I Love You, Man

I Love You, Man

2009

Kevin Klaven (Paul Rudd) hasn't a friend in the world - or so he realizes when he becomes engaged to Zooey (Rashida Jones) and finds he can't come up with a single male buddy to be in his wedding party. The solution? Go out and make some platonic guy friends, even if it means having to rely on your mommy (Jane Curtin) and your gay younger brother (Andy Samberg) to help you do it. Eventually, after a number of faltering attempts, Kevin alights on Sydney (Jason Segel), a mucho macho bundle of testosterone who, like a latter-day Henry Higgins to Kevin's Eliza Doolittle, instructs the awkward lad on the fine art of "being a man." But as with any good teacher/pupil relationship, each side winds up learning a little something from the other before it's all over. A straight man far more comfortable in the company of women than of men, Kevin emerges as the ultimate metrosexual figure: fastidious in demeanor, sensitive to the needs of others, and courteous to a fault (he even admits to liking "The Devil Wears Prada" in a moment of unguarded weakness). He doesn't really know how to roughhouse it with the boys, and any efforts he makes in that direction inevitably lead to failure. Until our man Sydney steps into the breach to give him a few badly needed pointers, that is. Smoothly directed by John Hamburg, "I Love You, Man" is a relaxed, breezy and sharply written male-bonding comedy that - miracle of miracles - doesn't play down to its audience (it may be crude at times, but it's rarely childish). The Hamburg/Larry Levin screenplay does a clever job poking fun at the double entendres inherent in any modern-day bromance, though one wishes certain characters - Kevin's family members, in particular - had been allotted a little more in the way of screen time. That being said, the performances are all first-rate, with Rudd and Segel playing to their respective strengths - Rudd's of the tongue-tied, self-effacing Mr. Nice Guy who needs lessons in "manning up," and Segel's of the refreshingly blunt but socially indelicate Man/Child who clearly needs to do some growing up. There's additional excellent work from J.K. Simmons, Jamie Pressly, Sarah Burns and Rob Huebel, among others. It's also a bit of a casting coup to get both Jane Curtin from the first generation of SNL players and Andy Samberg from the current one together in the same film. Finally, some unlikely cameo appearances by Lou Ferrigno and the band Rush, all appearing as themselves, add to the spirit of fun that permeates the film.

This is one of the least funny pieces of crap I have watched in a LONG time. I never post comments but I wanted to save people 90+ minutes of their lives. I rented at the Redbox for $1 and I want to get my money back! The jokes were not funny at all. The whole movie is just awkward and lame. We kept waiting for the movie to get funny, but it never did. The movie has to stoop to physical comedy (IE. puke and farts). I don't understand how people enjoy this unless they are intoxicated or under 15 years old. I'm amazed that people get paid big $$$ to write, green light,direct and produce this garbage. Don't waste your time and buy a Big Mac instead.

Funny movies have to be funny. That's the only rule about funny movies. They don't have to live up to any expectations, they can be about the same thing that movies always are. It really doesn't matter. As long as they are funny. I Love You, Man is a funny movie. In case the plot is of any interest to you, it's about this guy (Paul Rudd) who is getting married to this woman (Rashida Jones), but he realizes that he doesn't really have any male friends to fill out his side of the wedding party. So he starts on a quest with the aid of his brother (Andy Samberg) to find a best man. When he finally thinks he finds one (Jason Segel), hilarity ensues. On the spectrum of comedies, this is a bro movie. One made basically for guys, a little raunchy. But honestly, it's not too R-rated. It cusses a bit, discusses sex a lot, things like that. But not nearly as R-rated as say... Role Models, which I feel is sort of along the same lines. Comparable at least. They are both very funny movies, and both have Paul Rudd. But this is about I Love You, Man. The highlight of the movie, for me, is Thomas Lennon as Doug. I have been a fan of his for a long time, at least since Reno 911 came out. Which is a brilliant show. Paul Rudd is very, very cute, but not always convincing, the same with Rashida Jones as his fiancée. It's a movie that Ben Stiller would have made if he were younger. Jason Segel does what Jason Segel does. He plays his role very capably as Sydney, the crazed friend. And that is I Love You, Man. It's a rather simple, but funny movie.

This film is not funny at all, the acting is poor, the clichés piled on by the bucketful, pure Hollywood dross. I cannot understand why films like this get financed and promoted whilst other far more worthy films get overlooked. Paul Rudd is a poor actor, his character Peter Klaven is the typical Hollywood creation, of a man who is inept but somehow has an attractive woman on his arm etc. The film is uncomfortable to watch because it is so bad and it has absolutely no redeeming moments or scenes. I recommend you stay well clear of this film and find a proper comedy, preferably one which is not made in America, where the sense of humour is questionable at best.

