Four Unsettling Implications Behind Last Year’s Romantic Comedies
3) New Year’s Eve – Newborn babies are harvested like cash crops
God, I truly hate myself for coming up with this pitch, because this movie blows worse than that zombie guy from Hocus Pocus.
…until he got those mouth stitches out, that is.
We get introduced to roughly 26 different plot points within the first 5 minutes of NYE, and one of them involves two separate couples at a NYC hospital. The chicks in these couples are super pregnant, and apparently the hospital they’re pooping their babies out at hands out $25,000 to the first baby of the new year.
I had to do a little Googling but holy shit, IT TURNS OUT THIS IS A THING. And that’s fine—kind of cool, actually (I’ll be sure to plan accordingly now when planting my “demon seed,” as my grandmother calls it). But here’s what I find depressing:
During our introduction to this first couple (Seth Meyers and Jessica Biel), we sure don’t know much about them except that Jessica Biel’s way hotter in London. They look like a normal, mentally stable pair, so we assume that’s the case until another (rival?) couple mentions $25,000 is on the line. In a matter of seconds that Biel baby is reduced to a meal ticket; Meyers sums it up pretty well with the line “This could pay off my student loan!” as they scurry off to induce labor.
“Try me, bitch. I will ABORT this thing if it boosts my husband’s credit score.”
Yeah, yeah, Meyers and Biel fork their winnings over to the other couple after discovering how much more they need it, but seriously? Was that supposed to give me warm fuzzies? Because I feel like that competition shouldn’t have happened in the first place.
4) Just Go With It – Devlin has a consequence-free future of gold-digging ahead of her
Ah, how I miss the old Adam Sandler. Oh well. In this…cinematic delight, Sandler plays a charmless sexual predator who gets caught up in a web of ridiculous lies to ensnare some woman who isn’t Jennifer Aniston. His ex-wife (Nicole Kidman) happens to be around for much of this affair with her new husband (Dav—what…? Dave Matthews?), who supposedly invented the iPod.
Near the end of the movie, Nicole and Jen have a heart-to-heart where it’s revealed that not only didn’t Matthews’ character invent the iPod (he somehow hit pay dirt by suing the Los Angeles Dodgers after getting hit by a foul ball), but he’s also gay. I assume this was a painfully obvious joke throughout the whole movie, but you can bet your ass I didn’t watch the whole thing.
When Kidman’s character confesses all this to Aniston’s, however, she can barely contain her laughter.
“…but when I found out about that sweet Dodgers settlement, I just went with it, baby!”
As Kidman leaves to give Sandler and Aniston some alone time, she flippantly mentions she’s off to get a divorce. Yep, she’s a stereotypical gold-digger, and she’s laughing all the way to the bank. Hardy har har, indeed. If this is old hat for Devlin (which seems likely), I already feel bad for the poor sap she seduces next. Or at least I would if this alternate universe had any likable characters in it.
—
Oof, I hope you enjoyed my bantering, because I haven’t been this depressed since I last saw a commercial for 16 and Pregnant. But please, do me a favor and inundate the comments section with unrelenting negativity; I don’t want to fact-check an article like this ever again.
If this was Paul, I’d have forgiven it, because Paul was a guy doing a blogg about whatever he was into at the time. If Paul went through a “torturing myself with bland romantic comedies” phase, I’d expect this. But, as a guest column?
I don’t get it.
This Column
1. It starts off with a “bottom line up front” summation of intent followed by what I suppose is meant to be some level of self-promotion, in an offhand reference to an improv group the author of the piece allegedly belongs to, but it quickly turns into an aimless, listless retelling of random plot points from films of questionable entertainment value. By the end, the reader (and the author) seem to have completely lost the bubble on any sense of purpose, and the piece falls just short of self-parody as it, itself, becomes a portent of doom… is this what “unreality” has become; a dumping ground for uninspired stream of consciousness bloggers to unenthusiastically deride their poor entertainment choices?
Agree with the first poster. Pointless and uninteresting…
It was worth it just for the first comment.
Go Steve.
@paul and the rest of you @purdman @andy I think you guys are missing the point of the article. And its’ likely cause you are males. In fact I would go as far to venture that you are all very likely single and have been for quite sometime and will continue to be. I enjoyed TJ’s article and unlike most of you I actually enjoyed those movies quite a bit as well. I’m guess TJ is not single. I think men could stand to gain from taking some intellectual view points and assertions to chick flicks like him.
It’s good to see that we aren’t above personal attacks.
Ugh, double post. (I wish there was a way to edit posts)
Also, I fail to see how a lack of interest in an article about some bland romantic comedies that Hollywood cranked out for a paycheck is, somehow, an indication of one’s relationship status.
@Lisa: Celebrating my 10 year anniversary next Thursday; sorry you like bad movies and bland articles. Your life-mate is a very lucky [INSERT GENDER] to have such a [ADJECTIVE] [NOUN].
To think, I started that comment because I felt bad no one responded to TJ after he asked for negative feedback…