Valentine's Day
Movie Review
"Valentine's Day"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: D
Rating: PG-13
Released: Friday, February 12, 2010
Directed by:
Cast:
All of New Line Cinema's careful planning has not been wasted on Douglas Young ("the-movie-guy"), an IMDb user who begins his review of "Valentine's Day" with: "What timing! The producers are releasing 'Valentine's Day' two days before the real event." Yes! What a brilliant maneuver! Those producers are crafty -- CRAFTY LIKE A FOX THAT PUTS OUT HOLIDAY-THEMED MOVIES AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME OF YEAR!
For the easily impressed, "Valentine's Day" is indeed impressive. It boasts a huge cast of recognizable actors, most of them named either Taylor or Jessica, all playing Los Angelinos whose romantic lives intersect on the sacred holiday. And in just 125 minutes -- or approximately two minutes per character -- something like a thousand stories are told. Granted, each story by itself is drearily generic and uninspired, and the cumulative effect is that of watching 10 romantic comedies in one sitting. But still, in terms of sheer quantity ... well, "Love, Actually" was a lot better. But in terms of sheer quantity where rip-offs of "Love, Actually" are concerned, "Valentine's Day" is probably not absolutely as bad as it could have been!
The screenplay was written by Katherine Fugate ("The Prince & Me"), with rewrites by Abby Kohn and Marc Silverstein, the duo behind "Never Been Kissed" and "He's Just Not That Into You." And the director is Garry Marshall, of "Pretty Woman" and "Runaway Bride" and "The Other Sister" and "The Princess Diaries" and "Raising Helen" and "Georgia Rule" and "Dear God" and wow Garry Marshall has made a lot of bad movies. That's not to say I prejudged "Valentine's Day" -- every movie has a chance of being good -- only that when it turned out to be broad, unfunny, tiresome, overlong, and pointless, well, I wasn't surprised. Those adjectives all appear on Garry Marshall's business card.
Our central character, at least in terms of screen time, is Reed (Ashton Kutcher), a florist who has just proposed to his girlfriend, Morley (Jessica Alba). Everyone is surprised she said yes, though, leading us to believe she is not right for him. Reed's lady friend Julia (Jennifer Garner), who is totally platonic and they are definitely not in love with each other, is certainly skeptical. Meanwhile, Julia is seeing a cardiologist (Patrick Dempsey) who, unbeknownst to her, is married with children. We see the doctor at home for a couple minutes, long enough for his daughter to ask if he "fixed all the broken hearts" today, and for his wife to observe, as he tosses some oranges around, that "Daddy is good at juggling." Ha ha! Feel the blunt force trauma as the joke is hammered in to your skull!
But we'll never get through this if we stop to make fun of everyone individually. Jason (Topher Grace), who works in the mailroom at a talent agency, has been dating a coworker named Liz (Anne Hathaway), who secretly moonlights as a phone-sex operator, generally with a Russian accent (because Russian accents are funny). She conducts these calls from her cell phone, often while standing on the sidewalk -- not because any person would ever actually do this, but so Marshall can show us passersby being alarmed and surprised by her dirty talk.
Sorry, sidetracked again. Sean Jackson (Eric Dane) is an NFL star who has just become a free agent, both professionally and romantically. His publicist, Kara (Jessica Biel), is holding her annual I Hate Valentine's Day dinner tonight and spending the day sobbing, because that's what women do when they're alone on Valentine's Day, ha ha, those emotional retards. Sean's brassy agent -- Liz and Jason's boss -- is Queen Latifah, so she's not interested in love. Neither is Kelvin Moore (Jamie Foxx), a TV sports reporter who's being forced to do a fluffy Valentine's Day story when he'd rather be covering the Sean Jackson thing. Kelvin's boss is played by Kathy Bates. There will come a time late in the film when you will say, "Hey, didn't Kathy Bates used to be in this movie?" And it will have been so.
Wait! There are even more characters! On an airplane bound for L.A. are Holden (Bradley Cooper) and Kate (Julia Roberts), strangers seated next to each other, Kate coming home from Iraq for a one-day leave, Holden being vague about what his deal is. Then there's an old couple named Edgar and Estelle (Hector Elizondo and Shirley MacLaine) who take care of their 10-year-old grandson, Edison (Bryce Robinson), who has a crush on a girl in his class. We later learn that Estelle used to be a movie actress, and in fact appeared in "Hot Spell," which is a real movie that Shirley MacLaine was really in, and we see footage of it. So either Edgar married Shirley MacLaine and she changed her name to Estelle, or Estelle just happens to look like MacLaine and also happened to star in a movie with the same title as one of MacLaine's movies.
