your £$ support needed

part of a small rebellion | by maryann johanson

The Oranges (review)

The Oranes red light Oliver Platt Hugh Laurie Alia Shawkat

I’m “biast” (pro): love the cast

I’m “biast” (con): hate the trailer

(what is this about? see my critic’s minifesto)

I’m not sure a better cast has ever gone more ickily astray than in this most misbegotten of dramedies. At least, I think there are meant to be comedic elements in this oh-so-wrong tale of infidelity, infelicity, and impropriety… I’m just not sure I see it myself. David Walling (Hugh Laurie: Arthur Christmas) and Terry Ostroff (Oliver Platt: X-Men: First Class) are best friends whose lives are so intimately intertwined that they’ve lived across the street from each other in West Orange, New Jersey, for more than 20 years. Their wives — respectively, Paige (Catherine Keener: Trust) and Carol (Allison Janney: The Help) — are now also best friends; their kids grew up together; they spend holidays together. Such as this Thanksgiving, when 20something ne’er-do-well Ostroff daughter Nina (Leighton Meester: Country Strong) returns home after years away, and after personal disaster strikes, tail between her legs — as Walling daughter Vanessa (Alia Shawkat: Ruby Sparks) notes with glee — and proceeds to embark upon an affair with David. Who is, remember, only the barest remove from her own father. Who should, observe, see her as barely distinguished from his own daughter. Ewww eww ewww. These two families are so close they could be seen as one family — indeed, I had a bit of trouble keeping track of who was married to whom and which kids, also including Adam Brody’s (Seeking a Friend for the End of the World) Toby Walling, belonged to whom, they’re all so chummy — and the film is consumed with the upheaval among them in the month between Thanksgiving and Christmas, as David and Nina stubbornly continue their affair while everyone else indulges in a well-deserved nervous breakdown brought on by their incredibly selfish behavior. Here’s the real kicker, though: The Oranges manages, disgustingly, to make the pursuit of happiness seem wrong and egotistical, when of course that doesn’t have to be the case. When Paige insists that life is “not about being happy,” I don’t know what to make of that… that neither does the film. It’s pathetic that anyone would think that life shouldn’t be about being happy… and it’s pathetic than any screenwriters — here, TV vet Ian Helfer and newbie Jay Reiss — would craft a story that frames happiness as being obtainable via near-incest. David could have had an affair with a woman closer to his own age, and to whom he wasn’t practically related, which could have been a perfectly fine basis for exploring the notion of pursuing happiness when one’s life is in a rut… but that’s not “sexy” enough, I guess. Ugh.

Please support truly independent film criticism
as generously as you can.
support my work at PayPal support my work at Patreon support my work at Ko-Fi support my work at Liberapay More details...

The Oranges (2012)
US/Can release: Oct 5 2012
UK/Ire release: Dec 7 2012

Flick Filosopher Real Rating: rated EWW for ewww ewww ewww
MPAA: rated R for language including sexual references, and some drug use
BBFC: rated 15 (contains strong language and sex references)

viewed in 2D
viewed at a private screening with an audience of critics

official site | IMDb | trailer
more reviews: Movie Review Query Engine | Rotten Tomatoes

If you’re tempted to post a comment that resembles anything on the film review comment bingo card, please reconsider.

  • Tonio Kruger

    David could have had an affair with a woman closer to his own age, and to whom he wasn’t practically related, which could have been a perfectly fine basis for exploring the notion of pursuing happiness when one’s life is in a rut… but that’s not “sexy” enough, I guess. Ugh.

    Ugh, indeed!

    I’m not quite sure why mere adultery would be that much of an improvement over near-incest. Indeed, since most people Laurie’s age would dream about having a spouse who looked like Catherine Keener, I’m not quite sure why this movie makes happiness with one’s chosen spouse seem like such an impossibility. We no longer live in the bad old days when our spouses were often chosen for us by other people.  So why such unhappiness?

  • bronxbee

    fidelity and infidelity rarely have anything to do with
    looks… it’s often a questions of boredom, selfishness, a feeling of being
    adrift or a myriad of reason… if looks were all there were too it, it would
    be very simple.  And merely because
    we choose our own mates in this culture doesn’t mean everything stays the same
    forever – people change, grow to want different things… have depressions, who
    knows what?  However, the situation
    with the girl next door is definitely squick making.  No matter the circumstance.

  • Surreyhill

    Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwww….is all I have to say about this.  Also, YUCK.  I mean, I’ve liked Hugh Laurie since he showed up in Blackadder, but seriously….EEEEWWW!!!  NO!!! and certainly NOT in NEW JERSEY. 

  • Well, sure. What I was getting at is that it isn’t the adultery per se that is the problem with this particular story. Some good movies — some funny movies — have been made about adultery. But making a comedy out of this particular couple is just yucky.

  • I love Huge Laurie, too. And all the rest of the cast. I don’t know what any of them were thinking.

  • RogerBW

    I wonder… did the filmmakers somehow not notice the near-incest? Or is it commented on within the narrative?

  • Ann401

    I think it’s more about the broken relationships that they both had that brought them together.

Pin It on Pinterest