A Very VALENTINE’S DAY Special!
In which I make my wife watch the 2010 ensemble comedy VALENTINE’S DAY instead of doing something nice.
Richard Curtis' LOVE ACTUALLY was released on November 14, 2003 and seemed to immediately burrow its way into popular culture. Whether it was as a form of ironic derision or as a reference point that exists to this very day, its ensemble cast and very British sensibility ensured its place in rom-com history (even if Emma Thompson's story gets no satisfying conclusion whatsoever).
Before he passed away in July of 2016, Garry Marshall, the man behind the creation of legitimate classics such as Happy Days, Laverne & Shirley and Mork & Mindy, was hard at work to the very end to create an American version of LOVE, ACTUALLY, only with focus on some lesser-celebrated holidays. Mission accomplished and, arguably, over-delivered: in true "everything is bigger in America" fashion, he managed to make an entire unofficial trilogy of holiday ensemble films. They're all insane, and I thought it would be a fun treat to review all three over the course of the year.
However, I couldn't possibly take on such a task by myself. No, to take on such masterpieces, I was going to need the assistance of a dear loved one. I was going to need to look across the couch and get my wife, Trina, to help me out with breaking down the nuttiness of the Garry-verse.
We're going in order of the calendar, as opposed to release date. First up, then, is the sugary-sweet VALENTINE'S DAY.
VALENTINE’S DAY (2010)
Directed by: Garry Marshall
Starring: too many to count
Written by: Katharine Fugate, Abby Kohn, Marc Silverstein
Length: 124 minutes
Released: February 12, 2010
R: VALENTINE'S DAY, the first in the late director Garry Marshall's holiday trilogy, was released on February 12, 2010, debuting over two other major openings that week; PERCY JACKSON AND THE OLYMPIANS: THE LIGHTNING THIEF and Universal's THE WOLFMAN, starring Benicio Del Toro. To date, it is the eighth-highest opening in February ever, along with the fifth highest-grossing President's Day weekend film (in front of it: BLACK PANTHER, DEADPOOL, FIFTY SHADES OF GREY and SONIC THE HEDGEHOG.
These extremely cool and interesting records aside, what did you think about this two-hour star-studded debut to the first real commercial holiday of the calendar year? Are you regretting agreeing to this already?
T: First off, I never regret an opportunity to complain about things. You should know me better than that by now.
R: My apologies.
T: Movies already have a challenge of making me care about the characters and the story when it’s just one plot line. In a way, I admire these types of movies that say, “I have 12 different Valentine-adjacent ideas, but I don’t really want to commit to fleshing out any one story in particular, so I’ll just tell all of them at once! It’s too big to fail!”
R: Yeah, it's a very "throw everything against the wall and see what sticks" type of affair, up to and including the cast. There's almost too many players in this get into, especially when they all seem to serve the same essential function as each other. We'll get into a couple cast members in specific, but I want to jump immediately into the real reason I brought you into this. Because, although there are several women in this that the movie could have chosen between to be the lead, rather than smash them altogether (Anne Hathaway, Jessica Biel, Jessica Alba, Julia Roberts all appear in this!), I wanted to give you your long-awaited bully pulpit on the individual that is probably, for all intents and purposes, the main character of VALENTINE'S DAY.
I just put ninety seconds on the clock. Trina, what are your thoughts on Jennifer Garner?
T: Jennifer Garner is the worst.
Okay, if I have a full 90 seconds…
I’ve seen two Jennifer Garner movies (this and DAREDEVIL; the range!) but I’ve seen enough trailers for Jennifer Garner movies to know she’s the worst. She speaks all of her lines either in a little girl voice, or in a “I’m a little girl but I want to be Taken Seriously” voice. Both are bad. You’re a grown woman, Jennifer! 13 GOING ON 30 was a movie, not a lifestyle suggestion.
AND PEOPLE LIKE IT, RYAN. People who are out there in charge of important decisions and responsibility see a trailer featuring Jennifer Garner and go, “oh, that looks good.” Look at minute 1:20 of this trailer, Ryan.
It’s awful. She’s managed to make a career off of being the sweet widdle dew dwop sugar pwum pwincess and has managed to trick people into buying ticket after ticket. Well, not me! She may get my time (that’s worthless), but she’ll never get my money!
R: Aaaand…that’s time! Well done. Do you feel better?
Yeah, besides DAREDEVIL and this, my only real exposure to her was Alias, although I had forgotten she was also in DUDE WHERES MY CAR?, so I guess this counts as a reunion for her and Ashton Kutcher???
Anyway, she sucks and the movie spends way too much time on her teacher character, who’s in love with Patrick Dempsey (I am mostly steadfastly refusing to include character names here), even though he’s secretly still married to his supposedly ex-wife. The whole world seems to revolve around her; Ashton Kutcher is secretly in love with her, a kid in her class is in love with her (technically a spoiler, but it’s a “twist” you would have absolutely guessed within five minutes). You get the idea.
It’s a shame because there are way more insane stories that the movie could have revolved around. Hathaway, for instance, plays a character who conducts a sex phone operator side-hustle from her work cubicle. Queen Latifah plays her boss who, when she finds out about it, turns out to be kinda into it. Shirley MacLaine plays an older woman who confesses an old affair to her husband, then basically forces him in public to get over it the same day.
