Add a Review

  • This is one of my favourite films of all time. There are so many occasions that you'll either adore or squirm at, which is why it is a love/hate film.

    Diaz doing karaoke is hilarious, an entire restaurant singing Say A Little Prayer is entirely unbelievable, but still one of my favourite bits.

    Rupert Everett steals the show for me. Right from when he meets Diaz for the first time in the church, the restaurant scene, & then the ending at the wedding reception, he just makes me smile.

    I admit that there are a few moments to cringe at, like the Roberts e-mail incident, but the good bits certainly out-weigh the bad.

    Take the movie at face value - it's just entertainment!
  • avafive11 May 2006
    Warning: Spoilers
    I think I like the movie most for Rupert Everett. His walk (which he describes as panther like) was amazing. he sticks to his friend, giving the only sensible advice possible. Say a little prayer for you was amazing, his story of his engagement with Julia was so delicious.

    Julia's mean streak was magnificent.. also her eyes when she sees her best friend being carried away.

    I enjoy this movie every time, and cannot miss the Rupert parts at all !

    Although if you look closely, the sudden love for Dermot Mulroney is not natural. Not for a minute would a character like Julianne be happy with someone like him. She could rough it in seedy hotels, but not be tied down to someone's schedules.

    So you are kind of relieved that Julianne walks free in the end. And she does have this magnificent friend like Rupert who drops everything and comes to her rescue. If he hadn't been gay, he would have been besotted with her and that is the kind of a man Julianne really needs

    I like it that Julianne remains single in the end. That is what life is like, sometimes you have to hand over your loved ones and deal with life on its own. There is no magic guy who appears the minute you are single.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This is a popcorn movie, a chick flick, that leaves a lot to be desired all around in the ethics department. Normally I am a huge fan of Julia Roberts but in this woeful tale, she fails to come across as her typical vulnerable and endearing self.

    The improbable plot revolves around a food critic, Julianne, who learns just days before the wedding that her long time best friend (and former lover), Michael, is about to be married to a lovely rich, blonde girl named Kimberly. In fact Michael invites Jules to, not his best man...but the maid of honour. Jules flies from her home in New York to Chicago for the wedding, not to wish the newlyweds well, but instead to steal Michael away from Kimmy and make sure the wedding never comes off at all. She has four days in which to convince the unsuspecting groom that she herself, not Kimmy, is the bride for him.

    My first of many problems with this unlikely tale is that former lovers do not tend to make ideal best friends for all the reasons revealed in this movie, namely lingering passionate feelings and issues of jealousy. Furthermore, Jules's second best friend (as it were) is also a man...her editor, George, who conveniently happens to be gay. Does this girl not have any female friends at all, like most young women?

    Actually, George comes off as the character in the movie with probably the most integrity, which isn't saying a lot in this tale of immoral fluff. He's a true friend to Julianne, flying from afar to be with her and offer comfort. He indeed gives Jules sound advice, namely to just tell the guy she loves him, and later when it's obviously not working out, to graciously let Michael go. However, George is cast as the stereotypical homosexual friend, which has all been done to death by Hollywood. Jules pretends to be engaged to George in order to elicit jealousy from Michael (just one of her countless lies), but this fabrication doesn't seem to go anywhere. They never really officially undo the ruse. By the way, I love Dionne Warwick's singing but found the entire singalong at the rehearsal dinner just too silly.

    Jules is a stellar example of the old expression...With friends like her, who needs enemies? She's no friend at all to Michael (much less a BEST one), having no concern whatsoever for HIS happiness, until possibly the very end. Instead she's essentially nothing more than a jealous ex lover who lies, manipulates, and connives. Jules uses every trick in the book to split up Michael and his fiancée, including attempting to get Michael fired, allegedly at the behest of Kimmy and her dad. True, she repents of this horrendous deed, but it's hard to cheer for a "heroine" this unscrupulous. She doesn't get Michael in the end, nor does she deserve him. One gets the impression that this is not true love, but more a case of wanting what she cannot have. For some reason, Scarlett O'Hara came to mind while I was watching this.

