| |
 In
most cases, when something seems too good to be true, it probably
is. That's certainly the case with "America's Sweethearts," a film
that's big on star power, but small on inspiration. Despite the
presence of reliable funnyman Billy Crystal, the enormously talented
John Cusack, the incredibly beautiful Catherine Zeta-Jones, and
of course, Oscar's recently crowned golden girl Julia Roberts, the
lame, unfunny, calculated, and incredibly predictable "America's
Sweethearts" can't be seen as anything but the smissed opportunity
of a lifetime.
In an age
where Hollywood marriages barely outlast a head of lettuce, it's
hardly surprising that Gwen (Catherine Zeta-Jones) and Eddie (John
Cusack)--easily Tinseltown's most bankable star couple--have called
it quits. The split is anything but amicable, and that could spell
trouble for "Time Over Time," the pair's recently completed big-budget
film. As if the Gwen-and-Eddie split wasn't bad enough, now the
film's wacko director (Christopher Walken) is refusing to screen
the movie until the press junket. Help comes in the form of Lee
Phillips (Billy Crystal), the seasoned press officer who, along
with Gwen's sister Kiki (Julia Roberts), is assigned the unenviable
task of getting Gwen and Eddie back together in time to meet the
press.
In light of
all the star un-couplings that have made Hollywood headlines in
recent months, the timing for "America's Sweethearts" couldn't be
any better. Never mind Meg Ryan and Dennis Quaid or, for that matter,
Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman -- Julia Roberts' own breakup from
longtime (well, longtime for her anyway) boyfriend Benjamin Bratt
gives the film the distinct feel of art imitating life.
But there's
the rub. Instead of making a statement, or at least having fun with
the public's fascination with the private lives and romances of
celebrity couples, the film pulls too many punches to be even mildly
entertaining. In addition, considering that it was co-written by
Billy Crystal, there should have been more of an opportunity to
throw a few zingers at not only the price of fame, but also the
publicity machine that feeds the Hollywood studio system.
For his first
time behind the camera since 1990's little-seen "Coupe de Ville,"
Revolution Studios topper Joe Roth directs "America's Sweetheart"
with a considerable amount of restraint. The fact that he bothered
to tear himself away from the daily grind of running a major studio
speaks volumes about just how much regard he had for the film (especially
given its star power) but between trying to infuse it with the zany
banter of the screwball comedies of the 30's and 40's, an over-reliance
on surprisingly juvenile slapstick humor, and an extremely calculated
effort to make a by-the-books Hollywood film, the end result is
surprisingly ineffective and not nearly as funny as it could have
been.
As far as
the cast members are concerned, it's safe to say that they've all
been better elsewhere. Though Julia Roberts seems to relish playing
second fiddle for a change as the ugly duckling sister--and assistant--to
Catherine Zeta-Jones' prima donna, John Cusack seems horribly miscast
as Eddie. The problem is, there's a difference between an actor
and a movie star. Cusack is an actor, and he doesn't quite fit the
model of an irresistible, glamorous, George Clooney-type movie star.
In addition, while his character is supposed to be depressed and
annoyed, there's a shred of his performance that seems to reflect
the uninspired vibe of the movie.
Movies about
Hollywood haven't exactly set the box office on fire (even 1999's
"Bowfinger" was only seen as a minor hit with around $66 million),
but if anybody could have succeeded in pulling "America's Sweethearts"
together, it's this team. Even the ending, which should have been
uproariously funny (thanks to an inspired performance by Christopher
Walken as the reclusive, obsessive director--anyone we know?), turns
out to be more of an embarrassment. I've heard of lights, camera,
in-action, but this is ridiculous!
|
|
