Tuesday, August 31, 2010

The SWITCH

“THE SWITCH” (Jason Bateman & Jennifer Aniston)

To call this a typical ‘rom-com’ is a mistake – there really isn’t much ‘rom’ – The lead female character has a child via a sperm donor – how romantic is that? & there isn’t much ‘com’ – But is there EVER in any typical ‘rom-com’?
This is the story of two friends; Wally (Bateman) & Kassie (Aniston) They have been best friends for several years, much to Wally’s chagrin, but he’s grateful to have been placed in the ‘friend-zone’ by Kassie so at least he’s a part of her life.
Wally isn’t easy to like, which is another reason he’s grateful for his position with Kassie. When Kassie tells him she plans to have a child out of wedlock by finding a sperm donor, he suggests she use his baby making fluids. She laughs in his face, saying, “You can’t be serious?” Among his many detriments, Wally is a hypochondriac who hums seductively when eating a scrumptious meal.
Instead Kassie finds Roland (Patrick Wilson) a good looking married father of two & the ‘conception’ is to take place at Kassie’s best female friend’s apartment. Why? Because Wally couldn’t exchange his specimen for Roland’s if it were done realistically.
Speaking of unrealistic set-ups, this film is hampered by an unrealistic character – the offspring of Kassie & Wally’s non-coital union, Sebastian. The kid comes into the picture at the age of 6 when Kassie moves back to New York – his first meeting with ‘Uncle’ Wally is so contrived & unbelievable, I hated the kid & brought my hopes that this film might be better than advertised crashing down so hard it smashed them to smithereens. Sebastian enters spouting medical terms that only ‘specialist’ doctors would know how to pronounce – of course, this intense intelligence is given to the 6 year old via the internet, so that makes it believable. A few scenes later, during an excursion to the aquarium, Uncle Wally tells Sebastian he has hypochondria. “What’s that?” Sebastian queries... This, from the kid who knew every disease & disorder known to mankind!
Jeff Goldblum, whom I haven’t seen for a few years, was providing his usual schtick as Wally’s boss & buddy, Leonard. And Leonard was quite humorous – Was it because I wasn’t expecting to find anyone funny in a ‘rom-com’, or the fact that I hadn’t been numbed by Goldblum’s ‘deja vu’ acting style so I found his quirky delivery refreshing for a change?
But eventually, ‘The Switch’ grew on me & I would say that it was mainly due to Bateman’s performance – he gets better as the story progresses – even his relationship with Sebastian becomes more realistic; Walking with the boy, he says, “Tell me about your new school.” “Why?” Sebastian asks. “Because you’re a kid and there’s nothing else to talk about.” It’s those believable little moments that turned this from a disaster into something likeable.
The finale gets wrapped up into a neat little ribbon way too quickly, but I’m guessing that’s the fault of ‘preview’ audiences who insisted upon a happy ending – it would have been better without it, but ‘The Switch’ isn’t a bad film – It is if you go in thinking you’re going to see a ‘rom-com’ (&, like my wife, you’re a fan of those generic wastes of time) but this is simply a sweet little story of friendship & how horribly wrong things can go when people start bringing more children into the world... Just my opinion, I could be wrong... but I’m not.

6 comments:

dbm said...

You know my stance on Jennifer Aniston's movies. She has to show me something new from now on for me to go see her in a film. She has just resorted ( lazy ) in just being the same character from movie to movie. And she better start to learn how to take some chances because her looks won't keep forever. People are only going now because she's nice to look at ( suckers )
I know you have to be fair with the wife, but I know females are now tiring of the same old stuff you know you are going to get with a Aniston movie.
What is really weird, is that Nicole Kidman joined a cast with Adam Sandler, Aniston, and Kevin Nealon, diretced by the awesome Dennis Dugan ( not )called Just Go With It. Yes...it's a comedy. That had Razzie all over it- just because you have Kidman doing comedy- a talent in her own right, but with this group ? I think this could make for awkward chemistry.

Terry R said...