    Michael is indeed handsome, but the description that comes to mind here is "jerk". Frankly, Kimmy can have him! I wouldn't want to marry a man that reminisced ad nauseum about old memories with a former girlfriend right in front of me four days before our wedding. Is he too clueless here to perceive how left out and potentially jealous Kimmy feels? I was practically waiting for him to bring up past sexual escapades with Jules and expect Kimmy to politely listen! Michael is surely one of the most insensitive grooms ever to grace the big screen. Also, he sort of leads Jules on, dancing rather romantically with her while they recall their old song. Not to mention jocular references to her about having seen her naked in the past. Not my idea of a nice platonic friendship for a man about to marry another woman.

    Personally, I was cheering for the loving bride to be, played to perfection by Cameron Diaz. Except that it's a little hard to buy her passive tolerance of her fiancé's rather unusual close friendship with his ex girlfriend or her colossal stupidity in not seeing through Jules's motivations from the start. Otherwise, she's definitely the sympathetic character of the piece, as when Jules sets out to humiliate her rival by insisting Kimmy sing at the karaoke bar, despite her vehement protests. Of course poor Kimmy is made to look like a female needing liberation when she announces that she's quitting college in the interests of her future husband and his career. Oh dear me no, it would never do for anyone entering a marriage to contemplate any sort of personal sacrifice! I found the whole ladies washroom scene near the end tasteless and ridiculous, when all the women are cheering on the potential verbal cat fight between Jules and Kimmy. Surely the screenwriters could have come up with better than this.

    Just an aside, what is the point of the pathetic ice sculpture joke other than to be crude? I normally love the romantic comedy genre, but the quality seems to be sadly deteriorating these days. This isn't the absolute worst movie I've ever seen but really, it isn't that amusing a comedy nor is it much of a romance. Hopefully Jules experiences a bit of personal growth, but that's about all that can be said for this story.
  • It was difficult to root for Julia Roberts. It would have been like rooting for Joan Crawford in "Queen Bee" or Gene Tirney in "Leave Her To Heaven" She's a latent nasty piece of work. A woman, we're told, intelligent, successful, but her feelings are of the lowest most ignorant kind. I didn't believe it, sorry. Not believing spoiled the whole fun for me. I though the premise was tapping into the worst in us and that in a comedy is really frightening. I'm sure the director, producers etc didn't do it on purpose but they obviously didn't think the whole thing through. The success of the film is another frightening aspect. Frightening on two counts - or audiences are blind and unaffected by the potential evil here or I'm raving mad and I'm seeing things. Whatever the case, I saw it and it frightened me. Two major saving graces, maybe three. The cuteness of Cameron Diaz's performance, the beauty of Dermot Mulroney and a smashing Cary Grantish turn by Ruperet Everrett. Go at your own peril.
  • In his role as Julia Roberts' gay friend George, Rupert Everett effortlessly steals the show--he is urbane and witty, wise and caring, and of course uproariously funny and drop-dead gorgeous. In contrast, "leading man" Dermot Mulroney appears crass, callow, and utterly devoid of charm or magnetism. This movie, billed as a comedy, has an element of mystery at its core: Why on earth would two such winners as Julia Roberts and Cameron Diaz fight for the affections of such a dolt?! If not for Rupert Everett's performance, this movie would have rated a "1" for me!
  • For a while, I was getting concerned about the direction Julia Roberts' career was taking, after misfiring in such dismal duds as "Mary Reilly" and "Michael Collins" where she seemed so shell-shocked that her radiant smile was nowhere in sight.

    Thank God she rebounded for "My Best Friend's Wedding". This film, while not perfect, is a shining example of what makes Julia so radiant and desirable in the right role. And she sure gets it here.

