#59: Two Weeks Notice (2002)
IMDB plot summary: A lawyer decides that she's used too much like a nanny by her boss, so she walks out on him.
Is this an accurate plot summary? I guess it’s accurate, but it kind of misses all the tension.
I distinctly remember seeing Two Weeks Notice in a theatre with several other teenage girls. Eating a ton of fake-buttery popcorn while watching a perfectly acceptable PG-13 movie was THE ideal activity when we weren’t yet old enough to drive ourselves to the theater and our parents wouldn’t let us see R-rated movies. My mom once grounded me because I saw The Mexican, a largely forgotten movie starring Julia Roberts and Brad Pitt, with my best friend and her dad. That’s how serious she was about that R-rated movie rule.
But I digress. The point is, at the time, I thought this movie was fantastic. I thought Sandra Bullock was charming (I was right). I thought Hugh Grant was the ideal man in literally every role (in retrospect, weird, because he is significantly older than me). I thought that Counting Crows/Vanessa Carlton Big Yellow Taxi cover was amazing (honestly, the jury’s still out).
But watching it now, as an adult who’s seen a lot of romcoms? Well, I’m not saying it doesn’t hold up...but yes, actually. I’m definitely saying that. This movie certainly has things to recommend it (Sandra Bullock wears a nice dress!) but the leads have very little chemistry, the plot is nonsensical and kinda weak, and, oh yeah, TRUMP IS IN THIS MOVIE.
But first, let’s explain the plot. So Sandra Bullock is a lawyer, but a hippie lawyer, okay? We meet her when she’s using herself as a human shield to stop a historic theatre from being torn down. She cares about the environment and she has the peasant skirt and headband to prove it.
Meanwhile, Hugh Grant is Hugh Granting around. As we know, he has two modes: cute, stammery, and shy (Notting Hill) and cute, cocky, and arrogant (most other roles). Here, he is definitely the latter. He’s an oblivious, uncaring businessman and you know all he needs is the right woman to make him change his ways. And that’s...kind of what happens. Eventually. Abruptly. He convinces Sandy to work for him by telling her he won’t tear down her beloved Coney Island community center, then proceeds to totally take advantage of her by making her do everything for him. He’s helpless, and clueless, and he needs her. But when he calls Sandy during her BFF’s wedding, she realizes he depends on her for too much and she gives her...two weeks’ notice (me: “Ohhhhhh!”).
Some other stuff happens. Hugh Grant has a brother who’s even Hugh Grant-ier than he is (but NOT in a sexy way). His brother decides to tear down the community center and Sandy finds out when she’s at this fancy gala and she’s wearing a beautiful dress that her character would never have chosen on her own and she’s like “Whaaaaat?!?!” and Donald Trump is there and he’s like “*fart noises*” and I literally screamed at the TV for him to go away.
So of course Hugh realizes the error of his Trumpian ways and he finds Sandra, there’s a “chasing someone down the street” scene, they say they love each other, it’s fine. The Counting Crows play.
This is a perfectly serviceable movie, but I want to get into why I think it fundamentally just doesn’t work as well as it could...but this is gonna require a long digression into a cancelled television show from 2010. I’m sorry.
So back in 2010, I started watching this show called The Event. I 100% watched it because I have a crush on Jason Ritter, and I don’t apologize for that. Anyway, the show had an interesting concept that wasn’t executed well, and a recap I read of it on Entertainment Weekly said the problem was that no one ever died. There were never any genuine stakes because nothing all that bad ever happened. Like, there was this huge government conspiracy, apparently, but everyone always ended up fine!
That’s something I think about a lot when watching romcoms. Someone has to die, metaphorically speaking. In a literal sense, I would prefer it if no one died in romcoms (this isn’t a Nicholas Sparks novel, people!!!). But there have to be some stakes. That’s why I think Nora Ephron movies, and You’ve Got Mail specifically, work so well. Tom Hanks does something actually bad in You’ve Got Mail. In a lot of ways, he’s just like Hugh Grant’s character in Two Weeks Notice. He’s a rich businessman who’s completely out of touch with regular people, content to make decisions in his ivory tower without noticing how they affect people. He does something that is actually very bad...he destroys Kathleen Kelly’s business. That’s an obstacle, not a misunderstanding. Have you ever heard that Nora Ephron said the question at the heart of You’ve Got Mail was “Could you ever love a Republican?” I think that’s why it’s an enduring classic. While I know a lot of people don’t like that he does something terrible, that’s kind of the point. Their love has something to conquer, and that gives the story stakes.
