The Whole Nine Yards Essay, Research Paper

Can Laughter Alone Make It The Whole Nine Yards?

Entertainment. Movies most often fall under this category. Like most movie-goers, when I venture out to the theaters, in return for handing over my hard-earned wages to see a flick, I expect to be entertained. While not one of the best movies I ve seen, with it s comical story line and great character casting, The Whole Nine Yards is a film that fulfilled it s end of the bargain in providing solid entertainment for about two hours of I-should-actually-be-doing-homework time.

Why do critics rate movies? Why do people rely on a complete stranger s opinions prior to making a decision on whether or not to see a movie? Books or music do not seem to be rated in such a harsh manner, however video games, especially those made for the PC that are multi-player, are. Is this because both movies and video games are generally shared experiences? And thus, by being a shared experience, perhaps we also tend to want to share in our opinions as well. Whatever the case may be, everyone seems to have their own rhyme and reason to liking or disliking movies.

I rate on a scale from one ( ) to five ( ) Grapes, with a rating of five Grapes being just as rare as one Grape. To earn my one (Grumpy) Grape rating, a movie will have left me feeling angry that I wasted my time to see it and feel that it would be worth going out of your way to miss. A prime example of such would be Mel Brooks Robin Hood: Men in Tights, released in 1993. The movie s plot was uninteresting, I found no humor in the jokes and the acting was horrible. Being on a first date with someone I really wanted to impress, I tried very hard to stay focused on the film and tried to at least act like I was paying attention by throwing out some giggles at, what I guessed to be, appropriate intervals. Unfortunately, after about 15 agonizing minutes, I could stand the torture no longer and quickly walked out of the theater a Grumpy Grape, my date trailing closely behind. Maybe taking me to see a such an awful movie was his intention, because it made anything else we did that night seem absolutely wonderful in comparison. With the nature of this rating being so harsh, I don t often give out many Grumpy Grapes.

On the other hand, my good rating of four Grapes has perhaps the largest amount of inductees. Some essential qualities of what makes a movie good in my book are: believable acting, a captivating story line, originality in any aspect, a plot that draws you into the film (thus is capable of drawing out emotions) and, when in the end, you find yourself not minding that almost painful tingly feeling in your toosh because, Wow, that movie was great! . I ll usually give a four to any movie that combines some number of the afore mentioned properties and is hard to accuse of any real flaws, like the recent flick Cast Away or the original Sabrina released in 1954, starring Audrey Hepburn. Although I found myself checking my watch during Cast Away, I also caught myself hoping whole-heartedly that Helen Hunt would leave her husband and child and go back into the arms of her true love Tom Hanks when he returned. What I what choice I would make if put in the same situation? What choice would my husband, Scott, make? While my being a romantic was an upside for Cast Away, unfortunately, it has also forced me to give certain good movies like City of Angels and Message in a Bottle only three Grapes because I didn t agree with the way the story ended, despite the fact they both excelled in every other aspect. Both films casted actors that I normally enjoy watching (Meg Ryan, Harrison Ford) and both drew fierce emotional reactions from within. City of Angels made me think a bit deeper about the unknown and the world around me, while Message in a Bottle inspired me to live each day to its fullest and enjoy today without harboring thoughts of yesterday or fearing what tomorrow may bring. Regardless of how much I thoroughly enjoyed the majority of each movie, I left the theater or turned off the video in absolute disgust of how unhappy the endings turned out to be. Call me a dreamer, or non-realist, but I only (really) like movies with happy endings.

Alas, for films that are truly unforgettable and have a stunning moment of genius in them somewhere, I reserve my highest rating of five Grapes. This category is small and almost any kind of attribute can instantly launch a movie s rating from four to five stars, from the incredible special effects of The Gladiator, to the inevitable (You ll) shoot your eye out ending of A Christmas Story. I expected to see a gory, hack-em-up story with no real plot when I sat down for the screening of The Gladiator last year. I was very pleasantly surprised when the heroic storyline unfolded and actually made mental notes during the film so that I could rush home after leaving the theater to look up what parts of the movie were fictional and vice versa on the internet. The fact that such a tale was based on at least some truth really hit home with me. The Gladiator made excellent use of some fascinating and unique camera angles and shots, which made the cinematography memorable.

Since it had been quite a while since I had seen any previews or advertising about The Whole Nine Yards, I wasn t sure what to expect as I popped the video into the VCR. I didn t have to wait long to be reminded, however, because the first five minutes quickly lifted the cloud and I was already very much enjoying Matthew Perry s character, Nicholas Oz Oseransky. The film starts out as Oz leaves for work with his wife, Sophie, sneering, My day would be better if you did me a favor and died! , to which he seems to be oblivious. That is, until he throws a hilarious tantrum in his meager compact car prior to starting it and once again as he pauses at the end of his driveway, a mere 50 feet away. Ah, this was going to be fun, if only I could just tune out Roseanna Arquette s poor attempt at a french accent…

While humor in movies tends to go a long way for me, as The Whole Nine Yards progressed, it was also clear that humor was all this movie had going for it. The characters were well cast, and the actors portrayed their respective roles wonderfully, but then again, how could they not? After all, Matthew Perry was just being Chandler from Friends, of which he has had years of weekly experience perfecting, and Bruce Willis character Jimmy The Tulip Tudeski, seemed to be comprised of both John McClane from the Die Hard movie trilogy, and David Addison from Moonlighting .