    As Julianne Potter, Julia gives the same sweet, radiant glow she offered us in "Pretty Woman". Seems she's fallen in love with her best friend for ages Michael O'Neal (Dermot Mulroney) - unfortunately, it's on the eve of his wedding to an effervescent, perky girl (Cameron Diaz) who does her darndest to make Julianne her best well as her maid-of-honor. Of course, Julianne does what any right-thinking young lady would do: everything in her power to break up the wedding of the title.

    This is not as melodramatic as it sounds: this is, in fact, one of the brightest, smartest and all-around funniest comedies of the decade. All the lead characters make the absolute most of their parts and revel in the glory of love, double-dealing and flat-out lying. Along with being extremely romantic, this has to be the most cleverly-plotted love story ever: for every plot thought up by Julianne, there's a twist or foul-up that has everything to do with true love and/or blind devotion.

    There are great faces in the background, too. Susan Sullivan, Philip Bosco, the great M. Emmet Walsh all lend able support and offer their own fine support. But how can I mention them in the same paragraph without adding Rupert Everett into the fray? As Julianne's gay editor/friend, he adds great color to all his scenes, especially at the dinner with the wedding party at the seafood restaurant (you've seen it, you know what I mean).

    I won't spoil anything by saying that true love wins out in the end; face it, would you WANT to see Julia Roberts as a BAD GUY? Maybe you would, but not in a romantic comedy. In fact, the main surprises lie in the twists and turns that lie throughout this film. Every twist makes the story all the more interesting and (incidentally) funny. Of course, the music makes the proceedings all the better (with a heavy assist from Dionne Warwick on two occasions).

    So to recap, what else can I say: if you love Julia Roberts, love stories, comedies and weddings, here's your movie.

    Ten stars and a copy of "Dionne Warwick's Greatest Hits" on CD for "My Best Friend's Wedding", where true love wins but true friendship comes in a close second.

    Keep up the good work, Julia.
  • Atreyu_II2 October 2007
    Warning: Spoilers
    "My Best Friend's Wedding", really...

    Even though I don't dislike it, I can't say that I enjoy it either. This movie is intended to be a romantic comedy, but doesn't convince me because it fails.

    Yes, it has some humor and some funny moments (especially by Rupert Everett's character, George). However, the rest of this movie's humor ends up being ridiculous and somehow annoying. Besides, this movie isn't sweet or truly romantic for a love story.

    Also, the character played by Julia Roberts (Julianne or simply Jules) is pure evil, rude, jealous, selfish and greedy. Her intentions are dark. What she does is really mean: she tries to steal her best friend's bride to get him back, but she (Jules) never let him love her when he loved her.

    Some catchy songs can be listened in this movie, especially "I Say a Little Prayer". The marriage at the end is beautifully made and the final scene is comical. Rupert Everett is hilarious in this movie and I like very much Cameron Diaz's character (Kimmy Wallace) in this movie. She's enchanting, adorable, sweet and beautiful: the opposite of Jules.

    Overall, this is a bitter and crude movie. Not a keeper or a movie to watch over and over.
  • Julia Roberts gets a great opportunity to showcase her talent here, and she runs with it. Some of her physical comedy bits are reminiscent of Lucille Ball. She plays a character that could come off as a real jerk, but her natural charm and self-deprecating manner are endearing. She displays real acting chops, especially in the scenes on the tourboat and in the gazebo.

    Cameron Diaz turns in a real star-making performance as a ditz who becomes a wildcat when threatened. Her acting in the karaoke bar is fearless and really establishes her character's personality.

    Rupert Everett, is, well, fantastic. He acts as Roberts' conscience, and delivers some of the funniest lines in the whole film.

    This is one of the most uproariously funny mainstream Hollywood movies to come along in a long while. The script is packed with zingers, and the cast makes the most of it. At the same time, it has some genuinely poignant moments. Don't let it pass you by.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I didn't like this film. The whole premise of a woman setting out to sabotage and destroy her best friend's wedding. Okay, so Julia Roberts plays the conniving woman - I guess that is supposed to make us fall in love with her and forget all the havoc she is wreaking. I for one didn't find it funny. In fact, most of the film annoyed me. Including, and especially, the stupid sing-along songs and those idiot twins.

