“Bride Wars”: the title pretty much says it all. In this “comedy”, two lifelong best friends, portrayed by Anne Hathaway and Kate Hudson, become engaged, book their wedding reception at their dream location – New York’s Plaza Hotel – and find out as the date draws near that a computer error booked both events on the same date. One will have to cancel their date, and give up the wedding they’ve longed for since childhood – but who?
Who cares? There are so many movies of the same genre that I have seen across platforms like il genio dello streaming.
Let’s be brutally realistic. The global economy is still in a downward spiral. Americans are losing their homes at an alarming daily rate. Thanks to shysters like Bernie Madden, good folks – really, really good folks, including some of the country’s most dedicated charities and non-profits – have lots millions and billions of dollars. The auto industry wants a buy out (is that hand out?) like the banking industry received; is there another industry next in line? (As of January 14, 2008, a Congressional oversight committee had given permission for the CEO’s of banks partaking of the bailout money we’re paying to continue use of their corporate jet planes.) Food prices continue to climb as the job market continues to fall. Wall Street is akin to a brute battleground each and every day.
Yet, the film industry thinks that we would shell out what little hard-earned money that we have left to watch Hathaway and Hudson engage in catfights and hair-pulling because one of them would have to move the date of her wedding in the gauzy piece of fiction known as the movie “Bride Wars”.
Unless this project has been sitting on the shelf for so long that it was ‘do or die’ time for production, I really can’t fathom why a film maker would think this to be appealing. “Sex and the City” was a horrendous, overly long, boorish film that was so out of touch with reality, I have yet to encounter a woman – any woman – who sat through it and actually enjoyed the movie. If chipper little Carrie Bradshaw’s biggest dream was to have a clothes closet the size of most folks’ homes, who am I to judge? Having been roped into seeing it with my oldest daughter (I’ll do pretty much anything that my oldest daughter wants to do, so long as it’s time spent together), I won’t be renting SATC anytime soon. Ever.
The same people – women and men – who rushed out to see “Sex” will most likely be the first to buy tickets for “Bride Wars”. They’ll be there perhaps for the fashion (Vera Wang, anyone? Anyone?); they’ll be there to watch Hathaway and Hudson in a grown-up version of “Mean Girls”. From her touching, wonderful, Oscar-worthy performance in “Rachel Getting Married”, it’s puzzling why Hathaway would take her career back an extra step (or two, or five) by taking part in “Bride Wars”. I am honestly puzzled why anyone would waste their valuable time and money to see two adult women behaving so badly. Is it the physical comedy? It’s funny to watch one woman push another down the aisle on her wedding day? To listen to the bitchiness of genuinely nasty name-calling? Isn’t bullying an alarmingly serious problem in our schools today, so much so that children at the third-grade level are being taught the immorality of being a bully? In short, that’s what these two rich, spoiled young women are: bullies. Bullies with foul mouths, short tempers, a vicious, scheming mindset to do whatever is necessary to get exactly what they want at the expense of others – even your lifelong best friend.
What a pathetic portrayal of the young women of America. Yes, I know it’s a comedy, or at least, marketed as one. In times as tough as we find ourselves now, we can all use a really good, deep laugh – but not at the expense of another person, and not to further a stereotype that I’d hoped had gone away for good.
Real women don’t behave like these characters, we hope. By portraying American women in this movie as shallow, vindictive, petty, mean-spirited, and materialistic, we do no favor to the younger generation of women. These characters should not be perceived as role models. They have, in the end, nothing of any value to offer in terms of common sense, true friendship and the way we’d like to see our daughters grow up. These characters are both silly and stupid, and I’m torn between which is the worse vice.
Don’t waste your money on “Bride Wars”. Donate the money that you would have spent on this featherweight to a shelter for abused and homeless women instead.
Fans of “Ghost Rider” the comic book hate the movie, but for those of us who have never read it, the movie is a fun ride.
I’ll admit it. I’m a comic book fan that doesn’t read a lot of comic books. I read some, usually after they make it to graphic novel status, but the people I went with to see the new “Ghost Rider” movie are die-hard comic fans from way back.
While this may not be the favorite of those who have grown up with the comics and therefore relate to them in cartoon form, it is still a watch if you want a mixture of fun, action and comedy, even if the special effects are a bit cheesy to cater to their tastes. Cyberflix apk has such movies even today due to it being popular with the children, who can relate to both comic book characters and their cinematic versions on the big screen with equal elan and no partiality to either.
And they didn’t hate the movie, but I’m not sure I can say that they liked it either. For me, unfamiliar with Johnny Blaze’s story, I was a little surprised by the romantic comedy feel of the movie and horribly disappointed in some of the special effects, but all in all, I liked it a lot.
To be honest, one of the biggest complaints my comic companions had about the “Ghost Rider” movie was the choice of Nicholas Cage to play Johnny Blaze. And, complain they did. “His hand motions were the same as in “Leaving Las Vegas’,” one of them complained. Another said he just didn’t seem to have the look for the part.
