PLOT: A former Olympic-class softball player (Reese Witherspoon), is torn between two men; a randy, baseball superstar (Owen Wilson), and a kindly businessman (Paul Rudd) who’s in trouble with the authorities after being accused of wire fraud at his father’s (Jack Nicholson) company.
REVIEW: HOW DO YOU KNOW is at least two movies too many. It’s the latest from James L. Brooks, who has admittedly produced some gems in his time (TERMS OF ENDEARMENT, BROADCAST NEWS, AS GOOD AS IT GETS), but has also been known to falter badly (I’LL DO ANYTHING- which was originally a musical prior to a disastrous test-screening, and the recent SPANGLISH).
Watching the film, it boggles the mind how it could have cost so much. Top dollar was obviously paid to all the stars, but if Nicholson indeed got the $12 million for the role that’s been reported, it’s an incredible waste as he’s only on-screen for maybe twenty minutes. Tech-credits are also filled with heavy-hitters, but you wonder why Brooks would bring in someone like Hans Zimmer to do the score, when it adds up to is sitcommy wallpaper? Or having Janusz Kaminski be the DP, when the thing is over lit like an old episode of HAPPY DAYS.
It seems like Brooks was trying really hard to make HOW DO YOU KNOW more than just another rom-com, by inserting a ripped from the headlines side plot about corporate greed, but it’s dealt with in such an offhand manner that you wonder why he bothered. Yet, at least it’s interesting, but sadly, it’s not what the movie is about. This is a Reese Witherspoon star vehicle through and through, but her whole relationship with Owen Wilson (who pretty much plays his, laid-back and horny, stock role) feels like it could have been jettisoned. She’s not a bad actress, and she’s fine in the film (and looks radiant throughout), but her material is just not interesting.
As for Rudd, I like the guy! But, he goes way off-base here, with him seemingly improvising every other scene by either spontaneously breaking out into song, a la I LOVE YOU MAN, or doing a bit of slapstick. Still, he remains likable, but he’s playing such a saintly, clear-cut victim that he’s not terribly interesting. As for his subplot, the resolution involving his father (Jack playing Jack- meaning lots of yelling, and the only two “fucks” in the film) is a joke- literally. I can’t imagine why the resolution would be played for comic effect, when this could have been the one scene to give the film a little heft.
There’s also another terribly extraneous subplot about Rudd’s pregnant assistant who’s struggling with drama in her own personal life, as well as pangs of guilt at Rudd’s legal situation. It all resolves itself in the big emotional set piece, which is wasted on a supporting character, and should have happened for one of the leads!
That said, at least HOW DO YOU KNOW isn’t another SPANGLISH. That film actually made me angry, but this never had me feeling anything worse than bored, which I suppose is an improvement. It also had a few good scenes, such as a nice piece of dialogue from Mark Linn-Baker (PERFECT STRANGERS!!!) who plays Nicholson’s lawyer, but pauses to give Rudd some good advice on accepting his situation. It’s the only part of the movie that really resonated for me, but I suppose that proves that Brooks is still capable of some fine character work. Hopefully he’ll rebound with his next film, as the guy who made BROADCAST NEWS, and produced THE SIMPSONS deserves to survive a few flops.