No Hard Feelings review: Jennifer Lawrence carries a raunchy comedy that isn’t raunchy enough
The Oscar winner plays an Uber driver hired to seduce a teenage virgin in an R-rated comedy that strives for heartfelt emotions
Film Reviews Jennifer Lawrence
Almost every month there’s an article somewhere bemoaning the death of the movie star. That giant charming presence on-screen that people will follow no matter what movie they appear in. If No Hard Feelings fails to find its audience, a few of those articles will surely appear. Yet as evidenced by the film and its lead performance, no one should be worried. The movie star is alive and well. Jennifer Lawrence proves, once again, that she can carry a film by the sheer force of her on-screen magnetism and performance agility.
As with many such comedies, No Hard Feelings has an implausible jumpstart to its plot. Lawrence’s Maddie is an Uber driver and bartender in Montauk, Long Island, who faces losing her home to the IRS because she’s desperately behind on her property taxes. Her only chance to make money lies in a job listing from the parents of a 19-year-old virgin requesting a young woman to date their son, Percy (Andrew Barth Feldman). These helicopter parents (Laura Benanti and Matthew Broderick) want to break their son out of his awkward phase and are willing to pay for it. In a scene meant for hilarity, Lawrence, Broderick, and Benanti make much out of emphasizing the word “date” in a multitude of ways. It becomes clear exactly what they are asking Maddie to do. This is a raunchy sex comedy after all. Yet it remains chaste for the most part, just full of sex talk. The film finds its comedy in the myriad, and mostly unsuccessful, ways Maddie tries to seduce Percy.
The screenplay, written by John Phillips and the film’s director Gene Stupnitsky (director of Good Boys, and co-creator of the surprise streaming hit Jury Duty), makes much of the economic disparity between the haves and have nots. Maddie and her friends are year-round Montauk residents who resent the rich folks descending on their town from New York City for the summer. The locals depend on these people to make money yet don’t like how they turn the town into their playground. So Maddie feels justified in taking advantage of these rich parents and their clueless son.
Lawrence is the main attraction and the reason the film works when it does. She’s so committed to the part that she makes this sometimes abrasive, sometimes confounding character utterly beguiling. The film gives Maddie a few psychological backstories to explain away her behavior. Yet it’s Lawrence that the audience is watching and no matter how flimsily the character is written, she delivers. Her comedy is utterly physical with pratfalls galore. She has a way with words, whether she’s brushing off someone with cruelty or opening up to a new friend. Throughout it all she remains highly watchable. The ultimate movie star.
Roth’s Percy is the romantically chaste type. He keeps resisting Maddie’s attempts to seduce him. Hence, Roth’s part is rather tricky; he has to plausibly act as if he’s not interested in Jennifer Lawrence. Still, he pulls it off with a sweet disposition that makes Percy’s awkwardness believable, even attractive. The rest of the characters are there to either act as sounding boards for Lawrence or to set the plot in motion and then vanish. Seems like an opportunity missed since the film is set up to be about class differences within Montauk. Yet after the set up, all of that is forgotten.
Unfortunately No Hard Feelings runs out of gas way before its end. Once the relationship between Maddie and Percy is established, the screenplay fails to find them a satisfying resolution. Obviously the conceit must be revealed, recriminations must follow and the madcap pursuit of sex must end. Yet the laughs stop as well. Lawrence remains game, even adding a dash of vulnerability to her performance. But the screenplay doesn’t give her any fresh notes to play and the film limps to its finale.
As a summer lark, No Hard Feelings makes for a nice diversion. Lawrence’s fans will find much to like and her physical commitment to the comedy should add to her flock of admirers. Yet it still feels like an opportunity missed. There could’ve been more laughs, the raunchy elements could’ve been pushed harder. A class satire is introduced but never explored. Most unforgivably when you have a movie star like Lawrence, a more focused, funnier screenplay should’ve been written.
No Hard Feelings opens in theaters on June 23
165 Comments
I’ve seen Human Centipede and am still more grossed out by the premise of this movie. This is how Jennifer Lawrence chose to return to movie stardom?
