Katherine Heigl (Knocked up, TV’s Grey’s Anatomy) lights up the screen in this charming romantic comedy from the screenwriter of The Devil Wears Prada.” Heigl stars as Jane, a romantic, completely selfless woman who has been a bridesmaid in no less than 27 weddings. Unfortunately her own happy ending seems to be nowhere in sight. Until her younger sister Tess captures the heart of Jane’s boss — on whom Jane has a secret crush inspiring Jane to change her “always-a-bridesmaid” destiny.Katherine Heigl is delightful as Jane, a self-effacing Gal Friday so addicted to organizing weddings in her off time, that 27 Dresses opens with her character juggling two nuptials on the same night. A perpetual bridesmaid, Jane’s hobby is discovered by a matrimony reporter named Kevin (James Marsden), who hides a romantic side behind his wall of cynicism. While Kevin gradually develops feelings for Jane, the latter’s superficial sister, Tess (Malin Akerman), pursues George (Edward Burns), Jane’s boss and the object of her love. This romantic circle could go on forever, except that Jane is unexpectedly moved by Kevin despite her general irritation with him and without knowing that he’s on the verge of sandbagging her with a ridiculing article in his newspaper. The situation is absurd, but the emotions are not. Heigl is very good, rooted in a long tradition of comely comediennes playing characters who fly under the radar of life. She makes Jane’s pain palpable and conveys her character’s inability to say no without making her look unappealing or weak. Marsden perfectly captures the part of a rumpled, underdressed writer with repressed passions, Akerman is as convincingly shrewish here as she was in The Heartbreak Kid, and Burns is fine as one of those guys so busy saving the world he barely pays attention to the people in his life. The script by Aline Brosh McKenna (The Devil Wears Prada) is fun if predictable, and Anne Fletcher’s direction is vibrant. –Tom Keogh
Beyond 27 Dresses
 More from Katherine Heigl |
 Amazon.com’s Wedding Registry |
 More Romantic Comedies from Fox |
Stills from 27 Dresses
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Buy “27 Dresses “ For Only $6.76
May 9, 2008
#1
There have been a lot of contrived romantic comedies before, but “27 Dresses” really takes the cake (and yes, I purposely used a wedding-related phrase). This movie relies on comedy that’s nothing like real comedy, conflict that’s nothing like real conflict, and characters so annoying and cliché that they don’t even fit the traditional definition of caricature. If you’ve read any of my reviews, then you know I’ve been kind to many such films; I gave “No Reservations,” “Music and Lyrics,” and “P.S. I Love You” favorable reviews, not because they represented reality, but because they were entertaining stories founded on the fantasy of happily ever after. “27 Dresses” is not fantastic, and because of that, I could focus on nothing other than how unrealistic it was. At one point, Katherine Heigl says, “I feel like I just found out my favorite love song was written about a sandwich.” Dumb, I know, but it does accurately express how I feel about this film.
The story opens in 1986 with a wedding and a voiceover narration. A young girl in attendance finds her true calling after escorting her baby sister to the bathroom: she was meant to not only be a bridesmaid, but also a wedding planner, an organizer, and a general overseer of everything. She comes to this conclusion when her bride-to-be cousin rushes into the dressing room in a panic because the back of her dress tore open. The young girl ingeniously uses her sister’s hair ribbon to sew the hole shut, after which she ties it into a pretty little bow. We then flash forward to the present day and learn that the voiceover narration belonged to Jane (Heigl), who’s introduced at a New York City bridal boutique, fitting a wedding dress that her friend will be wearing (thank God both women are the same size). Since that fateful day in 1986, she seems to have grown comfortable planning all her friends’ weddings, but she has yet to plan one of her own. And thus we discover the driving force of the plot.
