Screenwriter Wendy Wasserstein, adapting Stephen McCauley's novel, begins with a premise which is pure formula: an unmarried mother-to-be in New York City would rather raise her child with her gay best friend rather than with the baby's father. What appears to be a continuation of themes begun with 1997's "My Best Friend's Wedding" fortunately leads to a sensitive, perceptive straight/gay platonic romance pre-"Will & Grace". A large part of the film's success belongs to Jennifer Aniston (an easy presence on the screen) and Paul Rudd (who is charming without effort, even if some of his dialogue is a little cloying). There's also a moving story thread involving Nigel Hawthorne as an elderly gay man who is cruelly dumped-on by his young lover that shows the sometimes fickle nature inherent in gay relationships, handled with quiet taste by director Nicholas Hytner. Despite a downright peculiar finish (which gives new meaning to the term "feel good"), "The Object of My Affection" is a sweet, insightful comedy-drama that gets into that curious area not many movies are willing to investigate: why many straight women are drawn to having gay men as best friends, what the two have in common and, ultimately, what actions cross that invisible line between loyalty and disillusionment (which has its basis in disappointment on the woman's part that the fantasy cannot come true). Not everything works in "Affection", but it is remarkably pleasant and (for better or worse) hetero-friendly. **1/2 from ****
Add a Review
-
namashi_112 July 2016Adapted from the book of the same name by Stephen McCauley, 'The Object of My Affection' rests on a great, novel idea, but somehow it falters, in its execution. Its certainly a decent film with good performances, but the idea deserved more.
'The Object of My Affection' Synopsis: A pregnant New York social worker begins to develop romantic feelings for her gay best friend, and decides she'd rather raise her child with him, much to the dismay of her overbearing boyfriend.
'The Object of My Affection' is about finding comfort in a partner, despite their sexuality. The protagonist here, pregnant & rather lonely, finds comfort & commitment in a gay man, to whom, she offers to father her child. Now, that's a different way of looking at things, but its a great concept. The clichés of the hero & heroine are done away here & what is served here is a tale of love, despite both the sexes ever indulging sexually.
However, 'The Object of My Affection' is hurdled by an erratic Screenplay. The Late/Great Wendy Wasserstein's Adapted Screenplay stagnates after a point. Of course, the lighthearted tone is wonderfully maintained & the film begins very well, but you wish the Writer had opted for a little more. The final 30-minutes, in particular, aren't impressive enough. I wanted more of the interaction between the unlikely couple, rather than newer characters & their importance.
Nicholas Hytner's Direction is fine. Cinematography is excellent. Editing is alright. Art & Costume Design are perfect. George Fenton's Score is passable.
Performance-Wise: Jennifer Aniston and Paul Rudd are in complete form. Aniston is natural to the core & makes you feel for her love towards a man who isn't attracted to her, while Rudd is magic as her companion, who also loves her, but just not the way she expects. Their on-screen chemistry, also, is easy. John Pankow is first-rate. Veterans Allison Janney & Alan Alda are adequate. Steve Zahn has a very small role, but he's effective, as always.
On the whole, 'The Object of My Affection' isn't as brave as it should've been, nonetheless, its a breezy watch. -
tomntempe31 May 2004The essential elements that make this movie enjoyable for those who do "get it" have already been covered so no sense in repeating them. I don't think you'll like this movie if you have never had at least some of the experiances of these characters, things will just seem to foreign to you. For example, if you have never really known what's it's like to be in a relationship where you want the other person and they don't want you the same way you will have a hard time relating. If you have never been the third wheel that can't move on or at least been one of the wheels of the three, you may not be able to relate.
I guess what I'm saying is that this movie isn't so much about explaining how these things come about, it's more of a reflection of what happens when they do. So if you don't already have some familarity the movie may just leave you cold, especially when it makes some of the jumps where it seems like something has been left out. If you've been there you know, if not, you are just left wondering. -
Red7Eric12 August 1998I thought that this film was terrific. I read the book years ago, and actually thought that the movie was better. First of all, it makes more sense to look at the storyline from Nina's perspective, since she has much more at stake than George does. Secondly, the character played by Nigel Hawthorne was beautifully written and played, and he didn't even exist in the book. I also disagree with the assertion that George was "boring" in this movie. I thought that Paul Rudd gave a wonderful and moving performance, particularly at the Science Fair when he tells Nina how much he would love to be a father. Don't believe the critics -- give it a rental. It's a terrific film.