The fuck you care?
Don’t call it a comeback!
Nobody is!Hey-hey-he-y
Yeah, if this premise was gender-swapped, this article would have been screaming about how gross it is. Typical double standard.
Yeah we already had that boring discussion when the trailer came out.
You seem fun.Jjust kidding, you seem obnoxiously self-serious. It’s an old school raunchy comedy, my dude. Calm down.
Wouldn’t the “helicopter parents” be more concerned about their naive son accidentally impregnating someone? None of these characters feel anything close to real.
i really hope this makes money.
Critics need to start watching comedies with an actual audience. Way too easy to sit in a screening room with five other underemployed people trying to make their liberal arts degrees matter by writing “yes, not enough class politics in this R-rated sex comedy. Thumbs down.”
Unfortunately, your comment runs out of gas way before its end.
Funny you said that. I got halfway through then skipped to your comment. Then tried to read it again then skipped to the other comments, then finally finished it.
Are you a golden retriever?
Whatever do you
Mean
Some of my best friends are golden retrievers! But, it’s a little worrisome for your attention span that three sentences repeatedly failed to hold your attention. Not a problem. I too have ADHD and would chase squirrels with you, any time.
I had a friend once
For someone whose comment ran out of gas, that guy is surprisingly full of beans.
Along with both piss and vinegar!
B-
B sharp
Hey pal, my liberal arts degree says “go fuck yourself.” I’m employed, and do well enough to bitch on the internet at 12:41 for no reason.
Not sure how having time to comment in the middle of a workday is “well enough” but maybe I’m just not doing well enough to understand.
Fuck you and your miserable construction job.
*Private equity.
tough to do before it comes out!
Fair enough, but there are advance screenings for audiences. Like the one I saw it with last weekend.
well you should send a strongly worded email to the studios who organize those to include critics. it’s not the critics fault they had to go to the critics screening.also i agree! i used to review movies and having to sit through something like this at 830 in the morning with 6 other people feels weird.
“yes, not enough class politics in this R-rated sex comedy. Thumbs down.”
Except that this is pretty much the opposite of what the review says.
You must have very bad reading comprehension. It explicitly complains about the fact that the class politics plot regarding the residents and tourists isnt developed enough and sort of gets abandoned. Maybe actually read the entire article before commenting?
I”m not seeing class politics anywhere. Everyone has decided it’s great to be a serf watching millionaires on Netflix.
Is the presence of other human beings meant to somehow reflect on the quality of a piece of art? I suppose I’m asking that in a pretty snarky tone, but honestly do you think that the communal aspect of a film viewing makes a *critical* difference to how that film is consumed?I would actually propose that in *some* cases watching a comedy film with an audience has a detrimental effect on a critical viewing of that film. We know that sitcoms have milked laughs out of TV audiences for DECADES by use of a studio audience or a laugh track. And we’ve seen some of those same sitcoms edited with the laughs removed and discovered “Oh shit, ‘Bazinga’ is actually a really stupid catchphrase and these characters are fucking awful!” You know, IF some show was idiotic enough to use said catchphrase…
Yes, I honestly do think that viewing films–some more than others–in a communal setting would make a critical difference. Even in your example, it would seem to make a critical difference, albeit in the negative direction.
But that’s not a reflection on the film, it’s a reflection on the filmgoing experience. Should a movie critic’s review also include whether or not they got nachos and if so whether they were tasty or bad? If an art critic came to see the Mona Lisa with a tour group and the tour group was unimpressed, does that make the Mona Lisa unimpressive? A critic’s analysis of their object of critique *may* include the external factors of that object but it’s unnecessary. Further, I would say it’s detrimental because consumers of the critique can’t reliably recreate the external forces that might be described. Crowds aren’t consistent. I’ve been in theater crowds for horror movies in particular where one crowd was hushed and attentive while a different crowd was impatient and rowdy. Those crowds were not a good measure of the film’s effectiveness. (Though I could see how an argument could be made IF someone were so inclined.)As subjective as comedy can be I don’t think there’s much to be gained by requiring a crowd experience.