As soon as this is established, the audience is made to endure a ridiculous scene in which Jane attends two weddings on the same night–she has a cab drive her back and forth numerous times, and she changes dresses during each trip (she offers the driver five hundred dollars for the whole night if he promises to not look at his rear view mirror; by the end of the night, she gives him a mere hundred and sixty, as each glance was an automatic twenty-dollar deduction). At one of the weddings, she meets Kevin (James Marsden), who immediately comes off as a charming, witty, and cynical wedding-hater. Little does Jane know that Kevin writes wedding articles under the alias Malcolm, articles that she absolutely adores.
Meanwhile, Jane’s sister, Tess (Malin Akerman) has returned to New York after six months in Europe. Young, perky, and platinum blonde, Tess is ready to look for a new man. And she finds one: Jane’s boss, George (Edward Burns). If it weren’t for the fact that Jane is secretly in love with George, this wouldn’t be a problem–in no time at all, Tess lies her way into a marriage proposal, meaning that Jane has yet another wedding to plan. But how can she knowing her sister is as phony as a three-dollar bill? I’ll tell you why: Jane is just as phony. She hides her feelings behind a façade of smiles and laughter, and she’s completely incapable of saying no to anyone. What’s worse is that Kevin has been personally hired by Tess to cover the wedding, and Jane finally learns that his beautifully written articles don’t express how he truly feels. He believes that weddings are a sham, from the hordes of useless gifts to the expensive planning. He writes the articles only to work his way up in the world of journalism, and lo and behold, he sees a story opportunity with Jane, the constant bridesmaid with a closet full of ugly dresses. So we basically have a film filled with phonies, which I guess is fitting, considering the nature of the plot.
But that isn’t good enough, since it’s blatantly required that the two fall in love, then break up, then fall in love again. There’s no question that their relationship is predictable–the relationships in romantic comedies are always predictable. The problems stem not from their romance, but from their fake personalities, which to me were like fingernails on a chalkboard. I didn’t believe these characters for one second, and this is in spite of the meaningless side characters that function as comedy relief. One such example is Casey (Judy Greer), Jane’s best friend. Why they’re friends, I have no idea; Casey is obnoxious, intrusive, and just generally grating. It’s sad that she’s probably the most honest character in the entire film, especially since her wisecracks aren’t even close to funny.
It basically boils down to Jane’s growing resentment against Tess, Kevin’s excuses to enter Jane’s life, and a convenient set of circumstances that convince Jane to lead her own life for once. This dime-a-dozen story is not what makes “27 Dresses” so bad; it’s the way this dime-a-dozen story is told. Here’s a film that tries so hard to be touching and comedic that it ends up failing at both. It’s painful to see Katherine Heigl and James Marsden–both capable actors–stuck in something so preposterous, so contrived, and so forced. What do I mean by “forced”? When Jane first sees Tess and George together at a club, she runs out the back door, screams a curse, and begins banging a wall with her handbag. She then turns around and realizes she’s in a room where a fiftieth anniversary party is being held. If there’s one thing I hate, it’s when comedy like this is shoved into our faces.
May 9, 2008
#2
To date I have not recieved this movie. The last one I received was Water Horse, which was good except for the beginning, which was a little draggy.
Please track this item and re-ship if necessary.
Thanks,
Pat Carleson
May 9, 2008
#3
it might be possible to have less charisma than heigl, say if you are the guy mowing lawns or the garbage collector. unattractive, untalented, and unmistakably older looking than her supposed “30″ (COULD WE SEE A BIRTH CERTIFICATE PLEASE!) heigl is just about the worst choice for a “purported” romantic comedy. let’s see she is supposedly an ex-mormon (who still retains as she says, “just enought mormon”) to be in public “pissing” scenes, gratuitous sex scenes, blatant swearing scenes, and anything else that will let her make money in thbe brief window this no-talent has. please hollywood, there are lots of actresses, surely someone out there looks like they should be in a romantic comedy (has the right look rather than looking constipated all the time), and has some charisma! please…it does seem that those from mormonism have virtually nothing to offer the screen, so quite trying!
