Monday, June 25, 2007
FOOLS RUSH IN
Every scene of Fools Rush In is fun, well acted, interesting. Lot's of great moments. Matthew Perry is excellent, as is Salma Hayek. Jill Clayburgh has a great cameo.
Given all that, plus Matthew Perry's great following from Friends, and Hayak's charm and beauty, this should have been a great hit. Yet, according to Box Office Mojo, it made only about $29M.
What's the difference between this movie and a romantic blockbuster?
I have an idea...
First, although individual scenes are great, they are strung together with contrived plot devices. Had this story been allowed to evolve naturally, I think it would be one of the great romantic comedy/dramas.
Second, the title sucks. Although it makes sense for the story: the two lovers rush in to a relationship without thinking much about what they are doing, it's not remember-able. (It's also half a cliche.) I couldn't remember it from one moment to the next; I kept looking up the title of the movie I had rented. (What was the name of that movie? Oh. Oh, yeah.) And it doesn't sound appetizing. A book title like, "Passionate Love For Idiots" implies that idiots can have great fun. Fools Rush In implies that fools do foolish things. Who wants that? All us idiots in the audience want to know that our idiocy is really one of our great strengths. This title suggests it's a problem. Don't want that!
So... I'll recommend this film as long as you can remember the title (and then ignore it), and provided you don't pay attention to the broader strokes in the plot, as the film leaps from one scene to the next. Just enjoy each scene as it comes!