In all honesty


I was in college when I first saw this. I caught it on HBO one afternoon, and quickly fell in love with it. I've always been the kindof person who trades movie one-liners with my friends... and so the film really spoke to me when its characters followed suit. I was, and am, a huge William Shatner fan... a Star Trek fan, and have an overall boycrush on anything sci fi. Then I got older.

I'm 26 now... and I happened to catch this movie on HBO again... and I have to be honest... it's not very good. Don't get me wrong, it's cute and entertaining... but I have to throw this opinion out there to counter the blind adoration that people are lobbing on these boards.

The actors do a pretty good job in my opinion - Eric McCormak was very good, as he usually is when he gets to play a fusty, arrogant schmuck. Rafer Weigel was... eeh... he was okay. Audie England, however, was loathsome. I can't tell if this is simply her character, or the way she played her... but I found Claire to be rude, selfish and irritating. It's the little things that add up for her character, and in fact for every facet of the film. In the scene where Robert tells Claire that he's got no money, since he lost his job... why did she then agree to his taking her out for dinner? Am I as a viewer supposed to feel bad when he ditches her goldbricking ass? Shatner was... Shatner... bravado and swagger and not much talent, but still the guy's got style. He is what he always was... a big glazed ham... and that's why we all love him.

Where the film loses me is the script. Sure, the "Stay on target"s are cute and fun for their recognizability... but I have a question: If you took the references out... what would you have left? Essentially you'd be left with a rigidly formulaic romantic comedy about unlikable and two-dimensional characters. Shatner's the best character in the damn script... and he actually exists! How often in the film are obscure SF references just pasted into the script? I get the specific references to Star Trek episodes, as these are two men molded by the show who are hanging out with William Shatner. That fits. The rest of them, however, are weak at best. If they were really woven into the story, they'd manage to be clever... and some of them do... but most of them dont, and rather than burning with wit and cleverness... they just kindof lay there like a dead fish.

Needless to say, any film with a black character who listens to Yes and ends with a musical number sung by William Shatner is good entertainment... but I think our collective feeling of inclusion, and geek giddiness is clouding our judgment a bit. I realize that the director of this film (supposedly) reads this forum, and so I realize that what I'm writing may appear rude... and I apologize for that. I really don't mean any disrespect... but I have to respond when I see the word "genius" being tossed around about a romantic comedy. There has only been one genuinely brilliant romantic comedy... and that was French Kiss - a film whose success exists only because of the brilliance of Kevin Kline.

So that's it. Flame me all you like. I'm curious to see what others think of this.
http://eugenicsbeginswithyou.typepad.com/

reply

Zinnober,

Hey...I don't disagree with what you said...opinions aren't rude...and I make it a point not to defend the work. It is what it is... How a person feels about a movie over the years should change. That's life.

But this, "There has only been one genuinely brilliant romantic comedy... and that was French Kiss - a film whose success exists only because of the brilliance of Kevin Kline," might be one of the most absurd things I've ever read on the IMDB!

(supposedly)RMB

reply

No need to flame. I disagree with most of your analysis, but a rational difference of opinion doesn't need flames.

First, plenty of people do talk in almost constant quotes that way (my friends definitely do), the SF references weren't all that obscure (and there were non-SF references, too), and the relationship seemed rather realistic in an otherwise cute and goofy film.

I think your reaction to Claire lacks empathy (and perhaps observation, seeing as Robert tells Mark that she dumped him). Why is it 'goldbricking' to want the assurance that your partner in life is going to be an equal partner and not a man-boy that you have to look after? And in the scene you reference about him taking her out to dinner, it goes from him asking and her looking concerned, and then they are sitting at the beach talking about responsibility vs following one's dreams. We don't know if they went out or not to dinner or not, but the lighting and continuity suggests that they just went to the beach. And if she was really after just money, she would have agreed when he sarcastically suggested a $30,000 engagement ring. In general, the things she needed from him were things that he should have been doing for himself anyway. If it comes down to "pay the bills or get a laserdisc", dude, you pay the bills. Mark told him the same thing.

French Kiss was a cute movie, and I liked it, but I think "genuinely brilliant" is excessive praise. If it's only successful because of Kevin Kline, then that's not a good romantic comedy, seeing as a successful romance really ought to have two people giving equally. :-)

reply

I don't want to flame, but I do think it's a peculiar criticism to say that if you remove the dialogue from the movie you don't have a plot. Sure, and if you remove the wings from an airplane you don't have an airplane, but what does that prove?

I think part of the problem is viewing the sci-fi references as being there for the sake of being there. For the most part, they aren't. Like cockney slang, however arcane it seems to be, there are people out there who communicate in this way. "Almost there/Stay on target" is not merely a referenced to a shared cultural touchstone, but the invocation of the emotion of that scene in the referenced work: anticipation. (Haven't you salivated at the prospect of arriving at your favorite home video store?) The Logan's Run motif and the sense of loss at reaching a milestone year in age are related.

My point on the dialogue is that if you're either not up on the emotional weight to the allusions, or you're not listening for them, you might well be missing half of the dialogue. Most of the great dialogue in movies is important because of the emotional weight of the lines. Believe me, Bogart's character already knew how to whistle.

I also don't think the Claire/Robert dynamic was quite how you described it, nor do I really think it makes sense to look at this as being a romantic comedy. Once you've decided to analyze it as a romantic comedy alone, it's not that surprising that it doesn't measure up in that analysis. If you decide you're looking at a banana, you might well proclaim an apple to be a failure as a fruit. Similarly, once you decide you're looking at a romantic comedy, you find the movie fails as a film. Trouble is, this ain't a banana.

I say it's not a romantic comedy because the core relationship in the film is Mark and Robert, not Robert and Claire. Mark and Robert have parallel but distinct lives, face parallel but distinct life crises (age and relationships), and experience a shared moment that casts their pasts into doubt (meeting Shatner). As they find their footing after having the memory of their hero tarnished, they manage to find a place in the futures they both feared--with help from an imperfect Shatner, rather than the idealized one from their memories. That's the story of Free Enterprise--and if you notice, Claire doesn't really come up in it.

I really don't know what to say about the French Kiss comment, other than that I feel embarrassed on your behalf. ;)


reply

I have to say right now at 31 and a decade more experience with watching films, since the first time I saw Free Enterprise, I still Love this movie

reply