Curiously, the buzz surrounding the latest R rated adult comedy I Love You, Man is fairly superficial as many of the media eyes are on the clever creation of buzz word de jour 'bromance', meaning a platonic bond between two men in the spirit of a traditional romantic comedy. Now I don't know too much about all that, nor do I truly care. What I am concerned with however, and what I feel should be first and foremost on all accounts is how incredibly funny this movie really is. What happens when you put two comedic actors who can do no wrong in a vehicle with an original premise and an experienced comedic director? Well, you get I Love You, Man which is one of the funniest comedies in years. Not quite as good as Superbed, better than Forrgetting Sara Marshall and about on par with Tropic thunder, leads Paul Rudd and Jason Segel anchor director John Hamburg's film so securely it adds a complete additional layer of heart and gravitas to material that could have been executed disastrously. With both Rudd and Segel in recent years we have seen they can carry a movie, having starred as leads in Role Models and Forgetting Sara Marshall (which Rudd also starred in) respectively and uniting them as co-leads works fantastically. Neither sinks to a stereotype or falls to a role they have previously played nor do they play the hilarious (but not silly for the record) premise anything but straight. The duo score massive laughs together and apart and a fantastic supporting cast highlights all the talent involved marvelously. Rudd stars as Peter Klaven a freshly engaged real-estate agent who has always been more of a girls-man then a best buddy guy. With the wedding approaching Peter soon realizes he has no close enough friends that could serve as a best man, or even a proper wedding party for that matter. So Peter does what any mature professional would do. he recruits his gay brother to set him up on man dates to find a suitable suitor for his big day. After a string of failed, sometimes homoerrotic ventures Peter meets Sidney Fife (Segel) a slovenly but oddly charming bloke at an open house. The two hit it off and a bromance is born, but the bond puts a strain on his engagement to Zooey (a lovely and delightful Rashida Jones) and more hilarity ensues. As I mentioned Rudd and Segel are given oodles to work with by way of a supporting cast including Andy Samburg (who has evolved by leaps and bounds since Hot Rod) as Peter's gay brother, John Favreau as a disgusting family acquaintance, J.K. Simmons as Peter's father, and The Hulk, Lou Ferrigno as himself. Along with the endlessly clever writing and bountiful talent, director Hamburg also manages to blend in rib cracking potty humour, satirize rom-coms and meld it all together with a whole lot of heart and warmth. I loved it, man. Read all my reviews at: http://www.simonsaysmovies.blogspot.com

The creators of this movie not only don't "love" men, they apparently don't respect them that much either, portraying them as either weak or disgusting. Here are the things this movie tells us are important: weddings, watching TV with your girlfriend, caring so much about what your girlfriend's friends think that you obsess over it, making money for your girlfriend, etc. Here are the things the movie tells us are trivial: men's natural instinct to pursue sex, enjoying music with your guy friends, creating things with your guy friends, etc. Do you notice a theme here? Even though is a Sydney is a great friend to Peter, even to the extent of sacrificing his reputation (the speech) and his money (the loan) for him, both these things are perceived as negatives until they are approved by the girlfriend: the speech is okay because she likes giving **s and the loan is okay because Peter can make money to buy the property for his girlfriend. Why, when Peter is searching for male friends, does he not ask _his father_ for advice? Why does he instead ask his mother and his brother (a gay man)? "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy"? Further, why is he so overly concerned with the opinion of his girlfriend and her gang? In short, Sydney is a (great) guy while Peter is a weak (wo)man ( "Metrosexual"?) Yet, this movie tells us it is _Peter_ we should emulate. Why are only _male_ qualities shown as negative while those of women are never questioned? For example, no guys I know have a "* table" or whatever set up in plain view as a discussion topic, no guys I know let their dog crap everywhere without cleaning it up, no guys I have ever met are fart experts, etc.). Also, Jon Favreau's character is just a total knob for no reason. This movie reminds me of that female band L7, that tried to be "masculine" by mimicking only the negative qualities of men. It seems the writers felt for some reason that they had to exaggerate the negative aspects of Sydney. Otherwise, I guess he'd just be a good friend, and we can't have that. "Bromance"? They already have a genre for this and it's good enough: the buddy movie. Wedding movies are for women. This movie tells us every single person (Sydney, the girlfriend's single friend, etc.) needs to get married to live a "real" life. I like Paul Rudd but, though this movie was not funny, the premise was laughable.

