Review: How Do You Know?

Paul Rudd is a decent, well-meaning corporate exec who may be facing jail time if an internal investigation into stock fraud uncovers any wrongdoing on his part. His boss is also his father (Jack Nicholson), whose reassurances aren’t very reassuring, largely because dear old dad is clearly the guilty party and he knows dad ain’t taking the fall. On this very day he finds himself on a date with cute softballer Reese Witherspoon, and manages to make a bollocks of it, understandably being distracted and frankly depressed. Witherspoon, meanwhile, is cut from her team for being too old (early 30s!), and is kinda in a relationship with a douchy baseball player (Owen Wilson) who seems to think his philandering should just be accepted as one of his charming little quirks. Seriously, the guy’s a dickhead, albeit well-meaning, and a completely oblivious narcissist to boot. Meanwhile, a frankly drunk Rudd decides to give Witherspoon another call, makes a bad second impression, and then they somehow seem to fall for each other. Kathryn Hahn is Rudd’s supportive, heavily pregnant co-worker, Mark Linn-Baker (he’s still alive?) turns up as a spineless corporate-type, Molly Price is Witherspoon’s supportive coach, and Tony Shalhoub has a worthless cameo as a shrink.

This 2010 James L. Brooks (“Terms of Endearment”, “Broadcast News”, “As Good As It Gets”) romantic comedy is the damndest thing. I’m not sure if I liked it. I don’t quite know what to make of it. It’s essentially a romantic comedy, and it has me assessing what it is that either a romance or a comedy (or perhaps just a romantic comedy) needs in order to work, not to mention the fact that I wasn’t sure if it was well-enough made for a film in any genre. For instance, this is an often very funny film. The character played by Owen Wilson alone is an hilariously douchy comic creation, and the only character in the entire film who really works. Seriously, this guy is the biggest douchebag in existence. He’s not only a douchebag of epic proportions, but he also has absolutely no awareness of the problem with this, let alone any recognition of the feelings of others. He’s almost bloody charmingly innocent...in a completely wrong way. I mean, this is a guy who has a whole wardrobe of spare clothes and a drawer full of spare toothbrushes for his one-night stands to use the morning after...but what kind of sleaze does that? A considerate one, I guess.

But the film itself isn’t just about laughs, also has a story, a plot, and it also has characters. And those things are not handled very well at all. The film’s dodgy business dealings subplot, for instance, is thrown at the audience without anywhere near enough information on the situation for us to fully understand what is going on. Some don’t mind being left in the dark, especially for what is just a subplot, but because it ends up tying into the main plot at the end, it very much bothered me. Not only that, but I was never one hundred percent convinced of Rudd’s lack of knowledge or involvement in it. Given he is one part of the film’s romantic triangle, and the film’s supposed nice guy, that bothered me. Sure, he was probably every bit as innocent as claimed to be, but I dunno. Did the film really need such baggage, especially when it’s so confusingly conveyed in the first place? (The first scene we’re confronted with this subplot in particular, is so clunky and confusing, it’s almost embarrassing for someone of Brooks’ stature).

I also didn’t buy the film’s characters, and this kinda impacts the film’s credibility as a romance. Aside from the dubious nature of Rudd’s character, I also found him a little disturbing in other ways. I’ve always found Rudd a pretty unlikeable and morose screen presence, and that’s definitely the case here. Even though the audience knows what he’s going through, he always seems to be in such a bad mood when he’s around Witherspoon that, coupled with his possible future stint in prison, it hurts his credibility as a romantic leading man. The audience might have sympathy for him, but looking objectively, I couldn’t follow the logic that sees Witherspoon even agreeing to a second date. The whole scenario feels like the worst possible time for any of these people to hook up, and that’s not as clever as Brooks perhaps thinks it is because it’s not very appealing to watch. Just because real life is messy, doesn’t mean it’s fun to watch a romantic comedy that is messy, too, especially when the film is hard to swallow in other aspects anyway. For instance, we’re given absolutely no indication as to how or why Rudd falls for Witherspoon so quickly in the first place. Their kinda sorta blind date meeting, the subsequent awkwardness of their first date, and both of their being distracted with other issues, meant that we never really get a sense of that transition into being interested in one another. It’s so sloppy.