-
An excellent movie, featuring fine turns from Jennifer Aniston, Paul Rudd, Alan Alda, Nigel Hawthorne, and John Pankow, among others. An examination of relationships, straight and gay, that thankfully never descends into all the typical stereotypes of gay-male-with-straight-woman friendships. Very different from Stephen McCauley's novel; but innovative and fresh. Often rather too sentimental; however, in comparison to other movies with similar themes, it never becomes over-bearing. A fine movie. Kudos to all involved.
-
When this film came out, it was touted as a positive portrayal of the gay community. After seeing the film, I can only say that such a description is a little overly optimistic, as Hollywood still had much to learn about gay male sexuality in 1998.
The film centers on George Hanson (Paul Rudd), a first grade teacher who lives with his pretentious partner, Dr. Robert Joley (Timothy Daly). The film opens with George arriving late to a dinner party given by Dr. Joley's friends Constance (Allison Janney) and Sidney Miller (Alan Alda), an equally pretentious couple whose main claim to fame seems to be name dropping. Finding little in common with the other guests, George is relieved to find a kindred spirit in Constance's sister, Nina Borowski (Jennifer Aniston), who, to his delight, turns out to be his dinner partner. Delight soon turns to horror when Nina, assuming that George already knows, spills the beans that Dr. Joley is about to dump George. She does this by offering George the spare bedroom in her apartment since he will need a new place to live. When George confronts Dr. Joley and finds that this is true, he takes Nina up on her offer, as he has no place else to go. They become good friends, and enroll in a ballroom dancing class together, something Nina's boyfriend Vince (John Pankow) refuses to do. When Nina finds out that she is pregnant, she realizes that while she wants to keep the baby, she doesn't want to marry Vince. George, however, would be the perfect father. She broaches the subject with George who agrees to help her raise the baby. However, she begins to read more into his willingness to help than he means, which causes a number of complications as George moves on with his life. When George finds romance with Paul James (Amo Gulinello), who is on his way out of his relationship with Rodney Fraser (Nigel Hawthorne), Nina's jealousy threatens to destroy her friendship with George. Will she be able to reconcile the obvious disparity in their relationship? Or will they go their separate ways?
It's an interesting premise, as the lines between friendship and love often do blur, even when we know we can't have someone we want. And their is much that is done well in this tale. George and Nina are both portrayed as people who we would want as friends, and their friendship with each other is a joy to watch. George's sexuality is treated in a matter of fact, and ultimately quite positive, way, and he actually does get the guy in the end. Unfortunately, while Nina's infatuation with George is perfectly believable, her stubborn insistence in pursuing him is not. She knew from the outset that he was gay. She shouldn't be surprised that he is going to try to find another man to get involved with. Yet she treats this as though it were betrayal. This makes her initial acceptance of George's sexuality disingenuous. And again, while she should know better than to try to seduce George, it's not outside the realm of possibility that she would do so. His going along with it, even for the brief time he does, is totally out of character. And it stops because a phone call interrupts it, not because he puts a stop to it. The message of this scene seemed to be that any gay man can be had by any straight woman who comes on to him. This is unforgivably weak writing, and ultimately, it was a scene that I found totally offensive. Still, for the most part, the movie is a big step forward for portrayals of gay characters on the silver screen.
The acting was quite good. Rudd and Aniston play their roles with considerable charm, and you can't help liking the characters they create. Daly's smug portrayal of Joley is perfect. Pankow's confusion and anger are quite believable. Janney and Alda are wonderfully irritating. Gulinello's young gay man is nicely done. Perhaps best is Hawthorne's portrayal of the aging gay man who loses his younger partner to a younger man. He accepts his fate with grace and nobility, not an easy task, but Hawthorne pulls it off beautifully, leaving you feeling sorry for him even while you root for his lover and George to get together.
There is much to commend about this charming film, and if you can overlook the inconsistencies of the writing, it can be quite enjoyable. Unfortunately, it's those consistencies which point out just how far the movie industry has to go in accurately portraying gay men in the movies. -
slightlymad2212 August 2014I caught this on TV last night, and in the absence of anything else on, I decided to give it a go.
A pregnant New York social worker (Jennifer Aniston) begins to develop romantic feelings for her gay best friend (Paul Rudd), and decides she'd rather raise her child with him, much to the dismay of her overbearing boyfriend Vince.
Even though Aniston is on the other side of 40 these days, she remains one of the most sizzling actresses on the planet. Back in her prime, she was the best eye candy of the era. From her beautiful face to her womanly curves to her cute personality, she was (and still is) the perfect package. But her movie career his been hit and miss at best. For every "We're The Millers" there is a "The Switch."
While she has given us glimpses of her greatness in many different flicks, such as "The Good Girl they are not shown often enough, and this is another one of her good acting roles.
