There are many critics who like to feign anger or moral outrage towards a movie. That’s purely an emotional reaction and not an intellectual one; the truth is that very few films are worthy of any sort of ire, it’s just a terrific way to get attention by piling on the derogatory snark. Exceptions do occur, especially when our particular profession is used or detailed incorrectly. Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper complained about the way that TV news journalists were presented in Life or Something Like It and Money Talks (though the latter was during the Siskel era). They’re not wrong, from the standpoint of reality, which both films somewhat purport to represent, the inaccuracy is sort of staggering, especially Charlie Sheen’s reporter in Money Talks, who is so incompetent and unprepared, constantly editorializing on the fly, that he never would have been hired in the first place. But both films, a romantic comedy and an action comedy, respectively, are pretty innocuous, and their forgettable mediocrity transcends any obvious details they got wrong.*
Then why did Nanette Burstein’s Going the Distance infuriate me so much?
It’s an innocuous romantic comedy starring Drew Barrymore and Justin Long trying to sustain a long distance relationship. Their characters don’t have much personality, the cast made up of comedians and reliable lowbrow comedy veterans like Christina Applegate, Jim Gaffigan, Jason Sudekis, Rob Riggle, Ron Livingston, etc., and the jokes are a mix of bumping-into-things slapstick and dirty versions of sitcom lines. Justin Long’s friends Charlie Day and Jason Sudekis have no lives of their own, they live vicariously through Long’s relationships, never discussing anything else.** Their scenes are just padding between those featuring Barrymore and Long getting to know each other through their mutual love of the classic arcade game Centipede and copious musical montages (the only bit of dialogue that isn‘t meant ironically? “Boy, the time went by so fast”). Of course montages in a romantic comedy are both an easy way to show the passing of time and more importantly, avoiding writing clever dialogue.
And to suggest that Long and Barrymore’s characters would say anything remotely clever is wishful thinking, their entire relationship is based on contrivances (and the fact that the opening scene has Long being dumped by his girlfriend because he didn’t know that when she said she didn’t want a birthday present, she didn’t really mean it, wasn’t this an old joke in the 1960s?). He’s a flunkie for a record company and she’s a too-old-and-aware-of-it intern for a NYC tabloid paper. She has only six weeks with Long before she has to return to San Francisco and her graduate degree.
We think that the collapse of the newspaper and record industries will be a backdrop, but in fact it turns out to be the entire false crisis with which this relationship is threatened. Barrymore wants badly to write for a NY paper and Long loves NY and wants to stay, even if he hates his job. Why it matters what major city she writes in is never dealt with, unless it’s the idea of a NY aura, and he certainly can do his job in San Francisco or LA or since he’s so unhappy, he can switch careers. Of course, if he did, not only would there be no movie, there’d be no excuse for the hipster musical posters that litter his bedroom. Bedroom is a bit of a stretch he’s so financially strapped he has to live in the living room of a one bedroom apartment with Charlie Day, with walls so thin they can hear each other thinking.
Despite the optimum living arrangements, Long’s not willing to wait tables like Barrymore is, so she’s offered the obvious option of giving up her dream so he can baby-sit the boy bands he loathes. But the fact is, even with the constant exterior landmark stock footage of NYC, nothing in the movie itself is tied to NY. The film is entirely studio-set bound or street footage shot so tightly that we can’t see what’s surrounding the characters. In other words, if Going the Distance had been shot in Canada, you wouldn’t notice anything different (it probably was). Of course, if the characters were to acknowledge their Canadian homes, again, there’d be no movie. Can you imagine this life-altering argument?
Barrymore: “I really want to be a reporter, especially in Toronto. But I have job opportunities in Vancouver, in the same, financially doomed industry.”
Long: “You should come live in Toronto, even if there is no work here. And besides, I have my low-paying job and my tiny apartment that I pay too much rent for, not to mention my intrusive roommate. They do not have such things in Vancouver.”
