Love and Other Drugs: A film review

- Burnaby, British Columbia - It is difficult to know how to begin this review, since it is equally as difficult to say what the heck this film was all about. On one hand, it is the story of the rise of Viagra on the sales rep level. On another hand, it is also a critique about the way that pharmaceuticals market their drugs to a society desperate for treatment. Furthermore, it is a tale about a couple dealing with the reality that one is afflicted by Parkinson's disease, while on yet another level, it is about a rather sexually charged, non-fairytale-like romance between a man and a woman. And yet on an even further level, it is a serious drama, but also an attempt at a comedy.

"Love and Other Drugs" (2010), directed by Edward ZwickFor these reasons, reviewing Love and Other Drugs is rather difficult, because it is hard to pinpoint which exactly it wanted to be and thereby judge it on those merits. The story mostly follows Jamie Randall (Jake Gyllenhaal), a womanizing electronics salesman with bigger aspirations, who finds himself moving into the pharmaceuticals sales industry for Pfizer, who would eventually become the producers of Viagra. That itself could be a story, but it tries to add on a romance between Jamie Randall and Maggie Murdock (Anne Hathaway), who is a cynical, Parkinson's disease suffering, quasi-hippie. Except, Maggie at first only possesses revulsion towards Jamie and wants nothing to do with him, but through his persistence and her equal desire to shag him, the two become sexual lovers.

I say it with slight exaggeration, but nearly half of the film is Jamie and Maggie in the buff, which maybe shouldn't have surprised me, considering the film's marketing poster. Nonetheless, I couldn't help but wonder what any of it really added to the story, except maybe that their relationship was primarily based on their carnal lust for each other. Beyond that, I never got a sense of what exactly attracted them to each other beyond their desire to tangle in the sheets together.

The greatest problem with the film, however, was with the characters, who lacked anything for the audience to feel any empathy for. Sure, Maggie has Parkinson's disease, but that wasn't enough, since she seems to embrace a "woe is me" sentiment for almost all of the film. There is hardly anything redeeming about the characters, nor did I feel entirely convinced that the couple would have any hope of going the distance if they decided to actually commit to each other. Sure, love is supposed to be a universal experience and something that we can all connect with in stories, but simply put, if I had to choose between being single or having their romance, I would choose being single. The level of emotional manipulation in the film is entirely depressing with the romance seemingly following an order something akin to: boy adores girl; girl has no use for boy, but whatever; boy falls in love with girl; girl accepts boy's affections, but does not love him; boy finds girl disturbing, but girl thinks boy is an idiot for this; boy falls in love with girl again, while girl falls more for boy. Sounds somewhat normal so far? Well, just continue this, but through in periods where it feels like neither of the characters love each other or want each other.

Maggie (Anne Hathaway) and Jamie (Jake Gyllenhaal) in the buffI get it that with this film, we are reminded that not all romances are cookie-cutter perfect or of the "...and they lived happily ever after" ilk, but there was no pay off in this film (unless one went to see a naked Anne Hathaway or Jake Gyllenhaal?) and altogether it left me feeling very uneasy. At times, I wondered if it was supposed to be a story about dealing with Parkinson's disease in a young relationship, but often times, it felt like it was merely a secondary story line to the film. Maybe that is the best way I can describe this film: a story of secondary storylines without really possessing a central plot.

I've focused mostly on the main characters of Jamie and Maggie, thus I would be mistaken if I did not discuss the others in the film. Josh Randall (Josh Gad), the millionaire nerd brother of Jamie, appears to be a character without really anything to add to the story, save but for some attempt at comedic relief, which ultimately fails. The role was uninspiring and felt more like an effort in developing a new Jonah Hill for Hollywood, but what Josh Gad lacks is delivery. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Jonah Hill, but at least he has comedic sensibilities and could define what comedic timing means. By the end of the film, the screenplay writer attempted to write an ending for Josh Randall's character. You know, one in which the character's experience and storyline make sense within the film, but ultimately, it failed. Instead, I felt like his ending was a cheap, last minute cop out in which we're all to excuse the potty-mouthed brother's problems.