    Okay, so they try to redeem the bad plot by having Julia not be successful in the end and we are all supposed to forgive her for being so ruthless - right? Wrong - it just didn't work for me. Not funny.

    Not funny.

    Still not funny...
  • I can't believe some of the negative comments I read from other contributors reviewing this movie.

    I own this movie on video and have seen it many times and have enjoyed it each and every time. I think this is easily one of the best comedies to come out of the 90s and I actually place it on my personal best films ever list.

    I can't see what people don't like about this movie.

    First of all, these people who question how can they like a movie where the main character is so rotten just cracks me up. First of all, it's a movie people, it's not real life. Second of all, Julia Roberts' character is not a rotten person. Her character simply gets wrapped up in the moment and loses her judgment momentarily (it's a COMEDY people!!).

    Near the end of the movie her best friend played by Rupert Everett even asks her if she's sure she's acting out of love or out of some desire to win. I think the movie clearly shows that Julia's character and her long time friend and one time boyfriend played by Dermot Mulroney have had a long and deep friendship and that there are certainly strong feeling between the two. The fact that they made a pact years ago that if both were unmarried by the time they turned 28 they would marry each other underscores this. The movie plays itself out that Julia's character has basically always re-assured herself that if she weren't to find some knight in shining armor she would always have her old boyfriend who she does love (just not in a romantic way anymore, though she takes the length of the movie to realize this) to marry.

    The movie is extremely well directed. The blocking (where the actors stand in relation to the camera) and what is shown/revealed either to the audience or to other characters is top notch.

    The pacing is great with hardly a slowdown in the entire movie. Those times the movie does lessen the pace for a moment are to showcase a tender moment between Julia & Dermot. A particularly bittersweet scene is when Julia & Dermot share an afternoon taking a cruise through Chicago's downtown river. They share a song, a hug and look into each other's eyes and we as the audience wait to see if they profess their true love for each other, but the moment passes as they pass under a bridge and into the shadows and we realize that moments are fleeting and love can be fickle.

    The music is awesome in the movie with so much of it throughout the movie that the movie almost plays like a mini musical with various songs being sung in parts by characters throughout the movie.

    Rupert Everett is hysterical as the gay male friend and Dermot Mulroney is totally underrated in his thankless role as the put-upon groom.

    Cameron Diaz gives one of her best performances as the cute as a button bride.

    This is an outstanding example of what a mainstream, big Hollywood studio movie can be.

    Buy this movie. You'll enjoy it over and over for many years to come.
  • rominaferraro3 March 2004
    I hated it. I couldn't even focus on the plot, the characters were nauseating. Roberts' is utterly selfish, her boy friend is quite lame, and his fiancée is such a pushover that I wanted to shout at her every time I watched her. Sorry, but I cannot see the fun in an hour and a half of Julia Roberts tripping with almost any object she had near.

    I really hope that Hollywood will stop making movies with such awful stereotypical female characters. There are many movies with this male-driven kind of women who seem incapable of having a mind of their own. It would be great to see comedies with female characters that can be funny and smart at the same time.
  • mlemmon-5769414 August 2020
    This movie is hard to watch, filled with embarrassing moments and seeing Julia Roberts on the wrong side. Especially after 25 years.
  • pinksimone_087 January 2004
    This is one of my favorite movies. 2 of the highest paid actress are Julia Roberts and Cameron Diaz and they are both in this same film. As usual, Julia Roberts' acting was great. Cameron Diaz was charismatic. The story is funny and its something that you can relate to and learn from, like to learn how to let go of someone. This is a romantic comedy and if you are not into this kind of movies then don't watch this. I really think that this movie is great because it is realistic. Try to put yourself in Julianne Potter's shoes and see if you can handle it. I recommend this movie to Julia Roberts fans!! This is probably one of her best films!!
  • I loved this show. The acting was flawless, and the story was funny, believable, and lovable. A woman goes after an old boyfriend who is about to be married. She didn't want him before the engagement, but went to all kinds of troubles to win him back before the marriage could take place. With every shananagan she pulled, she dug herself into a deeper and deeper hole. Finally, her antics were found out causing bitter feelings. The movie remained light hearted all the way through, giving me great bursts of hilarious guffaws. Diaz and Roberts were perfect together, great comedic actresses. See this one.
  • An unpleasant comedic vehicle for Julia Roberts about a woman who realizes too late that she's in love with her male best friend and decides to sabotage his engagement so she can have him for herself.

