User Reviews (64)

Add a Review

  • Having read the book, everything about this movie was wrong, in my opinion. The characters in the book read as self-indulgent, out-of-touch post-Ivy Leaguers, but at least you have the benefit of being able to read some of their back stories. You know NOTHING about any of them in the movie - the viewer is given no reason to even try to care.

    I said to the person with whom I watched this, the most interesting thing about this movie is the music. And the music wasn't even that interesting, nor was it present as much as it could have been. I felt the movie was wholly miscast. Anna Paquin, while blond, was nothing like how I envisioned Lila while reading the book if only because she was about a foot too short. They took the one interesting feature of Laura's away (she's Jewish) and removed the part that really set her apart from her WASPy Yale buddies. Elijah Wood, while talented, was not creepy enough to play Chip, the bride's brother and Candice Bergen was not severe enough to be Augusta. I was also disappointed that they diminished her part - she kept everyone on their toes.

    I highly recommend skipping it all together. I wish I had that hour and a half of my life back.
  • This movie is more drama than comedy. There really aren't enough comedic moments to put it in the comedy category. I wouldn't call it a romance either. My main issue with it is that nothing was resolved in the end. The rest of the movie was enjoyable enough, but the lack of resolution left me annoyed in the end.
  • jotix1007 October 2010
    Warning: Spoilers
    Galt Nietherfoffer wrote the novel in which this film is based and directed her own adaptation. Not having read the book, it is hard to make a more objective comparison. It is another wedding picture, but in spite of its subject, the screen treatment does not break any new ground. We are sure that the the creators started with another movie in their minds.

    We are taken to a Northern Long Island location where old moneyed types live, quite a contrast from the flashier Hamptons. Lila Hayes is getting married to Tom. The two families have gathered for the wedding rehearsal and the obligatory dinner. Laura Rosen, who is the maid of honor, has a reason for being uncomfortable, she is in love with the bridegroom. Lila, a callous young woman, knows all about it, but she is going ahead with her plans to be a bride the following day.

    After dinner, the wedding party decides to keep celebrating at the beach. A lot of alcohol is consumed and Tom and Laura rehash their differences, for Tom realizes the kind of life he is to expect to live with Lila, a woman he obviously does not love. After all the awkward comments from all the so-called friends, we cannot help but wonder: will Tom marry Lila, or will he not? Well, do not expect fireworks to go off any time soon.

    The miscasting of Anna Paquin derails the film. This is a film that fall between "My Best Friend's Wedding" and "Rachel Getting Married", this last one kept popping into our mind at the time of the rehearsal dinner toasts. Kathy Holmes has done better. All the male roles are so uninteresting one wonders why were they included. The ultimate problem lies on the fact that we do not connect to this wedding as we should have.
  • I wanted to like this movie, I usually enjoy small character studies, but sadly this film was a disappointment. Maybe it was too much to expect Katie Holmes to carry the story. Unfortunately her lack of range and/or talent is obvious in this film. And, Anna Pacquin, who is so good and fiery in True Blood, is left with little to do except be a bitch. Malin Ackerman plays a riff on her 27 Dresses role. Candice Bergn is mostly absent in the film. Finally, Josh Duhamel stumbles through the movie with the same stunned look on his face for the whole film. It is hard to imagine either woman in this film would be attracted to him. Character driven films are only enjoyable when we learn and understand the motivation behind the characters, or when we watch them grow and evolve. In this film we learn little of the character's background story or motivations, and there certainly is no growth. Overall the film is a sad mess, and I will not be recommending it to my friends.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    this was terrible - a waste of the 45 minutes i was able to whittle it down to.

    josh duhamel's character is a spineless cad (he leaves katie holmes outside under a tree?! and she's OK with that?!), which highlights the most fatal flaw of this movie, and i think another user's review mentioned it already - you don't feel for any of the characters. the movie tries to make you pity them, how they are lost and torn, and still searching for happiness and drowning their sorrows in alcohol, but you really just end up rolling your eyes.

