MovieChat Forums > Please Give (2010) Discussion > Cliched, shallow movie

Cliched, shallow movie

posted 14 years ago by Moviefanatic21
25 replies | jump to latest

This movie had every indie/romantic comedy movie cliche. The director ripped off of all the indie movie she's seen before, threw on some Woody Allen imitation, and added some of her own crap. Let's list the cliches:

Catherine Keener playing the same role she plays in every single movie she's in (to her credit, she plays it very well)

The spoiled/insecure teenage daughter (played by Sarah Steele, reprising the EXACT SAME PART she had in Spanglish). And she can't possibly find a pair of jeans that fit her unless they cost 235 big ones. Seriously? And would rather wear underwear over her head at the dinner table than let guests see her zits. Accurate portrait of a teenage girl? In a word, NO.

The sweet, innocent woman (played by Rebecca Hall) who is selfless and gorgeous but cannot seem to get a boyfriend. Of course, she has an evil tan sister whose only purpose in the movie is to exemplify what a wonderful, sweet person her innocent sister is. Cue 27 Dresses and every other rom-com ever.

The affair between the older ugly man and the gorgeous tan bitch sister. (She had nothing financially to gain. What the hell was she doing with this guy?!)

The old dying woman who serves as cranky comedic relief.

Each main character has her own "indie quirk". Rebecca Hall's entire career is taking mamograms, Catherine Keener buys furniture from dead people (Oh, and then she's horrified when customers start suddenly asking where the furniture is from. Really, she's never had this issue until the movie started?)

I seriously thought this film was shallow and atrocious. They even brought in down syndrome kids and homeless people to make Catherine Keener look like a saint. How on earth are critics buying into this utter crap?

[–] cornelia123 14 years ago

I found the film entertaining but I agree with you that it was full of cliches.

In a way, what was the point of making this film? So what?

[–] candle_79 14 years ago

Catherine Keener didn't play the exact same role in this film. In Lovely and Amazing, she was arrogant and rude, really doubt she even would've cared about homeless people in that film. In this film she was clueless and guilt ridden, which is completely different than all her other characters in Holofcener's films, or Tom Dicillo's films or whoever else.
And they didn't bring in down syndrome kids and homeless people to make Keener look like a saint. They were there to show what an emotional wreck she was. And to show that the down syndrome kids were more genuine in their care for her than she was for them.
Also, I don't really understand why this film being indie has anything to do with all the cliches you mentioned. Those things can be found in mainstream films as well.

[–] outsider-2 14 years ago

Sorry, when I read the subject line I thought I was on the Inception board

[–] mirla60 14 years ago

I agree with the the writer, see my own post, its cliche and shallow and also agree with outsider-2, I think the same of Inception!!!

[–] g02o0555 14 years ago

As someone who was a teenage girl I totally understand why the super expensive jeans made her look better, it`s simply cause they were expensive. You ask any kid to choose between the same pair of sneakers, but one is namebrand, the kid will automatically want that. It`s not that they made her look better, she just believed they did, just as we all do when duped by price tags and adverts.

The tan sister was a bit dead inside. I don`t think she cared what the man looked like, but that someone wanted her because her ex did not want her. Because he did not want her, she believed no one did. Her tan was to hide that and give the illusion that she was fine. She knows her sister is "better" than her, this is why she brings her down all the time. I think the end scene where they are sitting on the couch and her bad tanned face leans on her sister`s shoulder shows that she needs help.

I agree with the person above about the ds kids. She thought that she could help, but she needs to help herself first by getting over the guilt she harbours. By being ridden by guilt she was a sad mess and that is not what people need.

And Rebecca not getting a boyfriend? There are loads of gorgeous girls out there who don`t have boyfriends and struggle finding them. She was sad and that is off putting, she also turned down invites to do fun things so that she could be miserable and take care of her gran. I mean, her very first date she insisted the grans come too. I am sorry, but a very different kind of guy would go for a girl like that.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Gambitt 12 years ago

There are loads of gorgeous girls out there who don`t have boyfriends and struggle finding them.

Yea, especially in cliche rom-coms.

[–] CollyKibber 14 years ago

I've seen this film twice in three weeks, but only because the airline I was travelling to/from my holiday was showing this, or Hollywood action film garbage.

Although I enjoyed the performances (and am possibly developing a Rebecca Hall fixation!) there is no getting away from the fact that yes, it is a very indie cliche ridden film, and yes, it is shallow. If not shallow, then the description 'inconsequential' will do.

Ultimately I was left with the feeling that I had just spent a couple of hours watching desparately self absorbed NY types making a meal out of personal 'issues', which for people in the wider world wouldn't even register on their 'Things to Worry About' list

"Politicians are like nappies - they should be changed regularly, and for the same reason"

[–] kalensk 14 years ago

+1
I agree with the OP.

[–] C.S.Wood 13 years ago

Although I didn't hate the movie quite as much as the OP, Moviefanatic21 still nailed the movie's problems.

$235 for jeans? Amanda Peet sleeping with Oliver Platt? Rebecca Hall not being able to find a man? Where's Jason Voorhees when you need him?

"Who cares? He's a cheeseburger." -- Stewie Griffin

[–] fhnunez 13 years ago

Aren't you people missing the difference between the actors/celebrities and the fictional characters they represent? Somebody here already justified the main objections and I agree. If it is a little bit of a strecht that Rebecca actually get a boyfriend, the idea of the movie is that all these characters are in transition and moving toward something different. The death of the grandmother is that sort of wake-up call for Rebecca, as is the affair for the Oliver Platt character, as is the exchange between the shop girl and Amanda Peet for the character that she represents and on and on. I don't think the different populations shown here (elderly, mentally challenged, etc.)work to make the Catherine Keener character look good. To the contrary they make her look pathetic and impotent and less able to face life. What really troubles me is the final solution the movie suggests to deal with these problems of concience. Return some piece of crap to somebody, give to Thirteen or wikipedia and feel free to buy $200 jeans to your spoiled teenager and get on with life. Too easy, too self serving, too Upper West Side liberal.

[–] bitemelo 13 years ago

by reading the posters first two and last two sentences show how much they dont understand the film.

You're the Adam Sandler of this house and nobody wants Punch Drunk Love. Just give us The Waterboy - American Dad