Did You Hear About the Morgans?
(C or 2/4 stars)
It's a good thing I like Sarah Jessica Parker. And it's a good thing that Hugh Grant has slowly grown on me, as well; because this film, 'Did You Hear About the Morgans?' (directed by Music & Lyrics' Marc Lawrence) would have been fairly insufferable without them. This film follows a successful Manhattan couple, Meryl & Paul Morgan (Parker, Grant), who are currently separated. Wanting to reconcile (even though he cheated on her), Paul asks Meryl to dinner. She reluctantly accepts, the eat, bicker, walk the streets of NY ... but an untimely fate steps in for them as they witness a murder & the killer sees their faces!
Now targets, the FBI places them in the Witness Protection Program, gives them new identities (the Fosters), & ships them out to the small town of Ray, Wyoming - yes, the New Yorkers are headin' for Wyomin'. There, they will stay with local sheriff, Clay Wheeler (a wonderfully dry Sam Elliott), & his gun-toting wife, Emma (a wonderfully dry Mary Steenburgen). Thanks to the slow-moving, technology-free way of life, while there, Meryl & Paul are afforded the time & serenity to start to rebuild their relationship. But through a series of plot contrivances, the killer who saw them back in NY is able to trace them to Wyoming. And chaos ensues when he chases Meryl & Paul in a climactic Rodeo scene.
'DYHTM' is your typical romantic comedy (with a hokey action/thrill scene at the end). Our 2 leads are apart at the beginning and together at the end. We're not to expect anything else. And the road these 2 go on to get from point A to point Z is both cliched & somewhat dull. Now, don't get me wrong, I wouldn't say this movie is 'bad'. As I mentioned, I like the 2 leads, thankfully. There are some funny one-liners (and deliveries) sprinkled throughout. It's a very easy film to watch. As a way to escape for an evening (for a little over an hour and a half), it serves a purpose. That said, everything about it is just so damned mediocre. And there's more than 1 occasion where the narrative comes to a complete stall. You can tell the beats/areas where ther'd be audience laughter. Problem is, I saw this with nearly no one around me. And the supposed 'funny' breaks just come across as un-comedic.
Instead, you're reduced to watching & thinking 'why does SJP look good in one angle, & not good in another? How old is Hugh Grant? Gee, I should book me a trip to Wyoming, it looks pretty. Why am I enjoying Sam Elliott & Mary Steenburgen more than the 2 leads? Wow, Wilford Brimley got old'. etc. etc. etc. In other words, your interest in the story will definitely go in & out. SJP nor Hugh Grant get to stretch their acting chops, here. Their characters are barely likeable (she's materialistic & needy, he is a cheater). The fact that we like the actors more than the characters they're playing is weird. I don't know. I give 'DYHATM' a mild pass for not aggravating me. It's a poor, but almost calming movie to watch as you're watching it. Harmless, intermittently nice, but lame.
Now targets, the FBI places them in the Witness Protection Program, gives them new identities (the Fosters), & ships them out to the small town of Ray, Wyoming - yes, the New Yorkers are headin' for Wyomin'. There, they will stay with local sheriff, Clay Wheeler (a wonderfully dry Sam Elliott), & his gun-toting wife, Emma (a wonderfully dry Mary Steenburgen). Thanks to the slow-moving, technology-free way of life, while there, Meryl & Paul are afforded the time & serenity to start to rebuild their relationship. But through a series of plot contrivances, the killer who saw them back in NY is able to trace them to Wyoming. And chaos ensues when he chases Meryl & Paul in a climactic Rodeo scene.
'DYHTM' is your typical romantic comedy (with a hokey action/thrill scene at the end). Our 2 leads are apart at the beginning and together at the end. We're not to expect anything else. And the road these 2 go on to get from point A to point Z is both cliched & somewhat dull. Now, don't get me wrong, I wouldn't say this movie is 'bad'. As I mentioned, I like the 2 leads, thankfully. There are some funny one-liners (and deliveries) sprinkled throughout. It's a very easy film to watch. As a way to escape for an evening (for a little over an hour and a half), it serves a purpose. That said, everything about it is just so damned mediocre. And there's more than 1 occasion where the narrative comes to a complete stall. You can tell the beats/areas where ther'd be audience laughter. Problem is, I saw this with nearly no one around me. And the supposed 'funny' breaks just come across as un-comedic.
Instead, you're reduced to watching & thinking 'why does SJP look good in one angle, & not good in another? How old is Hugh Grant? Gee, I should book me a trip to Wyoming, it looks pretty. Why am I enjoying Sam Elliott & Mary Steenburgen more than the 2 leads? Wow, Wilford Brimley got old'. etc. etc. etc. In other words, your interest in the story will definitely go in & out. SJP nor Hugh Grant get to stretch their acting chops, here. Their characters are barely likeable (she's materialistic & needy, he is a cheater). The fact that we like the actors more than the characters they're playing is weird. I don't know. I give 'DYHATM' a mild pass for not aggravating me. It's a poor, but almost calming movie to watch as you're watching it. Harmless, intermittently nice, but lame.