Review: New Year’s Eve

A bunch of famous people walk on screen and say a bunch of stuff pretending to be a group of New Yorkers going about their day (and evening) on the title date. Some of the characters from one story will also bleed into another one, ala “Love Actually”. Hilary Swank is the workaholic in charge of seeing that the ball drops in Times Square at midnight. She hits a few snags along the way, forcing her to re-hire electrician Kominsky (Hector Elizondo) to fix things in time. Michelle Pfeiffer is a lonely, mousy secretary who ropes in messenger Zak Efron to help her complete her bucket list (Seriously, this really is part of the movie). Jessica Biel and Seth Meyers, meanwhile, compete with other couples (including Til Schweiger) to ring in the New Year with a newborn baby...to win a cash prize. No, I’m not kidding. Ashton Kutcher and Lea Michele get stuck in an elevator. The latter is a back-up singer to Jon Bon Jovi, and is expected to join him in the Times Square sing-song festivities. Bon Jovi, meanwhile, wants to make it work with his ex, caterer Katherine Heigl, who is busy preparing a fancy party and thinks he’s unable to commit to a serious relationship anyway. Robert De Niro and Halle Berry play a dying patient and his nurse, the latter missing her soldier squeeze Common. Josh Duhamel plays a rich guy stranded a long way from getting to the party he’s expected to be an important guest at. He’s also got a date at midnight with a girl he met one year ago, but who is she? (The answer makes a lot less sense the more you think about it) Sarah Jessica Parker and Abigail Breslin play mother and daughter, the former currently single. A bunch of other well-known people have minor roles to play (including Yeardley Smith, Cherry Jones, Sarah Paulson, Jim Belushi, Ludacris, Alyssa Milano, and Ryan Seacrest as a version of himself). Matthew Broderick has a walk-on.

 

OK, I take it back. “Valentine’s Day” really wasn’t all that bad. Actually, that’s not true, it’s just that compared to this cynical 2011 sorta follow-up from director Garry Marshall (“Valentine’s Day”, “Pretty Woman”) and writer Katherine Fugate (“Carolina”, “Valentine’s Day”), it looks a whole lot better. Like that film, this has clearly been made to rake in millions from the mindless popcorn brigade who, bringing along their date in the hopes of getting laid (moreso with “Valentine’s Day”, perhaps), don’t really care about what unfolds onscreen. I’m single, and very much care about what unfolds onscreen (in theory at least), and in the case of this film, it’s almost two hours of skull-numbing suckage. Both films are inferior American rip-offs of the charming and wonderful “Love Actually”, anyway.

 

Question: What’s worse, being in this film or being the only working actor not in this film? The answer? Being Ashton Kutcher, who was in both this and “Valentine’s Day”. Like last time, the biggest problem is that with so many stars and characters there’s not enough time to give a crap about anyone because as soon as you say ‘Hey, it’s Hilary Swank!’, Marshall and Fugate move on to someone else. It’s so superfluous a film that it’s almost an insult to superfluousness. Truth be told, as much as this film is cashing in on the holiday title, do you really think anyone would flock to see this if it didn’t have an all-star cast as well? Maybe, but you’d definitely call it crap. I refuse to believe, by the way, that these two films were written before most of the stars were already enlisted by Mr. Marshall. I’d be surprised if this one wasn’t largely written on the fly.

 

It’s also such a mopey downer of a film, despite the celebratory title, which is just bizarre, and I got absolutely no enjoyment out of it at all. The characters are underwritten, and either awful or just plain obnoxious. Marshall knows he’s making cynical cash-grabs. He’s smart enough to know that the film would actually be better with less stars (i.e. less characters). “Love Actually” was in some ways a fluke in that respect, but Richard Curtis is also more talented than Marshall. Some of the characters could’ve worked in their own film- Those played by Halle Berry, Josh Duhamel, Hilary Swank, and Robert De Niro even. But competing with everyone and everything else? No chance in Hell.

 

And thus ends the review portion of today’s entertainment. Fuck it. I’m just going to present to you the points I made in my notes, one by one. The film doesn’t deserve a nice, tidy review, and numbered points pretty much gets across the viewing experience I had much more effectively anyway.

 

1) What’s wrong with Hilary Swank these days? Is her agent on crack?

 

2) Zac Efron’s still a thing? Why isn’t he One Direction’s roadie at this point?

 

3) Til Schweiger? Really? Why?

 

4) Seth Meyers and Jessica Biel as a couple? Uh-uh.

 

5) How can Zac Efron be Ashton Kutcher’s best friend? Isn’t Kutcher old enough to be his dad?

 

6) I keep waiting for Josh Duhamel to become a genuine star and it hasn’t happened.

 

7) Katherine Heigl gets way too much work.

 

8) She’s also young enough to be Jon Bon Jovi’s daughter. It’s creepy.

 

9) Jon Bon Jovi’s presence here is no surprise. He’s turned into a countrified hack, and yet still makes the ladies swoon.

 

10) Michelle Pfeiffer looks so old and haggard here I missed her in her first scene.

 

11) Ludacris is a sell-out. Go ahead, pop a cap in my paraplegic arse. He’s also s dull actor, by the way.