    the final blow was the ridiculous, anti-climactic ending. did the weather really save the groom and the maid of honor, or will the wedding be rescheduled? why are they smiling at each other? because they are terrible people? the failure of this movie is not on the heads of the actors. someone did say that anna paquin might have been miscast, but i think adam brody stuck out like a sore thumb to me the most. he sounded like and acted like his TV series character, and seemed like he was still in high school, much less than having graduated 10 years ago.

    only the soundtrack was good, and although it could have launched this review to 3 stars, it went back down to 2 because of the strange, poorly chosen final track, an upbeat tune that closed out a confusing, muddled tragedy.
  • Five former college friends travel for the wedding of the wealthy Lila Hayes (Anna Paquin) with Tom McDevon (Josh Duhamel) at her family's beach house. The maid of honor Laura Rosen (Katie Holmes) was the roommate of Lila in the college and the groom Tom was her boyfriend. Laura still misses Tom and the groom is not sure that he shall marry Lila. Along the eve of the wedding day, they have a dinner rehearsal and drink a lot of booze, and Tom and Laura get close to each other and rekindle their love.

    "The Romantics" is a film about reunion and this there have produced solid movies and my favorites are "Peter's Friends" and "St. Elmo's Fire". Unfortunately "The Romantics" is dull, boring, characters with no chemistry and poorly developed in an awful screenplay and story. Summarizing, it is a dreadful film. Laura is a despicable characters and I do not understand why she goes to the wedding to be the maid of honor and spends the night with the groom and vomits her feelings to Lila ten minutes before the wedding. Tom is a weak and uncharismatic character. Candice Bergen seems to be constipated with her grimaces and the sexy Swedish Malin Akerman and her thighs are the best that his film can offer. My vote is two.

    Title (Brazil): "O Casamento do Meu Ex" ("The Marriage of My Ex")
  • What starts out as a decent romantic comedy quickly devolves into a self-indulgent joke about whiny, privileged white kids who (gasp) don't know what to do with their lives! It wouldn't be so insulting if it didn't masquerade as a film about academia and intelligence, yet feature such astoundingly sophomoric scripting. Any juice that can be squeezed from the "post-college malaise" hokum is soured by cliché and archetype. And its pseudo hipster posing (the music and costumes shout indie cool as loud as they possibly can) don't cover up the fact that this movie has no substance to match its style.

    Performances are fine, but not spectacular, apologies owed to the supporting actors who don't have characters to hang a portrayal around. Malin Akerman and Adam Brody stand out because of their jovial personalities and familiarity, but the rest of the cast struggles to stay afloat in a sea of underdevelopment.

    The great conflict at the middle of the picture is a love triangle between Katie Holmes, Anna Paquin, and Josh Duhamel, but you care so little about these three people that you'd just as soon see them end up alone. As for realism and stakes, ask yourself this: have you ever thought of Josh Duhamel as a brooding academic?

    In summation: a mainstream romantic dram-com dressed up like an indie film that sins thrice: it's boring, clichéd, and insignificant. A shame considering all of the young talent involved.
  • Gosh there are some harsh critics here (or maybe I'm too easy). Not a great film but not that dreadful. Still worth watching. Weird ending though.
  • Since Galt Niederhoffer wrote the book and screenplay and directed this movie, she has nobody to blame for its terrible awfulness but herself. The screenplay has lots of boring gaps in which this supposedly bright, witty group wanders around without saying much at all. Although they are all supposed to be college buddies, the obvious ten-year age gap between Anna Paquin and Josh Duhamel makes this proposition laughable.

    Katie Holmes acting here is so bad that it makes Josh Duhamel look like DeNiro, which is saying something. The whole movie hinges on the chemistry between the two leads, and there is none whatsoever. Sidekicks Jeremy Strong and Rebecca Lawrence are virtual non-entities. Candice Bergen does the same geriatric reprise of Murphy Brown that she recently did on the TV series "House," with no better results. If Elijah Wood was going for creepy he succeeded, but to no great purpose.