And yes, I’m aware that I haven’t addressed why Going the Distance made me as angry as any movie I’ve seen since Napoleon Dynamite. But in a way, with the above issues, I have, because a movie is made up of details, and this movie gets all the details distractingly wrong, to the point where things you should let go, become eyesores. For instance:
- While living in NY, Barrymore is very poor, so she buys a hot dog from a vendor. When Long calls her and invites her to dinner (for their second date), she immediately throws out the hot dog that she’s already paid for.
- Barrymore is said to be 31 years old, but since this movie is shot in splotchy-vision, where everything is various shades of gold, purple, and brown and all the actors look tired, have raccoon makeup***, and a weird combination of flushed and pale faces, her age is not the least bit believable.
- Sudekis and Day drag along Long to a 30th high school reunion, on the theory that Sudekis’ porno mustache will help him land the woman in her late 40s-early 50s who he desires for his sex-bucket list. The reunion, for some reason taking place at a bar open to the public (there are at least 40 people from the reunion there), and one of the women who hits on Sudekis tells him that he doesn’t look old enough to have been in her high school class. Day, who has added a Hitler mustache and outfit as his way of appealing to older folks (he claims it’s a Chaplin approximation), notices that people aren’t appreciating his appearance; especially the Jews in the corner. Then Burstein cuts to the corner of the bar, and it’s two ancient rabbis in full orthodox regalia. Of course they’d be offended, but why are they there in the first place?
- Barrymore and Long have phone sex, but these techno-junkies are using landlines instead of their cell phones, and the phones are proving annoying because they have to hold them. Wouldn’t these supposedly with-it people be using a hands-free technology like Bluetooth?
Every joke in Going the Distance is like that, negating itself before it’s even finished being told.
Barrymore is drunkenly ejected from a bar, and one of her insults towards the bruiser who took offense to her comments is that he’s probably “a Michael Bay fan.” Perfectly acceptable, except that it’s previously been established how much Long loves Top Gun, which was produced by Simpson/Bruckheimer, who also produced all the early Michael Bay films, and are certainly responsible for developing his style. Top Gun is an obvious immediate predecessor to and influence on The Rock, Bad Boys, and Armageddon.
Even the disposable small things are off; Barrymore repeatedly enters Long’s apartment without his knowledge. One time, she just opens the door (no one in New York leaves their apartment door unlocked). Another time she has a key. Do a lot of people who you’ve never lived with and have a very-long distance relationship with for a few months have a key to your apartment? Barrymore lives with Applegate (her sister, who for some reason is married to the oblivious Gaffigan, who is portrayed as not-too-bright) in San Francisco. In one scene, Barrymore and Long come back to the house very drunk (who drove?****) and late at night, begin to make out. The electronic house alarm is the only other thing visible in the shot (this happens at two different times in the film). And Barrymore pays no attention to it and it never seems to go off or alert authorities.
The worst moments have Barrymore debating whether or not to take a job offer she has at the San Francisco Chronicle (the only real paper named; perhaps they want to seem like they’re always hiring?). If this movie were made in 1997*****, which is what it often feels like (especially the phone sex scene), perhaps that would make sense. But in 2010, it just feels lazy and an insult to our intelligence. In reality today, she’d be thrilled to take the job, let alone if offered a living wage. And Long, if he weren’t an idiot, would be just as happy.
Print journalism is deemed dying, but Barrymore’s boss at the NY tabloid has time to hold the hands of her and three other interns, correcting and marking up their articles that he never has any intention of running. And then he tells her if she wants to write, perhaps she should take up blogging as a journalist, as if it’s meant to be a demeaning and derisive comment******? Isn’t blogging the easiest way, at this point, to get your writing and message out to the public?
Long complains that his record label will never sign this cool indie band that he loves. But if the movie were made now, the record label wouldn’t even be part of the issue. The band would be on MySpace and YouTube putting up music and videos, getting Facebook fan pages, and selling their MP3s through their website, without having to worry about what a record company thinks.
