OK, Can We Talk About How Awful ‘Love And Other Drugs’ Is?

We first became worried about "Love And Other Drugs" when we heard the title. It reeks of "crap, we have no idea what this movie is about." The poster has the same feel: When in doubt, slap the naked couple on the front, and sell it that way. (Works for magazines too, apparently.) But we still figured, with those two stars, and Edward Zwick directing, and a plum Oscar spot, that the movie couldn't be too bad. We were wrong. "Love And Other Drugs" is truly ghastly, maybe the worst "mainstream" movie we've seen this year. What in the world happened?

The Metacritic number is 55, which is awfully generous yet still telling: We're not sure people have quite come to terms with just how far off the tracks this movie goes. In lieu of an actual review, we thought we'd just come up with a list of questions we have for Edward Zwick about the film. We have a feeling he has no answers. Beware of spoilers, though, seriously, there are so many better options than "Love And Other Drugs" right now that trust us, we're doing you a favor.

Questions For Edward Zwick, director of "Love And Other Drugs."

All right, is this a movie about love, or about drugs?

We ask because despite the obvious chemistry the two leads have together -- which might just mean "they're both willing to be naked a lot" -- we never get much of a feel as to why they're supposedly so screwed up. OK, so she has Parkinson's: That would be upsetting. But what about him? Jake Gyllenhaal's supposed to be this tortured, souless capitalist, but we never find out why, or even get a hint. This is basically a conventional, bland love story: Boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back. You meant to do more with that, right?

Is Gyllenhaal supposed to be doing a mid-80s Tom Cruise impersonation throughout the whole film? Is that why you have him wearing sunglasses so much?

Hey, does Anne Hathaway's character have a family? Anybody? Did anyone ever stop to ask that?

Let's get into the drug business. The whole "drug" side of the movie feels like whole chunks of plot are missing. Did a test screening go bad? We go into large detail about Gyllenhaal's Pfizer training, about the amoral pharmaceutical industry, about how buses of elderly patients have to go to Canada to get drugs. And then ... you just dropped the whole thing. What point were you trying to make? Did you just forget you were making one halfway through?

What's the point of Gyllenhaal's impotency scene again? Did we miss a block of dialogue?

What in God's name made you decide to make Josh Gad the "wacky" younger brother? Did someone not inform you how consistently unfunny he was? Why exactly is he living on his older brother's couch again? Why is he there?

Seriously, why? We cringed every time he showed up.

What in the heck is going on with that pajama party scene? Neverminding the apparent notion you have that Pittsburgh is just raging with wild orgies. That scene goes nowhere, establishes nothing and is completely beside the point. Why is that there? Did you ship the wrong print?

Is there a point to Hathaway having Parkinson's? Anything specific to that disease? The scene in which she meets other Parkinson's patients is the one scene in the film that works, but even that's off-topic: The scene is set up as a rebuke to the drug industry, but, once again, we're supposed to just forget that halfway through. Did the lobbyists get to you?

Oh, remember that scene when Gyllenhaal just up and decides to drive across the country to cure Parkinson's? And you just reduce it to a plodding relationship plot point? What was going on there?

Is there any reason for all the nakedness? We ask not out of anger -- we have no problem with the nudity, we assure you -- but the sex scenes between Gyllenhaal and Hathaway aren't particularly raw or incisive or revelatory. It's just a stray butt or boob here and there. Did you just need to sell your movie as something?

We counted at least eight Viagra jokes. Eight! That would embarrass Jay Leno! Just because the jokes are new to the characters doesn't mean they're new to us. We have no question here, other than just to say: JAY LENO.

You're a good filmmaker. We have no idea what happened here. You're OK with just slinking away and never talking about this movie again, right? We're good with it if you are.