A romantically challenged morning show producer is reluctantly embroiled in a series of outrageous tests by her chauvinistic correspondent to prove his theories on relationships and help ... See full summary »
Benjamin Barry is an advertising executive and ladies' man who, to win a big campaign, bets that he can make a woman fall in love with him in 10 days. Andie Anderson covers the "How To" beat for "Composure" magazine and is assigned to write an article on "How to Lose a Guy in 10 days." They meet in a bar shortly after the bet is made.
When her brother decides to ditch for a couple weeks, Viola heads over to his elite boarding school, disguised as him, and proceeds to fall for one of his soccer teammates, and soon learns she's not the only one with romantic troubles.
Two things about Jane: she never says no to her friends (she's been a bridesmaid 27 times and selflessly plans friends' weddings), and she's in love with her boss, George, nurturing dreams of a lovely, romantic wedding of her own. She meets Kevin, a cynical writer who finds her attractive, and that same week her flirtatious younger sister Tess comes to town. Jane silently watches George fall for Tess, a manipulative pretender. Worse, Jane may be called upon to plan their wedding. Meanwhile, Kevin tries to get Jane's attention and has an idea that may advance his career. Can Jane uncork her feelings? Written by
In the bar scene, an extra by the name of Hasham Ulhaq sat on the far table famously said in an interview for GQ "I have watched the film 27 times..." See more »
Even though its raining very heavily, the bar becomes more populated as the scene progresses. Most people wouldn't venture out in such a storm to go to the bar, but those already out who got caught in the storm likely might have sought shelter in the bar while waiting out the storm. See more »
George appreciates me for who I am!
What good is it being appreciated if no one is naked?
See more »
Primary closing credits (director, producers, cinematographer, etc.) done as by-lines in a newspaper. Main acting credits are displayed as wedding announcement photos and captions. See more »
So I was unlucky enough to catch this mess while on a 13-hour flight from Shanghai to Chicago, along with Fool's Gold and Jumper. Remind me never to fly United again. After the first hour I was ready to throw myself out of the plane somewhere over the Arctic circle. I'm not sure where exactly we were at that moment, but I looked out the window and the ocean below was frozen, and landing on top of the ice after a 35,000-foot freefall sounded more appealing than another 45 minutes of this tripe.
It's yet another bonehead romantic comedy about weddings, where the protagonist is always a bridesmaid but never a bride, etc etc etc. She's great at doing things for other people but not so great at going after what she really wants or needs for herself. She has a collection of bridesmaids dresses filling one closet in her apartment to capacity (no points for guessing how many she has), until one day her collection is witnessed by columnist Kevin Doyle, who sees this story about a wedding addict as his key to upward movement at his magazine.
Charged with coming up with something fresh and interesting, he shocks his editor (but not the audience) when he gets too involved in the story and realizes that maybe there's something more to it, since she, his editor, feels that it's probably just some throwaway garbage that no one is really going to pay much attention to anyway. Sadly, the people who made the movie never realized that that is true of the movie as well.
Anyway, Katherine Heigl stars as Jane Nichols, who attracted the attention of Kevin Doyle on a night when she was on a wedding marathon, shuttling between weddings at such at rate as to win the attention of the media. A lot of people complain about her performance, but I had no problem with her acting, or with James Marsden's, or really with anyone else in the cast. The problem is that the movie feels like a child's coloring book where someone just filled in the blanks and gave it a title and sent it to theaters. The formula here is so obvious that the laughs generated by its presence are the most effective part of the movie.
James Marsden plays the part of Kevin Doyle. This is a remarkably versatile actor. He is still best known, I should think, as Cyclops from the X-Men films, but has also turned in effective performances in romantic comedies, including his satisfactory performance as a Mr. Right in this idiot movie, as well as his role as Mr. Wrong in the indescribably superior film The Notebook. Kevin is a young professional with movie-star good looks and is impossibly charming, while Jane, unfortunately, doesn't notice or appreciate his charm because she is too deeply in love with her dirtbag of a boss George, played with effective repulsiveness by Edward Burns.
Later, Jane's little sister shows up, a bouncy, Barbie-ish blonde without a thought in her head who comes along and charms George off his feet, and we are asked to care when this jerk and this bimbo fall in love and ask Jane to plan their wedding.
Oh, that really pulls the heartstrings, doesn't it? These two shallow, superficial people getting together, leaving poor Jane with nothing but this stunningly handsome man with a good job and bright future constantly professing his true love to her. It is safe to say you can leave the tissue at home for this one.
I suppose I don't have to explain how obvious the conclusion of the movie is. Probably the most difficult thing that a good romantic comedy has to overcome is that they are all so predictable, except for the really good ones (The Notebook, as an example). In 27 Dresses, it is blatantly obvious from the first frame how the movie is going to turn out, except for the instant transformations that George and Tess, Jane's little sister, make in the last few minutes of the movie for the sake of the Hollywood ending.
Everyone involved in the movie has done much, much better than this. If you want to see James Marsden in something worth seeing, please check out The Notebook. Edward Burns has an extensive list of credits and has had some hits and misses (if, for example, you ever get a chance to see him in a movie called A Sound of Thunder, don't), and as for Katherine Heigl, she has done nothing but better films than this. Under Siege 2 is better than this, and that should really be all you need to know
10 of 13 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?