~~~~~

The Pillow Talk genre starring Doris Day and Rock Hudson (or Cary Grant, James Garner, or whichever leading man fit the bill) was a showcase for darling fashion and snappy dialogue full of innocent, and not-so-innocent, double-entendres and mistaken identity. It was a given that, in the end and after all the convoluted plots were straightened out, the leads would admit their love and live happily ever after. There were also best friends who were drawn into the drama, often with their own secondary plot. With an upbeat and prescient score, it was a light-hearted romp for the audience. The genre fell to the wayside and now, for some reason, it's been revived in its orignal form with mediocre results.

WARNING: Men, stay away from this for your own good. Ladies, don't be cruel. You let him skip Maid in Manhattan. Let him avoid Down With Love altogether.

Two Scoops (a lovely resource, check it out) gave me free passes. I don't think they do this preview thing much... It started 30 minutes late and the concession counter was understaffed. (1 person to feed 500 hungry women? They ran out of cups. CUPS!) However, in the spirit of a free movie, I kept an open mind and kept eating my mints. (Who knew a tin of sugar-free mints could constitute dinner? Me neither.) So, I present to you: why I didn't like this little film.

David Hyde Pierce is, by far, on of my favorite actors. He does physical comedy with a light touch and is able to play the neurotic straight man with depth and subtlety. He stole all his scenes as the boss/best friend of lead Ewan McGregor, and I cheered him on. I spent most of the movie trying to place Renee Zellweger's best friend/editor in the film, and finally learned that it's Elisa from Jack & Jill. All four have fun with the snappy, tongue-twisting dialogue (now I know where Aaron Sorkin got his inspiration) and the material is classic 'battle of the sexes'. My only problem (seriously, folks) is with the director and editor. There's a difference between the wink-nudge of a double-entendre double-take and the 'hey, wait a minute...did that mean ::gasp::???' It's about 1.2 seconds, and the choice was to leave in every one of those extra 1.2 seconds. (We get it. We're an intelligent audience.) This made the movie more like a parody when it was trying to be fun. The material wasn't broad enough to be parody nor tight enough to be a homage. A few scenes were too Austin Powers for me as well. Remember in the first movie when they're using props to both hide and accent the nudity of Vanessa and Austin? Yeah, that's here too. It's just a sad, tired joke.

At the same time, the costumes and sets were sheer fun. The early 60s were full of color and the clash of new- and old-world establishments. Matching outfits, huge hats and dainty gloves were surrounded by the Modern furniture that was all the rage. The swingin' bachelor pad... entirely too much fun. As they say, "it only takes 10 minutes" for the room to work its magic. Hee!

All in all, too slow, too plodding, too methodical, too much like an ill-conceived ploy to revive the original romantic comedy. Judging by the offerings of the past few months, I think it's alive and kicking.

~~~~~