 

12) I generally like Sofia Vegara, but it becomes painfully obvious very quickly that the film doesn’t need her.

 

13) Why are John Lithgow and Michelle Pfeiffer playing Scrooge and Bob Cratchit?

 

14) Why is this film so painfully unfunny?

 

15) Bobby De Niro playing a dying man is apt casting, but not in a good way. His credibility was dying until his recent Oscar nom.

 

16) All of these Oscar winners and nominees and apparently none of them saw fit to rewrite this shit themselves? Then I guess Jon Bon Jovi and Ricockulous (Ludacris) aren’t the only sell-outs, are they?

 

17) I love Carla Gugino, but she’s a sell-out too, apparently.

 

18) Marshall misses out completely by not giving Gugino and Bon Jovi a scene together. Hopefully some of you know what I’m talking about.

 

19) Credit where it’s due, ol’ horse face (Sarah Jessica Parker) gets to have a teen daughter in this. She’s finally acting her damn age.

 

20) Anyone else think it was De Niro’s suggestion to hire Halle Berry to nurse him? I bet he’s a huge “Monster’s Ball” fan. Right, Bobby D? You want to make Halle feel gooood, don’t you?

 

21) Hilary Swank is the only person here whose charm and talent shine through enough here to allow her to not seem like she’s selling out. And given at one point she stands right next to a big Philips ad, that takes a lot of talent!

 

22) Larry Miller only ever plays Larry Miller, but he plays it hilariously in a film with practically no laughs.

 

23) Michelle Pfeiffer’s role and performance are humiliating. I’m not a fan, but this is beneath her. She should’ve been paired with Bon Jovi.

 

24) Katherine Heigl has nice breasts but an unlikeable presence on screen.

 

25) Sofia Vegara’s breasts steal the show. God Bless ‘em (Is this a sexist review, or what?)

 

26) I hate “Glee” passionately, it’s the cancer of the music and television industry.

 

27) Lea Michele has a thoroughly obnoxious and unlikeable presence on screen.

 

28) “Little Miss Sunshine” got chubby. And less charming. She’s normal, and normal sucks. Ask Fred Savage.

 

29) This movie almost makes me want re-watch “Eat, Pray, Shart”. Almost.

 

30) Sarah Jessica Parker’s character is only mildly obnoxious, purely because she used to play an unbelievably self-absorbed, obnoxious cow on TV.

 

31) Ryan Dick Clark Seacrest plays a douchy version of himself. Not buying it, we all know he’s a pretty nice guy.

 

32) Why is Lisa Simpson (Yeardley Smith) here?

 

33) The film irritatingly casts at least two sets of people known to be off-screen pairings (Sarah Jessica Parker & Matthew Broderick, Cherry Jones & Sarah Paulson) and...doesn’t pair them up. Why cast them in a romantic film, then? The latter in particular is annoying given the absence of gay characters in the film. 

 

34) Why cast Jon Bon Jovi and have him sing if he’s not going to sing one of his own songs? Does that make him more of a sell-out or less?

 

35) The answer to that question becomes bleedingly obvious when he performs a duet with Lea Michele.

 

36) So Sarah Jessica Parker has a teen daughter and her brother is Zac Efron? Is Ashton Kutcher her dad, then?

 

37) Ludacris’ lethargic performance makes you wonder if Anthony Mackie was busy.

 

38) The pregnancy storyline is offensively infantile (get it?) and wastes some pretty decent talent. And Jessica Biel.

 

39) Garry Marshall manages something I thought impossible. He has turned New Years into just as commercially crass a holiday as Valentine’s Day. Bravo, you arsehole.

 

40) There is absolutely no sense in making Michele’s character sing in this film except that she’s the chick from “Glee”.

 

41) De Niro has been slumming since about 1996, but he’s especially lazy here. He might be worse in other films, but he should be truly ashamed of himself here.

 

42) Given Jon Bon Jovi doesn’t sing a Bon Jovi song, Jim Belushi could’ve played the damn role, don’t you think?

 

43) Why does Alyssa Milano have an irrelevant 11^th hour walk-on? In order to have a star cameo, don’t you need to be a star first? She hasn’t been relevant since she had kinky sex with some vampires in 1994.

 

44) Lea Michele’s rendition of ‘Auld Lang Syne’ shows she has a complete lack of understanding of the song. It is not meant to be an excuse to try out your Christina Aguilera ‘Look at me, I can siiiiiinnnnnggggggg!’ impression. Vomit inducing stuff. Just sing the damn song, you try hard!

 

45) Aside from Michele and Kutcher, none of the couplings matched up at all. Parker and Swank in particular should’ve swapped roles, if not for Breslin’s presence making that an enormous stretch.

 

46) Michelle Pfeiffer’s character (and performance) is so strange and pathetic you’d need an entire film just to understand what her problem is.

 

47) Bueller? Bueller?....Bueller?

 

Look, I love a good romantic film (“When Harry Met Sally”, “Sleepless in Seattle”, “Love Actually”, “Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “Untamed Heart”, etc.), but this is an absolutely 100% pathetic one.

 

Rating: D