One thing I've learned about women in my 55 years - they never tire of junk - movies, music or food.
I don't consider myself to be a sucker because I'll attend a chick flick with my wife that has an actress in it that I find attractive - Eye candy is eye candy. But yes, you are correct about Jennifer - she needs to do two things to get her career back on line; accept (if offered) a Sandra Bullock "Blind Side"-type role where she totally becomes a different person & 2) stop giving the tabloids reason to keep connecting her to Brad Pitt - everytime I stand at a check-out counter I cringe at all the Pitt-Jolie-Aniston headlines. The real suckers in my opinion are the ones who buy & read that trash... Oh, & people who go to Adam Sandler movies.

dbm said...

Oh I'm with you on that ! I was just standing in line yesterday with a Jolie/Pitt/Aniston front cover. Enough already. Maybe Jen and Angie should break some of this tension and...er...uh, sorry, my imagination got the best of me. And I find it so weird that Nicole Kidman would sign onto to a Dennis Dugan directed film.

Those suckers would be my mom and my girlfriend. My mom never read those gossip rags her whole life and just started a few years ago. I wonder psychologically if in some ways it makes her feel young. As for my girlfriend, she has no pop culture taste one bit. This puts kinks in our relationship fence.
She LOVES gossip from whoever it's coming to. And I will not be in the same room with her when she watches that horrid Jersey Shore. I told her that alone is grounds for her dismissal.

movie luva said...

I'm not a Jennifer Aniston fan as an actor. I have liked her in some stuff, but she has to be one of the most banal actors, male or female, working today in Hollywood.

Now if she did a biopic, or did something where she'd have to " transform " or heck, try an accent or something, then I'd give it a shot. But before a movies of hers even comes out, I look at the storyline and I can just picture her in my head being Rachel from Friends in a movie.

I live in Seattle too, and I'm fortunate to have a lot more choices than the normal suburban person, so I can see all kinds of independent movies, foreign films and documentaries. A pretty large plethora of choices.

I'm self employed and money is tight, so I pick my movies carefully, so I'd rather see something or someone different than what I know I am going to get from a Jennifer Aniston performance.

Terry R said...

I got tired of Friends about halfway thru the 2nd season, so that's probably why I'm not 'Jenned out' yet. I agree totally with your assessment of her acting - as you said she needs to do a character with an accent or something 'gritty' instead of playing it safe by giving the 'sheep' what they want to see -Rachel being Rachel again & again.
Money is tight on our end as well after I was 'let go' after 18 years at KJR & my health has deteriorated. My wife has a generous aunt who sends us free AMC tickets from time to time & I don't feel like I should 'tell' my wife what movie we should go see with 'her' free ticket, so I get roped into seeing crap I don't particularly want to see. But since starting this blog, or before that when I was writing movie reviews for KJR's website, I've been able to vent my frustration out on bad movies by ripping them apart & discovered I'm pretty good at doing that. So I'm not as disappointed when I see a crappy movie as I am when I see something that's mediocre - I've got nothing sarcastic to say about a mediocre movie! & like everyone else, when I see something really good, I want to tell everybody I know to go see it. Here, I can tell people I've never met to do that & it always makes me smile when I read how you went to see something on my recommendation & you're glad you went. As always, I thank you & everyone else that leaves a comment, for reading my words & occasionally finding some value in them.

movie luva said...

You are very welcome. Actually I used to read a lot of reviews but I'm working 10-12 hours a day and tend to forget, but I always go to yours because I have it bookmarked.

I know Aniston is more talented than she gives off, but she chooses such mediorcre material that just lets her coast through roles. She doesn't challenge herself. I was thinking maybe she is just collecting those 7 million dollar paychecks and and when the looks go, she'll be done with it and retire to a nice island somewhere.

But there are some actresses that take the challenge, Meryl does it a lot. She can transform. Charlize Theron, Emily Watson, Frances McDormand, Marion Cottilard ( she WAS Edith Piaf )Julianne Moore for several examples of actresses that seem like someone else from role to role.
I was surprised to see how much Katheryn Heigl commands a picture. She's one of the highest paid actresses in Hollywood and she is right there in the Aniston, Kristen Bell, Drew Barrymore crowd.