Love and Other Disasters

Love and Other Disasters_720p(480P)

source: Love and Other Disasters

I like Brittany Murphy a lot but this is not the right kind of film for her. She's not a fashionista and lacks the kind of poise it takes to walk comfortably in high heels. Almost all of the shots of her 'strutting' were cut to less than a step so you can see what she looks like but not how she moves. It was the same with the tango dance scene. Quick edits work as a disguise. I don't think the beehive hairdos work on her but if you like Brittany Murphy you should see this film. It won't make you dislike her and the film is mildly clever. A handful of male actors performed well and gave the film most of its charm. The two female actors, besides Brittany, were junk. The two women, mother and daughter, trying to act likeably eccentric were annoying, shallow and superfluous to the story. They weren't even acceptable caricatures of likeably eccentric. Chain smoking cigarettes does not eccentric make. I don't think it really counts as a spoiler to let people know that Gwyneth Paltrow and Orlando Bloom are on the screen for about 20 seconds. That was part of the cleverness of the film. They 'play' the parts of the 'happily-ever-after' couple in the Hollywood version of the movie we're watching as it is written by one of the characters in the movie.

If you loved Clueless and remember the girl that was made over, Brittany Murhpy, you will love her all over again in this absolutely first-rate movie. The promise Murphy showed in Clueless is more than realized here as she is the pivotal character around which all action navigates and the other characters gravitate. London is the setting, a city a college buddy of mine calls the most civilized place on Earth and where he retired years ago. This film shows London at its best and you can hardly wait to get off your seat and book passage to that great urban center where young, sophisticated, gorgeous, talented people are remaking the world in their own way and which is shown so well in this film. The story is fresh and enchanting and the handsome, beautiful people who populate it are a delight to behold, each more wonderful than the last.

This movie is completely trite and unoriginal. I should say "trite and hackneyed," because really it deserves only clichés for descriptors. Its feeble efforts at self-reflexivity fail every time. In the conversation discussing whether true love is a process or a lightning bolt, the screenwriter has the audacity to claim (through the mouth of a character) that this story tells us which it is. But it doesn't! At all! And no on-screen disclaimers are capable of explaining away Brittany Murphy's EMBARRASSING accent, nor can empty pseudo-self-referentiality redeem the film (in truth, the movie doesn't reference itself, it just mindlessly, impotently appropriates the concept of self-reference from movies past). Watching this movie is like spending an hour and a half staring at the tackiest lawn in town while filling your stomach with cheap greasy fast food and ignoring profiteers bulldozing civilization's entire cultural and artistic heritage in your peripheral vision. It's a cheapened reproduction of a reproduction of a reproduction. A simulacrum. A gaudy hunk of cubic zirconium that you can't wait to forget. The only penance this movie offers for the crime of its existence is this: it ends.

What a complete bore this film was. One dimensional characters with a bland script. I fell asleep half way. I sometimes wonder if anyone watches these films before they are released. This movie tries to be hip and youthful, funny and clever, and warm and heartfelt and fails dramatically at all of them. I reckon that all the cast went around telling everyone that they were in a film with Paltrow and Bloom except of course Paltrow and Bloom who must of stumbled across the set whilst looking for the toilet. They found it. The main character "jacks" was so annoying I found myself hoping that she would be hit by a London bus. Oh yeah, and where the hell do they think you can find an straight Argentinian who lets you think he's gay for more than 10 seconds...jeez. Dawn French, you really don't have to do this. Angus deaton, you do.