    Roberts is game, but the movie is pretty bad. It makes the main character so sadistically unpleasant that not only do you not root for her and her buddy (played by an unappealing Dermot Mulroney) to get together, you hope bad things happen to her to punish her for her crimes. Not a great set up for the character with whom we're forced to spend most of the movie.

    Cameron Diaz plays the fiancée as a perfect little blonde, and Rupert Everett plays Roberts' OTHER male best friend, this one gay, who looks bored to be in the movie.

    Grade: C-
  • folkpoet8010 December 2005
    This was one of those movies, which had everything in it. Drama, tears, outstanding humor, you name it. I almost didn't watch it after everyone I spoke with, labeled it as a "chick-flick". Forget about it. This is a grand movie. Probably one of the best from the 90s. If you enjoy movies that are made from the heart, you'll love it. I've seen some great movies like Somewhere in Time, Love Story and this one easily falls in the same league, at least for me. The guy with the British accent gave a great performance and did his humor outstandingly. Julia Roberts acted superb. Cameron Diaz, who I'd never see act before fulfilled her part decently. I can't digest a rating of 6.3 on IMDb. Leads me to believe how biased IMDb's ratings can be sometime. Forget about what any one says. If you like great movies with a message, Then see this one today!!
  • artski23 March 1999
    I found the pretext of this movie deplorable. The character portrayed by Julia Roberts is revolting. To glorify such underhandedness is inexcuseable for any reason. The entire concept of the plot leaves me nauseous.

    The fact that Julia Roberts cannot act doesn't help.
  • This film was a pleasant surprise for me after hearing mixed responses from friends and acquaintances. I can see why it wouldn't appeal to some people : Julia Roberts in a romantic comedy could be pretty slushy stuff; but then again if you watch it wanting that sort of thing you're likely to be disappointed. Yes, so it is romantic and even a bit slushy at times, but has a sharp script and fast pace which keep you amused 95% of the time.

    One of the things which appealed to me was the way moments of melodrama were defused into comedy - check out the two girls' confrontation with an audience of women (gathered by the call "Catfight!") whose oohs and aahs forestall any emotional reaction we ourselves may have to the scene.

    Some of the camerawork is also more interesting than one might expect, with particularly powerful close-ups where one or two faces fill the screen. Julia Roberts' beauty comes through in a long shot which starts to look like a shampoo commercial: long curly hair spills around her head as she lies in despair on the floor (the public safety message being, don't ever sit with your back against a door which an irate ex-lover might wrench open at any minute); nevertheless, the proximity gives us an intimacy with her character we might otherwise miss.

    Another effective shot of this kind (two heads on a pillow fill the screen) drives home the theme touched on here of the devastatingly attractive gay man who is made doubly so by his inaccessibility (as more fully explored in "Object of my Affection"). George (Rupert Everett) is a fantastic character whose sense of fun, wisdom, sensitivity and English accent make him every girls' ideal object for unrequited love (or maybe it's just me ).