I’m sure most critics are going to see the film in the most convenient or expedient way for them. I’m just saying that it clearly makes a difference for most people. If that’s not your experience, then it’s not yours.
There’s always the question of a review’s purpose. Is a given film critic responsible to a particular readership and if so how do they measure a film in that context? Is a given film critic responsible to themselves as the one engaging the film and thus NOT beholden to the audience experience? That’s going to vary I’m sure. Some critics are going to feel one way, others the other way.In any scenario I doubt there’s going to be a consensus on what is the “best” way to see a film. So it’s pointless to complain that reviewers should see a film with an audience. For some critics that’s true. For them. Not so for others.
I guess. Personally, I think a critic should try to be honest in explaining why a film affected them the way in which it did. Admittedly, I’d be slightly suspicious of a critic who always had a target audience in mind for their reviews, even though that type of critic is certainly prevalent now, most insufferably in the ones who are clearly writing something to get select sentences retweeted with the word “takedown” attached.
I do mostly agree with you, BUT I also acknowledge that being a freelance journalist is really fucking tough. And trying to make any kind of progress or get any kind of name for your career, especially in a field as specialized as film criticism, is unenviable. Especially when every no-name fuck-knuckle with a social media account can say whatever stupid shit they want about a movie and who knows how many people will read it and pay attention. I’m not saying that every film critic *deserves* respect or a chance to make a career but I think Johnny Dipshit on Twitter can run his stupid mouth about whatever giant IP is currently sucking all the money from every asshole on the planet and people will bow and scrape to him. Meanwhile someone with a 4 year degree and hundreds of thousands of student loan debt who actually paid attention in film classes and journalism classes has their entire opinion shat upon by some internet rando with a venereal disease screen name. I blame the rise in internet criticism. I used to be a reader of Aint It Cool and the fucking wretched nonsense reviews that site got away with make me weep for an entire generation of critics. (And FWIW, people like to point to Knowles as the primary driver of that awfulness but all those jagoffs wrote trash, including big time screenwriter Cargill and Kingcast host Vespe. Nobody who worked there is innocent of garbage opinions written garbagely.)I’m not even saying that the current crop of AV Club reviewers has earned the trust of the readership but I don’t think holding their feet to the fire on *how* they saw a movie does much for the reliability of the review. The only time I think you should be outright suspect of a review is if they’ve been invited to the set or something similar. (You know, like fucking AICN eventually did all the goddam time.) (I admit that sometimes when I read complaints about how the AV Club has fallen so far I struggle to not respond, “Oh yeah? Try being a former AICN reader!”)
“and the madcap pursuit of sex must end.”
So, they get married?
In the grand tradition of screwball comedies, it turns out they were married the whole time!
What a twist!(It’s like if they made a movie of The Pina Colada Song!)
And Jennifer Lawrence’s character is actually dead.
This does not look good. But Natalie Morales is in it!
That’s how I felt about Urban Legend and Alicia Witt. And I was right.
You could copy and paste this comment to most things with Natalie Morales. She really needs a star-making role.
Well Natalie Morales had The Middleman, so she will always be a star to me
Lucky bastard. All the hookers my parents hired for me were ugly.
My goiter treatments have been moderately successful since then.Hit me up.
If this was supposed to be a comeback vehicle, the Lawrencessance will have to wait.
Yes, let’s proclaim it a failure before it even releases. That’s always smart!
‘But the screenplay doesn’t give her any fresh notes to play and the film limps to its finale.’ So I guess Lawrence’s character doesn’t succeed.
lol
Came for Jennifer Lawrence’s full frontal. Then came again
Isn’t she like 30 something? Isn’t that a bit old to seduce a teenager these days?
Gee Murry, what’s your cutoff?
I have an all ages cutoff: I don’t seduce anyone.
you can practice on me.
That’s ok I find that people who are attracted to me almost universally have mental problems and will hurt me in the end. I’m happy by myself, thanks!
