Anyway, I adored the last two pictures he had done, Valentine's Day (2010) and New Year's Eve (2011), yes you read that correctly, I enjoyed those films, and you know why? Again the answer here is fairly simple. These films were written and produced for the purposes of entertainment, and for me, that's, precisely, what they achieved, entertainment. Are they revolutionary pieces of filmmaking that will be discussed and studied by cinematic scholars for centuries to come? Hell no! They're just fun rom-coms here to tickle and delight us in times where the world can be such a dark and unsettling place to live, Garry gives us a world of hope and positivity, illuminated by the presence of A-List Stars of the silver screen. How often does one get to watch Halle Berry act with Robert De Niro or see Eric Dane play a homosexual in love with the American Sniper (2014) star himself? Garry's last two films reminded us not to take the world so seriously, just sit back and let the movie do what it's meant to do, entertain you. Many critics and audience members, in general, take these films far too seriously and give them scathing reviews as if they were attempting to be something other than what they are, cute ensemble romantic comedies.
Now having read reviews on Mother's Day before watching it, Kalene and I were prepared, this was not going to be the same kind of film experience as the last two Garry Films we'd seen. One of the central reasons for this tonal change is with the screenwriter. Katherine Fugate had penned both Valentine's Day and New Year's Eve, while Mother's Day was handled by Tom Hines, Anya Kochoff Romano and Matt Walker. It's astounding it took THREE people to screw up a movie this badly. What is Mothers Day's worst offering? Is it the subpar acting, perhaps the subpar editing? Subpar is a word that should be so closely associated with this film; its definition should be imprinted on the back of the DVD cases before they are distributed to stores. Alas, the worst offering of this film is the one thing it isn't subpar at, being offensive!
This film has so many racist undertones, overtones and in the middle-tones, it's astounding no hate group has used it as propaganda for recruitment.
Kate Hudson's subplot involves her having to tell her ultra-conservative Southern Parents that she has married and had a child with an Indian man! This would be a provocative, potentially enlightening plotline if it wasn't treated so poorly. The insults the parents give the husband when they meet are delivered like comedic gags while Kalene and I gasp, each feeling personally offended for the fictional characters on screen. Naturally, the parents turn their personalities around, especially after the police attempt to shoot their son in law BECAUSE HE IS BROWN! I'm serious, I couldn't make this up, but apparently, someone else could. The only semi-intriguing part of this plot is Kate Hudson arguing with her husband about why she kept her parents at such a distance in the first place, but even this scene doesn't go as far as it should in-depth or dimension.
PS- This film uses the term "towelhead" at one point. Ew, double fucking ew.
The film is set in Atlanta. Kalene and I counted how many African Americans we found in a film set in a place with a relatively large Black Population. We counted nine, and none of them was central to the plot in any way, shape or form. They are mostly seen as cashiers, waiters, or obese women used to evoke comedy. This film is not set in Atlanta; it's set in some alternate Stepford version of Atlanta where all the women are on pharmaceuticals, do yoga and make parade floats in the shape of vaginas. What deluded dystopian society is this Garry? I liked the gritty but pretty Beverly Hills portrayed in Pretty Woman (1990) much better, and even Genovia felt more real than this!
PS- This film also uses the old "Dad has to buy tampons" shtick and practically plagiarizes the exact same scene from the film Mr. Mom (1983) in a much poorer fashion.
Jennifer Aniston's plot is the most pathetic, as she gets insanely and unjustifiably jealous of her ex-husband's young new Filipino wife, who does nothing but love and care for her children and treat Jennifer's character with respect and kindness. Oh, the horror! Jennifer meets single dad, Jason Sudeikis's character, who is a widower, apparently Jennifer Garner died fighting for our country. The two only have TWO scenes together, and we are supposed to assume they fall for each other and end up together. I say assume because the film ends abruptly with little resolution to this key plotline. We don't feel that Jennifer's character has really gone through any journey or character arc; the same goes for Sudeikis. Their characters end pretty much as they started, confused and conformed to their privileged high class (yet still miserable) white lives.
Julia Roberts receives the briefest screen time, but her one confessional scene about how she gave up her child for adoption at birth is the film's closest attempt at substance and depth. Garry always left the best material for Julia, and even in this ridiculous piece of "art" she shines through the smears.
Garry's films typically had a feel-good family vibe to them, even if some of the material was quite mature for younger audiences. He could make a fairytale out of real-life everyday scenarios. At the same time, he could make atypical situations feel relatable, like becoming princess of a country you'd had never heard of before. Garry created an atmosphere all his own with his films, and it sometimes brought out the best Hollywood had to offer in terms of comedy, romance and family drama. His last misguided outing with Mother's Day should not be a reflection of his past successful efforts in filmmaking. Mother's Day, the holiday itself, celebrates those who give life to a new creation, in that sense Garry was certainly a mother-like figure to Hollywood Cinema. We should be forever grateful for that - and rent Overboard (1987) instead of this garbage.
PS- The gag reel at the end is even SUBPAR!
No comments:
Post a Comment