Comments on: Talking to God, Hollywood-style

By: mahendra waghela

mahendra waghela — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:47:45 +0000

I would go one step further and add a few things without the benefit of having seen five seconds of the movie. Any patronizing of the movie based on the star’s presence is a dead give away for a sure fire dead beat sucker. Happy watching!

By: mike

mike — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:07:27 +0000

Also, I would like to point out that I could have substituted several other really lazy moments for that door-labeling thing, which apparently gets explained later in the movie. Like we know Lauren Graham’s character is “uptight/worried” because she serves her elementary-school-aged child vegan bacon and egg whites, then straps him into an elaborate child seat that looks like something out of a sci fi movie (another moment in which I thought: a ha! satire! but which the movie didn’t seem to recognize as satire?) but then after he’s out of the car she lights up a cigarette, which I guess is meant to tell us she’s complicated?

Every character in the movie is basically a collection of Hollywood short-hand cliches. And, yes, I find the act of portraying human beings as collections of Hollywood short-hand cliches to be deeply offensive to humanity.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:52:59 +0000

I’m not really in the habit of finishing things that are terrible. I suppose it’s possible that the second half of the movie is completely different than the first — characters with realistic human emotions and non-idiotic things coming out of their mouths — but I wouldn’t bet on it.

I guess I might have to revise my review of humanity, though.

By: aaron

aaron — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:04:12 +0000

Lori, you’re willingess to deeply understand this movie is admirable. Mike was not writing a review, but rather a dismissal, one that I fully agree with, having only seen the 30 second OnDemand preview–which, by the way, unfortunately makes Lauren Graham’s character sound like she has a mental disabilty.

Without going into an aesthetic analysis of the movie, i.e., the plot is extremely predictable in romantic comedy terms, surely you understand why a bunch of guys might not share your deep appreciation of this movie?

By: Lori

Lori — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 03:37:21 +0000

I don’t normally reply to reviews, but I feel I must respond to your scathing, and unfair, in my opinion, review of The Answer Man. I’ve seen the movie five times and thoroughly enjoyed it. How can you give an accurate review after only seeing forty-two minutes of it? Had you watched the entire movie, you would have understood the reason why Arlen had labels on everything in his house. It was not just some joke for the “borderline-retarded audience” that Arlen’s mail room was labeled as such. You learn that his father, who lived with him, had Alzheimer’s and that’s why everything was labeled. I found the scene where Arlen finally comes to terms with his past and removes all the labels to be very touching.

I also did not believe that Arlen actually talked to God. The movie was about relationships and about letting go of the past and moving on. Arlen was an angry man who didn’t want the attention his famous book bought. Instead, he spent twenty years reading self help books and meditating, all in an effort to connect to that part of himself (the spiritual side) and find answers. It wasn’t until he met both Elizabeth (the “pretty and charming” Lauren Graham), and recovering alcoholic, Chris (the amazingly talented Lou Taylor Pucci) that Arlen learns to let go of his anger over his father’s death and begin to heal inside. Graham and Pucci both give realistic and moving portrayals of flawed people searching for answers of their own.

Had you watched the entire movie, you would have seen how the characters grow as they learn to open up to love and life. Arlen admits that his book was written after the death of his father when he was looking for answers. So he asked the questions and wrote down the answers that intuitively came to him. THAT is connecting to God in spirit. The movie ends with Arlen speaking at the twentieth anniversary book signing of his book “Me and God”. He professes that he doesn’t have all the answers, that he is just a man who wrote a book. He then leaves and goes on with his life, opening up to Elizabeth and finding joy in life.

I did not find the movie offensive or patronizing at all. I thought it was funny, warm, and full of great performances. I thought it had heart. Oh, and I am a spiritual and intelligent person. The next time you review a movie, you might want to watch the entire movie before passing judgment.

By: dave

dave — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 03:28:13 +0000

Oh man, I ran this exact same experiment the day after the Barrelhouse Corporate Retreat. My brain and liver were experiencing some kind of alcoholic coma, and I thought, well, it’s got Lauren Graham in it, so I can at least stare at Lauren Graham and think, wow, that Lauren Graham sure is cute.

I made it through the whole thing, but I attribute that primarily to the fact that we had been drinking for two days straight.

It’s a terrible movie (although the Mail Room thing is explained more or less effectively, in the end). Actually, it’s worse than you think it is, because it ends in this really stupid way that’s not satisfying for any of the half-assed little threads the movie half-assedly throws out there. Really very stupid and unsatisfying.

But man, that Lauren Graham, she sure is cute.