Witherspoon, meanwhile, is given the annoyingly quirky character of a female softball character, and a gaggle of ‘You go, girlfriend!’ teammates who never for one moment seem like anything other than a lazy screenwriter’s creation. Sure, there’s plenty of female softball players out there, but here it just seemed like a too-cute quirk to me.

Even the scenes with supporting characters didn’t much work for me. Jack Nicholson, one of the all-time great movie stars, is given a role way beneath his talents here and gives a lazy-arse, frankly phony performance to match (I read a review online that hilariously suggested that Lou Gossett Jr. could’ve played Rudd’s dad and it wouldn’t have mattered. And it’s not all that far from being true, either) It’s as if he was a last minute replacement for the first choice. Apparently Bill Murray turned the film down, and indeed Murray would be an easier sell in the role than Jack. Almost every scene of his is a surprising failure, and the lack of clarity in the subplot certainly doesn’t help. I did like him trying (and failing) to suppress his profanity, though. That was funny. Nothing else in that scene, however, takes place in any kind of reality that I can think of. The stuff with the pregnant co-worker no one seems to notice (Kathryn Hahn), is particularly bad. The delivery room scene is even worse, and extremely clunky.

So what does a comedy need in order to be considered a successful one? Is it just laughs? A film like “Flying High!” (AKA “Airplane!”) would suggest so. It’s one of the funniest movies ever made, and it really only has a plot because it’s a spoof of airline disaster flicks. The gags are the whole show. But when you add the romance aspect, I think the worthiness of the plot and characters does become a legit factor. Maybe it doesn’t matter to the point of a film’s success or absolute failure, but a funny film with plot and character issues certainly loses a few points. From someone as esteemed as Brooks, this is pretty lousy material once you take out the laughs. And the film isn’t a success from the romantic side of things either when you consider Witherspoon’s ultimate choice. I think she makes the wrong one, or more precisely, I didn’t believe the choice she made is the choice she would really make based on who she is and what she needs. ***** SPOILER WARNING ***** Think about who she is and what she needs. She’s an athlete and she’s currently unemployed. Her two choices are a douchebag but successful baseball player, and a dour but seemingly nice guy who even if he doesn’t go to prison for some vaguely revealed financial/corruption/ethical issue at work, is still unemployed and still possibly deserves some air of suspicion. It’s as if Witherspoon is choosing Rudd more because it’s what writer-director Brooks has decided for her to do. Yes, she should choose Rudd, and would likely be happier (if poorer) if she chose Rudd because he’s probably the nicer guy, but it’s not the decision I think she would make. I mean, she wouldn’t keep seeing Wilson throughout the rest of the film otherwise. Then again, I also got the feeling the only reason why she was with Wilson was because it was written to be so, as well. The other thing that bothered me is that although Wilson is playing the biggest douchebag on the planet, he’s so much more entertaining and funnier here than Rudd, it ends up a disappointing choice on that level too. It’s the damndest thing. In every other romance, you want her to choose the nice guy, but here’s the one movie where I actually think the wrong guy was the right guy. Can a romance film really be considered a success if the wrong people end up together? (By the way, in Brooks’ overrated “Broadcast News”, none of the romantic leads were interesting to me, so this is an improvement I guess). Well, considering Rudd is the more likeable character, I suppose I can’t be too harsh. But c’mon, am I the only one who felt the wrong people ended up together at the end? ***** END SPOILER *****

The best asset the film has from a romance standpoint is easily the lovely Reese Witherspoon. She has her detractors (idiots), but I think she’s a terrific actress in the right part (principally “Freeway” and “Walk the Line”), and here she is both gorgeous as hell and absolutely adorable. She sells it as best she can, though I’m not even sure if Witherspoon knew why she wanted either guy.

One small criticism I have is that the film features the most number of ringing phones in any movie I can recall to a ridiculous and infuriatingly annoying degree (Full disclosure: I have only used mobile phones to make calls to book taxis, that’s it. If I’m otherwise unable to be reached, then...I’m otherwise unable to be reached. Tough titties, y’all). If Brooks was trying to make some kind of statement about our reliance on technology or something, he certainly hasn’t made it well. In fact, the whole film feels like an unfinished product. Was there a rush to release the thing? Sorry, but as much as this film has laughs and good work by Witherspoon and Wilson, it’s still not an especially good film. Amazingly, it still almost works, but not quite. Mind you, that’s almost a helluva big achievement, considering how messy it is.

Rating: C+