May 9, 2008
#4
I am surprised not many people aren’t more offended by the disgusting message of this absolutely useless movie. In this age of ‘equality’ and supposed new heights of achieved feminism, here is a film so flimsy, so cheap, and so weak, that it paints women as feeble caricatures of themselves – the women in this film are nothing without men, and the prime goal of human life is to get married (forever) to one man, and one man alone.
Now whether this is or is not what women want these days (I’m guessing most women are smarter than this), the film shamelessly steals lines and scenes from far superior chick flicks before it (seriously, its like one big C-Grade rehash of “Pretty Woman”, “My Best Friend’s Wedding” and “13 Going on 30″). The lead actress’ obsession with weddings is a little worrisome, and it gets worse when they bring in her bleach-blonde dimwit of a sister, and the movie pretty much runs like a sicker version of the Cameron Diaz starrer “In her Shoes” from that point on (and not in a good way).
Granted there is an audience for this trash. I can imagine 10 year old girls wearing lace and tiaras being forcefed this nonsense by their equally head-in-the-clouds moms (I am also guessing these are the same moms who listen to the “High School Musical” soundtracks they supposedly buy for their children). Poor things. Humanity certainly deserves better than this. The first time I saw it, I was offended at the really bad script, and then watched in horror as the film played out EXACTLY how I expected it to. The male lead here is James Marsden, an actor who always gets the girl, and we know it from scene one.
What is more disgusting is that Katherine Heigl (who was just luminous in “Roswell” and later in “Grey’s Anatomy”) is stripped of her natural acting ability and told to act EXACTLY like Calista Flockhart on every episode of “Ally Mc Beal” ever made. Seriously. The Calista comparison is very, very valid, and I almost expected Lucy Liu to jump into the frame at some point and plant one on her. The tendency to have chick flicks with a ‘goofy’, ‘relatable’ and ‘likeable’ lead character is understandable. This has been a running motif in almost every sleazy chick flick to date. But this movie breaks new ground in disrespecting your intelligence, and rubbing your nose in their twisted belief that you simply must get married, and it has to be the white wedding from hell no less.
All actors in this enterprise deserved better. Especially hideous was Katherine’s ‘best friend’ who is played by the same actress who played Jennifer Garner’s ‘best friend’ in ’13 Going on 30′. They even give her the SAME LINES! Its a scene-for-scene copy of that film in these segments, and I could not believe people haven’t picked up on this movies’ rampant thievery of dumb lines from other films. Unbelievable.
In fact, this entire film is unbelievable. Here is Katherine Heigl trying on her 27 dresses in a montage segment that EVERY chick flick just has to have, in some sort of belief that these sorts of ‘dress rehearsal’ scenes are necessary to even obtain a chick flick tag. Here is Katherine again, sobbing away as the man she loves falls in love with her sister. Here is Katherine brushing off the guy she is meant to be with, only to realize later on that he is ‘the one’. If you have the patience for this sort of high school nonsense, then more power to you. I’d rather listen to Obama’s wonderful race speech again.
“27 Dresses” is an insult to the world of romantic comedies, and all involved with this project should be barred from future Hollywood ventures. Back to obscurity, is what I say.
Two Stars. And both for the normally wonderful Heigl, who deserves far better films than this despicable lump of garbage.
May 9, 2008
#5
I don’t have high expectations for romantic comedies: I just want to watch something sweet and mildly entertaining. But even with the lowest of expectations, 27 Dresses doesn’t deliver. The writing is atrocious, the directing is non-existent (it looks like the camera was placed arbitrarily, without any thought to angles or settings), the plot is predictable, and none of the actors shine in this incredibly dull movie. I’ve never thought Ed Burns is much of an actor, but here his range goes, to paraphrase Dorothy Parker, from A to A. Katherine Heigl tries valiantly in some scenes and in others she seems to give up, knowing there’s no way to save this wreck.