Posted: 07/19/2005 |
|
![]() Wedding Crashers(2005)by Clint Fletcher | |
|
Film Monthly Home Archives Wayne Case Interviews Steve Anderson The Rant Short Takes (Archived) Small Screen Monthly Behind the Scenes New on DVD The Indies Horror Film Noir Coming Soon Now Playing Television Books on Film What's Hot at the Movies This Week Interviews TV |
Thank God, after nearly a year of treading through PG-13 shit we get to the good stuff. Not only is the idea for Wedding Crashers a good one, but someone even got the casting right, making this flick the most undeniably funny raunch-fest since Old School. Is there really anyone out there that’s a big enough loser NOT to know what this movie’s about? Alright, for all of you Donnie Darko supporters out there, here it goes: Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson star as two expert wedding crashers and they do so in order to bang hot chicks. But one day they crash a wedding where they both discover the woman of their dreams. The rest of our precious time is spent watching these two Hollywood bachelors strut their stuff as they woo the women they love and attempt to escape their reckless lifestyles. Let’s move on to the pros and cons, shall we? What I liked about the movie- the cast. Owen Wilson is good. Vince Vaughn is better. Their chemistry with one another is undeniable and who out there doesn’t adore The Notebook’s Rachel McAdams as a love interest? What else did I like about the movie? In more situations than not, this flick is fucking funny. It was a hilarious idea to begin with and thanks to the actors, Vaughn and Wilson bring it on home. What keeps your funny-bone tickling is mostly Vaughn trying to escape a psycho nympho while playing off Wilson’s subtle approach to wheeling in McAdams. And NO ONE throws a hissy fit better than Vince Vaughn. For those of you out there that share the same dirty sense of humor that I do (think American Pie or Road Trip) then you’ll really get a kick out of this puppy. And how bout that under-the-table hand job? Classic! What I hated about the movie- the wacky, underdeveloped characters. While I’m a big fan of Christopher Walken, I never quite figured out what his character was all about. One minute he likes our two protagonists then the next minute he hates them. What gives? And also, the cliche jackass fiancé of Rachel McAdams was poorly written. I mean, is this dude an asshole or a schizophrenic or what? Nothing logical can explain his behavior and instead of coming off as just a dick, he comes of as a true whack-job. Ditto for the cliché artist/gay son of the family. The whole bit with him trying to rape Vince Vaughn was more creepy than funny, and that goes double for the mother (Dr Quinn, Medicine Woman) forcing Owen Wilson to play with her boobs. Some scenes just came off as too bizarre for my taste, and while part of it has to do with the screenplay, another big factor is too much improv. It’s no secret that both lead actors are notorious with ad-libbing and I feel that maybe they got too off-course with the lines written for them. It’s the only explanation I can come up with, as some of the things they say are just more random than actually pertaining to the story (Anchorman anyone?). And the last aspect I hated about the flick is its length. Much like this review, this movie was a half hour longer than it needed to be and at one point it just needed to fucking end already! Quit while you’re ahead, don’t drag it into the ground! We know how it’s going to end anyway so don’t waste time and screw up the structure of the movie just to give Will Ferrell a cameo. While some moments of the flick just didn’t reach me, it’s certainly a watchable movie. And again, if you’re a big fan of the R-rated comedy (for raunchy) then you’ll really dig Wedding Crashers overall. And do everyone a favor by buying a ticket and seeing it in the theater to help prove to Hollywood that we want more filth. Mazel Tov! Clint Fletcher is a film critic in Los Angeles and something of a wedding crasher himself. Got a problem? E-mail us at filmmonthly@gmail.com |