Mate, you gotta start dating outside work.
I found that out a long time ago, it didn’t help. Thanks for the advice though!
An age that won’t get someone arrested.
Lol, yes, but, I believe that’s also the point?
Yeah I sort of assumed the movie would address that.
32 / 2 = 16 + 7 = 23. 23 > 19. Yep, she’s in violation.
In fact by that rule, the youngest you should be to sleep with anyone of age is 22. Which isn’t a bad rule, if you’re out of college then freshmen should probably be off the menu.
Do we actually know what age her character is supposed to be? It’s always possible that she is playing younger than her actual age. That happens a LOT nowadays. Much of the “teen” cast of Yellowjackets is 30-ish, for instance.
I’d say it would be quite young as far that thing goes looking at real-life scandals of people seducing teenagers.
The trailer made me think that Amy Schumer was busy and J-Law had just had a really big tax bill.
Tell us Jennifer Lawrence doesn’t get naked in this movie without telling us…
You will be very surprised by her full frontal naked fight scene then.Not joking btw.
Wait seriously? I thought John Small Berries was making an Eastern Promises joke.
She does a nude suplex on a guy.
Google describes “suplex” as “an offensive move”
I wouldn’t be offended if she performed that move on me, at least!
But does she then demand that he “put the fucking glasses on”?Cuz that’s very important to cinematic suplexes.
“Here they are. No wait, those are my reading glasses. Where are my fucking glasses?”
The “implausible” part of this being that an Ubder driver/bartender can afford a house at all, in order to owe property taxes?
Well, the trailer makes it pretty clear that her dead mom left the house to her. Maybe try watching it before commenting?
Nah. Commenting on an article shouldn’t require additional research.
Ha! (I just snorted at that, good one)
And don’t get me started on “who faces losing her home to the IRS because she’s desperately behind on her property taxes.” When did the Feds deal in local property taxes? And what’s the deal with airline peanuts?
It makes me happy that I am not the only one bothered by this!
Jennifer Lawrence in Full Frontal Tax Codes!Coming this Christmas.
‘”And don’t get me started on “who faces losing her home to the IRS because she’s desperately behind on her property taxes.” When did the Feds deal in local property taxes? And what’s the deal with airline peanuts?”’You do know that the IRS can put a lien on a home, right?Also there’s this:https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/understanding-a-federal-tax-lien#:~:text=A%20lien%20secures%20the%20government’s,or%20have%20an%20interest%20in.
You do know that the IRS can put a lien on a home, right?For not paying your federal income taxes.
You probably didn’t put two and two together (or you didn’t even bother looking at the page)But it also extends to the executor of estate for the recently deceased.In this movie’s case Jennifer Lawrence would be her mother’s executor of estate. Thus she must pay for her mother’s estate and taxes.Also there’s this:https://www.irs.gov/individuals/deceased-person
The article above says she owes the IRS for property taxes. I don’t know if that’s what was actually said in the movie as I have not seen it. Perhaps the author of this article is mistaken. But the IRS does not collect property taxes therefore cannot put a lien on a property for property taxes.
Sure, and the DEA can take your house if they have reason to believe it was purchased with drug money. But what the DEA and IRS can do isn’t the same thing as property tax, which is always local (at least in the US).
I was under the impression no one without wealth could live in Montauk. She should have sold the house before racking up delinquent property taxes.
Also implausible is that she owes the money to the IRS, instead of the county or city. But that’s a minor point.
Where do you tend bar? I worked at an Olive Garden in the aughts. Our bartenders routinely made like $200/night 15 years ago at a depressing chain restaurant. Bartending can be really good money, are you even serious?
Am I serious? Not really, no– it’s a snarky comment on a pop culture website.
Yet it remains chaste for the most part, just full of sex talk.I’m assuming the reviewer was taking a restroom break during J-Law’s full-frontal fight scene.
I’m pretty sure the IRS does not collect property taxes. Those are generally paid to the state or locality. Just sayin’. Edit: Is it an inheritance tax?