    That leaves only the performances of Anna Paquin, Malin Akerman, and Adam Brody to save this stinker. Akerman is the standout of the three, and it's only when she is on screen do you have the sense that something interesting could happen. Unfortunately, she not on screen all that much.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I never read the novel but I did enjoy the movie to a great degree. The title implies, to me, the love and happiness shared amongst the couples, yet the beauty of the movie lies in its timeless storyline of a man stuck between two woman, unrequited love, and the sarcastic audacity of friends who in fact snort coke, almost cheat, and streak with each other's partners. I was captured from the opening scene and found that I could only describe this movie as quaint. It made me laugh, made me cry, and made me feel for the character who ultimately won in the end. (Although you really might be confused in the end, as it started raining and they started laughing)
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Anyone who has ever seen a movie is familiar with the term "low budget." While it's easy to appreciate what a great film maker can do with a low budget, it's frustrating to see what a poor film maker can do with that same budget. The Romantics falls squarely within the latter. This movie is a disaster from the very first frame and never recovers.

    What went wrong? You could start with the amazingly generic plot. This movie was only Gillian Jacobs stumbling her way through a British accent away from being the same movie as Helena at the Wedding. I have not read the book that this movie was based upon, but I would wager that it's an unfathomable improvement.

    I could forgive the generic plot, and I could even forgive the stilted acting performance from 90% of the cast, but what really makes this movie an unenjoyable mess is the high school production quality of it. The director chose to shoot by hand rather than use a tripod and as result, each scene is a herky-jerky, poorly framed exercise in abysmal cinematography. In fact, if you suffer from motion-sickness, I guarantee this movie will require you to look away at times. As badly as I wanted to pay attention to the movie, I was continually distracted by this fatal flaw. Low budget or not, the first thing the director should've paid for was a tripod. It would have made more sense than the one lone scene where he called for the use of a crane to get a 15-second overhead shot in a scene that was completely useless in the movie.

    Lastly, without providing any spoilers for those still brave enough to try this movie, the last five minutes are laughable. The plot comes to a fiery head (finally) within the last five minutes, only for the final shot to cut to black without providing the viewer with any answers. At that point, it's unlikely that you really cared all that much about those answers any way, which is yet another reason why this movie is more of a joke than anything else.

    This movie would be perfect for a film school instructor trying to teach the do's and don'ts of film making to a young class, but outside of that, watching it would be a complete waste of your time. The only laughs you'll get from it won't be intentional.
  • At first glance The Romantics gives the impression that it might be one of those trendy new value packed romantic comedies laced with bits and pieces of top talent aimed at getting fans in the seats but offers little in the way of good story telling. A good example being the dull "He's Just Not That Into You" or the recent "Valentine's Day". Luckily the Romantics is not one of those types of films, in contrast it's a true ensemble piece where the actors work stronger as a unit then alone. The casting by long time producer, first time feature length Director Galt Niederhoffer is near pitch perfect and the players work together seamlessly to create a smart story about the unpredictability of love and how we may get older and wander but some things just never change.

    The Romantics are a crew of preppy (former J.Crew models from the looks of their cloths) late 20 somethings that come together on a Hamptonish Long Island estate for their friend Lila (Anna Paquin) and Tom's (Josh Duhamel) wedding. Lila has asked her old college roommate and friend Laura (Katie Holmes) to be her maid of honor. This a rather devious gesture by Lila because Laura has a long standing history with the groom Tom. Of course with the old gang getting together again Laura must push through the torment and do her part at the wedding. The friends are all well aware of the tension between Lila, Tom and Laura and expect fireworks to fly before the the wedding bells ring. Tensions begin to build at the wedding rehearsal dinner before kicking off a wild night that finds old lovers reuniting and old friends rediscovering themselves.

