I Love You, Man

I Love You, Man is a buddy flick worked out as a chick flick, complete with makeovers, bonding montages, a break-up and make-up.

I Love You, Man

Director: John Hamburg
Cast: Paul Rudd, Jason Segel, Rashida Jones, Jon Favreau, Jaime Pressly, J.K. Simmons, Andy Samberg, Jane Curtain
MPAA rating: R
Studio: Paramount
First date: 2009
UK Release Date: 2009-04-17 (General release)
US Release Date: 2009-03-20 (General release)

When I Love You, Man was first pitched to him more than five years ago, producer Donald DeLine says, “There hadn’t been a movie about male friendship or a comedy that explored men’s problems with intimacy.” That was then. Now, the term “bromance” is in common us, the objective of a reality TV show and the foundation of Judd Apatow's career. In other words, I Love You, Man is now late to the party.

That doesn't mean it doesn't try hard. Peter (Paul Rudd) is newly engaged to Zooey (Rashida Jones). While she speed-dials her girlfriends to share the good news, Peter has no one to call, since he has always been a “girlfriend guy," devoting his life to his girlfriend (read: whipped). As he's delivering a tray of lattes to Zooey and friends, he overhears their warning to her that a guy without friends will become clingy. This convinces Peter to go out and find himself a best man. After a series of nightmarish man-dates, Peter stumbles across Sydney (Jason Segal) and the two instantly connect. As the bromance bourgeons, Peter’s relationship with Zooey suffers. She issues a predictable ultimatum, forcing Peter to choose between her and Sydney.

I Love You, Man is essentially a buddy flick worked out as a chick flick, complete with makeovers, bonding montages, a break-up and make-up. Instead of the guys engaging in raunchy sex talk, Zooey’s friends do (though significantly not Zooey herself, a model of propriety), while Peter and Sydney are the ones debating issues of honesty, communication, and intimacy. In another play on types, Peter’s gay brother Robbie (Andy Samberg), who serves as Peter’s man-dating guru, seems straight, while Peter is mistaken several times as being gay, meaning that he's “one of the girls” at the office, gushing about how The Devil Wears Prada is to die for and considers his mother his best friend.

At a structural level I Love You, Man seeks to upend the marriage comedy formula by focusing on Peter and Sydney as the central couple. This isn’t new, but unlike, say, Robert De Niro and Ben Stiller in Meet the Parents, the men aren't engaged in a pissing match over a woman. The problem for straight-laced Peter, aside from Zooey's temporary jealousy, is Sydney's unruliness -- he's fond of one-night stands, retreats regularly to his "man cave,” and doesn't scoop his dog’s poop. We do wonder briefly if perhaps Sydney is up to no good in his friendship with Peter, but really, he's just lonely. Though he criticizes Peter for conforming to social expectations, Sydney is just as enslaved by rules of his own making.

The problems for Peter and Zooey are similarly easy to diagnose, and mostly irrelevant. When she complains about being ignored, we barely care, because she is utterly peripheral, but it’s essential to the formula that Peter be forced to choose. The breakup that matters is Peter and Sydney’s, even though we know their reunion can only happen as a result of Peter and Zooey’s. In order to keep this story straight, Peter can’t choose Sydney over Zooey. What's less clear is why Peter sees these relationships as mutually exclusive. Unable to suggest, much less insist, that he maintain his friendship with Sydney while also being with Zooey, he is in the end turned childlike, his newly supportive, even maternal, bride to be finally seeing that particular light.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.