Bathtub scene!And then who could forget the "secondary" storyline with Dr. Stan Knight (Hank Azaria) and Jamie Randall's pharmaceutical competitor, Trey Hannigan (Gabriel Macht)? Hannigan sells Prozac and has Dr. Knight in the palm of his hand, while Jamie seeks to get Zoloff into Dr. Knight's office by replacing the free Prozac samples with Zoloff samples. The storyline wants to be an important part of the overall story, whatever that may be, but ultimately, it is a sideshow distraction from God knows what? Neither of these characters were entirely convincing or believable, yet only managed to leave me feeling unsympathetic to either of them.

Love and Other Drugs, in my mind, was a failure. The greatest problem with it was simply the writing. It had high production values, but it didn't know what it was trying to be, which confuses the viewer and makes it a harder film to enjoy or critique. Gyllenhaal and Hathaway did what they could with the script, but I can hardly feel sympathetic to them as actors, since they had a choice whether or not to take on this film. If I were to title this film, it wouldn't be Love and Other Drugs, rather Other Stories and Love.

Rating: 1.5/5 Sour Grapes

JB

Comments

[paul]

Hmm, interesting. I doubt I'll be watching this movie anytime soon, or at all for that matter.

[Brittany]

Sorry Joel, but you know I have to disagree with you.

I felt a huge connection with this movie and quite frankly a huge sigh of relief to know that there are other very dyfunctional lives and relationships out there. I know it is fiction, but I'm sure the inspiration came from some sort of truth. As some one who lives with a permanent medical issue, I know how exhausting and often depressing it is to constantly live a life scared of falling in love with some one who may not accept you for it. I didn't see the "woe is me" side of her, I saw that exact fear. I don't think Maggie's character wanted nothing to do with Jamie at the beginning, I think she was going through the doubt of whether this relationship would only bring her more pain. It is the very reason that she keeps pushing him away. For Jamie's character, I think his fascination with Maggie began when she rejected his relationship request as not many other girls did. I know it is very unhealthy and sad but in the real world that is often how it happens - two people trying to escape the reality of their own lives.
I do believe that in order for the audience to appreciate this movie they would have had to experience a few relationships themselves in order to know that love is not a fairy tale. It often starts out with two people just trying to make themselves feel better and realizing they have become better people because of eachother. I am not saying that these relationships are the long lasting, healthy ones, but they are the most common and do deserve to be talked about. And as for the comment that there was no pay off for the audience, I don't really know if that is just based on your own opinion or if you are just over generalizing, because I personally fell in love with the film. I have a deep emotional attachment to this movie and have thought about it everyday since watching it. I was relieved and hopeful at the end when he truly fell in love with HER because it gave me the confidence that some one, someday will feel that way about me and accept my condition. I think at the end of the day that is one of the most important pieces to a successful relationship - accepting the good and bad. They did that while still having a fun/goofy relationship.

I do want to say I agree that the main point of this movie was a bit unclear, but on the other hand, life itself is usually pretty unclear so I almost related with the chaotic nature of the film. As for Josh's character I believe that the point was money doesnt buy happiness. In all fariness maybe it was one story line too many. But overall this is one of my all time favourite movies and I would pay to see it again.

[Joel Bain]

Brittany,
I think you do a good job explaining why the film makes a strong emotional connection to you, but as someone who doesn't live with a permanent medical condition, I did not feel the same connection. I'm not sure that many others will, but I could be wrong about that. I don't really feel convinced that he truly fell in love with her, but maybe I am simply a little cynical about the relationship altogether.

If Josh's character's storyline was to say that money doesn't buy happiness.....it has been said many times before and in much better ways at that, which perhaps is why it is so striking how bad his character's story is.

[Brittany]

Joel,

I don't think that one needs to have a health issue to relate to this movie, simply knowing some one whose hardships they may have shared together could easily create a connection. Not only that but any one who has experienced a serious but dysfunctional relationship will be sure to find humour in the similarities between their life and the relationship of Maggie and Jamie. I don't expect anyone who hasn't experienced either of these things to be able to relate to the film; however I do believe that most people have. Then again maybe it is just lack of empathy.