|
Forwardcharm |
 |
Latest News 30 / 08 / 2010 29 / 08 / 2010 22 / 08 / 2010 01 / 08 / 2010 01 / 08 / 2010 25 / 07 / 2010 11 / 07 / 2010 11 / 07 / 2010 27 / 06 / 2010 13 / 06 / 2010 30 / 05 / 2010 30 / 05 / 2010 16 / 05 / 2010 16 / 05 / 2010 10 / 05 / 2010 10 / 05 / 2010 19 / 04 / 2010 18 / 04 / 2010 06 / 04 / 2010 05 / 04 / 2010 03 / 04 / 2010 29 / 03 / 2010 14 / 03 / 2010 09 / 03 / 2010 08 / 03 / 2010 17 / 02 / 2010 16 / 02 / 2010 31 / 01 / 2010 25 / 10 / 2009 02 / 08 / 2009 18 / 08 / 2005 |
How to Lose Friends and Alienate People
I'm in two minds about How to Lose Friends and Alienate People. And I have enough trouble with just one mind.
How to Lose Friends and Alienate People is quite amusing, but fails to capitalise on a great cast. If it had been billed as a romantic comedy, my expectations wouldn't have been dashed and it would've got a 4 instead of a 3 - fortunately you lucky people are now fore-armed. I enjoyed this film: I think the average moviegoer will enjoy it: Testosterone Satisfaction Rating: - one rather fake pair of plastics. To enjoy this film: expect a romantic comedy.
|
||
Your commentsThe comments printed here are not necessarily the views of Forwardcharm!
Go see this film, it’s very funny, in fact, take your girlfriend/boyfriend/partner with you.
| ||
Simon Pegg has to be our finest export in ages. Now he's landed the role of Scotty in the new Star Trek movie,
it's crunch time. He's broken Hollywood, will Hollywood break him? On the strength of this movie,
not likely - he's easily the best thing in it. Pegg plays Sidney Young, based on real-life celebrity journalist Toby
Young, who wrote a book about his life. And blatantly lied through his teeth. I'm OK with artistic licence, but clearly
none of this actually happened, it's a cliched rom-com script that Hugh Grant wouldn't have been out of place in.
I read somewhere that it's like 
In the interviews leading up to the release of this movie, when asked about the real Toby Young, everyone seems to be
trying very hard to avoid calling him a twat - it seems everyone hates him. He was even kicked off the set of the movie
for interfering with the director too much. So it leaves a rather strange taste in my mouth to have him portrayed like
this - a clumsy but selfless and likeable chap who happens to be very good at celebrity journalism but doesn't fit into
the glamorous lifestyle. Which piece of the puzzle is wrong? I'm not sure, but I think the movie would've been better
if it had broken away completely and come clean about its fictitious roots. Who knows, maybe that would've persuaded
Kirsten Dunst to deliver a better romantic lead than the uncharacteristically flat effort she manages here.
