10/21 OSCARWEB ROUND-UP: Praise for ‘Love & Other Drugs,’ sussing out Best Actress, quotable ‘Social Network’

Posted by · 8:44 am · October 21st, 2010

Jeffrey Wells calls “Love & Other Drugs” Edward Zwick’s best film yet. [Hollywood Elsewhere]

Peter Knegt assesses the Gotham Award nominations. [indieWIRE]

Nathaniel Rogers hearts Sam Rockwell in “Conviction.” [Tribeca Film]

Sasha Stone writes up the lead actress category. [Awards Daily]

Ditto Tom O’Neil. [Gold Derby]

Michael Cieply writes a requiem for great movie lines, with quotes from Fox honcho Tom Rothman and screenwriter Eric Roth. [New York Times]

Amos Barshad answers back with the quotable “Social Network.”  What, no love for “If you’re a trout?” [Vulture]

[Photo: 20th Century Fox]




→ 17 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , | Filed in: Daily

17 responses so far

  • 1 10-21-2010 at 9:00 am

    Hal said...

    I was at the same screening as Wells. After reading his review, I’m quite sure he must have been high through the whole movie. Or we saw completely different ones.

  • 2 10-21-2010 at 10:09 am

    Drew said...

    I think we really should’ve expected this from Wells no matter what.

  • 3 10-21-2010 at 10:11 am

    Matthew Starr said...

    As I posted on his entry I agree. I found it funny and entertaining and Anne is very good but it is no where near as great as Jeff is going on about.

    It has some major flaws like annoying musical cues and unnecessary scenes (the party that Jake and his brother attend). Zwick had some issues mixing comedy and drama where as someone like Jason Reitman makes it look easy.

  • 4 10-21-2010 at 10:30 am

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    Wells is also thinking with Little Jeff more and more these days, I’m noticing.

  • 5 10-21-2010 at 10:53 am

    Pete said...

    Though he is not exactly known for this kind of material, Zwick actuallt got his start as a director with “About Last Night” (adapting David Mamet’s “Sexual Perversity in Chicago” no less!) so he is not an absolute stranger to this sort of material. I will wait till I see the film for myself before I take occusations of unnecessary scenes seriously (that’s not meant to be a jab and, to be fair, I don’t care for Wells’ opinion at all) and will remain optimistic for now.

    I will say this though. For my money, Zwick is one of few truly unsung directors in Hollywood. The man has made a lot of very good movies, and done so consistently, and if there was any justice his name alone would sell tickets. Not that Ijust blindly assume that Love & Other Drugs is sheer greatness I just think his movie has every reason to be good.

  • 6 10-21-2010 at 10:54 am

    Suzanne said...

    I agree with what everyone else has said–Wells is off his rocker on this one.

    Matthew’s point that Zwick can’t seem to find the balance between comedy and drama is dead on. The film is just too slapstick funny in some places, and it makes the Parkinson’s stuff seem like a buzz-kill.

  • 7 10-21-2010 at 10:58 am

    JJ1 said...

    I have my early doubts about Zwicks ‘Love & Other Drugs’ (not of Anne or Jake, but the movie).

    That said, ‘Glory’, ‘Last Samurai’, ‘Blood Diamond’, ‘Defiance’ … I either really liked or outright loved all of those.

  • 8 10-21-2010 at 11:08 am

    Pete said...

    One more thing – regarding the so-called lack of balance:

    Ever since I saw the trailer for the film I cannot help but think that this lack of balance Matthew and Suzanne is intentional and is a stylistic choice. So unlike Reitman’s smooth but bland blend of comedy and pointed but shallow drama, Zwick is going for something more… tumulltous and lifelike. That’s actually the main reason why I am so excited for the movie.

  • 9 10-21-2010 at 11:24 am

    Suzanne said...

    Pete,

    Just because there are periods of both extreme comedy and drama in real life does not mean that this film is realistic.

    To explain the greatest flaw in the film would require me to spoil it, so I won’t. But there are great leaps made by the end of the film that are not earned through character development.

    The dialogue is an absolute mess (“This is Kai, she’s Thai, and I’m Thai-curious,” to give you an example).

    Worst of all, though, is really this issue of tone, which you really have to see for yourself to understand. So, I’ll leave it at that.

