Netflix And Chill: Isn't It Romantic (2019)

When I first heard about Isn't It Romantic I thought that it was going to cover the same ground as They Came Together. It wasn't. Instead, I got something that felt like a cross between I Feel Pretty and The Final Girls (which was, funnily enough, also from this director, Todd Strauss-Schulson).

Rebel Wilson plays a young woman named Natalie. Natalie is an architect, although a lot of people around her seems to treat her as a general dogsbody. Natalie is also quite the cynic, and has been taught from a young age (as we see in the opening scene) to always keep in mind that rom-coms are just nonsense, full of things that would never happen to someone like herself. Which makes it worse when, one day after struggling with a mugger and running into a metal beam, Natalie wakes up in hospital, and wakes up in the middle of what seems to be her own romantic comedy. Will this allow her to learn some kind of valuable lesson, or is it just going to be an endurance test until she can figure out a way back to normality.

A lot of Rebel Wilson performances depend very much on how you feel about Rebel Wilson. I tend to enjoy her work but each subsequent movie highlights the fact that she always plays things the same way. That can work, and you could say the same of her male co-star here (Adam Devine, who plays the smug moron-cum-douchebag in 90% of the movies he has done), but it's not something to rely on forever. She's fine here, and given decent support from a core group that includes Devine (the best friend who might end up being more than that), Liam Hemsworth (very . . .  "beguiling" . . .  as the hunky love interest), Priyanka Chopra (woman who Devine falls for, providing standard complication), Betty Gilpin (friendly work colleague in the real world, acidic workplace enemy underused in the rom-com world), and Brandon Scott Jones (popping up to be the subgenre-requisite gay BFF).

No one in the cast stands out as a bad choice. The big problem here lies elsewhere. The script. Written by Erin Cardillo, Dana Fox, and Katie Silberman, Isn't It Romantic has some funny and clever moments here and there, especially when it comes to censored swearing and transitions that imply sex without showing anything happening, but everything centres on a central idea that doesn't work. Wilson knows all of the tropes, and rolls her eyes at all of them, yet she goes along with them all while commenting on her displeasure. This allows the film to underline everything in every scene, making it less fun. Not only do viewers have everything spoon-fed to them while being bashed on the head with a rom-com rubber mallet, they also get constantly reminded that what they're watching is nonsense and (essentially) without any value. Where the movies mentioned in the first paragraph had a certain sweetness and optimism at the heart of them, whether you liked them or not, this has a cynicism in line with the main character, and that sours what could have been a very enjoyable rom-com that wore some layers of cool meta clothing.

Strauss-Schulson does a good job with the direction, ensuring that this always feels like your standard rom-com, from the visual style of each scene to frequent use of uplifting pop standards on the soundtrack. The film feels infused by every modern rom-com, helped there by the script, but nothing can quite outweigh the misjudged tone. I would have liked to laugh along with this film, instead it feels like they're pointing at things for you to laugh at.

There are laughs to be had, and a couple of fun musical numbers, but this is ultimately a disappointment, despite making a very good point during the grand finale.

5/10

Americans may order it here.

The Hunger Games (2012)

Just when you think you can safely go along to the cinema without having to wade through fans of one teen-orientated cinematic juggernaut along comes another to assert itself as the new king of the hill. But, they all say, The Hunger Games is better than you think. It's full of more mature themes and better characters. It's darker and much better than any sparkly vampire movie. It's based on much better source material.

Well, I'll admit that there's some small degree of truth to that. However, The Hunger Games is still very much a watered down and sanitised film setting out to do little more than please the core demographic. In fact, I managed to convince my wife that the whole thing was nothing more than a metaphor for surviving high school (where popularity will get you through another day, competition is fierce, cliques develop and even if you survive to the end you'll find that you may have changed yourself beyond all recognition).

There was a great joke doing the rounds when the movie was released. It was a picture of the main characters from Pulp Fiction accompanied by the following caption: "You know what they call The Hunger Games in Paris? Battle Royale with cheese".

It's funny because it's true.

For those of you who have somehow avoided all of the hype and publicity, the plot runs something like this: It's the future and the rich and pampered stay in a lush capital city, miles and miles away from the outlying sectors that provide them with their essentials. Two youngsters (aged between 12 and 18) from each outlying sector are chosen each year to take part in The Hunger Games, a challenging experience that sees 24 enter a game zone and only 1 leaving alive. The Hunger Games is survived by those who are strong, smart and popular. Viewers remain mesmerised from start to finish.

I do have good things to say about the film. Most of the cast did a great job. Jennifer Lawrence in the main role once again shows why she's such a satisfying leading lady, Stanley Tucci is possibly one of the most dependable actors you can have in any movie, Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth are both young men doing well in roles that have them playing . . . . . young men, Wes Bentley lends great support to his scene-stealing facial hair and there are quirky, and enjoyable, performances from Woody Harrelson, Lenny Kravitz, Donald Sutherland and a practically unrecognisable Elizabeth Banks.

The direction from Gary Ross (who also co-wrote the screenplay with novelist Suzanne Collins and Billy Ray) is okay but it also shows the work of a man unsure of just how to get the material up onscreen. This is not the same man who pleased us with Seabiscuit and, one of my particular favourites, Pleasantville. Nope, this is a man who knows that he has to cater to as wide an audience of teens as possible by glossing over subject matter that deserves far more mature treatment. The fact that the film doesn't quite make an enjoyable, cohesive whole (overediting is used to cover up the more violent moments, the heroine is almost completely passive for the first 3/4 of the movie and some of the plot holes seem pretty massive to me) actually makes me review it with a more charitable mindset. It's not a success but it tries as hard as it can to be all things to all people. Which we all know is a thankless, and impossible, task.

We also all know that there are many, MANY worse teen movies out there so if you end up being dragged along to this one perhaps it's best to just be thankful and try to enjoy individual aspects of it, as I did.

6/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hunger-Games-Blu-ray-Region-Free/dp/B0063FQRTO/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1336927635&sr=1-1