Browsing the comedy section at our local video store, I was foolish enough to not only pick up this movie, but also believe some of the comments I read on the cover - namely that it was a comedy.  After turning this movie off half way through, I was so disgusted I told my husband I felt as though everyone had come to the dinner table expecting a nutritious meal and I had served up BIG BOWLS OF TOILET WATER.  I was embarrassed that I had brought this movie into our home, and apologized to my entire family for subjecting them to it.

The main character in this movie was played by David Schwimmer.  The movie did not leave enough of an impression for me to remember the character's name, nor does it merit that remembrance, for the character was virtually identical to every other part Schwimmer has ever “played” – dull, complete with the sad, ever-present attempting-to-be childishly-cute facial expressions.  It is my opinion that even the word "character" is inappropriate for Schwimmer's part.  Because there was such little hint of a plot, basically all he did was behave like his real life persona, with no "character" to become, and no story line to bring alive.  In this movie, Schwimmer had zero personality, was a total loser, and was neither funny nor interesting.  

The lead female role was played by Gwyneth Paltrow, for whom I hold some respect for as an actress (for her work in "Shakespeare in Love").  I am puzzled as to why she accepted this job.  Didn't she read the script?  Her character is a total monotonous loser as well.  She has the same facial expression throughout the entire movie, except for the few moments where she tries to look angry of confused by lowering her eyebrows.  There was nothing about her character that held my interest.  If this was the only movie in which I'd seen Paltrow, it most likely would have persuaded me to avoid any of her other performances.  Off screen, I consider the possibility that throughout the filming of this movie, Paltrow and Schwimmer were secretly competing in a “see who could be more wooden and dull” acting competition.  And while Paltrow was obviously going for the gold, she lost miserably in Schwimmer’s wake.

Throughout the portion of the movie that I was able to endure, I was dumbfounded as to why Loser #1 had an undying attraction to Loser #2, when neither had anything to offer the other.  Or the world for that matter.  

Below I have listed just a few of the solid American values assaulted by "The Pallbearer":

• Marriage.  This movie completely devalued the institution of marriage.  It portrayed sex as a wholly casual act, of about the same significance as chatting with someone over a cup of joe.  According to this movie, becoming infatuated with someone then waking up naked next to them the following morning is something a person does with about the same amount of premeditation and effort as tying their shoelaces.  Also, one of the two main characters' married friends was shown adulterously pursuing Paltrow's character (due to her dizzying lack of personality and appeal, I suppose).  
• The parent-child relationship.  Schwimmer's mother was a stereotypical, whiney, senseless mother who had a complete dysfunctional relationship with her son.  Schwimmer's character held no respect for his mother and treated her like an annoying cat that gets kicked every time it is appears underfoot.  
• The golden rule.  Consoling the grieving is one thing.  Consoling someone who's lost a son your age, then winding up in bed together is gross and wrong.
• Character and Integrity. The cast of this movie does an exceptional job portraying examples of unguided, totally foundationless people floating through life without a clue of a purpose, basically wasting oxygen.

I was enraged that "The Pallbearer" brought all these elements into my home.   When Schwimmer's character entered a strip club, I turned the television off.  I should NOT have waited that long.

I am genuinely astounded that any studio chose to fund this movie.
 

Send comments to: nanofarad@hotmail.com