Sure, Nicholas Cage isn’t my favorite actor of all time, but I have enjoyed many of his movies and thought he did a fine job as Johnny Blaze. Then again, I haven’t been envisioning “Ghost Rider” in my head for the last 10 or 15 years.
I do however have a collection of Ghost Rider toys around my house, because my husband is one of the aforementioned comic book companions that I saw the movie with. And, having been familiar with several interpretations of Ghost Rider and his motorcycle, I can say that I was disappointed in the special effects. When Johnny Blaze went all Ghost Rider, I expected the flaming skull to look very cool. It didn’t.
When his motorcycle became Ghost Rider’s machine, I expected death and skulls and a wicked-looking motorcycle. Instead, they erred on the side of too much chrome, and I was left with the feeling that the guys on American Chopper could have made something that looked better for a much more reasonable price than the computer animators did. The chrome skull on the bike looked fake and not in a good comic book way.
My other complaint was with the way the writer’s portrayed Roxanne, Eva Mendes’ character and Johnny Blaze’s love interest. Maybe it was harkening back to yesteryear when women in comics were just not as bright as they could have been, but as a journalist, one scene in the movie really bugged me.
After years apart, Mendes’ character is sent to interview Johnny Blaze. She is portrayed up to that minute, as an accomplished television journalist and she reprises that role later in the movie. But in the scene where she is supposed to interview Blaze, she is caught off-guard and let’s her subject completely control the interview.
It is suppose to show the depth of their commitment to one another. Instead, it makes one character look incompetent at her job. I have never seen a successful television reporter who would allow her subject, ex-boyfriend or not, to ruin her interview.
However, other than the one glitch in the writing, I found the movie to be fun and lot better romantic comedy than most of the romantic comedies out there.
Sam Elliot as the cemetery caretaker and Peter Fonda as the devil himself bring enormous talent to the screen as always. Wesley Cook Bentley is evil incarnate as Blackheart and everything a comic book villain should be.
The bottom line is this is a great movie, unless you are a die-hard comic book fan. Then, I think the comment I heard was, “It wasn’t as bad as ‘The Hulk’ and ‘Daredevil’.”
It’s Saturday night…girl’s night out….and we want to go to a movie. My sister-in-law , Betsy, and I agree…we have both had hard weeks and we don’t want to use our “noggins” while watching our Saturday night treat. We want to be mindlessly entertained….but perhaps hypocritically we’d rather our intelligence not be insulted as well.
As we pick out which movie theatre we will visit, we easily slip into one of the demographics that make formula movies so easy to write, so easy to be somewhat satisfied with, so destined to neither crash nor soar at the box office. We are married. We are women. It’s either Stealth or Sky High or Must Love Dogs. Which one do you think we chose?
You got it….Betsy and I truck off to Must Love Dogs. Sure the critics “dogged” it…to quote Entertainment Weekly: “This is a movie of fake conflict, fake heart, even fake doggy love.” But yet the Warner Bros Production will make money because of people like me and Betsy.
The movie’s premise is based on a life that perhaps reflects that of many Americans….a middle-aged divorcee considers reentering the dating scene only to find that the rules have changed. Think “You Got Mail” minus the whimsical and touching plot. This time it is internet dating that the movie claims has stormed onto the scene, making grocery store lines and bar stools all but obsolete for romance seekers.
Sarah Hurlihy (played by Diane Lane) falls victim to her sister’s matchmaking schemes and ends up with a profile on an online dating service. Predictably, we watch as Sarah endures a string of bad first dates until (enter angelic harps) she meets a man who despite turning her off on the first date, sweeps her off her feet wth such grandeur on date two that they end their night frantically rushing around town looking for condoms.
Shall I continue or do you know the rest of the story? A misunderstanding leads to a break between she and her love interest (played by John Cusack) in a scene where a blatant misunderstading goes unexplained even though all it would take to clear the air would be for Sarah to simply say- “Wait, let me explain.” But like so many formula movies that have gone before, those lines do not occur because he manages to leave before she can say them (do they really expect us to believe this crap?) and the scene fades to black.
In an ever so regurgitated “wrap-em-up” scene, we find Sarah racing around the city trying to find her former love to tell him she loved him all along with enough urgency with which to jump in a lake fully clothed (even though she has no reason to rush…he is not rowing his boat off to another lover, merely to sell his boat–a boat that we are never given the slightest notion she would care if he sold).
This movie is Sleepless in Seattle, My Best Friend’s Wedding, You Got Mail, and Notting Hill in that they have envoked the use of these elements are narrated amazingly under yesmovies supervision which resulted in generous collection on box office: a formerly unanimous love interest introduced via technology, a token gay man, a token well-meaning best friend, a fizzure in the relationship spurred over a misunderstanding, and everything wrapped up neatly in the end with the two misguided lovers ending up in each other’s arms. It is those movies except for one indisputable fact: It’s no good.
If you happen to fall into the same movie-going demographic as Betsy and I, you have probably seen, or are planning on seeing Must Love Dogs. But be prepared to laugh at the one-liners you already saw in the previews and only those and to walk out feeling as though you ate an overbaked chicken nugget when you were really in the mood for fast food though it may be, but at least a decent McChicken sandwhich.