All the lead characters seem nice people to hang out with, though Vince (John Pankow) would be annoying to spend too much time with. Alan Alda is enjoyable and deserves special motion. Aniston and Rudd make an endearing romantic pairing and have decent chemistry, they would re team for "Wonderlust" a few years later.
Look of for a young Hayden Panettiere and Sarah Hyland in early roles -
atlasmb30 August 2017One of those films about the relationship between a straight woman and a gay man, "The Object of My Affection" tells of Nina Borowski (Jennifer Aniston) and George Hanson (Paul Rudd), best friends whose affections know almost no limits.
The story is infused with the music and words of "You Were Meant for Me"--sung variously by Gene Kelly, Audra McDonald, and Sting. It's a fitting theme, romantically suggesting that perhaps a higher power or fate ordains there is one perfect match for every person. And that we cannot deny what is written in the stars. But Nina and George are somewhat confused by what the stars are telling them.
Both characters are, at turns, bedeviled by confusion and/or guilt as their joint path veers from one route to another. The two actors are convincing, in a romantic-comedy way; this is not "Sophie's Choice" after all. But a tenderness pervades the film and will touch the hearts of many viewers.
For fun, watch for young Hayden Panettiere in her first film appearance. -
How could a movie with such a great premise go this wrong? A young woman (Jennifer Aniston) falls in love with a devastatingly gorgeous young man (Paul Rudd) who happens to be gay. The possibilities were endless. Instead they made this boring terrible movie. ONE good thing I can say: the performances by all of the women, and Paul Rudd are fantastic. But the movies just so bad... What a shame.
-
stephaniewuk2 June 2006Aniston does well in this, one of the few film jobs she has secured since finding fame in the hit-US sitcom Friends that allows her to move away from the stereotype of her character Rachel. I like Aniston as an actress; she is natural, sensitive and has a comic flare but to make it really big on the big screen and go further with her career she must get out of those fluffy Hollywood romantic comedies that she seems to get frequently cast it.
She wisely accepted the role of Nina, a social worker in a deeply- troubled relationship who becomes best friends with her new flatmate, a recently dumped gay man. Emotional turmoil ensues, however, when she falls pregnant by her controlling boyfriend and falls in love with this gay man.
Though the script takes itself a little too seriously at times and is riddled with typical US sentimentalism, it is a sensitive and very human piece where Aniston, who admitted to being stretched as an actress on this film, does a good job, demonstrating range.
As far as I am aware, this film was not a box-office smash but it is enjoyable and did go down well with the critics. Aniston needs to do more films like this and more people need to be prepared to watch them. She's good. -
This was one of those out-of-the-box romantic comedies that did badly on both genres. There was not much humour in the failed relationships of the main characters and the only romance I saw was in the relationship between the two gay guys. 2/10
-
Watcher-3715 August 1999Finally a truly great film from a star of TV's Friends. Jennifer Aniston is fantastic as a single woman who becomes pregnant and wants to raise the child with her roommate George, who is gay. Unfortunately for her, she ends up falling in love with him. This sets up what is a nonstandard ending to a romance movie, but the payoff is satisfying enough that you aren't in the least disappointed.
-
raulfaust6 July 2011Thought the story is light, it delivers entertainment and a good time. The casting is very spontaneous, the actors weren't that known back there but were good enough to act decently.
The story is quite original, I have never seen other movie where the girl falls in love with a gay man. The plot would be better if these kind of people really existed; we know that in real life people are prejudiced, intolerant and fight for anything (specially we, men). In this film, people accept things very easily, men don't dispute women, parents have no problem in the daughter living with a homossexual and biological father has no problem with the "new dad". Those things create lots of fray in real life.
So that's it; an original comedy not much funny, but satisfying enough to don't disappoint the viewer. -
mary-179-6773835 February 2012Nina played by Jennifer Aniston invites a gay man (George) into her house to be her room mate, first sign her relationship with her bf (Vince) is going south is she doesn't invite him to move in.
Nina soon falls pregnant and then decides to move in with Vince. However Nina gets frustrated when Vince makes some comments about trophys given in schools. I found the reaction or the script was just unbelievable. The character Nina is so shallow that she can not have a difference of opinion or respect other peoples opinions that she needs to react in a way as if Vince was abusing her.
Nina then falls in love with George. The concept of a straight women falling in love with a gay man, the absurdity that she believes a relationship should work. Sure, some woman might be able to relate, but others with brain cells know and understand the stupidity of the concept.
The film is a complete fantasy with little to none humour. I don't recall actually laughing once.