We all know that Hollywood seems to have the originality of a spastic Xerox machine;in other words,find a successful formula and there'll be about eighteen different takes or copies of it lying in wait. Never does the dearth of originality seem to raise its big old ugly head than in relationship movies,sometimes called romantic comedies or "rom coms". Even when different angles seem to be explored,they still come to the same,tired wrap-up that involve the cute major players,boy and girl,to find love in each others' arms despite the obstacles. Every once in a while,I'm relieved to say,you do run across a film that decides to mine the margins of these love stories to make a movie. I submit to you I Love You Man,made with the sensibility--and at least two members of the stable of actors--of a Judd Apatow/Greg Mottola film,and VERY appreciated. Peter Klaven(Paul Rudd,the nicest,most likable mensch in movies and TV today,with a punum you could just....)is a reasonably successful Real Estate agent in Southern California whose engagement to Zoe(Rashida Jones,the girlfriend from Heaven)couldn't be going better. They're very much in love and she gets his silly,sometimes lame persona and he appreciates her patience and physical receptiveness. Everything's going well for their impending connubial bliss,save one thing:Peter has no guy friends. None. While Ol' Pete has a great touch with the ladies,he has almost no bro bonding to fall back on. This previous situation,once not considered a problem if even considered at all now weighs upon our hero,and he gets help(both solicited and not)from family--Mom(Jane Curtin)and bro(Andy Samberg)--and from fiancé herself. The phrase 'hilarity ensues' is overused but,in these instances,they apply. Then walks into an open house Sidney Fife(Jason Segel,physically the same from Forgetting Sarah Marshall,but character-wise a near one-eighty),an investment broker whose own,self-actualized sense of zen and bro-supreme self-sufficiency hits it off perfectly with Peter,balancing the groom-to-be's pleasant but feminine recessive qualities. Featuring a supporting cast that doesn't try to stand out but still does: Curtin,Samber,J.K.Simmons(as Peter's dad),Tom Lennon(as a potential guy friend "suitor"),Sarah Burns(as one of Zoe's more pathetic friends),Jaime Pressly(as Zoe's perpetually angry married friend),Jon Favreau(as Pressly's dickish husband)and Lou Ferrigno(as...well,Lou Ferrigno),this film has a delightful time bringing to screen a "love" story angle that is as fresh,real and relatively ignored in most movies starring(pick any two of the following):Matthew McConaughey,Kate Hudson,Sandra Bullock,Meg Ryan,Hugh Grant,Ryan Reynolds,Renee Zellweger,Richard Gere or Reese Witherspoon. Co-writer John Hamburg directs this film,and he seems to be perfectly fine with letting this film amble along to its conclusion,scattering more than its share of laughs and pratfalls along the way. If this isn't love I felt for this fine film,it certainly with a fine affinity,nay a mild infatuation,I felt here...man(you HAD to know THAT was coming).

I Love You Man, despite a fine premise and sincere comedic overtones, falls flat, a victim of a scattershot script that’s never sure when it wants us to take everyone seriously and as a result never quite finds its way. Paul Rudd stars as a schlub who proposes to his fiancé (Rashida Jones) and then spends half the movie trying to find some guy, any guy, to be his best man, since he’s lacking in buds. Along the way, he finds his new best friend ever in the person of Sydney Fife (Jason Segal), a wacky truth-telling soulmate who slowly begins to pry the hapless Pete away from his betrothed. Hilarity doesn’t quite ensue as much wander around aimlessly and flop down on a beanbag chair. Pete’s a nice guy who has no guy friends at all. (I can sort of relate.) He’s always had girl friends, as opposed to girlfriends. Oh, let’s just call them gal pals. When Zooey asks him who he’s going to have as his best man, though, he’s at a loss. His dad? Nah, his dad’s best friends with Pete’s younger brother (Andy Samberg). Guys at work? Nah, they’re a bunch of go-getting, artificially tanned prima donnas. What about his fencing club? Nah, he doesn’t hang with them. So instead, on the advice of his brother, Pete goes on a series of “man dates” to find his special bro. One of these in particular, played by Thomas Lennon, has a surprise of his own. But sort of by accident, he runs into Sydney, a dude who’s all that. Sydney listens and likes to hang with Pete. It’s sort of like courting a new girlfriend, really. And all of a sudden, Pete’s doing less wedding planning and more gallivanting, which is a word I picked up reading Hardy Boys mysteries. Now he’s going to Rush concerts and jamming on the bass. For the most part, Rudd nails the part of the guy who’s just too awkward to fit in with the other guys. But he’s a little too awkward. One of the running jokes in the film is that Pete just can’t get the hang of new-fangled slang. Like when Syd calls him “Pistol” after Pete Maravich, and Pete can’t come up with anything that’s not completely unfunny. Not even funny in the amusingly cute and dorky way. He’s a classic dweeb, and yet here he is a realtor. (One of his clients, in another amusing gag, is Lou Ferrigno.) Because Pete’s so incredibly awkward, he’s a little hard to root for. If you’re the popular kind (or were back in the day), you feel a little guilty, laughing at Pete’s inadequacies. And if you’re the unpopular kind, you cringe a little, knowing perhaps it’s a bit too dead-on of a portrayal. I also found it a bit difficult to tell where Sydney was coming from. Was he a good guy after all? Could this be a movie where the good guy turns out to be bad but it’s just a woeful misunderstanding? His motives were unclear until the end, when it was too late for me to care. He’s also a little annoying (he has some jumbly logic for not cleaning up after his dog, for instance) and creepy. There are jokes here, mostly at Pete’s expense, and I understand that the movie wanted to be sensitive and meaningful while still being crude and raunchy, but it never found a middle ground to enjoy the best of both worlds. The laughs were good when they were there, but they were so scattershot that they felt like shooting icicles from a handgun. OK, bad simile, but you get the drift.