In a way, Going the Distance is a lot like Harold Ramis’ Year One, which was another ineffectual disaster of a comedy featuring usually funny comedians in a myriad of roles but destroyed by a script that felt like it was written 40 years ago. Year One was punched up with poop and masturbation jokes. In Going the Distance, one of the few concessions to contemporary culture is a sequence where Long tries to get an artificial tan and the machine squirts him in the eyes (he deliberately eschews the goggles, because, it would be funnier if he got spray tanner in the eye?). He flails around, of course missing the more sensitive areas, resulting in a handprint on his butt (a print that would be physically impossible if he did it to himself, unless as part of his brain removal he also got rid of his ribs and backbones), that’s revealed at the most inopportune moment. All of Going the Distance is like that, charging you money for a sloppily applied spray tanner that squirts you in the eye.
* Considering it is likely that most of the cast and crew had worked in television at some point, it’s pretty embarrassing that no one would mention any logical flaws.
** Any heterosexual male with a group of friends could tell you that guys rarely, if ever, go into even the most superficial details about their burgeoning and/or ongoing relationships.
*** Minor characters, such as Kristin Schaal and Kelli Garner, who normally have their own interesting and attractive look, are debased with the sloppily applied eye makeup.
**** There’s a strange thing with driving in this movie. Long can’t afford his own apartment, but for some reason owns a car. [But he can afford occasional flights to California to visit Barrymore] First, he wouldn’t be able to afford car insurance in NYC -- let alone parking. And second, why wouldn’t he be all over public transportation, which even the billionaire mayor partakes in? The public transportation system in NYC is one of the best in the world; affordable, convenient and certainly faster than driving (especially to the airport, a common scene in this film). Then again, these characters are deliberately stupid.
***** Despite IMDB claiming that the movie was shot last summer, the whole thing has a moldy late ’90s Miramax feel (like Jordan Brady’s The Third Wheel). In fact, it’s one of the last films produced by New Line before it was swallowed up and dismantled by Warner Brothers. Perhaps this was a contractually obligated release mandated by Barrymore’s contract, much like last year’s The Marc Pease Experience with Ben Stiller?
****** This is not a defense mechanism kicking in for me; while my writing appears on the internet, it also appears in three print newspapers.
If you want to read more of Adam's reviews, you can find them at his site, A Regrettable Moment of Sincerity.
Adam enjoys hatemail, so please feel free to send it to him at adam@regrettablesincerity.com.
All of Adam's reviews on this site can be read here.
Or you can go to Rotten Tomatoes and mock him in the comments section of his reviews.
Comments
Why would you say the the movie "infuriated" you, only to immediately thereafter refer to it as "innocuous"?
Innocuous: (adjective) not likely to irritate or offend
Lots of SUPER nit-picky stuff here.... One of many examples-- the Michael Bay line. I mean, really? Drew's character is drunk off her ass when she says it. It's hard to imagine her being sensitive to the Simpson/Bruckheimer family in that moment. And just because Justin's character likes Top Gun, doesn't mean SHE can't hate Michael Bay.
I think you've read WAY too far into this film. Wasn't a great movie, to be sure... but not NEARLY as awful as you've microscopically portrayed it to be.
When are they going to stop trying to remake, "When Harry Met Sally" and failing?
"In one scene, Barrymore and Long come back to the house very drunk (who drove?****)"
Earlier in the film, when Erin (Drew) is drunk and with her co-worker, she simply walks off and heads home, not hailing a cab or anything. It's quite possible that the bar is walking distance to her sister's house. No driving needed.