But in Two Weeks Notice, Hugh Grant never actually destroys that community center. Sandy can’t forgive him because there’s nothing to forgive. Their love has nothing to conquer. She doesn’t have to decide if she, a far more liberal hippie than Kathleen Kelly, can love a Republican because he isn’t even a Republican anymore. He changes, which should be satisfying character growth, but it isn’t...because it’s sudden. There are no stakes. No one died.
I realize this is, uh, more analysis than the movie requires, but it’s been awhile since I’ve seen a romcom and clearly I had a lot on my mind. The thing is, this is actually a fun movie to watch. Sandra Bullock and Hugh Grant are great, Sandy’s parents are great, basically everyone is great and I love that it’s largely set on Coney Island. But it always feels like it could’ve been better if it just tried a tiny bit harder.
-So I know Donald Trump is in this movie because they filmed part of it at one of his hotels, but why. Why couldn’t they have just picked a different hotel???
-Heather Burns is back and playing a romcom best friend again! God bless and keep her.
-Get a load of this tidbit from IMDB: “The film was originally set to be shot entirely in Toronto due to cheaper production costs, but producer/star Sandra Bullock insisted that a film about New York City must be made in New York City. It ended up being shot entirely on location within a 17-week span. The film revitalized the economy of New York City after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 and allowed businesses to flourish once again. In honor of the cast and crew's contribution to the city, 11 December 2002 was named "Two Weeks Notice" Day by the Mayor of New York City.” Let’s all celebrate December 11th of this year as Two Weeks Notice day. We can threaten to destroy beloved community landmarks, then have changes of heart!
-This is going to sound like a ridiculous set up (it is), but at one point Sandy and Hugh are in a traffic jam and she has to use the bathroom so they find an RV and beg to use their toilet. The mom on that RV is none other than BECKY ANN BAKER. Can you even imagine if you walked into a random RV and found Lindsay and Sam Weir’s mom! What an honor to use that toilet.
-Related: this is an actual excerpt from my notes: “Running down highway to poop in an RV in tennis whites while BTO’s Taking Care of Business plays.” Just your classic romcom poop scene, you know?
-One of my favorite things about watching older romcoms is that there’s usually a Roger Ebert review. He’s one of the only film critics who consistently treated the genre with respect, and he, as usual, made me like the movie I just saw a little bit more. Just read this and see if it doesn’t make you want to watch a romcom immediately: “Romantic comedies are the comfort food of the movies. There are nights when you don't feel like a chef who thinks he's more important than the food. When you feel like sliding into a booth at some Formica joint where the waitress calls you "Hon" and writes your order on a green and white Guest Check.” Read the whole review here; it’s so good.
-I am deeply in love with these pictures of the author of Eats, Shoots and Leaves getting mad about the missing apostrophe in the title.
-So I JUST discovered that there’s actually a deleted scene of LUCY AND GEORGE GETTING MARRIED and although I originally didn’t think this movie was all that romantic, I’ve changed my mind. LOOK at them. LOOK at that dress. LOOK at Hugh Grant’s sexy sad basset hound features arranged into a gaze of obvious adoration. What a treasure. What a gift.
Romantic comedy cliches: a rich guy, a hippie, lawyers, Heather Burns as a best friend, chasing someone down in the street, someone walking in on people who look like they’re having sex but they aren’t, a lonely woman eating a lot of Chinese food, a wedding, a boat
Is this a good movie? It’s good, but it could be so much better.
Did I like this movie? I had a pleasant time.
Would I watch this movie again? Maybe I’ll revisit it in another 15 or so years to see how my feelings on Hugh Grant have evolved!
Did this movie make me believe in love? No...but it DID make me believe that Sandra Bullock and Hugh Grant can make just about anything work. I love them both so much.
PS: I wrote a book that is kind of based on this Tumblr? It’s called Waiting for Tom Hanks and it’s a romcom about romcoms. It doesn’t come out until June 11th, 2019, but you can preorder it now and read more about it here! If you like this blog, I really think you’ll like the book, mostly because I wrote both of them.