I think anyone who has read my blog
may have come away with the sense that I don’t like movies focusing on matters
of the heart. That’s simply not
true. Some of my favorite movies are
completely relationship driven like (500) Days of Summer and When Harry Met Sally. I just don’t like poorly done
romance flicks. Unfortunately, there is
no shortage of those (thank you, Nicholas Sparks). So when I first saw the trailer for The Vow,
I quickly tried to change the channel because I knew my girlfriend would want
to see it. Sure, there was no way I
could enforce a month-long media blackout, but I had to try. So when the movie’s theatrical run had ended
without incident, I thought I was in the clear.
Thanks to the home entertainment market, I was wrong.
The Vow is based on the true story of
a woman (Paige) who suffers partial amnesia and forgets the portions of her life
that surround her marriage. The plot
follows her quest to rediscover herself, and her husband’s (Leo) crusade to
rekindle their relationship. It’s a
semi-interesting concept as amnesia is usually a good movie mechanism to build
a plot around, but it’s nothing overly groundbreaking.
So here’s the deal. The movie had a ton of problems. It could have been a more robust narrative
but director Michael Sucsy seems so intent on loading the movie with those
contrived scenes that are marked by diabetic-shock inducing dialogue that key plot turns are glossed over and obscured by cheap sentiment. It’s pandering at its worst. It doesn’t matter how the film gets from
point A to point B as long as you get those shots of Channing Tatum’s Leo
staring longingly at Rachel McAdam’s Paige.
That the two actors are incredibly miscast as a hipster recording guru
and a lawyer-turned-vegan-sculpture respectively thus takes a back seat to the lack
of real story telling.
The one thing the movie has going for
it is that the characters you are supposed to despise – Sam Neill as Paige’s
sleeze bag father and Scott Speedman as her ex-fiance – are incredibly easy to
loathe. Of the cast, these two seem to
best fit the roles for which they have been cast and in doing so, their
performances cast Tatum’s Leo in a favorable light. However, that’s where my plaudits for the
movie pretty much end. Most troubling
for the film is that McAdams’ Paige skews towards the annoying and is very
difficult to empathize with. This
prevents the movie from redeeming itself in the third act with a fresh coat of sentiment. Thus, things never really come together.
As for the rest of the cast, no one
really stands out. They are stock
characters moved around the screen like pawns on a proverbial chessboard to
facilitate the game. And while a pawn
can greatly affect the outcome of a match, none of the supporting players in
the film are up to the task of stealing the show.
I want to be fair here and say that
while I would never recommend this movie, I am sure that it works for some
people – those movie lovers who can find sentiment even in the weakest of
scripts despite mediocre acting and poor directing. For those viewers I say that you should
absolutely rent this movie on a lonely Saturday night when it’s raining and it’s
just you, your snuggie, and a warm cup of cocoa.
For everyone else, I recommend you take a pass. There are countless other movie titles out
there that will provide you with that sentimental fix. If it is more Channing Tatum you seek, then I
would suggest 21 Jump Street. And for
you Rachel McAdams fans, I suggest you go old school and treat yourself to a
viewing of Mean Girls.
Standout Performance: Sam Neil –
very few actors can successfully alternate between playing noble characters and complete
douche bags. Neil is one of those
actors.