David Elliott, a critic for The San Diego Union Tribune, eerily reiterates my opinion of Willis character by proclaiming in his review, Bruce Willis is back to good balding…back to what he does best, being macho with a sly command that both flaunts and mocks male vanity, and caressing his lines with infallible ease. The role of Jimmy The Tulip Tudeski may be his smoothest comic work since his TV launch in Moonlighting (Night & Day 3). He also appeared to enjoy Perry s character, of which he states (Perry) has plenty of deft physical business, bouncing off glass doors or flubbing around in a squishy chair and is quick to point out but the film is never simply a pratfaller (Night & Day 3). To my surprise, he gave the film a rating of three and a half stars, calling it A comedy with brains (Night & Day 3). While we normally have dissimilar tastes in movies, he and I have agreed on several points here. Besides our approval of the casting, Elliott and I also seemed to have gotten the same results from the film; The film s appeal comes from not being consequential. It knows it is about nothing but the entertaining time it neatly and consistently offers (Night & Day 3).

Another popular and well-known movie critic, Roger Ebert of The Chicago Sun Times, admits The Whole Nine Yards is not the greatest comedy of all time, or even of the first seven weeks of the century, but I was entertained beyond all expectation (C4) and thought it deserved three stars as well. It is apparent that casting was highly influential in his enjoyment of the film as he states A subtle but unmistakable aura of jolliness sneaks from the screen…and eventually we suspect that the actors are barely suppressing giggles (C4). To support that his assessment of the actors in this manner is something to be desired and reflects well upon the film, Mr. Ebert quotes George C. Scott as having said that the key element in any role was the joy of performance — the feeling that the actor is having a good time and notes This cast seems vastly amused (C4). Ebert also shares Elliott s liking of Amanda Peets enthusiastic portrayal of Jill St. Claire, rating it a perfect performance (C4). I, too, agree that Jill s personality adds a level of heedless glee (C4). Her character adds a definite nonchalant aspect to the whole idea of whacking someone. It is inherently funny to see Jill, a beautiful woman, so enamored by and eager to participate in violence, while Oz, a strangely spineless male, stands by absolutely mortified by the notion.

Edvins Beitiks of The San Francisco Examiner gave the movie two and a half stars, despite his review was almost entirely positive. Beitiks states that No matter what part he (Perry) plays (C3), he will always be Chandler Bing from Friends. But, he also believes it s Perry who keeps this movie on the up-and-up. Just when you re ready to throw up your hands and say, Absolutely not, Perry comes out of nowhere to do a triple-bounce off a lamp and a couch and Duncan s chest or crash into a sliding-glass door (C3). With 90% of my laughs coming from Oz s antics, I d say most viewers would agree that Matthew Perry does an excellent job of keeping you entertained. Beitiks gives screenwriter Mitchell Kapner a tip of the cap for coming up with a truly odd scenario (C3).

The plot kept me guessing as to characters motives, but at the same time was very predictable in what was going to happen next. The movie s storyline was a bit unoriginal, since several other films with the same sort of concept had already been made (2 Days in The Valley, Pulp Fiction, Gross Pointe Blank, Analyze This) and I thought it was lacking in eye candy – such as special effects or unique cinematography. Some men may disagree with me on this point because a full scene s worth of Amanda Peets naked breasts probably pacified them. Beitiks comments In that uniquely American way, the movie cashes in on both sex and violence when Amanda Peet, a contract killing ingenue, jounces around naked in Tudeski s house just before guns start going off (C3). Despite its shortcomings, overall, I thought this movie was nice light entertainment and enjoyed laughing my way around the twists and turns which allows me to give The Whole Nine Yards three ( ) Grapes.

So, in my opinion, is rating films even necessary? I don t think so. I can honestly say that I have only read a handful of film reviews prior to viewing a movie and have never let a bad review deter me from seeing something I thought might be interesting. Now this isn t to say that I haven t agreed with some of the bad reviews after having seen the film, but just that I am fully aware of everyone s differences. I don t always enjoy the same types of movies that my friends do and vice versa. However, I will admit that a friend s review of a movie has more of an impact on me that that of a complete stranger, like David Elliott or Roger Ebert. Perhaps this is because birds of a feather flock together and since we share similar interests and have commonalities, my friends and I also tend to enjoy the same movies. But to each their own. After all, why doesn t everyone just eat vanilla ice cream instead of having so many other flavors? *Somebody* will like anchovy-chocolate flavored frozen yogurt, right?