' "
"Nancy later told Paramount she had never read Diane's screenplay, but the record showed she had taken a meeting with Drake based upon the script's submission as a writing sample," the Paramount source added.
Drake had her attorneys contact Paramount, and around Dec. 1, 1999, Paramount paid Drake $700,000 - officially saying it was buying "Ladies Man."
Meyers' rep, Pat Kingsley said: "Nancy Meyers directed 'What Women Want' and is not a credited writer. Diane Drake had a problem with the two writers on the script and through negotiation received story credit along with the two screenwriters and was paid by the studio. The dispute was not about Nancy Meyers."
Drake declined comment.
This may be the most annoying movie title this year.
i really really liked this film
Weird that so few of us went to see that.
I didn't either actually.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanThis may be the most annoying movie title this year.
close but the winner is ."Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World"
...and does this film succeed even though it conntains the "Keanu Factor"
oh man. i just wanted to like this movie. thats all. it didnt have to blow my mind. i just wanted to see something funny and romantic and have a good time. jeezus, WHY Nancy Meyers WHY?!?! this movie seemed like i was reading through her goddamn diary which included passages about how "rap music is vulgar" and people should date people their own age. usually when someone is writing elements of themselves into a script they try to atleast thinly veil that they are in fact revealing things about themselves through their characters. but somehow this sloppy amateurish production just felt like i was watching meyers wet dream on screen. i mean, c'mon, we get it. YOU are the diane keaton character who is very smart and misunderstood by men. they're all dumb, they just dont see how great you are. until she conjures up some cheezy viagra romance novel about how the handsome young doctor AND the older bachelor whos really your soul mate fall madly in love with her at the same time.
i dunno, the only thing that kept this movie from being a steaming pile of crap was the actors in it. i love nicholson and i like diane keaton so it kept the movie atleast watchable. and i was trying to stay with it up until jack leaves dianes house. the whole third act was just to long and drawn out to get to the completely obvious (and overused) conclusion. jack mends his ways, goes to get diane, who is already involved elsewhere and they end up together anyway. which, i have no problem with had the movie atleast been funnier. speaking of which, the scene in the preview (which i thought was great and made me really want to see this movie months ago), where jack is walking into the fancy restaurant with 2 women and it says THE LUCKIEST SOB ON EARTH was not in the fucking movie? whats up with that?!? only to be replaced by the worst song of all time: butterfly by crazy town and a montage of attactive women walking around. why did they lose that scene? it was the funniest thing in the preview. in fact, most all of the music in this film especially through the whole beginning was absolutely terrible. totally misleading by the 'big band' sounding stuff in the previews.
also the movie which seemed to be targeting an older audience contained things like nudity and obnoxious music that old people hate, so i'm not really sure whos going to like this movie. i had hoped from the preview i'd be getting some sort of As Good As It Gets-Lite or something if it was good. but unfortunately it was more like How to Lose A Guy In Ten Days with Good Actors. oh well, fuck.
I thought the first hour of the movie was so good that I forgave the use of that horrible horrible Crazy Town song. It was smart and funny and moving, and I was really really happy when Nicholson and Keaton got together. If the movie had ended there, it would have been great. A wonderful feel good film that makes you feel better about growing old.
Of course, then it would only be an hour long. So I could have lived with a sad ending, where they DON'T end up together. That material was also handled well, all the way up to their fight on the stage.
But then it just went on and on into stupid romcom sitcom territory. Keaton's play was stupid, her endless crying was stupid, and the very end was the stupidest of all. It was boring, especially because you know EXACTLY where it's going, and it's depressing because it could have been so much better.
I guess I'm just reiterating everything themodernage said. So go see it, but leave after Jack leaves the beach house and go see Return Of The King again.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanThis may be the most annoying movie title this year.
love actually.
I wholeheartedly agree with Ghostboys thoughts. I wouldve even preffered the movie to end in Paris, but Harry being left alone and broken. But noooo, they couldnt leave old Diane Keaton with a young strapping male boy-toy... its just not "right". :roll: And also agreed that the first hour was excellent, innovative and moving.
Thankfully the performances are great, and they do the very best they can in their situations. And Frances McDormand though woefully under-used was GREAT in her scenes as always.
Enjoyable, but a half hour too long. Nicholson was on vacation with this role. All he had to do was show up. Keaton extended herself the most of anyone and had some good moments. Everyone else could have been played by, well, anyone else. The roles were that disposable. That's all.
I really liked this film. I don't know what the bitching is about the ending...this is a love story not a film about the human condition. If you expect to leave the theatre with a sad ending than you are just a re-re.
I loved sitting back and watching Nicholson and Keaton. I'd love to see Keaton get an oscar nod, I really would.
What really boggles my mind is how everyone talks about the first hour being so good while the rest wasn't. It seems like it's either a film you dig or not, I didn't notice a sudden shift 60 minutes into it that would turn me off or back on.
Not only did I enjoy, not only do I recommend it but I would buy it on dvd.
and most annoying title: Mona Lisa Smile
Quote from: GhostboyBut then it just went on and on into stupid romcom sitcom territory. Keaton's play was stupid, her endless crying was stupid, and the very end was the stupidest of all. It was boring, especially because you know EXACTLY where it's going, and it's depressing because it could have been so much better.
i agree, but the first hour and a half was so good that i didnt really care.....