    The Romantics asks the question is the nostalgia of our past love just a sugar coated flashback or is that first true love the most pure and most enduring love? From what we can gather here, there is no clear answer only a process of trying to understand ones true feelings. The Romantics stays true to the process, allowing the events of the movie to unfold in a very honest and rewarding manner . Where other lesser films might try to force the jokes and push forward to a obviously predictable ending the Romantics is at its best when it focuses simply on people's feelings and the raw emotion of the moment.

    What is abundantly clear after viewing this movie is that Katie Holmes is a really great actress, not good, great . Believable, honest and fragile, in the role of Laura she elevates the material here and there leaves little doubt that she deserves consideration on her own merits sans her TomKat status. Additionally Josh Duhamel delivers a very rewarding performance , he brings a lot of charm and honesty to the performance. His chemistry here with Katie works incredibly well.

    The entire cast all have there moments in the Romantics, however its hard not to see that many of the players here deserved more screen time and more chance for developmet. Elijah Wood in particular needed more face time, he is an absolute riot fest here. To add to that Dianna Agron of Glee fame turns out a great little performance as Anna Paquin's sister in the movie. Strikingly gorgeous and infatuating on screen Dianna is a star in the making, her moments with Anna were gems. Fans of Malin Ackerman, Anna Paquin and Adam Brody will probably feel let down that each star didn't receive a bit better treatment, however there are still little treats in each of the their performances which should satisfy most fans.
  • I have been reading all the comments before actually deciding to write one. It seems this movie has either very bad or very good critique. To be honest, when it started I thought I will be bored to death by slow pace, pastel colors and TV-show actors trying to act more deep than usual. Somehow that didn't happen and I actually started thinking and feeling some of the emotions they are projecting. In my opinion what Romantics lack of is movie drama! It has the life one in it and people sometime forget what happens in real life can be more powerful than some invented soap opera with a happy/sad ending. I would like to read the book now, see how different it is from the movie and maybe go deeper into characters, because movie only scratched the surface. But anyhow, try, see if you can connect to it somehow and if you don't by the 20th minute or so - just leave it. Otherwise it will be a pain and you will end up wanting your hour and a half back.
  • ani_rt15 April 2011
    Was it... love, was it tragedy...was it a bad episode of cheap series...or was it just nothing...Everybody blames the actors, but how can you act with such cliché script, that is leading to nowhere. I am truly sorry for some of these actors, because I honestly like them, but this movie is beyond meaningless. I was waiting the whole time for a little bit of sophistication at least at the end, but well...nothing. If you want to see Ana Paquin with a green mask on her face, Elija Wood acting drunk and some guys running naked...that you can see, but nothing more sensible. What I am sorry for is Candice Bergen, wonderful actress, such unfortunate role.
  • Surprised there's not more reviews up for this one given its cast. I saw it about two weeks back when it unexpectedly hit the local art theater near me and not knowing much about it just went for it.

    Film was all right enough though hardly great. Film keeps you interested in the proceedings-and it is surprisingly well shot for a first time filmmaker--several lovely scenes of the characters outdoors here...but there is nothing here you haven't seen before plot wise. Cast is pretty uneven--but that fits here because so is the writing. A lot of exposition is given for the 3 main characters--you find out about various rivalries and such, but none of it really matters since it hardly really explains the actions the characters take throughout the film. With the possible exception of Katie Holmes' character you really don't exactly know what's behind the three main characters action beyond some vague unhappiness with each other from the past when they all went to school together...and so without knowing what their motivations are for acting the way they act throughout, its hard to really care about them let alone care about which one of the 2 main women Josh Dumael's going to pick by the end of the movie.