  • 10 10-21-2010 at 11:48 am

    Pete said...

    Susanne, of course it feels silly for me to argue for a movie that I haven’t seen. I sort of was falling on my previous movie experiences where there were instances when I felt that people have unfairly assaulted a movie’s tone when it was actually one of said films strengths. It actually happens a lot so the point I was just trying to give the movie a benefit of the doubt. Things like balance and tone are difficult to judge and many times people get them wrong. (I really don’t know how to say this without sounding like an egomaniac – and I am not really addressing anyone specifically here).

    I am not saying that this is the case here for you may be 100% said right. As you have said, I really need to see it to make a judgement call.

    And, of course, a mix of drama/comedy/randomness does not guarantee realism (a word I purposefully avoided). Nor is it always needed. So I’ll just stop here and wait for until after I see the film.

  • 11 10-21-2010 at 12:02 pm

    Matthew Starr said...

    If you consider Reitman’s blend of comedy and drama to be bland then we probably just have vastly different tastes in film to begin with.

    And I am with Suzanne on the dialog although it’s not all bad. Some of it is smart and funny. The scene Suzanne mentions is just a fail overall. The movie would be better by removing it entirely.

  • 12 10-21-2010 at 12:29 pm

    sp said...

    I truly enjoy film criticism, but I just don’t understand the need or the purpose to attack someone’s character, intelligence ( or integrity) because you don’t agree with an individual’s film review. It okay to have disagreements, but this going overboard. For example, I don’t understand why Roger Ebert adores “Secretariat”. He gave it a four star review and Rottentomatoes scored it at 67%. But, I’m not going to knock him or the other reviewers . Personally, I happen to admire Jeff Wells’ taste in films, even though I don’t agree with all his reviews.

  • 13 10-21-2010 at 12:31 pm

    Michael said...

    I really want to know what Eric Kohn and Guy Lodge think about Love and Other Drugs. It is so funny that Jeff Wells seems to have it out for them in some way.

  • 14 10-21-2010 at 12:37 pm

    Matthew Starr said...

    SP,

    Jeff Wells knocks other people and their reviews all the time. Just read this review of Love and Other Drugs and you will see he knocks Guy and Eric Kohn who have not even reviewed the movie yet!!

    So people have every right to knock him and his reviews. Fair game.

  • 15 10-21-2010 at 2:08 pm

    Harmonica said...

    The thing about Wells is, he seems to choose which movies he is going to enjoy BEFORE even watching them. He’s been saying good things about Love and the Other Drugs for a long time now. Whenever he hears from “sources he trust” that some movie is good, he is sure to jump on that bandwagon soon enough. This is something that really bothers me and I have lost almost all respect for him, regarding his movie judgement.

  • 16 10-21-2010 at 2:26 pm

    Tammy said...

    I don’t understand his trashing of The Town, which to me was VERY well done and a deserved hit. I was very impressed with how well directed it was but Wells hated it because…?

  • 17 10-22-2010 at 6:51 am

    Pete said...

    Forget film critics, as far as people go, Wells is a lunatic. Even on the internet, where people try to build profiles based on how much they hate stuff, he is an anomoly. I’ve read the guy for years (on and off, for there is only so much I can take and now I am tired of giving him benefit of the doubt). He routinely and constantly writes things that are uncalled for, out of context and just plain cruel. That is too say that he has written things about people he personally doesn’t know or doesn’t know well that are simply imposible to defend. Too often he writes things, to indulge himself or his ego and too often his ego and absolutely unexplianable biases/phobias get in the way of his judgement. And there is no consitensy either. Things that Wells gives a pass versus things that he hates (and if he hates something he will bring it up again and again to fight/defame/damage it) are based mainly on whether something is on his good list or a bad list.

    In that sense, Wells is kind of like Armond White. Except that White, warts and all, seems less of an insecure jerk (at least not on a deeply personal level) and that White, occassionally makes really good points. There are times when White took a stand about something that was so popular he was the only voice heard and was still at least partially right. I have never seen/read Wells be a sole contrarian. Even if he goes against the grain, there is always someone else there to back him up. Not that White does not at least partially deserve his reputation either. But I’d be lying if I said that I didn’t care about his opinion about 50 times as much as I would care for Wells’s.

    Sorry for the length of this rant.