Here on Earth

Films like this are one of the many things that give Hollywood its bad reputation among independent creative artists. Being at the advanced age of twenty-four and already having had two girlfriends (okay, one girlfriend and one exceptionally good female friend) die on me, I turned the DVD off feeling insulted. Mr. Cranky's review of the film says it all, but I thought I would offer some of my own personal commentary just to embellish the point.

Ever heard the saying "convert ****holes who, having accepted Jesus into their hearts, remain ****holes"? Well, this film is a living example of it. I had as much sympathy for the characters in this film as I would have for a baked potato, and that did not change one iota by the end. The dead mother plot device might have done it for me - quite frankly, I would be very indifferent if my mother died, especially if she had done so when I was about ten years younger. Plot points follow this paragraph, by the way, but you might save yourself a lot of boredom if you just read them.

The manner in which we are supposed to feel sympathy for Leelee Cantactworthadamn's character is simple. The writers and director decide to give her cancer. Apparently, she has broken her knee playing sports before, and the doctors tell her crying family that the possibility of a tumour growing in her leg as a result was "always a possibility". What the f***? Having had a cancer dug out of my face myself, resulting in similar disfigurement to what Cybill Shepherd is reputedly going through at the moment, I find this plot device even more insulting now than I did when I saw the film. I will not feel sympathy for a cardboard cut-out if she dies of cancer, and I will want to kill her myself if she is afflicted with cancer via such a lousy, insulting, and just plain inconsistent with the facts setup as this. Hell, her family must belong to the HMO from Hades if cancer as the result of a knee injury was "always a possibility", and yet it spreads throughout her body so far it cannot be rectified before anyone even notices!

Of course, another source of eternal amusement is the contribution of music by Tori Amos, a woman who still apparently wishes she was more unusual than the chew-toys in breakfast cereals. I'd love to see the look on her face after being played some of the record collection I've put together after years of living in circumstances that would make the writers of this film shudder in terror. Which brings me to another point - when the hell is Hollywood going to stop insulting us with these pseudo-alternative films and present us with something truly exceptional again? One could could the current Lord Of The Rings trilogy, but that is only exceptional because of good source material and a quirky director. Hell On Earth, by comparison, seems geared to prove that Hollywood is only geared towards a very narrow, rigid demographic.

In case I haven't impressed upon you how bad this trash is, let me close by just saying that this film's entire plot was done a billion times better in about twenty minutes of Groundhog Day.

Here on Earth is an absolutely awful romance-wannabe. The characters are merely cookie cutter at best: the young, doomed girl whom is torn between her love of the past and the breath of fresh air sweeping through the sleepy town; Kelley, the poor/rich boy who learns a life lesson and of course Jasper: the jilted lover. Of these three I found Jasper to be the most interesting simply because he shows more than two emotions throughout the entire film.

The "romance" (and I use that term loosely) between Kelley and Sam is missing. There is not enough development of these two as characters for me to care about their "budding relationship". And what was that scene between them under the tree with the states? AWFUL! Boo! Hiss!

Chris Klein is way too sensitive in this movie and Leelee Sobieski's movements are very awkward--in fact it is painful to watch her. (Think back to the scene in the kitchen with her "dancing" around) Josh Hartnett redeems the movie a bit with a character that actually has more than one layer. Just skip the movie altogether and save yourself from this dud.

I only rented this film because I had a free coupon, was home alone, and wanted a sappy movie. I guess I didn't think it was so bad because it's what I was in the mood for at the time. Yes, the movie was somewhat predictable, but it did have a decent story line which carried some meaning. It's definitely not a movie for the intellectual crowd, but I think most teens looking for a good romance will enjoy it. Chris Klein was very handsome in this movie, so if your a fan of his, you will like that aspect of it. Also, have a box of tissues nearby!

