LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman. Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
May 22, 2013

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     chris hedges     economy     elizabeth warren     politics     robert scheer
Most Read

Lock Up Washington

Rise Up or Die

Revenge of the Bear: Russia Strikes Back in Syria

California Man Sues Officers He Says Nearly Beat Him to Death

How America Became a Third World Country: 2013-2023

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
 * NEW! * Glaciers Are Melting Slowly but Surely
 * NEW! * How America Became a Third World Country: 2013-2023
 * NEW! * Lock Up Washington
Too Soon to Tell: The Case for Hope, Continued

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
Act of Congress
Daily Rituals
The Girls of Atomic City

Digs

Truthdig Bazaar
The New Old World

The New Old World

By Perry Anderson
$26.37

Lineages of the Absolutist State

Lineages of the Absolutist State

By Perry Anderson
$17.91

more items

 
Arts and Culture

Hanks Falls Flat in Languid ‘Larry Crowne’

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jul 1, 2011

By Richard Schickel

The premise is, quite frankly, preposterous: Larry Crowne (Tom Hanks) is a faithful and enthusiastic clerk in a cavernous Walmart-like store, where he has nine times been named employee of the month. Then one day he is blindsided by corporate bylaws. It seems you cannot aspire to a management position if you don’t have a college degree, which Larry does not possess. 

So bye-bye Larry, who decides that, despite his advanced years, he will attend college after all. He enrolls in a community college, where he soon meets Mercedes Tainot (Julia Roberts), a speech teacher who is angry and bitter over her dead-end job and marriage. His sunny nature soon cures her of unhappiness, and by the end of the movie, there is the promise of new lives all around.

“Larry Crowne” is a wan and predictable romantic comedy, much more the former than the latter. It is, for me at least, a major disappointment. There comes a summer moment when most of the big action pictures have thundered past and the gross-out comedies have fallen on our increasingly deafened ears, and we are ready to embrace a lightsome movie for adults featuring two of our most likable stars. Instead, we are left to speculate about what went wrong with this lifeless film, which, it is said, required no less than four years just to get written in shootable form.

Do you think they were possibly trying too hard?

Certainly it seems Tom Hanks was. Besides acting in the movie he is also its director, co-writer (with Nia Vardalos) and co-producer. That’s a lot of hats teetering atop one distracted head. One result of that burden is that Hanks has somehow forgotten to give himself many funny moments—especially those that tap into the goofy, improvisatory side of his nature. This is probably the most recessive performance I’ve ever seen him give. In effect, he cedes the picture to Roberts, whose energy is whirlwind. She pouts. She blows up (particularly at Bryan Cranston, playing her feckless husband, Dean), she is sexually aggressive when the occasion demands it, she is fully present (and giddily inventive) all the time. You can’t say that she saves the movie, but she is what it has to sustain our intermittent interest.

It’s emblematic of “Larry Crowne” that when Hanks and his newfound college pals go mobile, they are not a motorcycle gang, roaming the streets in some possibly menacing or blackly comedic fashion, but a harmless motor scooter gang: good-natured, pallid and essentially a waste of screen time. Which says nothing of the way the film also wastes the potentially promising presences of excellent supporting players like Cedric the Entertainer and Pam Grier.

None of this is meant to suggest that I have lost my faith in Tom Hanks. He is a comic actor of great and often surprising range, whether he is playing delightful innocence in “Big” or the equally funny faux toughness of his baseball manager in “A League of Their Own.” Or, for that matter, the straight, hard-charging action hero in films like “The Da Vinci Code.” I think we can all stipulate his likability. He has nothing to prove in that department. But in this instance he is just too polite, too willing to hand his picture to a co-star he obviously likes and admires. But he needs to be angrier, more blustering, about the unfairness of his predicament. The unconsulted dark side of Larry Crowne could be funny, too, and even dangerous.

All right, it’s not a big deal—just a missed opportunity. But it does leave something of a hole in our moviegoing summer—one that cannot be entirely filled by Hanks’ obvious admiration for Julia Roberts’ gorgeous gams (and equally gorgeous comedic skills), which he adores as much as the rest of us do. What she needs is a full partner in a much more tightly wound movie.

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: ‘Tiger Trap’: 21st Century Espionage

Next item: The Last Weiner



New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By John, July 5, 2011 at 9:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m a bit surprised at the Julia Roberts bashing.  She occasionally does rise above the trivial and mundane to offer up a good performance, as in “Closer” and “Erin Brokovich.”  The woman can act when given the chance.  This, it seems, was not one of those opportunities.

