Review: Ghosts of Girlfriends Past

Posted by Robert Levin (rlevin@filmschoolrejects.com) on May 2, 2009

ghosts-of-girlfriends-1

As a piece of entertainment Ghosts of Girlfriends Past fails. As a 100 minute deconstruction of the onscreen persona Matthew McConaughey has shaped over a career headed towards its third decade, however, it’s something else entirely. This is not a cogently structured narrative dramedy that begins and ends with the classically constructed rising and falling action. Rather director Mark Waters, and screenwriters Jon Lucas and Scott Moore, create an entire motion picture out of a succession of scenes in which the nose of an archetypal McConaughey character is summarily rubbed in the wreckage of the women he’s loved up and dumped.

The brilliantly sardonic Hollywood blogger Jeffrey Wells has written that “if the devil wanted to roam around and foster evil, he’d definitely pick McConaughey as host.” Wells goes on to attribute that assessment to the fact that “no actor on earth seems more vapid, and because vapidity, more than any other human quality, is what allows evil to succeed.” When considering the range of shirtless alpha male pretty boy hustlers that the actor’s played in everything from How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days to Fool’s Gold, it’d be hard to argue with Wells’ assessment.

As Ghosts of Girlfriends Past begins all signs point to it falling firmly in line with the defining themes of the McConaughey oeuvre. He plays Connor Mead, a misogynistic jerk who doesn’t believe in love, hates commitment and looks upon spooning in bed as the ultimate sign of weakness. He travels to Newport, Rhode Island for the wedding of his brother Paul (Breckin Meyer), also attended by former flame Jenny (Jennifer Garner), and proceeds to summarily ruin everything over the course of several hours. Fortunately for him four ghosts (including one played by a slumming Michael Douglas) show up just in time to take him on a journey through his less than illustrious personal history, pointing out the many instances of downright inconsiderate behavior that’s ruined his relationships with the most important people in his life.

There’s never any doubt that Connor will learn his lesson and learn it so quickly, and so profoundly, that he’s able to instantly transform from a sardonic playboy to Mr. Sincere, giving an earnest speech about the meaning of love. When the movie is not immersed in the character’s subconscious it’s almost unspeakably bad. The filmmakers stuff it to the brink with shrill stereotypes, as if making a point to compile all those characteristic of wedding movies. There are the single bridesmaids crazed by horniness but repulsed by the groom’s nerdy friends. There’s also the icy divorced couple, comprised of Paul’s big-breasted mother-in-law Vonda (Anne Archer) and his unhinged soldier/pastor father-in-law referred to only as Seargeant Volkom (Robert Forster). And let’s not forget Paul himself, the much put upon nice guy, and super needy bride Sandra (Lacey Chabert).

As if that weren’t enough, we get insipid dialogue by the truckload, characters that divulge personal secrets to strangers without concern and so many forced theatrical dramatics played out in wide shots that the movie periodically brings to mind bad community theater. McConaughey and Garner, both likable actors (and why wouldn’t the devil be likable?), generate no chemistry in their scenes at the wedding, in which he affects his usual sly manner and she pouts, or in the flashbacks to their brief relationship a decade earlier. Once the fantasy scenes abandon Connor’s past and start projecting into the future they begin to display the starchy sentimentality of Click or a particularly overplayed version of A Christmas Carol. Breckin Meyer in old man makeup = bad idea.

Until then, however, there is a certain risible kick to watching the ultimate ladies man get his comeuppance. Sending the character back through childhood and his awkward young adult years, showing the audience the creation of Connor Mead, and by extension Matthew McConaughey the playboy, shatters the self-absorbed adventurous hunk image the actor has by now played to exhaustion. As Connor looks on perplexed and ashamed at how clownishly he’s behaved one begins to fervently hope that the actor playing him take heed and start challenging himself again.

Grade: C-


Read more articles by Robert Levin

Related Reading:

Your Ad Here

Comment Policy: No hate speech allowed. If you must argue, please debate intelligently. Comments containing selected keywords or outbound links will be put into moderation to help prevent spam. Film School Rejects reserves the right to delete comments and ban anyone who doesn't follow the rules. We also reserve the right to modify any curse words in your comments and make you look like an idiot. Thank You!

  • Lon
    Great review, except I'm not sure I understand that last line. Is the suggestion that McConaughey would be better served by taking on more challenging roles? I'm not sure there's any real precedent for this...When he leaves his comfort zone to portray lawyers and scientists, the results are generally pretty gruesome. (Think "Time to Kill" and "Contact").

