Wedding Crashers
—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film
—Spiritual Connections
Wedding Crashers starts off with a great premise, degenerates into raunchy American Pie/Meet the Parents shtick, finally resorts to romantic comedy clichés, and for the most part, I loved it. Wilson and Vaughn, each playing off his own well-established movie (and public) persona, hold this film together enough to make it worth a watch.
[Beware of the Spoilers!]
As previews have made abundantly clear, what you have here are two “guy’s guys.� Guys who arrive, uninvited, at wedding after wedding, choose back-stories, fake names, female targets, and then, with the words “I’m gonna get drunk� on their lips, rush in for the “kill.� It sounds fun, it looks fun, and for a while—years, according to the story—it is fun. But of course, we join the boys not long before Wilson’s character begins to tire of this empty ritual, and starts to question the whole endeavor.
With Vaughn’s prompting, the boys crash one more wedding. And wouldn’t you know it, it’s at this wedding that Wilson meets a girl (Rachel McAdams) that he’s legitimately interested in. Not as a conquest, but as a person. As someone, perhaps, to love. The girl’s father (Christopher Walken), it turns out, is the Treasury Secretary, but that doesn’t stop Wilson from getting himself and Vaughn—who has already “scored� with the Secretary’s other daughter—invited to the family’s estate for the weekend, fake names and back-stories in tow.
Hilarity ensues, McAdams is engaged to a real jerk, Wilson falls for her, the boys have their cover blown, Vaughn ends up with the sister, Wilson is saved from his suicidal grief over losing the girl by a revelation brought on by Will Ferrell (!), and it all culminates with that obligatory, romantic comedy “rush to the altar� scene, and a happy ending.
As a story, the movie works, though it is certainly formulaic. With romantic comedies, however, I think the formula is expected, and even appreciated when done right. This movie does do it right—even giving an on-screen nod to the formula when Wilson asks if it’d be cliché to kiss McAdams at the end of the “rush to the altar� scene. It is, but that’s okay. The performances of the actors are also a plus. Wilson makes a great straight-man, Vaughn has hilarious frat-boy appeal, and Christopher Walken does a fine job of being intimidating, believable, and funny—a cooler, more rounded version of DiNero’s Jack Byrnes. There are plenty of memorable, one-liner-type moments in this film. Lots of humorous, though sometimes stereotypical, insight into how men are, and how women are. Many, many laughs.
The main weakness of the film has to do with how intent the filmmakers were on showing a full range of change in Wilson’s character. Vaughn’s character changes, but it’s a simple change—and one we aren’t as invested in because Vaughn is the movie’s main source of comic relief, making him and his relationships more ridiculous. But with Wilson, there are no less than four major shifts in character, and that kind of thing takes lots of screen time. It’s great to have such a dynamic character, and it does fit with the story, but watching it flesh-out gives the movie a start-stop quality, and makes it about fifteen minutes too long.
But these character changes, though tedious, also facilitate some of Wedding Crashers’ most significant spiritual insights: using other people is vacuous, we all need someone to love us, there’s a sense of destiny about those “chance� connections that people make with each other, everything in moderation. Granted, none of these are staggering insights, and most of them are standard romantic comedy fare, but the difference is that the insights here are aimed at guys. A romantic comedy, typically, is aimed more towards women—featuring character and story types that appeal, traditionally, to women. But this movie, which will likely appeal to guys more, will hopefully actually speak its positive messages to real-life womanizers, users, and the like.
All told, this is a fun movie. The shock-value comedy will turn-off some viewers, but it’s a great date-movie choice for those who want to see a true, appeal-to-the-guys comedy, with chick-flick sensibilities—for me, only How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days has come this close in the past. And if you know any real-life, party-boy “wedding crashers,� invite them to see this . . . it may just get them to consider the error of their ways.
—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film
—Spiritual Connections
5 Comments:
While I agree that this was a very entertaining movie, I was surprised that you failed to mention the unneccesary nudity in the film (and I say unneccesary because the film would have lost nothing if it had been left out). The introduction to the story really pulls the viewer in; even so, I considered walking out when there were suddenly naked bodies in their full glory sprawled across the screen (I'll admit, though, that I failed to look at the rating reasons before I went to the movie).
It went great for a long while after that, and was incredibly funny. There was one more nude scene, and (however funny the movie may have been) my friend and I vowed that if there were one more such scene, we would be forced to leave. Thankfully (because I really wanted to see the end) the movie stayed fairly clean through the end (which was just as cute as I hoped it would be).
Anyhow, I have to admit that as much as the movie tickled my funnybone, I did leave the theatre feeling a bit guilty--that I had compromised, and that I had felt justified staying there with the old "if it happens one more time" reasoning.
I guess that I'm just saying that I would not be so quick to approve this movie without warning the viewer of everyTHING that may show up onscreen...
rebekah: Thanks for the comment. Your point is well-taken. Though I consciously try not to be primarily a watchdog here (that not being my calling, or, I think, this site's), and though my review did note the movie's raunchiness, compared it to *American Pie,* etc., you're right--I didn't specifically mention the nudity. And it was unneccesary. Actually, this film's nudity caught me totally off-guard, and seemed just out-of-place. Personally, I think that part of this movie's goal was to be unabashedly R-rated, and they just figured that pointless nudity fit with that. Which it does, I guess.