Don't waste your time. -
Adriane26 July 1999I especially liked the performance of Nigel Hawthorne in this movie as Rodney, the companion of a friend. Jennifer Aniston is delightful, and Paul Rudd is a treat as well. Jennifer and Paul have great chemistry together, and although the story is a bit sad, it is an entertaining and light comedy. Watch with someone you love!
-
AngelHonesty8 February 2020I find this film difficult to rate, it has many good things, but follows with many flaws. The acting was spot on for Jennifer Aniston and Paul Rudd, they brought life and pure heart to the characters they portrayed, they also had great chemistry together. It was fascinating to watch this intertwined love story of how certain people bring you down and other complete you. The writer did a great job with showing the complexity of where the line is drawn at friendship and where it has gone to far. They also showed the gay aspect in a tasteful and understanding way. The biggest flaw of the movie, is that its exhausting to watch. The film is long and your slightly tortured as the characters are being tortured themselves with trying to find who they belong with. But the film does have a satisfying ending. If your a big fan of romance movies, I'd defiantly add this one to the list. It's a forgotten gem in the rough.
-
I liked the film. In my opinion, Jennifer Aniston proved that you can take her really serious as an actress. The other actors were good as well. It's a nice movie to watch, but it's also no fault NOT to see it. It seems to me that playing a gay guy in a film is becoming more and more popular and I fear we might all soon get very annoyed by that.
-
Randy_Neil_MN4 February 1999This was a very good movie and the leads (Jennifer Aniston and Paul Rudd) have very good chemistry. The problem was the script, which at times becomes so predictable, you could doze off for 10 or 15 minutes and still would have not missed anything.
It really was a very unique and interesting idea for a plot, but most of the time it just taps on the surface of emotions of the characters. Situations are dealt with in a simplistic and unrealistic way. Granted it is suppose to be a comedy, but it really never reaches a comedic level. This one would have been better as a light drama and went deeper into the frustrations of finding that perfect someone, but instead it turns out to be unrequited love.
Again, the performances here are very good, including Alan Alda as the step-brother-in-law. For a light comedy, without much thought and depth, it does better than most. Above average 6 out of 10. -
POSITIVES:I do like the vibe of the romantic-comedic movies, because they are light and happy movies. And this movie has such qualities. J-Aniston is very good and beautiful in this movie.
NEGATIVES: This movie is unnecessarily vulgar. It is also not very intriguing. And it is also, kinda bland. Paul Rudd is not very charismatic here. I'm thinking he is not a lead role kinda actor. Another thing is, I didn't know this movie was about gay people, so it kinda caught me off guard. I'm not very comfortable watching relationships and flirting and touching of gay nature. Man to man. And this movie had some such moments.
The plot of this movie is so - so. Too many gay twists and improbable turnarounds. Despite it all, it is somehow slightly watchable and enjoyable.
So, in conclusion not exactly my cup of tea. And even from a more objective perspective this movie is mediocre at best.
*************SPOILER ALERT***************
At least they stayed true to the story and finished the movie with Rudd actually straight up rejecting Aniston! So, he is still gay and stays gay. And she ends up getting together with a nice black man.
Real rating: 6.4
MY RATING SYSTEM:
9.4 - 10 = rating 10 ***** 8.6 - 9.3 = rating 9 ***** 7.8 - 8.5 = rating 8 ***** 7.1 - 7.7 = rating 7
6.1 - 7.0 = 6 5.1 - 6.0 = 5 4.1 - 5.0 = 4 3.1 - 4.0 = 3 2.1 - 3.0 = 2 1.0 - 2.0 = 1 -
Libretio29 January 2000THE OBJECT OF MY AFFECTION
Aspect ratio: 1.85:1
Sound format: Dolby Digital
This is the kind of moonshine Hollywood has been spinning since its inception, but with a newfangled frankness. Jennifer Aniston, fresh from her success on TV, plays a pregnant social worker who rejects her overbearing boyfriend in favor of her gay roommate (Paul Rudd), with whom she subsequently falls in love. Complications - as they say - ensue.
Warm-hearted, funny, and only slightly sentimental, "Object" is assembled competently enough by noted theatre director Nicholas Hytner and played to perfection by an attractive cast of newcomers and veterans alike. You could argue that the ending is a little too pat and predictable, or that the plot's dark underpinnings have been sacrificed in favor of a feel-good resolution, but who cares? A light-hearted comedy with dramatic asides, done to a turn. -
AKS-614 May 1999I believe it is very rare for a romantic comedy to be intelligent. However, "The Object of My Affection" certainly is. It is funny and charming and interesting. Even though I think the film does go on for too long I was still very entertained while watching it. The cast is superb: Jennifer Aniston (I was pleasantly surprised, after watching "Friends" I wasn't that impressed), the charming Paul Rudd and the always so brilliant Nigel Hawthorne in a supporting role. But it is not until the end I realized how good this movie is, the ending really surprised me since the writers could've made it so easy for themselves. Okay, granted, the fairy tale ending isn't brilliant, but by choosing to ignore the ending that I -- and probably many others -- expected the result is so much better than other romantic comedies. It really surprised me that I liked this movie so much since I'm no fan of romantic comedies. I would happily give this movie a 6 out of 10.