    Of the three main performances--I actually thought Dumael turned in a rather good performance considering his character as written is a huge indecisive moron. (he knows for a fact for most of the running time of the film that he needs to break off his engagement to Anna paquin to go back to Katie Holmes but consistently either puts it off or lets paquin talk him into going through with it even though his every action screams how much he does not want to.) Given the roles i've seen Dumael in so far, it was a nice change of pace for him--playing the insecure and easily cowered stiff instead of the take charge guy he normally plays.

    Holmes pretty much sticks to Joey from Dawson's Creek mode here--playing prideful and wounded and desperately trying to not show either to all her friends. (its not a bad performance, its right within her wheelhouse and she does a good job more or less of making you care about what's happening--but its nothing you haven't seen before, especially if you were a fan of Dawson's.) Paquin is kind of stuck with the role of the shrew here--and while the film makes some overtures to explain why she is the way she is (and why she's set out on marrying Dumael despite the fact that she knows he doesn't love her) her performance suffers from her character's general unpleasantness--the film barely even explains why the characters in the movie are her friends in the first place--so it barely even make sense that the characters should be going out of their way to not make her upset. She's fine but she's really saddled with a badly written character who when the film first starts seems like she could be much more interesting.

    Even though i liked the supporting players all well enough and liked that the film tries to establish them as actual characters and not just one dimensional friends (elijah wood as paquin's drunken brother is definitely one of the film's highlight...and Candice bergen appears briefly as paquin's mom--who did the casting here?!?!?) the film really is an old fashioned romantic drama between the main 3 performers. That right there is probably why the film is not as special as it could of been--old fashioned romantic dramas are fine as a genre--but this one clearly had aspirations of being a Big Chill like statement about today's late twenty something and how some can't for the life of us make up their minds about what they want when it matters most...or about how some of us focus so hard on trying to get the things we want even when we know for a fact its the wrong thing and so we lie ourselves into thinking its the right thing. Its not a bad underlying theme for a film like this to have--and i like that the film has lofty goals for itself, but the main romantic pairing is so stiff and obvious that you never seriously think that Dumael and Paquin will actually end the film the way they started (if the two of them had some sort of chemistry together on the other hand, or if there was anything shown between the two of them that might of indicated why the two characters were together in the first place besides that the plot demanded it..i might've been able to believe that the two of them as a couple.)---i'm not going to say if they do end up together or not--but i think the fact that the film leaves everything kind of open-ended kind of not at the last minute speaks to that. (I did very much like how the ending was more implied then spelled out--something that i feel was a very nice touch and i certainly hope was from the book--of which i seriously hope went deeper into the mindset of its characters far better then the screenplay here does.) Overall--its not a bad watch but it could've been much better. The ingredients were all there.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This was such a waste of time. It was the worst movie ever I've seen. It had no story line unless you count some douche-bag groom having an affair the night before his wedding. Oh and outside next to a tree. Random.

    Look, it had a good cast, I mean Frodo (Elija Wood) was in it, along with Adam Brody (The O.C). But seriously, NOTHING HAPPENED. It didn't even have an ending, it just ended. That really annoyed me. It was trying to be smart and unique and failed miserably.

    Katie Holmes does not pull off the innocent by-stander. And it had such a slow beginning, actually all of it was slow and dull. Although I think the most ridiculous part of the whole movie was how 2 couples kinda had affairs with each one anothers spouse. And that wasn't even resolved.

    Ridiculously awful its embarrassing for the actors in it. They could do so much better

    DO NOT waste your time
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Katie Holmes plays the maid of honor at a wedding of her friend played by Anna Paquin. The groom played by Josh Duhamel is still has feelings for the maid of honor who is his ex.

    Why did Katie choose such a bad story to produce? She got a good likable cast including Anna Paquin and Adam Brody together. The story is so meaningless and empty. Josh Duhamel's character is annoying. This shouldn't have been made into a movie at all. In fact all the characters are uninteresting and not developed on screen.

    Katie's acting has improved from Dawson's Creek days - her smile is not so crooked and her voice is more even.

