Posted in movie reviews
|
I've always had this secret desire to write movie reviews. It is one of my dream jobs, along with a cosmetic color-namer and the person who checks the buggies as you leave Costco. My sister-in-law Susan and I used to joke about being the movie reviewer for World Magazine or Focus on the Family or something like that so that we would get paid to go see all the movies and then write articles about how and why Christians should not see them. So, I'm thinking maybe someone in the journalism world might stumble upon this blog someday and hire me on the spot. It's not likely, but one can dream.
Synopsis (with no spoilers....I promise): Katherine Heigl plays Jane, the perfect friend, daughter, sister, employee, and bridesmaid. The plot centers on the fact that she has been in 27 weddings to date, and there is no hope in sight that she is planning a wedding of her own. She is hopelessly and ridiculously in love with her boss, played by Edward Burns. When her younger sister comes to visit and also falls for him, things begin to go downhill as Jane has a front row seat for their whirlwind romance and engagement. Things really get interesting when newspaper journalist Kevin, played by James Marsden, becomes interested in Jane's eternal bridesmaid story and wants to cover her sister's wedding. Think Wedding Planner meets Two Weeks Notice meets any chick flick where the main girl is never going to find Mr. Right. Why I went to see it: I had no idea what this film was about. After church one day a friend said, "A few of us are thinking about going to see this new chick flick...." I immediately said, "Great! I'm coming too!" I really don't get out much with adult women. Now, looking back on it, I'm really not sure if I was even invited. I was so unsure of the movie, that when I went to the window to buy my ticket, I couldn't remember the exact number in the title, and said, "One for....ummm...oh...ummmm....Twenty-something Dresses," to which the girl working behind the window just stared at me like I'd sprouted another head. I tried again. "I want a ticket for the Dress movie." She gave me the ticket without saying anything. Geesh...how many movies about dresses were they showing that day?! Anyway, I say all of this to tell you that I had no expectations going into this except that I was anticipating a light-hearted romantic comedy about an unknown number of dresses. Why you MIGHT want to see it: It was great, mindless fun. It was a typical romantic comedy, and of course I and anyone else of average intelligence could figure out how it was going to go down in the first 15 minutes or so, but who cares? Plot is not necessarily why we go see these types of films. Neither is realism. Interestingly, a couple of the girls I went with to see the film are single and in their thirties and have been in a number of weddings over the past decade or so, and they didn't seem one bit affected by the film, except to find it cute and funny like us married chicks. The acting was very decent as well, which is sometimes not a major factor with this genre. The girl playing the sister was the only one who came across as cheesy because she could not hold her head still when she talked, but she was supposed to be an annoying character, and she achieved that at least. Most importantly, it really was very funny. The scene where Jane and Kevin sing along with a juke box to "Benny and the Jets," was worth the price of admission alone. Why you MIGHT NOT want to see it: The MPAA has rated this film PG-13 for language, some innuendo and sexuality. I thought the language especially was a little over the top. Jane's character, in particular, who is supposed to be a nice, sweet girl, just seemed a little out of place saying the s-word repeatedly. As for the other subject matter, the film takes a 30-something, big city mentality to relationships which means that every character has no problem with relations outside of marriage. I found Jane's friend, played by the usually charming Judy Greer, particularly offensive in her casualness to intimacy. Nothing is ever shown, but much is implied. And then the movie is extremely cliched and predictable, as I've already stated. It might be better, in that case, to rent in the future rather than seeing it in theaters....unless you're desperate like I was for adult fellowship, and then, by all means spend the $9 for admission and then an extra $4.50 for a Diet Coke. You also might want to skip this if you're male, at least until the DVD is released. The theater was packed when I saw it, and I counted only two men in the entire theater, and they looked very coerced. Will you die if you don't see this movie?: Absolutely not. You will even be able to have intelligent conversations about pop culture and the upcoming Academy Awards without viewing this film, as I'm quite sure it's not nominated for a single thing. A good substitute: Really, the bottom line best substitute for any modern-day chick flick is Jane Austen, either read or viewed. A&E's Pride and Prejudice or the more recent version starring Keira Knightly comes to mind for this film. You have the same (and timeless) feeling of the heroine that she will never find her true love, and you also have the sister drama. You have all of this without the Hollywood smut added to 27 Dresses. Please read this and any other movie review that I might do, for what it is: my opinion. If you decide to see something that I recommend and end up hating it, please do not sue me for the price of your movie ticket, think bad things about me, or leave nasty comments on my blog. Movies are so subjective. Still, I believe most of my readers are Christian homeschoolers, so perhaps you really might find some value in what I write.....(which would be miraculous in and of itself!). |
Comments
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by