First Hit: Although at times amusing, this film misfires in almost every area.
Tom Hanks had an idea and wrote it down on paper, decided it was good enough to be a film, then chose to direct and star in it as well.
Most of these decisions were not the best he could have made. The idea was actually pretty good and could have been expanded upon. People losing jobs after a divorce and finding they are not able to pay the bills could be a very strong story.
What evolved with fellow scriptwriter Nia Vardalos is generally weak and glossy. That the answer to Larry Crowne’s (played by Hanks) problems are to take college courses? Not sure this is real or true. Yes, getting an education is important and can lead one to a successful change in careers, but I didn’t think Larry had any idea as to what he wanted to be?
There is nothing in the film about Larry having a dream to be anything. So why would he go to school? Will a college degree in liberal arts keep him employed? No it won't, just ask the tens of thousands of college graduates who don’t have and cannot get a job.
This point is equally made in the film by his former boss at U Mart losing his job and he is seen later delivering pizza (and he graduated from SMU). Lastly, would Larry have had grounds for wrongful termination suit? Probably and although
I don't recommend such things, it came to mind because Larry is fired he didn't have the possibility to advance in his career without further education. But where did we think he was pushing for a promotion. He seemed happy doing his job. The point of these comments is to indicate that the setup for this film was trite, untrue and wasteful.
The point of the film was to find a way to get Mercedes Tainot, a worn down by life teacher, played by Julia Roberts to find hope by meeting Larry. To this end the film worked in some ways. Do I believe that there was a real chemistry between Larry and Mercedes? Nope, not in the least and generally felt that they were two drowning individuals who decided to cling to each other to stay afloat.
There were some side characters as well. George Takei played Dr. Matsutani an economics professor. As Dr. M. he brought a whole new look to the film but, for the most part, was an interesting and fun diversion. Another side character who attempts to make Larry more hip was Alvarez (played by Roxana Ortega), she takes a liking to Larry and works with his clothes and gets him to join a scooter club.
Lastly, Alvarez’s boyfriend Dell Gordo (played by Wilmer Valderrama) was funny as the always watching and being jealous by the kind actions of his girlfriend.
Hanks might have made a better showing if he hadn’t written the script or directed himself in this film. Roberts was, by far and away, the best character in the film. She felt real. And despite her obvious beauty, I felt a depth in her character. She was living with her deadbeat husband who loves triple x porn and then goes to her teaching job and only having classes which are barely attended. Takei was funny and solid as an economics professor who believes he, and only he, understands economics. Ortega was cute, a little unrealistic, but embodied a person who follows her own open heart path. Valderrama was fun to watch in his reactions when Alvarez was around Larry. Hanks and Vardalos’ writing painfully displayed their lack of understanding of what is like to be downsized. Hanks showed he cannot direct himself and if directing is a calling for him, then make sure he is not a character in his own film so that he can concentrate on the task at hand – making a film that holds together well.
Overall: Poorly done but there were some fun moments and scenes which made it worth watching but barely.