Short Take Rick on 16 Jun 2008 01:56 pm
Short Take: 27 Dresses
Director: Anne Fletcher
Writer: Aline Brosh McKenna
Cinematographer: Peter James
Editor: Priscilla Nedd-Friendly
I confess a fondness for romantic comedies. (That’s right — I’m male and I like rom-coms. Wanna make something of it?) And one of the reasons, I suspect, is their predictability: they are as formal and mannered as Kabuki theater. And there’s something comforting in that. You know the structure, you know where the emotional beats are going to be, and you expect them, you fit into the film like a warm blanket, or a well-worn sofa.
In an above-average rom-com (Notting Hill, Four Weddings and a Funeral, and My Best Friend’s Wedding come immediately to mind), the pleasures sometimes lie in sharp, witty dialog. That is not the case with 27 Dresses. At other times, those pleasures will be in how the script playfully subverts the genre. Although 27 Dresses aspires to this, again — no cigar. About the only thing the film has going for it is Katherine Heigl, so stunning in Knocked Up. Here, her looks have been been dialed down a bit, perhaps to support the utterly ridiculous premise that she is always the bridesmaid but never the bride.
The direction, from Anne Fletcher, is plodding and arrhythmic, and the dialog is only fitfully funny. Ed Burns (the other guy, as usual) does his nice-but-bland shtick, and as the guy she gets, James Marsden is nothing but a good-looking cipher. As a film this is way below par; as a rom-com, slightly below average. Now that it’s out on DVD, and you can rent it for a fraction of what you’d have to pay in the theaters, it might not be a bad investment. Or maybe it’ll do if you’re trapped on a plane for 5 hours like I was.
RSS 2.0
on 17 Jun 2008 at 9:38 am # Evan Derrick
I can’t share your affinity for the rom-com, Rick (although Luke certain can). My well-worn sofas are action flicks and ludicrous sci-fi extravaganzas. I’ll give Hitman a spin even though I know it will be horrid, but gouge my eyes out before you make me watch 27 Dresses, please.
on 17 Jun 2008 at 11:56 am # Rick
Yeah, I like ludicrous sci-fi adventures as well, but I’m getting a bit more intolerant of idiotic actioners.
I had no desire to see 27 Dresses, except that it was a on the “on demand” entertainment seat-back on that 5-hour flight.
on 17 Jun 2008 at 1:49 pm # Rachel
I can’t do the rom-com thing either. That is one aspect of sorority college life I loathed: when the girls got together for movie night it was always some generic rom-com or BS female “empowerment” flick. As you point out, there are always exceptions, but more often than not it’s just recycled junk from the days of yore. And it’s just plain insulting as a woman to have this lstuff abeled as “chick flicks,” since I’m a chick that doesn’t dig it.
on 17 Jun 2008 at 4:14 pm # Daniel
“You know the structure, you know where the emotional beats are going to be, and you expect them, you fit into the film like a warm blanket, or a well-worn sofa.” That’s one of the best defenses of rom-com affection that I’ve heard - and I agree. I didn’t see 27 Dresses, however, because I’m afraid that increasingly these rom-coms are attempting to be more than they actually are. Or they’re just not inventive or jovial enough.
on 18 Jun 2008 at 12:16 am # Rick
Rachel — I agree that calling them “chick flicks” is both degrading to women, and inaccurate to boot. In the first instance, it presupposes a kind of empty-headed entertainment and assumes that women like them (the inference, of course, is they’re empty-headed too). In the second instance, its misleading because I know a fair number of guys who like them (like me).
Daniel — Thanks. I think it’s good to try to bend the genre a little bit … it’s just that “27 Dresses” doesn’t do a very good job.
on 18 Jun 2008 at 1:27 am # Joe Campanella
I love romantic comedies as well as giallos, noirs and kubrick films!
And you know what? I don’t care!
Even though most suck the big one, I really enjoy those that are on the mark.
on 19 Jun 2008 at 2:03 am # Rick
Joe — you know, I’ve never seen a giallo … but I love movies, and I try to experience as many genres as possible.
on 20 Jun 2008 at 9:59 am # Pat
Rick -
I love your description of rom-coms. They’re a favorite of mine for all the reasons you list; when they’re done well, they’re indeed like good comfort food or a favorite blanket. (I’m a HUGE fan of Richard Curtis’ films - he’s set the gold standard for the contemporary rom-com IMHO.) But, for me, too many recent roms coms have been more like materialistic, home decorating showcases than relationship stories. I decided not to see “27 Dresses” after reading an article about how the set designer wanted Heigl’s apartment to look like the place every woman would want to live, and featured an extensive “where to buy” list so you could reproduce her apartment’s “Look” at home. It seemed like more thought went into the merchandising the character’s decorating style than into developing the actual character.
on 21 Jun 2008 at 4:57 pm # Joe Campanella
Rick-
Start with SUSPIRIA. The cinematography alone will make you proceed further into the realm of Italian Horror.
And just remember…if it doesn’t make a lick of sense, go with it! It’s not supposed to.
on 22 Jun 2008 at 12:45 am # Rick
Pat — sadly, I think you’re right. But, in this country, at least, movies have always been about industry. I just wish they wouldn’t be so blatant about it.
Joe — Thanks … I actually own Suspiria (got it from an estate sale) but haven’t seen it yet. I’ll watch it!
on 03 Jul 2008 at 3:40 pm # Nick Plowman
As much as I love Ms. Heigl {I am the biggest Grey’s Anatomy fan out there}, I just could not bring myself to watch this film.