Because, yes, THIS is the thing that jumped out at me about the review. The thing about the taxes, because clearly I am having a joyless day.
Geez, wait’ll you get to the part about the nerdy kid who doesn’t want to have sex with Jennifer Lawrence for some reason!
I got there and realized I was not in the right frame of mind to formulate a response that did not sound extremely cranky and self-serious.
“extremely cranky and self-serious”-The AV Club
I would have to assume that at that point, the kid’s gay, and the parents should try hiring that hunky guy in the YouTube video image
OK, I’m feeling better now. I don’t think it’s strange that this 18 year old kid is not jumping into bed with Jennifer Lawrence. I’m guessing he thinks it’s weird and suspicious that this gorgeous, much older woman is coming on to him and it makes him—an already shy, awkward kid—really uncomfortable. Also, this is a good time to ask the “would it be gross if the genders were reversed” thing. I’m gonna go with yes, it would be.
I’m guessing he thinks it’s weird and suspicious that this gorgeous, much older woman is coming on to him and it makes him—an already shy, awkward kid—really uncomfortable.This. Contrary to popular, or at least Hollywoodian, belief, not all guys are 0.05 nanoseconds from trying to onto and into every single woman who vaguely looks in their direction and is unaware of the consequences if she’s not absolutely 100% up for it. Especially if he’s seventeen in 2023. It’s a played-out premise: “Guys are always horny and stupid, possibly because they’re horny.” There’s a whole mess of crap ideas here.If he’s shy, he’s probably not thinking “Hot damn, I’m gonna bone this hot broad!”, he’s probably thinking “There’s got to be an ulterior motive here”, because chances are that’s what’s happened to him before. Oh, cheerleader wants to have with me on that massive assignment we’ve got due next week that she probably hasn’t started? Hmmmm…Also, he’s allowed to not want to shag a 30-year-old bartender. Or anyone he doesn’t want to, really. That’s actually allowed, Hollywood, even if he does have a penis. Also, this is a good time to ask the “would it be gross if the genders were reversed” thing. I’m gonna go with yes, it would be.Exactly. If this were, I dunno, Jason Momoa being hired to plough some confidence into Jenny Ortega…how far do you think this movie would’ve gotten?“But…power imbalances…gender roles…societal expectations…positive feminine sexuality neutralising toxic male sexuality…”No, piss off. Wait, does Matthew Broderick own a cutlery company in this?
Actually no. I’m picturing Owen Wilson delivering the line and it comes across the same way. Also how much you want to bet that this was the first scene that popped into their head when writing this movie.Also regarding this:‘”I’m pretty sure the IRS does not collect property taxes. Those are generally paid to the state or locality.”’1) The IRS are tax collectors.2) There’s this:https://www.irs.gov/statistics/irs-collecting-revenue#:~:text=Internal%20Revenue%20collections%20and%20refunds%2C%20by%20type%20of%20tax%2C%20including,%2C%20gift%2C%20and%20excise%20taxes.&text=These%20tables%20breakout%20the%20total,%26%20gift%2C%20and%20excise%20taxes.3) es·tatenounan extensive area of land in the country, usually with a large house, owned by one person, family, or organization.
all the money and property owned by a particular person, especially at death.“in his will, he divided his estate between his wife and daughter”Definition two is particularly of interest(no pun intended).Ergo they do collect property taxes as that would be covered by estate…
From the trailer I assumed the kid *does* want to have sex with JLaw, he’s just too nerdy to pick up on subtle hints and too fearful/anxious to respond well to forceful overtures. Speaking as a nerd myself, I can relate.If not and he really just isn’t down to clown? Yeah that’s too ridiculous even for a sex comedy.
Don’t feel bad. I thought the same thing.
That’s IRS, the Island Revenue Service. They collect property taxes for Suffolk County, Long Island.
How much of AV Club’s reviews are ChatGPT written now? Phrases like “a more focused, funnier screenplay should’ve been written” and “the madcap pursuit of sex must end” are either AI-generated or just bad writer-generated. Active voice, people!
