I liked (not loved) the movie. It really depends on what you're in the mood for. I watch a lot of serious movies and sometimes I like a nice, easy watch that will keep me entertained without being too dumb or cheesy. Some people are saying this is kinda dumb and cheesy but I didn't see it that way. I like the story it told and how they told it.
As for people complaining about the daydreaming as an excuse to add CGI and action, that's understandable, but how else are they going to show someone who daydreams about being more adventurous without CGI and action? You really can't display that part of the character without letting the audience in on what he's thinking about.
As for the product placement, it was there, but isn't that realistic? How many times a day do you talk about a big corporation, use a popular product, or go to a franchised food chain? They weren't jammed down your throat because they were a part of the story being told. He worked for a major magazine that was closing shop, he uses a popular online dating service, he used to work for Papa John's, he got food at an airport. Whether they use real corporations or fake ones, does it really matter? One part of the argument is that its a shameless way to get revenue and another argument is that its a part of real life. Since every (or vast majority) business plugged into the movie had a reason for being there, I wouldn't call it shameless. He used eHarmony to learn about Cheryl and to have it be known that he hadn't done anything adventurous his whole life. Life magazine was used to give a real life situation of a business having to change and added for the setting and occupation of the protagonist. Papa John's was used to tell the story of his childhood and relationship with his father. There was depth to using these names and places and stories and I really don't see anything wrong with that.
reply
share