Day Twelve of the Two-Week Torturefest
Ermahgerd. “One for the Money” was, like, totes awful.
Directed by: Julie Anne Robinson
Screenplay by: Liz Brixius and Stacy Sherman & Karen Ray and Karen McCullah Lutz
Based on: “One for the Money” by Janet Evanovich
Stephanie Plum: Katherine Heigl
Joe Morelli: Jason O’Mara
Ricardo “Ranger” Carlos Manoso: Daniel Sunjata
Jimmy Alpha: John Leguizamo
Lula: Sherri Shepherd
Grandma Mazur: Debbie Reynolds
Also Starring: Adam Paul, Ana Reeder, Annie Parisse, Danny Mastrogiorgio, Debra Monk, Fisher Stevens, Gavin-Keith Umeh, Leonardo Nam, Louis Mustillo, Nate Mooney, Patrick Fischler, Ryan Michelle Bathe
Distributed by Lionsgate on January 27, 2012. Produced in English by the United States. Runs 91 mins. Rated PG-13 by the MPAA–violence, sexual situations, mild language, infrequent drug use, infrequent/brief nudity.
One for the Money was watched on February 22, 2013.
“An obnoxious way to say ‘Oh, My God’ with strong emphasis on the R sounds. Typically followed by other words with emphasis on the R sounds.”
–definition of “ermahgerd” from urbandictionary.com
What I’ve felt…what I’ve known…never shined through in what I’ve shown. Never free…never me…so I dub thee unforgiven. Wait a moment, I’m done watching? It’s about time I can stop painfully choking out Metallica at the sight of Katherine Heigl in a post-lobotomy outfit.
I mean, ermahgerd. So the title sequence, ya know, it was, like, fab. Absolutelay fantabulous, if ya know what I’m sayin’, and kinda like a James Bond movie, right? But after that…(scoff)…ya know, this movie was just, ya know, crap! It sucked! Ya know what I’m sayin’?
I’ve always believed in a firm and rather direct correlation between the qualities of films and their respective characters. Let me give you an example. John Hurt is so memorable in The Elephant Man, yet all we really know about his character is that he’s constantly chastised for his malformations. It’s sad, but essentially, so is the common anti-joke about the little kid who dropped his ice cream because he got hit by a bus. In other words, it’s because of David’s Lynch’s direction, off an equally moving script, that the film manages to remain one of the saddest movies ever made.
Now let’s go to the opposite pole. Why not an Adam Sandler flick, perhaps Just Go with It? The movie is only watchable for its shallow sense of humor. The main character is a doctor looking for romance, and that’s about it. We hear and visualize his emotions as superficial thoughts (and aptly enough, they’re a bit illegible).
Notice that I’m reviewing a film called One for the Money. If you haven’t heard of it, I’d love to be living in your shoes, but unfortunately, I went as far as watching it. It sounds like someone with a speech impediment saying “run for the money,” and quite honestly, that’s the best I can grab from it, because otherwise it fails to make sense of itself. Wait, that one doesn’t even make sense either, because the movie failed to break even at the box office.
Ermahgerd. We’ve finally got smart moviegoers, and they were willing to give up a collective $36 million for somethin’ else.
My theory, again, is of a “firm and rather direct correlation between the qualities of films and their respective characters.” I think One for the Money rehashes a new term that the two leads in The Producers came oh-so-close to: “success from failure.” It succeeds in one area, which is disproving my theory, but that’s only because “quality” is an irrelevant term here.
If you look at the poster, you’d think this is “one of those stupid, predictable chick flicks,” and what have you. Stupid, indeed, but predictable, no. The plot is so insanely bipolar, it’s almost scary. How it will end is painfully unpredictable (not that anyone with a sense of decency would want to take a guess in the first place), let alone its next action. Stephanie Plum (Katherine Heigl) sits down at dinner one night. She’s failed, among several other things, to trust men ever since she filed for divorce, and she wouldn’t know how to resist an elongated, telenovela-esque, spit-swapping session, regardless if it’s with Bradley Cooper or Jeffrey Dahmer.
Ermahgerd. Just go with Bradley Cooper. For the love of God.
And now, Stephanie decides to tell her mother that she’s unemployed, and has been for six months. She realizes that she needs a job, so she becomes a bounty hunter. Guess who she hunts down? You may be thinking “her husband,” (who else would she truly want to kill?) but, you know, she isn’t thinking, at all. She decides to go after the “hot guy on the block” who wouldn’t commit to a relationship with they made out with each other as seventeen-year-olds at a drunken party.
Now this is supposed to be comedy, and it took five months, but I can suggest true comedy in a matter of five seconds. The woman clearly has no brain, and those unfortunate words are coming from a bleeding-heart feminist. I’d love to see her reflexes go to town with a good old-fashioned face-slapping. We all know it’s a huge movie cliché, so for just a single laugh, I wouldn’t mind bumping my thoughts up a full letter grade per that sudden gag.
Anyway, I digress. Stephanie goes after the one-night stand guy who, despite all the gallons of alcohol, she manages to remember. Realize that “goes after” can be noted with a double meaning. The question throughout the entire film is, Does she want to find him so she can bring him to justice, or so that she can make out with him? Somehow, the plot ends on one of the two (could you guess which one?), but the route to get there is abusively broken. And I’m sure that sometime within the first minute of our long-awaited credits experience, she changes her mind completely and goes with her other option. We just aren’t told, and we shouldn’t have been told any of it.
Ermahgerd. I’d rather take a bath in propane surrounded by a buncha tiki torches, ya know?
Alone in the Dark – Uwe Boll, finally!
This review was brought to you by…