The characters
in 27 Dresses are screwed up in so many ways that one
wonders what screenwriter Aline Brosh McKenna was thinking (or
smoking?) when she concocted them. Forget about all of the
promotional material that you’ve seen for the film and humble me
by considering the nature of these people and the story that
surrounds them. The movie’s protagonist, Jane (Katherine Heigl),
is a woman so obsessed with weddings that sometimes she’ll even
attend two in one night, jetting through Manhattan by taxi (as
we see in the film’s first act) to bounce from one to the
other. She lives and breathes for the ceremonies despite the
fact that she’s never been lucky enough to have one of her own,
so much so that they’re all she devotes her time outside of work
to.
Speaking of
work: there, Jane develops a deep-seeded crush on her boss,
George (Edward Burns), mainly because he’s the only person who
semi-appreciates her. That is, until he’s introduced to Jane’s
ex-Italian model of a sister, Tess (Malin Akerman), who pretends
to be an entirely an different person than she really is so that
his oppositely-minded intuition will fall for her. Days into
their relationship, the pair decides to tie the knot, much to
the unconditional approval of Tess and Jane’s father (Brian
Kerwin), who doesn’t even turn a blind eye to the fact that
maybe they’ve rushed to the decision. All the while, Jane is
stalked by Kevin (James Marsden), a cynical guy she met at a
wedding that she has grown to hate in the short time since. He’s
after her both because he is romantically-interested in her and
because he’s an undercover wedding-columnist who is dying to put
together an article on her obsessive-tendencies. Of course, even
after Jane discovers of Kevin’s sleazy intentions, he strikes
her as being so charming and dashing and bad-boy-appealing that
she still wants to date him.
Um… yeah. As
the viewer digests the story behind 27 Dresses, it’s
quite possible that the movie will strike them as entirely
ludicrous and the characters as clinically-insane. In fact, they
probably are. But doing so only represents an act of pointless
narrow-mindedness. Somehow, some way, the members of the movie’s
cast save it from being a complete failure. In a collaborative
ensemble effort, they turn McKenna’s miscalculated caricatures
and director Anne Fletcher’s blasé and unremarkable approach to
the material into a flowing, likable product.
In the lead
role, Katherine Heigl steals the show in what many have dubbed a
“breakthrough performance.” (I’m not so sure that the label
fits, though, because she was just as good in last summer’s
Knocked Up.) Jane may be a bipolar psycho at heart, but one
never really comes to fully realize this with Heigl at the
reigns. Playing the part effortlessly, the actress manages to be
completely likable, turning the character’s pathetic-nature into
genuine underdog-charm. Electrified by the performance, Jane
becomes a hard woman not to feel for, one whose genuine hopes
for marriage and family-life in a distant and secularized
America come off as pure as they do admirable. Heigl embodies
said traits with notable finesse: she’s not only likable for
what her bent on Jane represents, but because she is sexy,
funny, self-depricating, and totally relatable as an actress.
It’s a true treat for the audience to absorb the aura elicited
by her work.
Opposite Heigl,
James Marsden is almost equally-likable as Kevin. He does a
terrific job in the role, perfectly balancing the character’s
exploitative-intentions in writing an article spoofing Jane
(which transitively makes her more sympathetic) and his
genuinely misguided goodness. Marsden ensures that Kevin’s flaws
counteract with Jane’s, creating romantic-chemistry between them
that ignites on the screen and allows the viewer to believe
in their implausible relationship. Alongside Marsden, Edward
Burns (who seems to have come out of the woodwork with this and
One Missed Call) and Malin Akerman do fine jobs of
bringing life and nuance to stock supporting-characters.
Despite my
high-praise of the cast, I would be lying if I said that 27
Dresses totally overcomes its insipid conception. With a
forgettable and predictable structure to boot, the movie’s
poorly-written characters and situations become burdensome as
the viewer reflects upon them. As invigorating as Heigl,
Marsden, and the rest of the cast are, they have a hard time
achieving a lasting power that trumps the core-material’s bitter
aftertaste. As it is, however, 27 Dresses is much better
than I would have ever imagined merely by reading its script.
Even if it won’t exactly rock one’s world in the days after one
sees it, the movie certainly goes down easy thanks to some great
performances.
-Danny Baldwin,
Bucket Reviews
Review Published
on: 1.20.2008
Screened on:
1.13.2008 at the AMC Burbank 16 in Burbank, CA.
27 Dresses is rated PG-13 and runs 107 minutes.
Back to Home
