难道不浪漫

| Christy Lemire

February 13, 2019 |

“Isn’t It Romantic” tries to have its red velvet cupcake and eat it too, and though it’s tasty and enjoyable while you’re watching it, you’ll realize how hungry you are for something heartier soon after you’ve come down from your sugar high.

It'sas high a high concept as you can imagine: A woman who hates romantic comedies finds herself stuck inside one. You could give the entire elevator pitch in the time it takes to press the button for the floor you want. But the brassy Aussie Rebel Wilson,consistently charmingand game as always for everything that comes her way, finds subtlety and sweetness within this broad premise with her trademark sly, deadpan delivery. She’s raunchy but tender and easy to root for—so much so, that you’ll wish “Isn’t It Romantic” had taken even more chances and allowed her the opportunity to do the same.

The film from director Todd Strauss-Schulson (“A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas”) and screenwriters Erin Cardillo and Dana Fox & Katie Silberman places Wilson at the center of a tricky balancing act. “Isn’t It Romantic” simultaneously ridicules and embraces the many, many clichés of the rom-com genre. It knows these movies are pure formula, and it makes fun of that formula in myriad and amusing ways, including overt references to such predecessors as “Pretty Woman,” “Notting Hill” and “13 Going on 30.” But by the end, it’s also pretty much delivered that exact same formula with sincere enthusiasm, which makes the whole exercise feel like a bit of pointless wheel-spinning.

It’s a tough feat to pull off, regardless of the genre. Edgar Wright managed it beautifully with his Three Flavours Cornetto trilogy of “Shaun of the Dead,” “Hot Fuzz” and “The World’s End.” “Isn’t It Romantic” mostly coasts on Wilson’s likability and the power of recognition: a particularly overused song, some hackneyed character traits, a well-worn narrative device or a tidy way of wrapping things up to achieve a happy ending, etc. But every once in a while, it has something to say about what’s problematic about these familiar film tropes. Why must the heroine always have a flamboyantly gay BFF, and why does he have no life of his own outside of hers? Why must she have a female office rival who hates her for no apparent reason, when they should be working together to topple the patriarchy?

Some food for thought here and there, but “Isn’t It Romantic” mostly serves pleasing, bite-sized nibbles.

Wilson gives it her all, though, as Natalie, a young, single woman living in a dingy New York apartment and working as an architect at a firm where no one appreciates her. That is, except for her work pal Josh (Wilson’s playful “Pitch Perfect” co-star Adam Devine), who clearly has a crush on her while dwelling in the friend zone. One day on the way home from work, she gets mugged on a subway platform, bonks her head and wakes up in the hospital. Suddenly, the world around her has transformed. It’s a wonderland of flattering lighting and flirty doctors. Flowers and cupcakes are everywhere. The bustling NYC streets smell like lavender and the tinkling piano of Vanessa Carlton’s catchy “A Thousand Miles” follows her wherever she goes. Her surly neighbor from across the hall is now a stereotypically wisecracking gay man who loves makeover montages (Brandon Scott Jones, who gets plenty of zingers). And in one of the sharpest insights, Natalie now lives in an impossibly spacious, chic apartment with insane amounts of closet space for her vast shoe collection—the kind of real estate very few people could realistically afford.

Yes, she now lives in the very kind of romantic comedy she’s long despised. (And yes, for those of you keeping score at home, that’s two movies in as many weeks in which our heroine suffers a head injury and wakes up to a different life, between this and “What Men Want.”)

Natalie’s task is to figure out what life lesson she must learn in order to return to her regular life. But she still takes time to enjoy the fantasy, including a whirlwind romance with a wealthy, hunky real estate developer (an earnest and goofy Liam Hemsworth) that includes a candlelight dinner on his yacht and a helicopter trip to the Hamptons. (Their dramatic first kiss in the rain – in the middle of the street where the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building appear to be only about a block away from each other—is good for a chuckle.) Meanwhile, Josh gets to enjoy his own out-of-this-world love affair with Priyanka Chopra’s impossibly gorgeous and glamorous swimsuit model/yoga ambassador—the kind of passionate relationship that naturally opens Natalie’s eyes to what she’d been missing all along.

Of course, it all concludes with a mad dash to make some last-minute, very public proclamations of love, followed by a second dance number when the first exuberant one alone would have been just fine. By the end, it all feels like overkill, and the movie barely lasts 90 minutes (and couldn’t have sustained its central gimmick much longer). But your face will hurt from smiling so hard—and you may even have a toothache afterward.