    All of his most "memorable" roles (and here I'm thinking primarily of Wooderson from "Dazed and Confused") are just different takes on this same laid-back surfer persona. I think the answer for him is to really (1) be a supporting character or (2) try to make the least-stupid films possible that still have appropriate parts for him. Or just stop making movies and spend the rest of his days smoking pot and playing naked bongos, which is probably what he'd prefer to be doing anyway.
  • Robert Levin
    My thinking was that I'd like to see him try to stretch again and take parts like "Time to Kill" or "Contact," both movies I'm actually willing to defend. But I'm on board with your pot smoking/naked bongos suggestion as perhaps the most viable alternative lol.
  • why did you guys review this movie?
  • We try and review every movie, just for you.
  • Bob Smith
    I saw the movie this evening and I thoroughly disagree with this review. The things the reviewer disliked -- including Mr. McConaughey's performance itself -- I found charming and so did the audience I was with. They actually clapped at the end.

    If you're going to write a convincing review it helps to back your points up somehow and not simply assume that your readers will automatically nod their heads in understanding and agreement with statements like "Breckin Meyer in old man makeup = bad idea." Why was it a bad idea? I thought he looked convincing and realistic. And the scene, though very brief, was poignant and tasteful.

    Here's another statement with no credibility: "The filmmakers stuff it to the brink with shrill stereotypes, as if making a point to compile all those characteristic of wedding movies." What about the presence of these so-called stereotypes in the movie suggests that the filmmakers were using them to make some sort of point? Maybe those characters were simply familiar to the writers, entertaining, and part of the world of weddings. I believed them and I thought they were often very funny.

    Finally, how about this one: "Rather director Mark Waters, and screenwriters Jon Lucas and Scott Moore, create an entire motion picture out of a succession of scenes in which the nose of an archetypal McConaughey character is summarily rubbed in the wreckage of the women he’s loved up and dumped." To coin a phrase, the reviewer says that like it's a bad thing. A motion picture IS a succession of scenes. The movie WAS about a character whose nose is rubbed in the wreckage of his past. Again, so? What's bad about that?

    It seems to me that the reviewer intended to dislike this movie simply because it starred Mr. McConaughey and was about weddings, I guess. But the review failed to convince. In fact, reviews like this one, which put the movie down without making a case for doing so, made me WANT to see this movie all the more... and I was glad I did. I hope it's a tremendous success.
  • Robert Levin
    Bob, of course the experience of watching a movie is an entirely subjective one, and I'm happy you got your money's worth here. Nonetheless, my response to your points:

    A) I could have expanded on the comically overdone application of makeup on Breckin Meyer, who looked like a pockmarked clown and seemed to purposefully add an extra gruff old man intonation to his voice, but to do so would have stretched the review to an unwieldly length.

    B) What are shrill sex obsessed bridesmaids who never express a single cogent, meaningful idea behind their desire to do McConaughey or some other man, but wedding stereotypes? Also, saying that it was "as if" the filmmakers were making a point is not to say they necessarily were, but that there were so many examples of these throughout the film they might as well have been.
  • Robert Levin
    C) Yes any motion picture is a succession of scenes, but typically there will be some sort of shape to them, some sort of narrative arc that offers you some reason to become immersed therein. That's even the case in more experimental ventures, like the new Jim Jarmusch film. This movie had McConaughey observing tidbits from his past that functioned as mini short films, and little else.

    D) I definitely did not intend to dislike the movie, and in fact never do when I'm reviewing something, but I know the vast majority of critics agree with me and I suspect the vast majority of the moviegoing population will too. Still, I'm genuinely glad you liked it, as I'd never wish a bad time on anyone.
  • But Matt M. has dreamy eyes and abs! Everything he does is awesome!


    Except Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation.
  • HempKnight 757
    I thought Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation was one of his better films. McConaughey is garb in just about everything. Why do you think he is doing a chick flick? Best way for him to make profit from women because their pretty much his only fans unless your a gay dude then you most likely want him too. Him and Keanu just need to go ahead and do Surfer-Cops.
  • Would I like to hang out with McConaughey? Yeah. Have a few beers? Yeah. Maybe do a J? Indeed. Watch him in a movie? No, thanks.

    Sorry, but McConaughey's film roles worth a shit are few and far between. He seems like the kind of guy I'd like to party with, and that's about it.
blog comments powered by Disqus