Talk About It ...
Why Did 'In Her Shoes' Stumble?

Critic Carrie Rickey liked the film, based on a best-seller by Philly's Jennifer Weiner, but so far it's grossed a measly $29 million. Bad marketing? A sexual double standard? After all, Rickey points out, buddy flicks with guys do well. Why not films with mostly women? Read story.

Agree: Marketing was bad. A case of muddled identity. Trailers made Toni Collette look homely. And if you put classy shoes in ads, with that title, guys need more reasons to go.

It's true, there aren't many hit girl-buddy movies. But maybe that's because Hollywood girls just don't know how to have fun. How often do see female pals on-screen being carefree and stupid like the men in Sideways? (A tale, as Carrie has quipped, about "wine, women and schlong.") Thelma and Louise comes to mind. The title women rebelled and did as they pleased. Right off Suicide Cliff.

So maybe the happy exception (if you can get past the T-and-A aspect) is Charlie's Angels. It kicked and laughed its way to sequel land.

Now consider the flip side: How about a hit with two earnest men doing soul/soulmate-searching? Those films face resistence, too. Unless it's a spoof, like Analyze This.

So maybe the mainstream, movie-wise, is about misbehaving, not teamwork. Maybe that's why Bad Girls was a hit, The Little Princess a flop.

What do you think?

ps. For the record, twice I suggested seeing In Her Shoes, because it's a local film by a writer I know and like. But my wife was iffy, so we opted for better-0n-the-big-screen choices first.