-
kikiboo_87 December 2020It seems like Jennifer Aniston plays pretty much the same type of character in all of her movies, they all have the same bland, basic, dramatic and uninteresting personality.
I can certainly empathize with the poor thing here, she fell in love with a gay guy.
In all honesty it did seem to me like he was leading her on, it's not like he told her a clear, no-nonsense rejection, he kissed her, almost slept with her, flirted all the time. He only told her a clear no at the end of the movie basically.
Her first guy, Vince, was actually not that bad at all, just not the right fit for her anyway.
I guess I wish it ended differently, I don't mind gays and I'm not into converting them or whatever, but he clearly had feelings for her too, just not anywhere near as much as she did for him.
I didn't really care for either Paul or that guy she ended up with.
In fact her ending wasn't epic at all, I highly doubt that guy is her true love.
It's more of an oh I couldn't get the one I want, so I might as well hop on to the next available guy... It's not bad, but it's nothing special either. There are better uses of your time people. -
rivenrock1 March 2006They say you can't help who you love, and people have used that line forever to make terrible decisions about romance. This movie explores the idea that while you might not be able to help loving someone, you can still choose how you respond to that feeling. Choosing wisely is the difficult part! :) The characters (and not just the main characters - there are some great sub-plots and well-rounded side characters here) learn a lot about being realistic (and how & why that can be difficult) when it comes to romance. Many aspects of this theme are played out, and in more ways that you'd think just from reading the back of the DVD cover.
I highly recommend this if you like that class of chick flick that goes beyond the obvious to ponder some of the deeper questions about love and the things we do to find it, keep it, and occasionally break our hearts over it. Like other beautiful movies of this kind (eg, While You Were Sleeping, French Kiss) the comedy is fairly subtle and character-based.
All the elements are there: casting, direction, script (story and dialogue) and acting are all good. I hope you enjoy this movie as much as I did! -
preppy-311 September 2010Gay Robert Joeley (Tim Daley) more or less throws boyfriend George (Paul Rudd) out of the house. George moves in with str8 Nina (Jennifer Aniston). They get along great until Nina gets pregnant from boyfriend Vince (John Pankow). However she doesn't want to live with Vince--she wants George to live with her and bring up the baby. He initially agrees--but then Nina gets jealous if he tries to have a boyfriend!
I saw this back in 1998 and had no idea if I liked it or not. Seeing it again I now know why--this is entertaining but simplistic and dumbed down. I'm no fan of the original novel but it was a lot grittier and concentrated more on George than the movie. But--Aniston was more well known than Rudd so this movie is now all about her and totally ignores any of the more interesting aspects of the novel and makes the characters more accessible. This is the kind of movie where a teacher and a social worker can easily afford a HUGE beautiful apartment in Brooklyn. Also it's suggested (in a truly horrendous scene) that Rudd COULD switch from guys to her. Speaking as a gay man I can tell you--it doesn't happen. You don't just switch back and forth. Still--for 1998--that's probably as far as a studio would go. Also a kiss between Rudd and another man was cut out so it wouldn't offend str8 audiences! (Although him and Amo Gulinello have a few cute little kisses). Still, if you can ignore that, it's OK.
It has a good cast and acting helps. Aniston is very good in her role. Rudd is totally miscast as a gay man (I never believed him for one second) but he's not bad. Nigel Hawthorne and Gulinello are excellent as a gay couple. Daley is interesting (and hot) as George's ex. Alison Janney is just hysterical as Ansiton's sister. And it was fun to see Stephen Macht (The Spirit himself) in a bit as an ex of George! The movie looks good and has a nice music score too. So it's not even close to treating its subject seriously but it works as fluff. I give it a 7. -
ajrcomp10 August 2000I could find only one redeeming feature in this film, Jennifer Aniston because she's beautiful to look at. Gay people should be up in arms about how they are portrayed here, they just jump in bed with each other, without how it might affect their friends and lovers....just instant gratification.
No one in this movie cared about how they made others feel, just a bunch of uncaring, snooty, artsy types. It was made for and about those kind of people, and by those kind of people.
Didn't think a movie could be bad enough that even 1 1/2 hours of looking at Jennifer wouldn't be worth it.