When dealingnwith AV Club, the answer is always “bad-writer generated.”
Nerds think passive voice makes them sound smart. Nerds make ChatGPT.Nerds want ChatGPT to sound smart, ergo…Don’t blame you for thinking that, but the other reason might be simply hitting the word count.Seriously, the amount of fuckin’ STEMlord-written fiction I had to edit in uni (against my will…) was rife with this, even before ChatGPT. Because you write scientific write-ups in passive voice, EVERYTHING should be written in passive voice, because everyone should aspire to sound like a scientist.Why say “Murtada wrote this piece poorly” when you can say “This piece was poorly-written by Murtada”? Look how more formal, and thus int-uh-leck-chew-al the second one sounds! And it’s longer!
It’s been 24 years since American Pie came out. Will there be any commentary on how Generation Z males approach matters of sex or intimacy? Teens of today have never known a world where Internet sex content didn’t exist, for example. Only Fans is a semi mainstream thing to do, etc.
buddy even american pie had internet sex.
Yeah, but it was that really slow, jerky, not quite buffered kind.
Emphasis on the “jerky” part AM I RIGHTHey guys not cool to leave me hanging over here when I’m in clear need of a high five. Take the elevator to the top floor with me already.
Wear yourself out.
Sounds like most of the sex I have.
I think that was technically intranet sex. It was back when it was a totally normal thing for high schools to have dedicated servers that all their students had email accounts on.
Such a thing might be worthwhile, but we lost the ability to make a film about people messing up because portrayal and endorsement are conflated in Discourse now.
How many Generation Z males (or anybody) even knows that movie exists? Has it held on as an inter-generational cultural touchstone?
Hot take: I love Jennifer Lawrence, and have since I saw her in ‘Winter’s Bone’, which is real, real different from most of her work since. I think she’s pretty close to what she puts out in media, a reasonably well grounded human who has won the genetic and Hollywood lottery and is now fabulously rich and continues to be sort of in shock about it, or she’s so good at putting that part on that it’s hard to parse from the real thing. I don’t know that I’ll see this in the theater (I’ve never liked her that much), but I hope that it does well and brings her more parts of different sorts.
you start this comment by saying ‘i love jennifer lawrence’ and by the end you’re saying ‘i’ve never liked her that much’ so what the actual fuck, guy.
Ah, sorry, I’ve never liked her enough to see every movie she’s in. I think I’m confirming the movie-star-ness of Lawrence. Like I like her and have an ongoing opinion about her and think she’s a pretty solid actor. I think that definition is prolly a part of the movie star definition if it’s not SOLELY “puts butts in seats”. Like I feel similarly about Meryl Streep. I think she’s aces but don’t want to see every movie she’s in.
You’re alright, Adam, but dig: This isn’t so crazy. I’ve changed my mind mid-comment.
Fuck you, Adam.
just because you do it doesn’t mean it’s not crazy.
You sound like my wife. And my mom. And most of my friends.
Did you hit your head halfway through this comment? Or are you just a moron with zero attention span who cant maintain cohesive thoughts? You literally start by saying that you love her and lavishing praise upon her, then say that you wont see this because you “dont like her that much?” What an obnoxiously dumb comment…
I like her a lot as an actor and I think her ability to be her slightly goofy self in a very public-facing profession is pretty delightful. THAT SAID. She is also a self-professed middle school dropout and while I wouldn’t give a shit about that normally she has talked about some of her roles in a very obviously uneducated way that kind of drives me nuts. Her breathless praise for the bullshit, overstuffed symbolism safari trainwreck that is mother! was not my favorite bit of press she’s done. I very uncharitably (but not, I think, incorrectly) responded to her press for that with “Yeah, of course you think that shit is deep, you don’t have a fucking GED.” Any time she seems impressed by a film’s thematic resonance I groan pretty loudly.
mother! is fantastic.
Nah. The movie might as well check for polyps it’s so far up its own ass. It’s a pretentious festival of half-baked metaphors masquerading as a home invasion horror narrative slathered in so much self-importance you can see the ego glow from space.