    The disappointing aspect for me was the film's final affirmation of sexist values and a rather superficial and one-sided view of "real" love - but you 'll have to watch it to see if you agree with me on that. Basically in my opinion, some of the ending lacked the self-awareness and sharpness of the rest of the film. However, overall I would recommend it for an amusing and sometimes clever 90 minutes of celluloid.
  • saraarts7 July 1999
    I'm sorry, but aside from Plan 9 from Outer Space, which had a certain innocent redemptive charm, this may be the most stupid movie I've ever seen. My boyfriend thought it was "cute," but only because he loves Julia Roberts; she reminds him of someone he's still half in love with, I think. Now, while I feel this way about Rupert Everett, even his elegance and charisma cannot salve the basic flaw of this film: that the main character is absolutely despicable, and that I cannot possibly spare a flying expletive for the fate of any of the other characters. I would have been able to just chalk all this up to yet another disappointing film viewing experience, except for the huge amount of money and talent expended in putting together this worthless stretch of plastic and the obscene commercial success it engendered. It's a true shame; or you could just say it's truly shameful. I understand wanting to like anything with a favorite actor involved in it. Likewise, I understand the pressures of coming up with something new, sure-shot, and original. Unfortunately, while this movie made a ton of money to justify its existence, a filmed revival of perhaps a Noel Coward play with the same cast and cost would have accomplished the same fiscal result with the felicitous side benefits that the end product would have been tasteful, intelligent, and genuinely witty, and that, for just a little longer, the shallow predilections of the producers and much of the American movie-going public (who just ate this up) might have remained unexposed.
  • My Best Friend's Wedding (1997) Julia Robert, Dermot Mulroney, Cameron Diaz, Rupert Everett, Philip Bosco, M. Emmet Walsh, Rachel Griffiths, Carrie Preston, D: P.J. Hogan.

    Roberts is a New York food critic who's best friends with sports writer Mulroney, and when he tells her he's marrying a rich blonde spitfire (Diaz), the best friend tries sabotaging their nuptials. Funny and smart romantic comedy gives a custom-made role for Roberts whose smile and infectious cackle make her sweet, and Everett steals the show as her editor/gay friend.

    Running Time: 105 minutes and rated PG-13 for brief strong language and sex-related humor.

    RATINg: *** (out of ****)
  • Everett's performance is great. He makes all others look like pygmies!

    Kovacs, whose Hollywood films do not reflect what he had achieved earlier in his Hungarian films, comes up with classic overhead shots of people moving like ants in office lobbies. Kovacs is a delight to watch, even in the winter of his career.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This is an ultimately disappointing film despite good performances from all of the leads, particularly Everett. The premise is simple, Jules and Mike have a passionate affair in their college days, this then becomes 'best friendship' in no small part due to Jules commitment phobia. One day Jules gets a call from Mike to say that he is getting married in four days and inviting her to the wedding. At this point Jules realises just how much she really loves Mike and determines to split-up Mike and Kim. The film follows her efforts to do this. However, at every turn she is thwarted by the happy couple who get back together. The film did not end as I had anticipated which was good. However, it is difficult to sympathise with Roberts charactor, which is necessary to the story, as she lurches from hard nosed bitch to contrite best friend. There are several funny moments and Everett steals the scenes that he appears in.
  • In a way this movie is quite recognizable to me. I also have made a deal to marry my best friend when we turn 30. She also has a boyfriend and I'm alone and yes, I do compare all girls to her. But that is as far as the similarities between the movie and my life go. No way that I would ever try to get between her and her boyfriend and certainly not when they decide to get married.

    Still, I loved the story and the idea behind it, but I can't say the same about the whole movie. There were so many things that ruined it for me. For instance: what was all that singing about? Is it really necessary to hear Cameron Diaz singing out of tone for more than two minutes? Do I really want to see the whole family singing a song about love, in the middle of a restaurant? There is only one answer to these questions: the fast forward-button. The same for Cameron Diaz' character. Damn, I start running, kicking and screaming for help if I ever meet a girl like that. I really don't see what is so great about an overactive, lunatic 20-year old with too much money to spend.

