How does anyone even consider this a movie, this was honestly one of the most overacted movies I have seen in a long time. Its a C list movie with C list actors. It was just another Feminist movie making the men look bad.
shareWhy do you think the women looked good in this movie? The main character stays with a controlling man she doesn't love, keeps a preganancy she doesn't want and has an affair with a married man. Her friends are a woman who sleeps with her married boss because her she hates her invalid husband and likes the thrill of the affair. Her other friend marries a man she isn't sure she loves because she doesn't think anything better coming along. I didn't find anyone in this movie particularly likable or sympathetic.
shareI do not consider this a feminist movie, but I do agree it was one of the worst films I've ever seen. It made me feel awful, and didn't like the way the subjects are dealt with---not believable AT ALL. It left me with a sour feeling after it was over. I hated it.
The people who made the advertisements for this film evidently never SAW the film, for I'd never call this "romantic" or "COMEDY"!!!!!!!!!! FAR FROM IT!!
Gosh, I never looked at it that way before. I mean, what do we have here? This film is all about a bunch of flawed, unhappy characters making the best of a bad situation and doing their best to get by! When I think about it, that really IS the most unbelievable thing that I've ever heard in my life!
Thank goodness for the latest big-budget Will Smith/Matt Damon/Daniel Craig vehicles to bring us all back down to earth.
lol, owen.
All I can tell you folks is that i saw it three times in, different cities and the audience s all laughed a lot. I would agree that it is not a romcom, but it is funny for most. Your mileage varied.
Gotta go. Kisses.
The problem with this movie wasn't the subjects it addressed or the moral is was trying to teach, but mainly the really bad writing and acting. Some of the dialogue was really forced and its 'purpose' was obvious. A lot of the lines and scenes were very cliched. They could've resolved the issues in the movie a lot better and realistically. I don't believe that Earl would just magically disappear and leave Jenna and her baby with a happily ever after. A controlling, abusive and clingy husband would most likely stalk her and try to make her life hell for leaving him. I suppose they could've purposely left out all the law suits and restraining order for the sake of a 'happy ending', but it just seemed all too easy. Jenna spent the whole movie trying to get out and was hesitant about it because she had no money, and she knew it'd be a big struggle to try to raise a baby with very little money. But they basically gave her an easy way out by having Joe give her the check.
All in all, the movie could've been good if it wasn't for the bad writing, acting, and obvious plot devices.
Sorry, Rich, but I think you'll find that 'Waitress' was never in any way intended to be a 'realistic' picture of a dysfunctional relationship on a small Southern US town. This film is - from start to finish - a FAIRY-TALE. Essentially, we're talking about a re-working of 'Cinderella' here. Jenna is Cinders, Earl is the Ugly Sisters, the Doctor is Prince Charming and Old Joe is the Fairy Godmother. His cheque serves as the 'magic wand' which liberates Jenna from her unhappy situation. The feminist twist on the old tale is that Jenna rejects the the 'Prince' (the Doctor) in favour of a 'Princess' (her daughter Lulu). When you bear this in mind, the 'magical happy ending' does not seem so incongruous after all. If you are interested in exploring this subject futher, I can personally recommend the psychologist Bruno Bettelhelm's book 'The Uses Of Enchantment - The Meaning And Importance Of Fairy Tales', in which he explores the mythic significance of children's stories in our adult lives.
As for the issue of bad acting or writing, I'm afraid that I could see none. In fact, I could only see one single example of awkward dialogue in the whole movie. This was the scene in which Earl tells Jenna that he had never really 'owned' anyone before she came along. In all fairness, this line did seem a little clumsy to me. Maybe it was down to poor delivery on the part of Jeremy Sisto, or perhaps it was simply because some lines look a lot better on the page than they do on the screen. Either way, it was down to Shelly to fix this with either a quick re-shoot or the judicious use of the editor's scissors. I'm not saying that Earl's use of the word 'own' should have been cut, but I do believe that the line should have been re-worked to make it a little less obvious.
Apart from that one small point, I cannot see any flaws in either the acting, writing or directing of Adrienne Shelly's film.
I have to respectfully disagree with your example of awkward dialogue, there. The line Earl actually said was "You're the only person that ever belonged to me." I thought it was perfectly suited to who Earl was.
shareThank you, Petitchanteuse. I stand corrected. The line was indeed 'belonged' and not, as I remembered it, 'owned'. Mea Culpa.
I think that what threw me off was Earl's earlier use of the phrase "You're the only thing that I ever loved!". He calls Jenna a THING, rather than a person. A man tends to use the term 'own' when he is talking about his 'things'.
However, I have reviewed the scene in question and I'm afraid that I still thought that Earl's dialogue was slightly - albeit VERY slightly - heavy-handed. It did not jar as much as I remembered it, but it still seemed to somewhat forced. Nevertheless, these things are all subjective. A person with the misfortune to have been stuck with an 'Earl' in their life may find those lines to be 100% representative of what their partner was really like!
By the way, Petitchanteuse, how come you are no longer going under the handle of Billy-Off-His-Meds these days? Did the IMDb administrators think that it wasn't PC enough?
If so, I'll have them know that I've been off my meds for years now, and it's certainly never done ME any harm!
By the way, Petitchanteuse, how come you are no longer going under the handle of Billy-Off-His-Meds these days? Did the IMDb administrators think that it wasn't PC enough?
...re-working of 'Cinderella' here. Jenna is Cinders, Earl is the Ugly Sisters, the Doctor is Prince Charming and Old Joe is the Fairy Godmother. His cheque serves as the 'magic wand' which liberates Jenna from her unhappy situation. The feminist twist on the old tale is that Jenna rejects the the 'Prince' (the Doctor) in favour of a 'Princess' (her daughter Lulu).Owen! That really made me laugh. You could use this logic to twist just about any movie that has an antagonist into a re-working of 'Cinderella'.
You say 'twist', Mark, I prefer to use the term 'interpret'. Though you are quite correct in your analysis, this school of thought can be employed to re-invision any contemporary story into a fairy-tale. Consider 'Rambo: First Blood 2' as the tale of a brave Knight languishing in the dungeons of his King. He is redeemed from shame by being sent on a heroic quest to free his fellow warriors from a horde of cruel little goblins. Our hero defeats his foes only to be betrayed by the Black Magician that he thought his ally. It's straight out of Jung!
Yes, the Doctor DID have feet of clay. He was behaving in a deeply unethical manner in both personal and professional terms. This is why Jenna dumped his sorry ass as soon as Earl was out of her life and she was discharged from hospital. On your final point, if Old Joe had given Jenna the help she needed to get away from Earl, it would have undermined the whole message of the film. Jenna's salvation did not come through Joe's cheque, but from the courage she found through the love of her daughter and the desire to protect her.
Agreed on every count. I salute you, sir! You're a credit to the IMDB. Now if we could only get rid of all the trolls... Ah, but that would be a fairy tale, wouldn't it?
Interested in collaborative work on a new type of film rating system? Contact me.