    The unresolved ending is annoying. The dialog isn't witty and there is no humor. What a dud - don't waste your time.
  • stellamt-229-90869327 March 2020
    Slow. The acting was good but the story didn't have substance.
  • This was actually the worst movie I have ever seen. I am only writing this review to warn anyone else who might think it's a good idea to watch this. It's not. I would have rather spent an hour and forty minutes getting tortured by cannibals than watch this movie. I would rather eat y own body weight in live tarantulas than watch this movie again. If you are looking for a fun night get a bunch of your friends together and start this movie, the last person to want to contemplate suicide rather finish the film wins the game. I guarantee it doesn't last longer than 30 minutes. I am emotionally, physically, and mentally revolted.
  • Wow, this movie is so superfluously boring. The younger generation and the older generation in this movie are nothing but a bunch of foolish grown-ups with retarded maturity problem. All the people described and acted in this movie got such shallow way of dealing with their emotions, romances, memories, friendship and relationship. It's so unconvincing they were really good friends in college, because they were so pretentious and so phony to each other. I didn't believe that these bunch of so-called good friends would consider their friendship were so true and so important that they would have taken leaves from their jobs and their own daily lives elsewhere and traveled to that particular wedding get-together.

    This is a very poorly scripted movies. Bad interpretation by the director also further eroded the direction and the tone of the movie, resulted it in a very noisy, absurd, pretentious, shallow, mesh potato-like junk food. None of the characters in this movie, young or old were likable. The younger males and females were all turned into just a bunch of kindergarten or elementary immature and goofy school kids, running around, quarrel, back stabbing, jealous. The ways how they treated their friendship and love were so twisted and phony.

    This is a very tiresome and boring movie to watch, exactly like rushing in and out of a train station, so crowd, so noisy and everyone is stranger.
  • It seems the negative reviewers here want a romantic comedy or something that is lively. The Romantics is a good ensemble acting piece and taken in that vein is actually involving and convincing.

    The tale of friends who have known and had relationships which each other since Ivy League days won't be everyone's cup of tea - it's very New England in all respects - but it is a well made and well thought through social comedy that shows its theatrical roots and is in no way bad viewing.

    Katie Holmes in particular shows some good acting chops and we enjoyed her performance a lot - which we hadn't expected to.

    All in all, The Romantics is a good set piece with a indie feel to it that should appeal to those who like well-crafted relationship dramas.
  • wmson200019 February 2011
    I just finished watching this piece of trash with my wife and friends. I was praying for some sort of "death by natural causes.". God please put me out of my misery.

    Does anyone really talk like these people?

    The night before my wedding was comparatively boring. None of the drama that these characters encountered.

    Yawn. This dreary, self absorbed, waste of time had very little value. Even the surprise ending did little to redeem the previous 90 minutes.

    Sorry. I know this is a lousy review. I needed the vent.

    I'll work harder on my next review.
  • A bride, a groom, and a maid of honor that dated the groom for four years. What could possibly go wrong? Well, not as much as one might think, but still enough to ruin everyone's day, and Hulu's got it. The Romantics stars Anna Paquin as Lila, the polished bride who's either vindictive or oblivious or vindictively pretending to be oblivious, Josh Duhamel as Tom, the restless groom who behaves more like a groom who's about to take flight than a groom who thought this through at all, and Katie Holmes as Laura, the understandably afflicted maid of honor who would rather be doing anything else on the planet than playing happy helper to her sadistic best friend, who's in for the world's most awkward toast considering her peculiar maid-of-honor choice.