Then there’s the subplot that most cements this movie as being from early 2010: then-real life couple Taylor Swift and Taylor Lautner play a pair of high schoolers who are in love. And, look, I think we’re comfortable admitting that Swift’s talents aren’t exactly maximized in this. But, I have to ask: of the two ensemble debacles she’s appeared in, do you take her in this or in 2019’s CATS? Or do you just put folklore and evermore back on and call it a day?
T: Okay well in terms of acting, CATS. Hands down. Mostly because that film is so absolutely insane that her appearance as a sexy lounge cat with boobs is one of the milder moments.
Her in this movie feels like the writers just threw in any Easter egg to make it clear that this was Taylor Swift playing Taylor Swift playing a character. I mean this with love, but the Homeschool Energy is very strong in her presence here. And look, Taylor Swift doesn’t need to be a good actress. She just needs to keep writing me music to listen to while sitting alone in the woods. Time spent acting is taking away from where her talents are really needed.
R: I think I'll take CATS, too. A slightly better performance in a much worse movie isn't a bad deal. It doesn't help that VALENTINE'S DAY was released during a period of her career I don't find particularly interesting (this seemed to be the tail end of her "country princess" era; Red and 1989 were still a few years away). Although I had forgotten that "Today Was a Fairytale" technically came from this movie's soundtrack. More of a fun fact than anything else.
We've been picking on the gals, but the men have just as much of an insane time here as well. One of the bigger stars of this movie is Jamie Foxx, who plays a sports reporter named Kelvin who, for whatever reason, gets assigned by Kathy Bates the human interest story of just interviewing randos on the street what Valentine's Day means to them (the twist? Get this, he hates Valentine's Day!). Why the sports guy has to do this goes unexplained.
Do any of the men escape with their dignity intact in VALENTINE'S DAY? For me, I thought Lautner came off okay-ish, although that might just be my residual respect for him more or less giving it all up after TWILIGHT rubbing off. He seems happy.
What about the other dudes? Bradley Cooper's airplane passenger who makes nice with Julia Roberts' soldier character? George Lopez, business partner and friend of Ashton Kutcher? Kutcher himself? Patrick Dempsey's evil doctor? Eric Dane as the football player who comes out of the closet during a rooftop press conference? Topher Grace, who works in the mail room and has to be told that today is Valentine's Day?
T: I think Bradley Cooper was probably the okay-est, maybe in part because he wasn’t in it enough for the tide to turn, or maybe because I don’t think I’ve ever actively disliked watching him on screen. I do think his scenes with Julia Roberts were..maybe(??) the most enjoyable for me? And by enjoyable I mean that they were just there, and fine, and then over. I’m honestly shocked they managed to write a scene about two strangers meeting on a plan on Valentine’s Day and NOT have them fall in love at 35,000 feet. It was just…normal-ish? Movies should do that more often, says I!
I don’t mind Ashton Kutcher. He had his moment, hasn’t tried for an Oscar, and seems like a genuinely good human being in his free time. But he gets negative points because his character is in love with Jennifer Garner. Request to suspend my disbelief: denied. Sorry, I don’t make the rules, I just happily enforce them in this case.
R: Well, of course, part of the reason Cooper and Roberts don't fall in love is because...well, there's a twist regarding him that I admit I didn't see coming (others may have picked up on it immediately) and thus the one genuine surprise in a movie totally devoid of them. Credit where it's almost due.
If you haven't picked up on it, I also hated this too-long (over two hours!!!) movie. It's ultimately devoid of a real point of view except "isn't Valentine's Day the greatest?" (it seems to exist in a world where society seems to shut down entirely on February 14th to discuss the holiday at length). I don't need it to be deep, of course, but it should at least be fun. Putting this together was the only real fun part about it. Give me character actors getting to do their thing. George Lopez wasn't even funny!
So, really, the only question left to ask is: now having sat through this tribute to one of the last winter holidays we get in the cycle, has it affected your opinion on Valentine's Day at all? Do you like it more? Less? The same? I know for me, it's made me realize that the day is cool and a good excuse to remember to be nice to the people you love, but I ever met anyone in real life that went this hard on V-Day, I really don't know what I would do. Besides worry about them a little. You?
T: I think you’re being extremely kind to say that you took anything away from this movie. Do I have to be mean to you today to recalibrate your outlook? I’d do it, because that’s how much I care.
Suffice to say, no, it did not change my outlook on today. I think it served it’s purpose to run for two hours and give a paycheck to a lot of actors who maybe enjoyed getting top billing for only three days worth of filming at maximum. Oh dear, did I sound cynical? Maybe this movie DID get to me. Am I the Jamie Foxx of our household?
It did remind me that some people buy their partners flowers though. Am I safe to assume those are being delivered today?
R: Answering your questions in order: 1) What would make this any different than any other day, 2) I've long said you and Jamie Foxx are exactly alike and 3) yes, a sad van driven by Ashton Kutcher and George Lopez will be arriving any minute now with flowers that I've ordered. That's, of course, assuming they don't get rear-ended by Eric Dane, causing their loading door to not close right, resulting in a many a bouquet to fall out and spill onto the streets of Los Angeles. If those flowers don't arrive, well, now you know why.
I think that closes the book on VALENTINE'S DAY, both the movie and the day itself. There are still two more of these to come, so be on the lookout in this space the next time a second-tier holiday comes around.