此影评的译文可以登录火星译客网站查看，如有翻译不准确之处，望请指出，谢谢！

译员：卖女孩的小火柴。

校对： 驴饭高

我选电影有个习惯 先看海报 然后看评分 一般7分一下的电影我觉得有点浪费时间

但是飞机上app 不允许连接网络 所以当时我不知道这个电影分这么低 觉得做个飞机 看个喜剧开心一下也不是坏事 就开始看了 有时候忍不住旁若无人的笑出声来

喜剧成分偏多 梦境的篇幅很长 而且也撒下了小小的悬疑 这梦到底会不会醒 抢亲那段是在狗血 平时那几年 你不表白 人家结婚了 你就去抢亲 不要脸

结尾的教育意义不错哦

记得小时候我看的第一部偶像剧名叫“微笑百事达”，张栋梁和王心凌主演的。当时11岁的我看得如醉如痴（暴露年龄了）。还记得当时有天我爸看到张栋梁在剧中的角色的时候，不屑的说了句“哼，这男的像个二倚子（形容男人娘炮）”

哈哈哈 多年后我偶然看到这部剧，觉得似乎我爸说的没错… 啊呀 又扯远了

这部电影以批判偶像剧的方式，最终表达了一个思想：虽然你不完美，虽然你没有一个被名牌包包鞋子填满的大豪宅，虽然你不像袁湘琴（恶作剧之吻女主）一样蠢的开花，虽然你没遇到一个身价上亿但是脑子进水非你不娶的高富帅，但是你依然可以成为偶像剧一般幸福的主角。

电影中的女主角非常排斥偶像剧/爱情片，但是突然有天醒来发现自己变成了偶像剧女主角：任何男人见了她都瞬间爱上她；每天走路站都站不稳笨的像企鹅，但是一摔倒就能遇到帅到炸的男人把她搂住；身边的人说着说着话就会像宝莱坞一样跳起来；和喜欢的男生接吻就会下雨；一骂脏话就会被周遭的环境B掉；街上的店要么就是卖花的要么就是卖婚纱；大街上的人们都是情侣幸福的冒泡。这些爆笑情节无疑是侧面的讽刺了偶像剧或爱情片的一些惯用套路。

但是后来当女主角在偶像剧的平行世界里（也许就只是个梦）明白了她要先爱自己，才会被别人爱，才能有爱别人的能力。后来她也终于意识到了，要为自己发声，要努力争取她爱的人和事物。当她变得自信，她才发现她拥有很多：她拥有热爱的工作，相爱的男人，真挚的朋友。她就是个幸福的爱情片女主角！

个人而言，我喜欢这部电影对偶像爱情片的讽刺，偶像剧的套路已经被用烂了，大致都是一个好到原地爆炸男人偏偏深爱一个干啥啥不行吃啥啥不剩的女生。这种讲述笨笨女生也会被优秀到飞起的男人深爱的方式看似温馨，实则荼毒人心。活在偶像剧里的姑娘们整日等待白马王子从天而降救她们于水火之中，而忘记了去为自己争取幸福的机会。