    Even though there were many things that I hated, I can't say the same about the plot. I admit that I didn't expect to see what I saw. Congratulations to the makers that they made the movie end in this way.

    If all the scenes that annoyed me would have been cut out, I would have loved this movie, although I don't know if much would have been left of it. Now it crossed the line too many times, annoying me just a little too often. I give it a 6/10 because of the good idea and the unexpected ending of the story, but if it hadn't annoyed me that much it would have been at least an 8 or a 9. Too bad!
  • 'my best friend's wedding' is, admittedly, a funny movie. unfortunately it is funny at the expense of women, and, being unintentional in this sexism, is highly irritating. the message this movie delivers to the viewer is that women are hysterical, manipulative, and needy. julia roberts comes across as a confident and strong woman with a successful life, that is until she find out her best male friend is getting married. faced with not having him to fall back on she goes berserk, and, with her attention focused on a man, allows her life to fall completely to pieces. along the way she does not think twice about trying to break-up the relationship her supposed best friend is in. who cares if he's happy, she wants him, and if the other woman gets left, well, you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs? is that really what this movie wants to be saying about women and their ability to be loyal?
  • Ever since this film came out, I have been curious to see it because of the premise: the idea of a woman in love with a man intending to wreck his upcoming wedding and win him for herself was promising. What could be made of it? Furthermore, the premise is neutral: either a very good film could be made or a very bad one. Well, this isn't at all very good, and if it isn't very bad, it came damn well close. Only big bucks Hollywood production values and a couple of big name actors prevented that. This film was on TV in the UK tonight and I made a point of watching it. Almost from the start I had decided what kind of film I thought it would be, but before sitting down to write these comments, I decided to skim through a few of the other reviews. And they only confirmed my worst fears. One said if you like this sort of film, watch it. Another recommended it highly to all Julia Roberts' fans. Fair enough. But if you enjoy good, intelligent, witty, truly romantic, funny and poignant films, I recommend you give this one a miss. I don't mean to get heavy, but, oddly, anyone IN the US who is puzzled as to why many, many people OUSIDE the US should regard Yankee narcissism as increasingly insufferable should spend a little time simply analysing My Best Friend's Wedding. It seems to encapsulate what is, to us non-US people, so offensive about that, in many other ways, admirable country. Apart from the Dead Hand Of Hollywood, which feels obliged to drown in sugar and schmaltz anything and everything that moves (the potentially very witty scene of Rupert Everett singing Say A Little Prayer is killed stone dead by the film insisting in that very American way of going way over the top — quite probably the American producer's insistence overcoming the Australian director's good taste), we have a very, very curious morality. For example, this film is shot through with the idea that 'to confess it to be forgiven'. I've confessed, so I am absolved, and to hell with any consequences. This film has the good grace to make Julia Roberts character finally admit that she behaved like a semi-psychopath, but even then that confession is wrapped in pseudo-romantic humour which implies: 'Aw, shucks, well that's OK then.' Then there is that peculiarly American - and thoroughly dishonest - trait of insisting 'we're all very basic and unpretentious at heart (the comparison by Roberts between creme brulee - Kim - and jello - her) while all the time exhibiting that odd and revealing American dog-in-the-manger worship and admiration for Big Money, Wealth, Prosperity. One problem of this film is that it begins to take one particular tack, then abandons it. Kim's choice of Julianne as her maid of honour in order to keep a beady eye on a love rival was quite a promising theme. But by pay day All Is Forgiven. Oh, yeah? Aslk a few women, while they are in their cups, if it really works that way. Then there was the Greek chorus of (two sisters? Cousins?), bitchy Southern belles both. They were very promising material, but for no particular reason are redeemed in the penultimate scene when they sing The Way You Look Tonight. The final judgment of this film is: looks good - Hollywood has a buck or ten to hire extras etc. - and tastes good if you like jello and sugar, but it is far too dishonest to be in any way worthwhile.
An error has occured. Please try again.