And there are teenagers! Alex (Carter Jenkins) and Grace (Emma Roberts) are thinking about doin' it, sex-wise, in honor of Valentine's Day. Their friends Willy (Taylor Lautner) and Felicia (Taylor Swift) have no such plans, and in fact serve even less purpose in the movie than everyone else does, though I admit I laughed a few times at Swift's ditzy, scatterbrained character.
Which brings me to my point. After Kelvin abandons his fluffy Valentine's Day story, his cameraman takes over (what? Why?) and interviews Willy and Felicia as a typical high-school couple. When they've finished blathering shallowly about why they love each other, the guy says, "Ah, young love. Full of promise, full of hope, ignorant of reality." That gets a big laugh, but guess what -- it describes every other character in the movie, too. The teenagers' dialogue might be heavier on the words "like" and "awesome," but their attitudes toward romance are no more naive than anyone else's. If there was supposed to be some kind of contrast between the teens and the adults -- you know, the ones who become emotional basket cases on Feb. 14, or who refuse to believe their boyfriends are already married, or who propose to girlfriends who have clearly lost interest in them -- well, no such contrast emerged.
No, everyone's pretty much the same here: one-dimensional, composed only of whatever character traits are needed to propel their hackneyed subplots. Most of their problems are the sort that could be fixed with one conversation. They do the things people in romantic comedies do -- sprints through airports, lavish but ill-fated romantic gestures, etc. -- but rarely the things actual people do.
There is also the matter of Garry Marshall's directorial style. The only thing even approaching "subtlety" in his work is when something happens for absolutely no reason and you think, "Wait, what was that all about?" (Let's pretend that being subtle and being incompetent are the same thing.) For example, when Sean Jackson the football player holds a press conference, there is a sign-language interpreter present. There are several shots of her. Clearly she's going to figure in to a joke or something. But no -- nothing ever comes of it. Was the sign-language gag deleted? If so, why not delete her altogether? When good directors make movies, they don't keep shots that present unnecessary information, much less an entire unnecessary character.
Earlier, Sean is watching TV, then turns it off and tosses the remote control on his bed. Cut to a close-up of the remote control. In the grammar of film, a close-up like that indicates something important. We're going to need to know where the remote control wound up. But again, no. There's no reason for it. Just a random, unnecessary shot. And there are several more instances of this sort of thing scattered throughout the movie -- random people and things that serve no purpose, not even as amusing tangents. If filmmaking is a language, then Garry Marshall has a stutter. You can make out what he's saying, but it's clumsy and embarrassing. And in this case, what he's saying didn't need to be said anyway.
(Note: Valentine's Day is a Monday in this movie, so it must be set in 2011. I believe this technically makes it science fiction.)
Grade: D
Rated PG-13, some mild profanity, some sexual dialogue, fleeting partial nudity
2 hrs., 5 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.



This item has 16 comments
February 11, 2010 at 11:59 pm
Oh man. Part of me wishes there were more bad movies released, just so we'd see more reviews like this one. Well done, sir. Well done.
February 12, 2010 at 6:21 am
I couldn't agree more with Susquatch. Whenever someone queries Google with "What is biting/barbed wit?" There should be a link to this review.
February 12, 2010 at 6:54 am
I wasn't going to see this until you said it was science fiction. Now I will see it.
February 12, 2010 at 7:26 am
"No, everyone's pretty much the same here: one-dimensional, composed only of whatever character traits are needed to propel their hackneyed subplots."
Ah, but see Eric, this is what's so brilliant about the film: it's the first film written entirely in Twitter. Dozens, nay, hundreds of characters, all blipping out a superficial 140 keystrokes on their current "status," none of which adds up to anything beyond a kind of weak ambient awareness that they are all "connected".
I haven't seen the film, but my guess is that all these non-sequiturs (the sign-language interpreter, the remote control) figure as Twitter-like gestures toward "our" amazing resilience to (even fascination with) scrolling depthless-ness. Specters of McLuhan: the medium is once again the message.
Heck, you might even say it's the first official film *about* Twitter (and you can expect to see many more on the horizon). It's not a movie about "relationships". It's a movie about networked *connections*, and you can bet it was pitched that way too. Alas.
~John.
February 12, 2010 at 7:35 am
As soon as I saw the trailer for this movie I started looking forward to your review. It's way too early in the morning for me to be on the computer - thanks for making it worth it.
February 12, 2010 at 8:29 am
"If filmmaking is a language, then Garry Marshall has a stutter."
Are your sure tourette's syndrome wouldn't be closer?
February 12, 2010 at 11:06 am
I'm going to see this anyway with my girlfriends, but I have a feeling I'll be thinking of this review and snickering the entire time. Very nicely put :)
February 12, 2010 at 2:13 pm
"because that's what women do when they're alone on Valentine's Day, ha ha, those emotional retards."