You've pointed out even more items than my boyfriend and I noticed. We are, in fact, in a long distance relationship. And I was, in fact, a former rookie reporter making scraps rights out of J-school. And while I'm not a chat-during-the-movie gal, I kept saying, "That's stupid. That is so stupid," almost once every scene. While larger concepts were stupid -- as you mentioned, getting a reporting job right out of J-school at the San Franscisco Chronicle WITH NO CLIPS in her portfolio would be so mind-blowingly amazing for a 31-year-old intern with a supposed "passion" for a dying industry, that, at a minimum, she would take the job to develop a portfolio of clips at a major newspaper, so she could transfer to another major newspaper (rather than wait tables as an alternative to taking a dream job). I also had problems with small things that are obvious to people in long distance relationships -- these two fly Southwest, so do I. It's cheap, and convenient. But in one scene, Long walks away from the ticket desk complaining about the seat he was assigned. Southwest doesn't assign seating. For Southwest fliers, this is a very particular detail. And finally, I just had problems with things offensive to anyone aware of anything real. Even the most sexually charged couple would not storm into someone else's house, where people are sleeping, including a child, banging into things, definitely waking people up, get butt ass naked to boisterously bang on the dining room table, and then act surprised when they are discovered. I didn't even notice the security alarm, thank you. Even more offensive to my senses. And the phone sex scene -- don't get me stahted! The boyfriend and I spent a solid five minutes discussing that one. Don't even get me stahted! Alright, enough. In conclusion, I will say that Charlie Day showed great showmanship, doing his best with the script he was given. He's the reason I went to see the film, and he's the reason it wasn't a complete waste. He is screen magic, completely delightful (there is not much anyone could have done with that Charlie Chapman/Jew sequence).
I think you'd enjoy my interview with the writer of Going the Distance. I asked about each and every point I made in the review and a few more. You can listen to it here: http://www.regrettablesincerity.com/?p=5797
Exactly why you are in this type of relationship, you can't see the truth.
He doesn't want to commit you know what you want is to be with him and you're gonna F*** it up!
Wow, this world is really gone and we are doomed!
I think you're angry about something but I don't think it's this movie. Also, calling this the "worst worst movie" neglects to consider the mass number of incredibly terrible films that no doubt leave this movie looking like a TIFF contender. This review reads like a long rambling whine/complain.. I haven't even seen this movie but wanted to try and get an idea of whether or not it was worth watching. All this review suggests is that you have a lot of time on your hands and should have perhaps walked out of this "worst worst movie" - I know I don't stay when the film is as bad as you suggest.
I did leave the theater for a moment, but since it was a press screening and I knew I would have to write a review, I stayed to finish it. A few days after the screening (I wrote the review directly after seeing the film on August 10th), I read the screenplay that got the movie made, and it's a totally different, funnier, darker movie. I interviewed the credited writer about his script and the re-writes, some of which he was involved in, some not.You can listen to it here: http://www.regrettablesincerity.com/?p=5797
EXACTLY!
I laughed so hand my stomach hurt! I agree a lot was not accurate but the movie was funny. I agree someone was upset about something else!
I laughed so hand my stomach hurt! I agree a lot was not accurate but the movie was funny. I agree someone was upset about something else!
I really enjoyed this movie. I read your entire review, and I'm afraid none of your criticisms resonated with me. Not only was Erin and Garrett's relationship real and believable to me, the movie was funny, too -- there was lots of laughter in the theater when I saw it. The dining room table scene elicited so much laughter, in fact, that we couldn't hear the next several lines of dialog, it was so loud.
I'm guessing, from your review, that you're not a big fan of the romantic comedy genre. But don't forget, people who are considering going to this movie, do like romantic comedies. This one was better than most.
funny you mention "detail" as being so important... yet you wrote "correcting and marking up their articles that he never has any attention of running" - i think you meant "intention", not "attention." Perhaps you should pay attention to detail.
Oh my, you have proved me wrong. My review is rendered meaningless because of a typo amidst a 2100 word review!
Dude, so you enjoyed Vampire's suck more than this film?
I was forced to go see this, but didn't want to gouge my eyes out after it was over. I had no idea what this movie was about, but after 10 minutes, I knew how it was going to end. It's very predictable, but what chick-flick isn't? I almost laughed when Barrymore said she was 31. I think she's hot, but can't pull off 31 years old.
Regardless, this isn't the worst film of the year. It's just a typical chick flick with cruder jokes.
Vampires Suck wasn't screened for critics, so I haven't seen it. I'm sure it's a masterpiece, like the other Friedberg/Seltzer films.
