New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Tom and Julia don't bring 'em in like they used to

Kim Hollis: Larry Crowne, the second film to unite the mega-wattage star power of Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts, opened to $13.1 million over the three-day portion of the weekend and is an unqualified bust. What went wrong here?

Brett Beach: I think the wags that had this as the dream lead pairing...of 10 years ago...aren't entirely off the mark. If this had come out just post-Cast Away and Erin Brockovich, this would have been a slam dunk $25-30 million opening easy. I emphasize the "just" because less than two years later Nia Vardalos floated into Hanks' orbit and an early mega-hit for her as writer and star and him as producer (one guess), is now 10 years later her co-writing Larry Crowne and, based on the reviews, contributing at least by half to a bland, unremarkable, safe as houses/milk/vanilla ice cream comedy. If this was back in 2001, I daresay Hanks would have had a sharper, maybe edgier writing partner, or someone to take a second pass at the results. The promotional tour for this (on Jon Stewart, in EW, etc) has been exceptional and I gather, more funny and entertaining than the actual film. My mom saw it and called it "sweet" which, bless her, captures the vibe of this in a nutshell. Hanks has too much lifetime goodwill built up for me to not see this, but in the cheap theaters or on DVD for sure.

Max Braden: I think the problems are visible in the trailer and are more character-based than an issue of the actor pairing. It's just so whitebread. It's one thing to have a middle aged guy go back to school, but he's suddenly acting like he's a 17-year-old. Rodney Dangerfield didn't have that problem because his character was all about bucking the system, and The 40-Year-Old Virgin was more a caricature than character. Larry Crowne just doesn't offer anything really funny, or racy, or even a clear conundrum. "Sweet" is about the only thing this offers, and who needs that on the 4th of July? Save the release for the fall.

Reagen Sulewski: There's just a fundamental overestimation of how relateable these characters are supposed to be, and what's worse, Hanks and Vardalos seem to think they're being slightly daring. Ooh, he rides a scooter! How eccentric! Also, I think it's difficult at this point to buy Hanks as an uneducated Navy man, working in a dead-end job, after he's spent 30 years being more or less exactly the opposite of that. This is a role that makes a lot more sense for an actor without so much baggage (I wouldn't call it typecasting exactly, but it's close to that), and with a few less years on him.

Kim Hollis: This movie felt like the product of egos gone awry. Everyone involved seemed to feel like it was better/more important than it ever deserved to be. If you're going to make one of these overly earnest pictures, at least have it be good.

David Mumpower: I agree with the other comments here. Something I do think bears noting about this project is that it's cheap; the production budget is reported to be $30 million. This means it's going to be a better return on investment than the more storied (and exponentially better) Charlie Wilson's War, which earned only $66.7 million against a production expenditure of $75 million. Larry Crowne had basically no risk as a financial outlay and frankly that's the way the project has always been treated. Nobody seemed willing to go out on a limb to support it, which probably reflects the fact that everyone involved knew that the dailies weren't very good. This is the type of saccharine storyline that studios cynically distribute yet actively run away from when they do not believe in the product. That's exactly what has happened here.

Continued:       1       2       3