    Based on the novel by Galt Niederhoffer, who also wrote and directed the screen adaptation that debuted at The Sundance Film Festival in 2010, The Romantics opens with Laura trying to make herself look somewhat enthused while she miserably makes her way to Lila's family's beach house, where the rehearsal dinner and wedding are set to take place. After watching her attempt to cheer herself up by singing along with the radio and then beating up the steering wheel instead, we get that she desperately wants this weekend to be over with. And after watching Lila watch Tom wander off by himself to kick rocks by the sea while her mother (Candice Bergin) unsuccessfully tries to tell her that this behavior isn't normal for a groom, we get that Lila and Tom want this weekend to be over with too. But for different reasons. Lila wants to be rest assured that the wedding actually took place, and Tom wants his temptation to leave Lila all alone at the altar like a fool to quit plaguing him. (Because surely he'll feel joyful and relieved once he just marries the girl already, right?)

    Candice Bergin, Anna Paquin, and Josh Duhamel in The Romantics (2010)

    It's not long before the pieces of Laura, Lila, and Tom's sordid past begin to surface, and considering each of their roles in this bizarre wedding, we eagerly anticipate the rest of the story's unraveling. Pile on the diverse wedding party that's more interested in the hows and whys of the wedding than they are the wedding itself, and we've got one interesting weekend ahead. Trip (played by Malin Ackerman), Jake (Adam Brody), Pete (Jeremy Strong), and Weesie (Rebecca Lawrence Levy) have been friends with Lila, Tom, and Laura since they all met ten years prior, during freshman year of college - also when Tom and Laura began dating. Lila and Laura, known as La-La to their friends, were roommates and best friends throughout college and remain best friends all these years later. (If they say so.)

    Trip, who makes her importance known from the get-go, is the first to broach the subject of the Tom and La-La saga. Why Tom pursued Lila is a mystery that's perturbed her over the years, but most especially since their engagement. She gives us the breakdown of the whens and hows while confiding in Jake, who argues that she's being melodramatic but seems more annoyed about having to carry this burden now too. As far as Jake is concerned, it's not a problem until he's forced to see it, and thanks to Trip, now he sees it. But what Trip doesn't tell us, and what puzzles her most, is why Tom asked out Lila during what Trip rehashes as suspicious timing. She has her theories, though, and she's not careful in making them apparent. Unlike the others, Trip doesn't passively wonder. She's vocal, eager, and surprisingly aware. She notices and questions everything while the others pretend it's peachy-keen and not weird at all.

    Katie Holmes, Rebecca Lawrence Levy, Malin Ackerman, Anna Paquin, Josh Duhamel, Jeremy Strong, and Adam Brody in The Romantics (2010)

    The fun begins when Lila bolts out of the rehearsal dinner after the first of many humiliating moments that she should have foreseen but... didn't? She heads to her room for the rest of the night so as not to risk seeing Tom after the clock strikes 12. (She's superstitious.) Meanwhile, the others head to the beach for drunken skinny-dipping and whatever other mischief ensues. It's a reunion, after all, and mischief does ensue. While Lila is locked away in a bedroom on the second floor, voicing her own doubts about Tom to her little sister, Minnow (Dianna Agron), Tom is pulling a disappearing act and the rest of the group is embarking on their own dicey adventures in the name of "finding Tom."

    They decide to journey off in pairs, leaving Laura the oddball out because Trip and Pete are married, and Jake and Weesie are engaged. This puts Laura with Lila's creepy brother, Chip (Elijah Wood), who's not only been leering at her since the walk-through rehearsal but also nearly stole her world's most awkward toast award during dinner. The group makes a half-assed attempt to save Laura from Chip, but the couples stupidly swap partners while barely looking Laura's way. So this pointless switch-around still leaves Laura to fend off Chip.

    But it's not all bad if you're us (or Chip), not Laura & Friends.

    Chip gets pretty real after the other four race off to cheat on each other and run around naked. "It's ironic, isn't it?" he asks Laura. "Asking you, of all people, to convince the groom to show up for this wedding?" Maybe Chip isn't as big a chump as we thought. He raises one of the best points so far and, sure, he was referring to how Laura's friends sent her off to help find Tom and drag him back to his bride-to-be, but he unintentionally raises the question of whether Lila (however subconsciously) asked Laura to be her maid of honor to ensure Tom would show up - to his own wedding. If Lila isn't as clueless as anyone in her position would have to be, she knows Tom has always loved Laura, and that as odd as it really really is, he's not going to miss this opportunity to see her again. (This opportunity, just to reiterate, being his own wedding - to Lila, not Laura.)