This is the worst worst movie review I have ever read. I often find movie critiques to be pretentious and cynical, but I can usually see the writer’s point. Did you even watch this movie or did you spend your time scouring it for every detail that maybe, might not (in your opinion) be plausible? Not everyone keeps their security alarms set 24/7. I am curious to hear what makes you the expert on what a character or real life person would do in the situations presented in this movie. Your assumption that everyone would give up the person of their dreams for a job of their dreams is just that -- an assumption. There are plenty of individuals out there who choose love over their career. As someone who has faced the difficult market in journalism, I can tell you that I would not settle for writing a blog in replacement of print journalism. While it's expected for a critic to find fault in aspects of a film that ordinary viewers wouldn't mind, your review is just plain nitpicky and nearly every point you make can be argued against.
Your response to the comment below further proves the person’s argument. You can discredit a movie based on a few moments in its 109 minutes, but you obviously cannot do any better in your own review, can you? Oh my, this movie is rendered meaningless because Drew Barrymore threw away her $3.00 hotdog!
funny you mention "detail" as being so important... yet you wrote "correcting and marking up their articles that he never has any attention of running" - i think you meant "intention", not "attention." Perhaps you should pay attention to detail.
Adam Lippe
11 hours ago Oh my, you have proved me wrong. My review is rendered meaningless because of a typo amidst a 2100 word review!
Your "review" comes off as though you'd already decided, for whatever reason, that you were going to hate this movie before you even watched it.
Your list of perceived flaws aren't actually a substitute for an objective review.
Nice try though.
The screening was early enough in the marketing process to the point where I had seen no footage from the film (critics tend not to see trailers at press screenings, so we occasionally come in completely in the dark, I certainly did with Red), so I had no preconceived notions about what the film would be other than that it was a romantic comedy.
I do appreciate you reading my review though Justin, and while I obviously didn't enjoy this film, I thought you gave a very amusing performance in Drag Me to Hell, underplaying perfectly [my review is here: http://www.regrettablesincerity.com/?p=3199]. I also enjoyed After.Life, because although it was goofy and frequently unintentionally funny, it was never boring. I think it has the chance of being a cult film in a few years. If, on the ridiculously off chance this is actually you, you'd ever like to discuss your work (including Patriotville, I was a fan of Talmage's first film and have spoken to him via email regarding a potential interview) please contact me at Adam@RegrettableSincerity.com and I'll be more than happy to go through your people to arrange something in the appropriate setting.
I HATE THIS KIND OF MOVIE! 12/5/2010
But man are you off, this was some of the best acting I have seen in a long long time.
The essence of "Now" was emphasized in this movie and "Well" acted it was.
Kudos to the writers/director and producer, you had me in my seat the whole time.
I can see how your review has validity and the eagerness or yearning to be
different in this cut-throat world of (Internet?) journalism may be necessary, hmmm
Doesn't work for me here and now.
I am just not sure it works for you here, you are a dam good writer, Stanford grad?
Remember you can get a lot farther in life with a smile vs. a fork?
To each "His" (or should I say) "Her" own.....
I can appreciate being different in this world, no, I can REALLY appreciate it,
That is what true artist are all about, an artist you are.
Cynicalistic traits are boring, I read 2 paragraphs and went down to this comment box
to exercise my human rights, lol, and say I am different too,
or am I normal?
I will be looking for your words in the future now, but WARNING you want to
keep me as a reader? CHANGE UP, go the other way, or it will be talent lost,
make your parents proud!
Did I forget to mention I HATE people like you.
Don't be afraid to be different, just do it with heart, it's who we are, loving people.
Can you seriously think of anyone in your life who is miserable and like to be around?
Keep up the hard work you will get there one day,ask your mom, she knows.
BODAZAFFA1
Just watched the film on HBO on demand. I had zero expectations going in, and found it absolutely delightful.
I agree with a lot of your criticism of the film. But I love Charlie Day and Jason Sudekis. And frankly, I could happily just watch those two tramp around NYC for an hour and a half.
To me, Long and Barrymore had chemistry. The movie was genuinely funny.
You're entitled to your opinion. Just want to say that I thoroughly enjoyed it.
The review is well written, but the reviewer is wayyyy to angry to take seriously.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!