"Love and Other Disasters" is just as the title says. It's about love and love-like disasters mistaken as love. It's not your typical romantic comedy because it's better than that. There's quite a few lines that are making fun of the genre but paying a sort of homage to it as well. The late Brittany Murphy stars as Emily Jackson, 'Jacks', who takes her cues in life and style from Holly Golightly. The filmmakers as well have taken their inspiration for the look, feel and tone from "Breakfast at Tiffany's". The best character in the film is Peter played by Matthew Rhys. In romantic-comedy-speak, he's the gay best friend, but again, he's better than that. He's very funny and in a much more realistic way than the other characters are, and his musings on love probably mirror those of the audience more than the other characters. The film is very fast-paced, with witty dialogue, and a light-hearted manner. I recommend "Love and Other Disasters" for: fans of "Breakfast at Tiffany's"; fans of the dialogue of "Gilmore Girls"; fans of Matthew Rhys; and definitely aspiring-screenwriters - the filmmakers have made a number of inferences to the craft of screen writing that I think it becomes a must see.

I think you've got to be in the right mindset for this one but if you're prepared to suspend your disbelief you can have a great time. If you like Ugly Betty then this is for you. But if you go in expecting War & Peace you're going to be disappointed. The clothes are great and there are some great performances from the likes of Dawn French and Catherine Tate. There are plenty of laughs and some brilliantly observed portraits of London types. Brittany Murphy is a luminous presence and although you get the message that she wants to channel Audrey Hepburn she sort of pulls it off. It's a step up from Love, Actually and Notting Hill and a lot more fun. Could the prominence of a gay story line be what seems to annoy some of the other reviewers here?

I just saw it and regretted every minute of it. Part of the opening titles is "Jacks is English but spent a big portion of her life in the U.S.A., which explains her accent" which means "we had to make up some sort of excuse for miss Murphy's God-awful English accent.". I've never been her fan but I decided to give her a chance. That girl can't act and she proved it once again. I guess this explains the need for all the almost * scenes. The rest of the cast were not that bad but they were not that special, either. This is not a funny movie, nor is it an original one. Talula's poem was far from funny, so were the slaughtered pigs that were just hanging there to rot. (!?) And the "I'm in love with you and I'm not gay" idea has been done too many times in the past. All in all, I'm glad I saw it when I had nothing better to do. I would have been even more glad if somebody had warned me about it but you can't have it all, can you?

Ugh. I had the misfortune of renting this DVD and couldn't even get through more than the first 20 minutes of it before deciding it was an utter piece of crap, turning it off, and immediately ejecting it from my player. And I am usually the type of person who always finishes watching a movie. But with this one, I just couldn't bear to give it one more second of my time. I first became suspect that this film was going to be tedious when these words that described the main character--Emily Jackson, portrayed by Brittany Murphy (preciously nicknamed "Jacks")--came on the screen in the very beginning: "Jacks works at U.K. Vogue, and though technically British, speaks in a cross between an English and American accent that suggests a childhood spent in America." What was this, I wondered--some sort of disclaimer?!?!? I bet Keanu Reeves wished he'd had this sort of statement to excuse his awful performance as an Englishman in 1992's 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' or better yet... when Kevin Costner sadly attempted his infamous now-you-hear-it-now-you-don't British accent in 1991's 'Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.' I couldn't help but be wary and with good reason: her hybrid accent sucked anyway. Anyway, like I said--I couldn't even get through the first 20 minutes. It was absolutely excruciating to watch Ms. Murphy's blatant ripoff of Audrey Hepburn-as-Holly Golightly in the modern world. It's been sooooo DONE before, Sweetie. And done way better, for that matter (see Parker Posey in 1995's 'Party Girl' for a way superior and much more likable performance). And the plot? Merely seeming like just another version of Jane Austen's 'Emma.' Done, done, done. Tired, tired, tired. Plus, she is just trying waaaaaay too hard. Already, the dialogue lacked any true wit or originality and I didn't care one bit about the one-dimensional and dull characters. Plus, if I had to watch Brittany screw up her dumb-looking face into one more unattractive facial expression in her pathetic attempt to adorably(?!?!) EMOTE, I was going to roll my eyes up into the back of my head so far that I was afraid they wouldn't come back down to their normal position. Please do yourself a huge favor: avoid this waste of time at all costs. No "Love" here, folks... merely one big "DISASTER."