*MILD SPOILERS* - Hey, you know how there's always that one guy in every Nicolas Sparks movie (usually rich and spoiled) who makes a crude remark about the hero's girlfriend and then gets punched out in a public place (usually a wedding reception or a party)? Well, if you've ever wanted to see HIS story, this is the movie for you! Even though this came out 2 years BEFORE A Walk to Remember, it came out a year after the book - I don't know if someone at 20th Century Fox ordered some writers "hey - make a movie kinda like this book NOW!", but what I do know is this movie sticks closer to the Sparks formula even moreso than AWTR! Besides Sparks standards like a small town, disapproving parents, class issues, disease, and death, this one throws in future Sparks tropes that were missing - love scene in the rain, multiple montages of people building or renovating something (usually a boat, tractor or a house; here a diner), a love triangle with a "nice guy", and a PG-13, shot from the shoulders-up sex scene - they're all here. All we're missing is handwritten letters in a box and a North Carolina coastal setting and this would actually be the ultimate Sparks movie. I wonder if he consciously or subconsciously borrowed a bunch from this movie - a true Who Made Who? situation.

But is it any good? It's entertaining and watchable, but it's also head-scratchingly wrongheaded in concept or execution. The main character is arrogant, he's sleazy, he's ungrateful, he makes fun of poor people - it seems like they're setting up some kind of redemption story, but then they forgot to film the redemption parts! He's just as big an a-hole at the end as he was at the beginning, and we're supposed to root for him for some reason as he steals another guy's girlfriend, then treats her like crap, then leaves and disses the entire town, then comes back like nothing happened. It might make some sense if Chris Klein showed any of his aw-shucks, goofy persona (from Election and American Pie, etc...) but he's simultaneously unlikable and uninteresting here, not to mention he bears a striking resemblance to mass murderer Elliot Rodger. I mean, look at his smug look on the cover, you're about to get a whole movie of that. This is the first Chris Klein movie where I don't want to hang out with his character (and yes this includes Street Fighter).

Why are we supposed to cheer on Leelee Sobieski as she cheats on her boyfriend with this guy? They have zero chemistry and they never portray her boyfriend as anything less than a good guy, and I'd argue more women would choose Josh Hartnett over Chris Klein- it's mind-boggling that we're supposed to sympathize with her as she makes out with Klein RIGHT IN FRONT OF HER BOYFRIEND'S BEST FRIEND and he's supposed to be the bad guy for ratting them out? As a Paul Verhoeven-esque satire of the tragic romance genre, this kinda works, but viewed straight it's kind of unbelievable that they released this movie without major reshoots or re-writes.

I just finished watching this movie for the first time (and last time) last night because after seeing a commercial for Hollywood Homicide, I was in the mood for a Josh Hartnett movie. I should've watched Pearl Harbor, at least I knew the characters in that movie. Josh Hartnett was the only good thing about this movie, but even he was not enough to save it.

Yes this movie follows the typical teen love triangle where the problem is solved only because someone is sick. But I think that the biggest problem with this movie was that the characters were so undeveloped. If I had not read the back of the video box before watching the movie, I probably would not have even known what the character's names were. The only character that I could even connect to was Hartnett's Jasper. Other than that I just watched Kline and Sobieski hold the same facial expressions and speak in the same tone the entire movie. (If your tv is anything like mine, you're going to need to have the volume up as high as it can go if you want to decently hear the dialogue).

I think that the plot upset me the most though about the film. I like Hartnett's character from the start, probably because I was only watching the movie for him. And Kline's character grew on me as I saw him change into a better person, plus the scene with the cows cracked me up. But Sobieski's character made me so upset that I was wishing she'd die because she was just hurting the two boys. Hartnett did nothing wrong to her and yet she cheated on him with a boy she didn't even know (he must've been a good kisser). So you like the new boy in town, at least have the class and decency to break up with your boyfriend before you start making out, geography style, in the grass.

I would give this movie a 1, but I think that Josh Hartnett, and the cows, saved it from that rating so I'm giving it a 2/10.