Report this

By Salome, July 5, 2011 at 9:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“...two of our most likable stars”.  Who?  Roberts?  I think not.
“...adores as much as the rest of us do”.  Who?  Roberts?  What “us” ?

Roberts was a whore in “Pretty in Pink”, and she hasn’t improved since then.

Report this

By MeHere, July 5, 2011 at 7:02 am Link to this comment

Hollywood has found a perfect formula which is to give audiences the privilege of
staring at celebrity actors on the screen for about 90 minutes.  The rest is
immaterial. Most of these actors (including Hanks and Roberts) can act but they
never developed their craft to do great acting and select good material. Audiences
buy this and that’s why, considering the number of films made in this country,
most are awful.  Why bother to review this trash?

Report this

By expat in germany, July 5, 2011 at 12:22 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Disappointed? That means you had expectations beforehand. Your bad.

Report this

By WarrenMetzler, July 4, 2011 at 12:26 pm Link to this comment

I liked Larry Crowne. He is real, Julia Roberts is real, and most of the actors are
real. It was about real life events. In response to John above, he retired from the
military, and formerly had a wife that was working. And given the financial crisis
we just had, it is reasonable that he got a 300 mil plus loan to pay off his ex-wife’s
share. It was a pleasure to watch the movie.

Report this

By chris galkin, July 4, 2011 at 10:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

How could you be so disappointed.  What have you seen Julia Roberts in that did not disappoint you.  Yuk, America’s sweetheart is a big phony and not much of an actress.

Report this

By JohnQ1127, July 4, 2011 at 6:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I always feel that these types of films/t.v shows should be listed as Fantasy
instead of comedies because the premise of the new Planet of the Apes movie
is more plausible than this dreck. I really hate films like Larry Crowne because
they are such nonsense and they’re actually kind of insensitive to the real
problems a person like Larry Crowne would face.

The thing that bothers me the most about this film is how out of touch the
film-makers/t.v. producers are to the general conditions of average Americans.
Larry Crowne is supposed to be some sort of assistant manager of a Target and
he’s laid off because he doesn’t have a degree? If anything corporate types want
people without degrees in those positions because they can pay them less and
uneducated employees are more desperate because they fear job loss.

And then how exactly does Larry Crowne even afford to live in a house in a nice
L.A. suburban neighborhood like he does in the beginning of the film? The real
Larry Crowne would be LUCKY to live in a small apartment in modest area on
that salary. Most likely Larry Crowne on his $10-12 dollar an hour job with little
to no benefits would have to have a roommate or live with a family member.

And seriously, a college professor who looked like Julia Roberts isn’t going to
fall in love with her 55 year old student who was just fired from Target. Again,
talking Apes are more plausible. Why don’t they just have Larry Crowne have the
power of invisibility while they are at it. And then Larry Crowne is a gregarious
affable person in the beginning of the film and then he turns into a complete
imbecile when he gets into the speech class.

I think what bothers me the most was a “Making of Larry Crowne” film I saw on
HBO. Seriously the actors/film makers come off so incredibly oblivious to
problems average Americans face that in the end they actually come off as
callous and pompous. Hanks, Roberts and Vardalos were going on about trying
to help average Americans with this film about the struggles of an ordinary
man. They felt that their film of Hope was going to inspire a great deal of
people. WTF? Are they serious? You want to help ordinary Americans, then
depict their lives/problems somewhat realistically.

Report this
anaman51's avatar

By anaman51, July 3, 2011 at 2:27 pm Link to this comment

Show me a romantic comedy that isn’t lame. This is a garbage-can format that represents situations that can only occcur in ridiculous Hollywood fantasies, and it’s been that way since Tracy and Hepburn. The genre has been whomped and stomped like the dead horse it is. It’s almost an excuse for actors to deliver a sub-par performance, as if they were on vacation during filming. It almost seems as if the more money they dump into the production, the lousier the movie is. Making silly movies with no appreciable content is a waste of money and talent the industry can ill afford. They might as well be throwing cream pies.

Report this

By vote, July 3, 2011 at 1:44 pm Link to this comment

The film version of the romance novel is to cinema what romance novels are to literature and bubble gum pop is to music.  It’s not about art or talent. It’s about popularity and using that popularity to make boatloads of money.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.