Nah, first off by the time there’s a home invasion it’s not masquerading as anything unless the watcher is dumb enough to not know anything about the old testamen, second “pretension” is the most worthless critical complaint.
Oh, so a narrative that requires outside knowledge of an outdated cultural touchstone for a religious sect is good? I’m sorry, do you think that most people even know the fucking NEW Testament, let alone the Old? But sure, those watchers would be “dumb”. And I notice you focused in real hard on my use of the word “pretentious” but didn’t have much to say about the half-baked metaphors or the self-importance. I’m guessing those are probably qualities you admire in yourse-er, I mean, the movie.It’s an onanistic exercise in pseudointellectual semiotics.ETA: And to what fucking purpose? It’s a muddled (at BEST) story smashing the audience in the teeth with theme for the endgame of……….. what? What is that mess trying to actually ACHIEVE? Ugh, it’s such trash.
One of the pillars of the most popular religion on the planet plus a major part of the second most popular is pretty well known. You added “good” yourself so argue with yourself about that.“Focused really hard” is a weird interpretation and then you just made up someone to get mad so you can argue with them too.Pretentious is still a worthless criticism and the film makes the allegory clear very quickly so the masquerade criticism is daft.
Yes, because identifying as Christian means you can pick out Bible stories from movie context. You’ll notice that any poll of religious identification isn’t going to ask “Do you go to Mass every Sunday or do you have a dusty painting of Jesus you glance at on Christmas and Easter?” I think you credit the movie-going audience with quicker and fuller radar for symbolism than they actually possess. But even if they did? So what? What’s the point? Why dress up a Bible story in this dumb shit about an artist and his wife and the couple who breaks into their abusive wedded bliss?Pretentious as a criticism is perfectly fine. You’ve offered no substantive argument otherwise. You’ve also offered no proof that the audience picked up on the allegory. The marketing of the film *very much* pushed the masquerade and while that’s not the movie’s fault it does support the argument that audiences went in expecting a home invasion thriller (even if an odd one). You can presume that everyone caught on but you have no proof.And again, in the end: So. Fucking. What? What was the point? What was the value in telling this story this way? Other than making some people feel smart about themselves?
Yeah you don’t need to be a Christian or religious at all to pick up on the foundational Abrahamic story. Its quite well known and has been used for allegories quite a bit.“Pretentious” is a thought terminating cliché and not worth engaging with beyond pointing out it’s worthlessness in terms of evaluating art and pushing it forward.The audience got a home invasion thriller.
“It’s worthless because it has no worth.”Cool circle, bro.“the foundational Abrahamic story”Sure.
You’re still making up someone to get mad at and still seem to think one of the most well known stories on earth is a bit obscure.
I feel like I’m pretty clearly mad at the movie? For wasting my time and money? And people who think it’s brilliant? Because it isn’t?Also, I love that you’re talking endless shit about the Abrahamic story when the filmmaker HIMSELF says it’s an allegory about environmentalism, which you haven’t mentioned once. But okay.Although I DO appreciate that you haven’t brought up how much Scorsese loved it. That old Italian Catholic has never seen a ham-fisted metaphor he didn’t love. “So the guy who made Shutter Island thinks this movie is smart? Yeah, that sounds about right.”(I love Scorsese, don’t get me wrong.)
Author died in like the 60s right? I don’t really need to listen to what a creator thinks their work is about to get something from it.I’d never tell someone not to be mad a movie to TV show for wasting their time and/or money I’m still a little pissed at Lost.
Feels like the type of movie that would have been really common (and probably more successful) 15 years ago. Mid-tier comedies with an A-list star kind of have a hard sell these days at the box office.
Most of the buzz I see on the internet about it is chuckling that the first movie JLaw has done in years is a raunchy sex comedy where she does a nude suplex on a guy.
It would have starred Emma Stone
I would accept that nude suplex.(hmm, spellcheck didn’t recognize “suplex”?)
