FUNNY ABOUT LOVE V2.0

Rating: 3/10 (23 April 2004)

HOW TO LOSE A GUY IN 10 DAYS threw out all credibility when it was revealed that Kate Hudson has a Masters from Columbia. Granted, suspension of disbelief is required throughout the movie's interminable two hour running time, but, please, Hudson looks and acts way too young to make this believable.
And the details of her job are both unethical and (to quote the script's recurring expletive) bullsh*t. It's common knowledge that Cosmo articles about men are routinely written by men and are therefore predicated on a lie. There's nothing stopping Kate from fudging the details in her piece or even making up the entire story. She could have simply written one thing and done another, sparing the viewer the string of clichés that the movie hangs from. We've seen other movies. We know they're gonna find each other out, and break up, and miss each other, and one is gonna move away and be pursued by the other, and they're gonna kiss and make up, and the credits will roll. Why the obvious takes so long to happen I don't know. Two hours of this creepy story? Agony.
This is billed as a comedy, but the motivations of these two dullards stretch beyond credulity. We're supposed to believe these two college-educated urbanites are so blind to the ways of the world that neither can intuit that something strange is going on between them. That their oh-so-shocked reactions when the jig is up don't reek of hypocrisy. That two high-profile New York companies encourage petty bets for the benefit of their bottom lines. That two yuppies-to-be are so cynical to go through with their bets but so idealistic to really fall in love after a week and a half of mind games. Whatever. Like the equally clueless and annoying couple in FUNNY ABOUT LOVE, perhaps these two dimwits belong together, if just to spare other New Yorkers their stunted mental capacities.
There's only one scene that works: The afternoon at Matthew's parent's home. No lies, or psychotic behavior, or general stupidity. (I could have done without the farting uncle, though.) The screenwriters should have dumped all the crap before and after this scene and constructed an interesting courtship between these two and simply allow their relationship to develop with some semblance of reality. Instead, we get dogs peeing on pool tables and a truly embarrassing singing duet with Marvin Hamlisch on piano. (I wonder how Carly Simon felt when she realized how bad "You're So Vain" was disgraced?)
So, we have one believable scene between the two stars, and a couple nice shots of Matt's waxed chest. And I enjoyed seeing Matt and Adam Goldberg together again after DAZED AND CONFUSED. And I'm pleased that Lieutenant Dangle from "Reno 911" is getting some big-screen work. But that's about it for the plusses.
Other things I questioned: How did a low-level Cosmo girl score tickets to the NBA finals? How does Matt get into Kate's office when she, in an earlier scene, had to swipe an ID card to enter the building? And a cab pulls over to a construction site? On a bridge? In the middle of the day? And there's not a huge traffic jam? And the cabbie is a native New Yorker? Who speaks clear English? And a NYC rep house is running SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE and MYSTIC PIZZA? Uh huh.
So we've got a movie with only a tenuous connection to any known reality, featuring characters who are supposed to be smart but display little intelligence, in a script with numerous scenes cribbed from countless other movies. And this latest example of Hollywood idiocy grossed over $100M. Go figure. Why? What American female can possibly relate to anything depicted in this movie? I believe that SECRETARY, despite its kinkiness, is an infinitely more honest, funny, and revealing portrait of the modern mating dance. Why audiences settle for such superficial chick flicks like this one, I don't understand.