I do wonder, though, why all the innuendo, language, etc., didn't make you want to leave the movie, but nudity did. Is there some hierarchy of R-rated things going on here? If there is, no problem--as long as you're doing it on purpose and know why your hierarchy is the way it is. I guess I'd say that I have such a hierarchy too . . . though, unfortunately, I sometimes think mine is too jaded (which is maybe another reason why I didn't think to mention the nudity). Ah, the perils of trying to "be in the world but not of it."
Matt,
My friends and I went to this movie because you (among a few others) tried to make it seem there was a moral to this movie. What a shock I was in for...
I do not consider myself a prude (hence 'trying' a R comedy), but this movie is FAR from suggestive humor and even further from appropriate things for any Christian to be putting in their mind. How could one watch the movie and still feel "clean".
My wife, and friends left this so called "date movie" before getting to some attempt at a good ending. I can't see how you can write a review like you did of this movie. How desensitized does one have to be to NOT be offended by this movie? Repeated Crude humor, nudity (and lots of it), language, and making fun of weddings (which are instituted by God) among a few other sinful things.
When does one say the things that make God sick also make me sick. Funny isn't acceptable when it puts images and words in my head that are displeasing to the Lord.
Your "endorsement" of this and 40 year old virgin are astounding to me (note the ending of your article on 40 year old virgin). You even said, “I am not sure what has happened but I like it� when referring to these 2 movies…HUH?
I would suggest, from now on try to be honest in what one will see in the movie (not in your review) and maybe we do have the right to judge this movie...when compared to scripture.
Sadly, the 'sinful media' has been harder on these 2 movies that anyone on this website.
Where does that leave us?
Shocked in KC,
Michael
Michael: If you feel that my review has misled you in any way, I'm truly sorry--that's definitely not my intention. I sincerely apologize. Since your post is similar to one from my *40 Year Old Virgin* review (and since you mention that review), I thought I'd repost that comment and the response I made there. You can find both below in their entirety. But before that, I do want to comment about a couple of things you said.
First, while I didn't get really specific about the offensive stuff in either movie, I certainly hinted at it. And since there are R ratings, with explanations including the words "nudity," "language," etc., I didn't feel the need to spend space discussing it. But more importantly, as I say below, I don't see "moral watchdog" as a role of this site. We're trying to find "gold in the gutter," so to speak--"diamonds in the rough"--and that necessarily means glossing over some of the rough stuff.
When I said "I like it," I was referring to the phenomenon of positive thematic content in otherwise dirty movies. Yes, they're dirty, but yes, there is positive content. The reviews explain how fully, and I don't think they've been challenged on that point.
As far as where you're left, you're left with the Spirit as your guide, scripture, the ratings system, word of mouth, etc., but also (I hope) with this site. But just remember that I'm just never going to count cuss words or nude scenes in a review. I'm going to discuss "pop culture from a spiritual point of view"--which I think my reviews did.
Here's the anonymous post and my response from *The 40 Year Old Virgin* page:
Anonymous said...
G. K. Chesterton said that he believed that every man that visited a brothel was really looking for Jesus. It is broken logic to conclude that he meant that it is wise then to encourage men to visit brothels because Jesus is really to be found there...
I think there is something seriously wrong with any endorsement of such a dishonest film - there is a moral confusion here that is not helpful to [young] people at all.
I find it disingenuous to talk about "spiritual values" without clearly defining the standard.
I highly doubt the Lord Jesus Christ would advise His disciples to indulge in such a film. There are better choices to make.
"Anonymous: Yeah, I can dig where you're coming from--there's always a fine line to walk when it comes to reviewing this type of movie, and sometimes things come out sounding too one-side-of-the-line-ish. Perhaps that was the case with this review. Actually, your comment reminds me of a comment someone made about my *Wedding Crashers* review. That person said I should've mentioned the nudity in that movie. And yeah, maybe I should have, but like I told that person, the problem is being able to write a review, concisely, interestingly, and hit every possible angle. Not really possible to do, and in my opinion, also not the purpose of HJ.com.
You're right, we perhaps shouldn't say "if you're looking for Jesus, go see this movie," but I'm mainly saying that positive thematic material *can be found* in this movie and others like it. I'd pretty much agree with Chesterton's implicit idea that *everything* can be read spiritually. And while that's what this site is all about, it just can't be done in an all-encompassing kind of way. For example, I can't "clearly define the standard" when it comes to "spiritual values" before I talk about spiritual values, or this would cease being HJ.com--it'd become something else, and there are other resources for that. And I also don't necessarily see it as my role to clear up the admittedly confused (though not all negative, and that was the point) morality of this movie for young people. Again, there are resources for that. And the movie's rated R, so . . .
Would Jesus want us to "indulge" in such a film? If by "indulge" you mean accept fully, uncritically, and enjoy completely for the basest of reasons, then no, of course he wouldn't. But would Jesus want us, as part of this culture, to critically "examine all things, keep the good, throw out the bad" (to paraphrase Paul), then yes, I think he would. This movie was number one at the box office over the weekend. That's something to consider as Christians, not ignore. My review was just one attempt at giving a Christian perspective on that phenomenon, albeit a necessarily incomplete one, due to the role of this site.
But again, I see where you're coming from. Honest dialogue about how we, as Christians, be "in the world but not of it" is definitely called for by this movie. This movie definitely should make us think of verses that say not to focus on "unclean things," etc. But I don't see the reviews as necessarily the forum for doing that . . . perhaps just the forum for starting that . . . "
I really hope this helps, Michael.
omg this movie was so good lots of sex and offensive humor its the best ever there should be more like this
Post a Comment
<< Home