It was called “Failure to Launch” and it starred Sarah Jessica Parker and I think a Deschanel.
Wasn’t failure to launch about a 30-something Matthew McConnaughy still living at home? Not really similar.
Isn’t the concept basically the nearly forgotten 2006 Sarah Jessica Parker/Mathew McConaughey movie “Failure to Launch”?
Except that McConnaughey’s character is supposed to be 35. The weird thing about “No Hard Feelings” is that it’s really not that strange to be a 19-year-old introverted boy who isn’t really interested in dating in the interregnum before he goes off to college for the first time.
Yeah, I didn’t have a girlfriend until university. That wasn’t (and I assume still isn’t) uncommon.
So…. this is basically a remix of “Failure to Launch” and “Risky Business”?
Man, why does it seem like every AVClub review that isn’t positive about a movie these days HAS to throw in how great the star is. It’s so dull.
Are there any that just say “so-and-so really stinks the place up…”
Directors and writers are always fair game for thrashing, but it seems like the only actors that ever get criticism are the ones that do something completely criminal and horrendous.
I think they just shine as many pieces as they can in the perhaps not altogether vain hope that someday, someone answers The AV Club’s request for comment.
Oh for the halcyon days of around 2009 or so when studios and stars DID answer the AV Club’s requests for comment.
There was a film critic—I want to say Richard Roeper, but I’m not sure without looking it up—who said that the acting is usually the last thing to go wrong with a movie, and I think this is generally true. I suppose if I’m a critic looking for something nice to say about a work, I’m defaulting to the performances.
Eh. Having worked in film and tv for 25 years, I can say actors give shitty performances plenty, and it’s not always the director’s fault or the writer’s fault. Sometimes they just don’t work well.
How often does a bad performance come from the actor, and how often does it come from bad direction? I can’t help but think about the Star Wars Prequels that were stuffed with bad performances by good actors, due to George Lucas being a bad director.It seems like if an actor does a bad job, it can harm a movie. Versus bad writing and bad directing, which can sink a movie.
Yeah, I had the misfortune to watch Blade III recently, and there was a lot of things that should have helped salvage it, but didn’t.
The actors were mostly very good, the special effects were good, the fight scenes were excellent, the soundtrack was very good.In the end, it was the script. Ryan Reynolds ad-libbing helped, but not enough, and ad-libs don’t fix pacing.
They don’t wanna burn all their bridges.Access, baby.
It’s not that “the movie star is dead.”
It’s just that, for as long as he is alive, no star can ever shine as bright as Tom Cruise.
As crazy as he is, he is the quintessential movie star.
What’s up with that picture? It looks like she’s demonstrating a beer can hat, but her expression looks like the way you’d show a toddler a See ‘N Say.
“As a summer lark…”Really? Do summer’s still have larks? And I don’t especially want to be reminded of the 1980s.
Larks, jays, finches, summer’s still got all the birds.
Lol. Yes, indeed. Given that we’re in a state of drought right now and the heat is climbing daily, I hope we’ll continue to have all the birds.
What I’m getting from the review is that this movie is not worth my time. What I’m getting from the comment section is that Jennifer Lawrence appears fully nude at some point, which suggests it’s worth at least a brief moment of my time.
Do you know there is an eeeeenormous bank of nude Jlaw photos available online? Go to a site like the fappening and wank it off, my friend.
“Roth’s Percy is the romantically chaste type. He keeps resisting Maddie’s attempts to seduce him. Hence, Roth’s part is rather tricky;”Who is Roth? The actor who plays Percy’s surname is Feldman.
Show us your titties, bitch!-AV Club
It’s kind of amazing watching her do the press rounds and getting dipshit culture warriors interested in the film because it’s “just so hard to do comedies now without offending someone”.Despite the wealth of reviews saying that the comedy is actually fairly tame, to its detriment.
I mean, I know people gotta collect a paycheck, but isn’t JLaw too serious of an actress to do a super-raunchy movie, yet goofy enough to have fun in a comedy? What did we expect?