当然，我相信所有女生都有获得幸福的机会，但是这都是建立在自我提升和努力争取之上的。天上掉一个项圈馅饼套在你脖子上的情节，还是发生在少数人或者偶像剧里的。

然而这部毒鸡汤电影，告诉姑娘们幸福就在你身边，只要你努努力抬抬头伸伸手，你也会成为那个幸福的小女人。加油啦！

谨此献给所有努力生活的姑娘们❤️

此剧照来自网络

影评第374话《难道不浪漫》——屌丝灰与蒂芙尼蓝的距离只有一步之遥

影片《难道不浪漫》于情人节在美首映。

本片讲述一个屌丝女的奇幻爱情故事。

整体来讲，本片是一部烂片。

锤弟和世界小姐佩丽冉卡·曹帕拉在影片中分别出演两位花瓶角色。

八零后导演托德·施特劳斯-舒尔森也是一位烂片王，旗下没有任何出色的作品。

导演在男一号选择方面也是极为失败的。

两年前，亚当·德维尼与扎克·埃夫隆共同出演《网聘女伴》。

扎克·埃夫隆现在在好莱坞已是大红大紫般的新人小鲜肉。

《网聘女伴》的两位并列女一号在近两年也均有出色地演独立女一号的作品。

唯一继续出演傻子式的男一号也只还有亚当德维尼。

瑞贝尔·威尔森的傻胖大姐形象在其所有作品之中就从来没有改过。

一个演员不能有效地塑造多重人物形象，

只能被注定格式化，前途渺茫。

佩丽冉卡·曹帕拉在获得印度小姐和世界小姐之后，

不论是在宝莱坞还是好莱坞均被当成花瓶首选。

导演在引入印度女神之后，又想在影片中加入歌舞元素。

无奈，影片中的歌舞和宝莱坞经典电影中的歌舞相比简直差了十八个等级。

整部作品，导演喂了观众一口毒鸡汤。

导演告诉观众，屌丝灰盒蒂芙尼蓝的距离只有一部之遥。

前提是，你得先闭上双眼尽情意淫，然后在闭眼迈出那一步。

其实导演还可以告诉观众，闭着眼靠幻想走路，

前面不光有蒂芙尼蓝，还有卡地亚红。

但是，现实生活中闭着眼睛靠意淫走路，很容易掉进坑里。

看了这片子，我深深觉得，导演其实是个根本不相信爱情的人。

相不相信爱情，都得油盐酱醋茶。城市就是脏兮兮的，屋子就是灰不拉叽乱糟糟的，就像你我的生活，折腾、闹心又偶尔小小幸福一下下。这世界哪那么多高饱和度的色彩和永远灿烂的阳光。比尔盖茨也烦心啊。

别闹了。相信爱情的，别把现实想象成童话，但现实的爱情也总有它美丽的模样。不相信爱情的，也别把爱情看得那么虚假，现实的世界什么都可能发生。

总而言之，这片子让我感到一种甜蜜、热闹而戏谑的悲伤。不过。用讽刺浪漫的方法拍一部浪漫类型片，真是讽刺到家。导演真是个有趣的人。

会有剧透的部分，谨慎查看这个影评。

电影算是比较俗套的结构和剧情了吧，因为作品的内核就是调侃爱情喜剧的俗套。于是势必要扯出一堆的美式爱情电影的俗套桥段了。作品结构算夹心小面包造型。和夏洛特烦恼类似都是一个穿越或者是梦境撑起主要的剧情时段。

剧情梗概很简短可以说完，一个从小就比较胖的妹子后来也比较胖的上班，然后一个剧情需要开始了里世界的套路化的爱情故事进程。然后在里世界发现了自己的真谛，于是里世界剧情又因为一个剧情需要回到了表世界。然后进入收尾剧情。

本来以为剧情完成在大众的预判里边了，结果还是有点出乎意料。女主顿悟的道理是爱自己，最值得爱的是自己。当然最后和办公室那个小男人组成了cp，完善了爱情的那个另一半环节，这一点算是强行圆满了。这个故事如果换成我去讲，那么最好女孩应该自己更优秀的活着，一个人走完剧终画面。不够受限于爱情电影题材限制，最后还是有了官配。这方面总感觉差强人意。 然后说几个有意思的点：

电影的户外广告潘婷的巨幅海报出现很多次，并且算作一个俗套的伏笔。宝洁公司是不是赞助了这个电影。

女主的确很超重不符合现在的健康标准，但是颜值在线，所以本作品不是丑小鸭类型俗套电影。

电影人设非常标签化，可能是便于爆米花电影的受众理解，但是这样也是决定了这个作品不会有高的评分，算一个及格的赶工情人节的专属电影。

那个里世界的男的早上赤裸上半身说出台词的桥段很有意思。我都怀疑是不是导演剪切复制了那部分影像。

女主在说脏话的时候各种周围道具发生屏蔽关键词的操作很棒。当然女主也说了里世界是pg13的剧情，所以希望看到大尺度画面的观众是要失望了。

总之这是一部够及格的不需要强行意义化的爆米花电影。一个半小时去看看不会亏但是没得赚。

偏爱Donny在Natalie梦中对她说的一番话，主要讲述了他个人的转变，从空虚到充满快乐。

其中最经典的就是这句台词：“You can searchinthe entire universe and never find abeingmore worthy of love...than yourself”（你就是找遍全世界 也永远找不到比你自己更值得爱的存在）。