HAHA! Pure genius.
February 12, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Great review, Eric! I can't believe you took the time to recap each character's storyline. And when I saw that insert shot of the remote, I remember thinking "What was THAT for?"
There's a lot to hate in this movie, but have you ever seen a performance as bad as Taylor Swift's?
February 12, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Eric, knowing there are intelligent, discerning people out there like you is what keeps my brain from exploding. Thank you, Sir, for restoring my faith in Humanity.
February 13, 2010 at 7:14 am
Nice review! Saw the movie yesterday--reminiscent in style of "Love, Actually," which I was only mildly fond of. "VD" was actually bordering on terrible--and terribly long. It was so trite and so "Hollywood," lacking any substantive commentary on love or purposeful relationships. I just don't understand how people get paid to write this kind of mushy crap. I wouldn't mind so much if I didn't fear that it's indicative of the values or insights that many, including, obviously Fugate, actually regard as romantic or comedic or LOVE. I was more interested with the teens, although Swift's first scene made me cringe. I was bored with Kutcher, Gardner, and Hathaway's plots before they even began. I can't even say they "unravelled" because that would suggest some kind of plot development. George Lopez and Foxx were not funny. Biel was pathetic. Alba was forgettable. The little boy was so annoying and not cute. And I basically left the theater surprised that I stayed awake the whole time and feeling as though I truly wasted 2 hours of my life. I would actually encourage those who are going to see the movie to do so in the theater b/c this kind of garbage seems funnier with 100 plus people are amused by it. If you suppress all brain other activity, you can actually convince yourself it's amusing too.
February 14, 2010 at 1:53 pm
To all the people that feel that they were gifted by God to give their opinions to the mases in hopes to be heard by the few. I remind you the reason we go see movies. It is for the brief moment to feel empowered or to relate. Those of you who have seen the movie and pick apart every little detail you are not taking the time to enjoy the movie at all. You go and watch the movie with a pre-disposition and turn any possible enjoyment into negative criticizm. You have already determined in your mind that it is bad. If you go and see a movie and you do not relate to it in any possible fashion then you are allowing your adult mind of how things should be in a perfect world silince the youth inside of you that used to enjoy movies of far less quality simple because it took you away and you felt like the characters were real. I personally enjoyed the movie yes there was some bad acting but even Swifts performance made me remeber how funny young love was. The reasons these types of movies do well is because the general population has not lost their imagination and don't focus on the negative but relate to how at one point in their lives was just like what they are watching. In fact the way I pick movies is on a reversed scale, what ever the critics bash I want to see because those are the movies that are going to let me escape.
February 14, 2010 at 4:05 pm
"Which brings me to my point. After Kelvin abandons his fluffy Valentine's Day story, his cameraman takes over (what? Why?) and interviews Willy and Taylor as a typical high-school couple."
Willy and Felicia?
Just trying to make sense of the names a little since most of the time you were using the character names, not actor/actress names (and I'm assuming he interviewed Taylor Swift and her partner).
February 14, 2010 at 7:33 pm
@Chris Long
"You go and watch the movie with a pre-disposition and turn any possible enjoyment into negative criticizm."
Somehow I doubt that:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/12/14/
(Warning: Language)
February 15, 2010 at 9:00 am
I was highly entertained by this movie, but I also was not sober. Perhaps that is the best way to come the closest to enjoying this film.
February 19, 2010 at 9:38 am
'To all the people that feel that they were gifted by God to give their opinions to the mases in hopes to be heard by the few.' a comment by one of the commentators on this review
chris has sure got it wrong there. what does he think the bloody movies are, not opinions fed to the masses as Mass? what power has a wee review got in comparison to the mindless brain activity imposed on the world by a hollywood blockbuster. chris should be doubting his own ability at criticism for the reasons he uses to go to the movies 'escapism'. surely movies are also about finding the human condition not only avoiding it. Sneider's review is good because it is funny/astute. dull movies aren't. if chris cant see this review is marvelous halarious, he is a dull dude. one does not get the view from Sneider's review that he is bolstering his own character, all he is doing is analysing characters from a film. its impartial but uses more than parts of the brain. which is all one can say for mash trash expletitive exploitative of our natures produced by producers why rely on a relay of shiny stars - like sweeties to the silly intended audience. such a movie as val day, sure shows that such stars are puppets moving on a pointless stage. it should help us degenerate their status a little bit. lower than worship. as if plot plod can be diverted with lots of familiar faces from la la land. if we fall for such movies we are the fools. if you ask me this rom com stuff is like communism. a fed to us religion regurgitation.