    Or maybe Lila just wants the satisfaction of forcing Laura to stand three feet away while she's the one to marry Tom.

    Either way, nicely played, Lila. But it's still going to be a disaster. Other lives are at stake, and they all love La-La and Tom.

    And each other.

    If you discount the debauchery and daring stunts that border on adultery, you have a group of friends so enviable that there's a reason they hardly exist beyond fiction. The seven companions balance each other out with their strengths and weaknesses, complement each other at their best and worst, and have a clear understanding of how to guide each other through every bump and hitch in the road.

    Laura is the headstrong giver who bottles up her feelings until she can't, Lila is the picture-perfect allurer who knows how to make her friends feel loved and encouraged when she doesn't feel so loved and encouraged herself, Tom is the stable sympathizer who wants so badly to stop planning his life based on what's expected of him, Trip is the uninhibited wild card who means well even when doesn't behave well, Jake is the self-righteous loyalist who wants to see the best in everyone but often fails, Pete is the jokester who's always reaching for the spotlight but seems okay when he doesn't quite get it, and Weesie is the prudent wallflower who just wants to be a good friend and see everyone else do the same.

    It's a wonderland until love gets in the way and competitive edges go too far.

    Rebecca Lawrence Levy, Jeremy Strong, Malin Ackerman, and Katie Holmes in The Romantics (2010)

    The heated confrontation between Laura and Tom is well on its way, coming with it the predictable encounter that will make or break Tom's looming grievances. And La-La's face-off, better described as a meteoric explosion, exceeds our expectations in every way possible. But unfortunately for everyone involved, too many pent-up frustrations emerge, irreversible decisions will be made, and the consequence is an inevitable collapse from which the group might be too vulnerable to survive.

    The Romantics shines a light on the complex nature of human beings and relationships, where love and hate can co-exist in one short breath. Bonds are strong but wide eyes are weak, and no matter how tightly knit, few connections are safe from the toll that deceit disguised as aloofness can take. This isn't a story about Tom and La-La. This is a story about seven friends tested by a love triangle that disobeys boundaries and demands recognition. After six years of underestimating its power, accountability and self-discovery will force the friends to confront whether or not their attachments have really withstood the test of time.
  • A group of old college friends reunite for a wedding. The maid of honor (Holmes) and the groom Tom (Duhamel) are still not sure that their relationship is over. After the worst sequence of wedding toasts ever during the rehearsal dinner Tom disappears and Laura finds him and the begin to talk about their feelings. The other members of the wedding party are all looking for Tom and trying to keep the bride (Anna Paquin) from discovering what is going on. This is another plot that has been done to death. The cast and acting are enough to keep you watching and entertained but the writing really hurt this one. I can't go farther without giving the movie away, but watch it and you will see what I mean. I give it a C+.

    Would I watch again? - I don't think I would
  • The Romantics is neither funny nor romantic. A huge disappointment in spite of its promising cast.

    Katie Holmes played this role in exactly the same way she played Jackie Kennedy. I was around when Jackie was all the world's sweetheart, and believe me, she was never the sad sack portrayed in The Kennedy's television series. With all Tom and Katie's money you'd think they could get this woman an acting coach!!

    Josh Duhamel is not a great actor either, but when paired with someone with talent, he gives an adequate performance and is just so darn good to look at. He doesn't even look good here!

    The supporting actors do a better job and there are some good moments. The movie ends too abruptly.

    So sad, what could have been a good summer movie was a disappointment. That being said, if you're desperate while you're waiting for Bridesmaids, it is watchable.
An error has occured. Please try again.