When in Rome

Mary – “Christopher, is this a good movie?”
Me – “No Mary it’s not”

Mary is my Mother in law, and she and I have vastly different tastes in entertainment in general. It’s not that I’m a snob, or that I have to watch movies in foreign languages that reference other movies in foreign languages. It’s not that the only English language films I watch have a low budget and a shaky handheld camera. It’s a bad movie because it’s what’s wrong with movies in general.

“When In Rome” is a 90 minute cringe fest. It aggressively wastes nearly all of its considerable talent with ease. With exception to Dax Shepard, who elicited the only laughs as a narcissistic male model, the movie fails on every level. Let’s start with the story, which is the same formula of every romantic comedy: Overworked girl meets someone (on vacation), starts to get into him, faces a dilemma, only to be swept off of her feet and be overjoyed by romance that ends in a wedding, which of course has an interruption before rapture sweeps the couple off of their feet.

Where “When In Rome” should have been really fun is in its real comedic talent. Will Arnett is amazing in Arrested Development, Jon Heder should have been great as a “street magician,” Danny Devito is blessed as a dark comedian, and Bobby Moynihan is great on SNL. Beyond the comedy, Anjelica Huston does her best Meryl Streep impression from “The Devil Wears Prada” and even Lee Pace from “The Fall” and “Pushing Daisies” briefly makes an appearance. Yet, they are all wasted on an awful script and poor direction. The filmmakers manage to make someone as likeable as Kristen Bell an eye rolling mess.

But it is the story and the moral ineptitude that is perhaps most bothersome. Kristen Bell is told by her newly-dating-younger-sexy-woman-Father that she just needs to “believe” in love. When Bell’s character points out the twice divorced Father’s track record doesn’t appear to support this ideal, he says something to the effect of “I just love too much.” While most of us would find it stupid, the movie seems to esteem the character and his philosophy. Isn’t that offensive to anyone besides me?

The sad truth is that this mentality is what motivates the central character. Later in the film she repeats out loud to herself the advice of her Father – to “just believe” in love. Another thing she could have said is “just believe in warm feelings that tingle your tummy.” I may be making more of a deal about this than is necessary, but this is the point: all films inevitably espouse a worldview. Whether it is preachy or subtle, it is literally impossible to make anything (especially films) that doesn’t have some kind of meaning or point.

A recent episode of “South Park” attempted to make the point that some things aren’t intended to be interpreted beyond face value. In the episode, the boys attempt to make the most offensively graphic novel in the history of mankind only to have it be interpreted as a metaphor, hailed as a work of genius. But even then, the episode makes a point that some things don’t have a point. Isn’t that a belief of some kind, or an extension of ones worldview – that not all things have a point?

So, “When In Rome” is a giant waste of time that tries to sneak in a message underneath it’s unpretentious looks. It wastes loads of comedic talent and in an attempt to make us feel any feelings of puppy love ends up grating the nerves. Don’t fall for this kind of garbage. Don’t waste your time with it. Watch Arrested Development for some Will Arnet goodness instead.