Dec 17, 2010

Posted by in General News, Review | 2 comments

Review: HOW DO YOU KNOW

One of many things that bothered me about HOW DO YOU KNOW is its title. It’s not only meaningless (and forgettable) but it’s grammatically incorrect. Isn’t that phrasing a question? Shouldn’t it end with a question mark? That was just one thought going through my mind while trying to cope with the boredom that is HOW DO YOU KNOW, a formula-driven sitcom type of film, with nothing fresh attempted. For an astute comic appreciation of the love lives of Washington D.C. minions, almost any movie would be better than this misguided effort from the usually dependable James L. Brooks. This time Brooks, a Hollywood veteran who was once the talent behind TERMS OF ENDEARMENT, BROADCAST NEWS, and The Mary Tyler Moore Show, loses his way early and can’t see the forest of D.C. through the individual trees of his characters. Given James L. Brooks’ pedigree and his cast, HOW DO YOU KNOW ought to be a lot better. It’s competently directed, but artlessly made and Brooks’ laugh-free script seems half-baked and adrift in a sea of rom-com cliches.

Reese Witherspoon stars in HOW DO YOU KNOW as Lisa, whose goal to play softball in the Olympics is her life’s dream. When she is cut from the team for the crime of being (gasp) 31 years old, she runs into the arms of wealthy major leaguer Matty (Owen Wilson), a simple-minded ladies’ man who’s both arrogant and sweet. Meanwhile George (Paul Rudd), a hard-working exec in his father’s (Jack Nicholson) company is unexpectedly accused of financial crimes even though he knows he’s done nothing wrong. Although he may be headed to prison, George’s goodness and optimism may be the only way to save his sanity. In the midst of this, George meets Lisa – on what turns out to be the worst day of both their lives. The two connect and, though Lisa is on-again off-again with Matty, she finds herself attracted to George as well and when everything else seems to be falling apart, these two discover what it means to find the right person at the right time. It may all sound romantic but the bulk of HOW DO YOU KNOW is predictable and contrived stuff, a cookie-cutter story that never engages.

The problem with HOW DO YOU KNOW is the same problem far too many movies that bill themselves as comedies have; it’s not funny. The story bounces clumsily between Lisa’s boyfriend problems and George’s attempts to clear his name with help from his extremely pregnant assistant (a scene-stealing Kathryn Hahn) and without much help from his undependable father. There is so much psycho-babble dialog about relationships and goals and money and class that it feels like Brooks left out the laughs and made a movie that only his psychiatrist could enjoy. The story doesn’t matter nor do the flat attempts at humor, which leaves it a film resting on the shoulders of its A-list cast. HOW DO YOU KNOW is lucky to be anchored by the  sweet presence of Reese Witherspoon, but her material is far from winning. Her cheerful smiles and her easygoing personality make some of the ride better than it would be with another actress in the position. Jack Nicholson’s good, but his casting is kind of pointless. It’s not an ambitious performance for him and he just seems to be going through the motions. He’s given little to do and his character’s motives involving something rather unforgivable he’s doing to his son are murky. Paul Rudd has off-the-chart likability factor and is blessed with an unmatched sense of comic timing but his nice-guy shtick grows quickly tiresome when he’s not working with a sharp script. He does little here but mope and let himself get stepped on and I just wanted to grab him by the neck and tell him to grow a pair. Only Owen Wilson manages to convince he’s not a sitcom character. Wilson’s hound-dog charisma is put to good use and I often found myself wishing they would cut back to his goofy, laid-back charms. The few lines in the film that do work are almost all delivered by Wilson. HOW DO YOU KNOW is amiable and well-paced and may find an audience, but considering the talent in front of and behind the camera, it’s the big disappointment of this year’s Christmas season.
1½ of 5 Stars

Bookmark and Share







  1. I whole heartedly agree Tom. How could they have thought that this script was worthy of being filmed? Nicholson must still feel indebted to Brooks for TERMS OF ENDEARMENT and AS GOOD AS IT GETS. That’s the only reason I can understand for him taking this role.This movie may be this year’s biggest disappointment!

  2. Panda Hugger says:

    I actually saw this at an early screening and they made us sign confidentiality agreements!!! even the studio knew it was a stinker and didn’t want us trashing it all over the internet before it was released. Seriously one of the most ridiculous movies I’ve seen in a long time. Your review is spot-on Tom.

Leave a Reply