Four Weddings and a Funeral

Rating:
Summary: Insightful and Fun!
Review: This movie features memorable comic vignettes and great insights into relationships, love and fear of commitment. The mumbling Hugh Grant delivers an effortlessly charming performance, he is rapidly becoming the British Cary Grant. Also extremely good supporting cast. Unfortunately Andie MacDowell doesn't add enough life to her important character and makes 'Carrie' almost lifeless and dull, which is the exact opposite of Kristin Scott Thomas performance which is quiet but right on the money. The whole movie is ultimately entertaining, fun and very funny at times. The ending is out of place and doesn't seem as smart as the rest of the film. From a scale of 1-10 I give this film a 7!

Rating:
Summary: Very Best Romantic Comedy
Review: "Four Weddings and a Funeral" may not be the greatest movie in the history, but it surely is the best modern romantic comedy I ever saw. The only film that can possibly surpass this delightful one is, perhaps, "When Harry Met Sally ..." Maybe tied.

Hugh Grant has starred in many films since then, but his best role is still Charles of this film, who unwittingly finds his love in Carrie, an open-hearted American played by beautiful Andie MacDowell at his friend's wedding. One miatake is, he foolishly couldn't realize it before he let her go after one-night stand. But as the number of ceremony goes up (including one funeral), he gradually comes to notice that he threw away the best thing in his life. And while he is wondering what to do, friends around him start to search for their real love, including his own brother David, his timid friend Tom, Tom's sister Fiona, and Charles's eccentric roommate Scarlet. But where should Charles go? Going back to his countless ex-girlfriends? Or, Carrie? But she got already married.

To be honest, a little abrupt ending of the film damages an entire movie's strength a bit, but all comedies have to pay the price to end the show within an appointed hour. What is incredibly splendid about "Four Weddings" is that the characters are all so lively and sparkling with witty dialogue that you think they are not acting at all. Actually, on top of Hugh Grant, many actors are still associated with the roles in this film even if they got more populality after this film; Kristin Scott Thomas is later to be nominated Oscar for her turn in "English Patient," but she will be remembered as deliciously aristocratic Fiona. John Hannah made his name popular through the Hollywood blockbuster series of "Mummy," but still he is kind-hearted Matthew to those who have seen him recite W H Auden (most touching moment) in "Four Weddings." This is that kind of film that changes the cast's life. It happens once in your lifetime.

With this great ensemble cast, we have fantastic script by Richard Curtis, filled with funny lines uttered by completely believable characters. He does not fail to take great care of minor characters, and give them equally good moments. Look how Serena, in love with handsome David who is hearing impaired, learns sign. Trying to impress him, she mixes up "nice" with "mice," but, you know, when boys and girls are in love. nothing can stop them from understanding each other. Cute.

Brilliantly written, "Four Weddings" is a superb model of romantic comedy. If you like this type of movie, you surely will fall in love with it; and if you're not, your mind will be changed just like mine (I didn't expected much from it, so I didn't go to theater until the last day). And the film never forgets the sad side of life as the title implies. Sad thing is one of the cast Charlotte Coleman, who played most unconventional bridesmaid Scarlett, has passed away recently. She is terrific.

Rating:
Summary: Beyond awful characters...
Review: Deliriously unfunny flick about Dysfunctional British White Trash Set starring that English guy with sticky big tooth grin who can't stop "acting" as if were 14 years old (O.K. 8 years old). McDowell's set in granite smile even more putrid as was her ameba like portrayal of worthless All American tramp.
It goes without saying that only the two homosexuals would be portrayed as being half way decent and not altogether mindless.

Film pinned a phony Valentine on characters at the tail end, can't say why other than to relieve viewers suffering. Actually, couldn't take more than 40 minutes of it. Didn't matter because if you only see the first 20 min. that will be sufficient (they didn't title this one Four Wedding for nothing). Reappeared during the last five to see dumb resolution. Didn't buy a word of it. Doesn't matter because NOTHING about these characters mattered. Sickening making. Typical European yuck and snot.
No surprise that it went over big in America.

Rating:
Summary: Picture-Perfect Romantic Comedy
Review: A wonderful movie to watch with someone you love (or could see yourself loving somewhere down the line). The question of commitment rears its ugly head over and over, and makes it appear Charles (Hugh Grant) is unable to do so. In fact, the film seems to make the case he's been biding his time waiting for the thunderbolt to hit from out of the blue; when it finally does (in the person of Andie MacDowell), it misfires a few times.

The film is enhanced by not being teddibly British (but suffers from not showing enough of Britain -- it might as well have been filmed in Toronto for all we saw of the countryside and Scotland). The supporting cast is marvelous, with Kristin Scott-Thomas and John Hannah moving on to bigger and better things. Andie MacDowell has been unfairly described as the weak link, but her character is rather ill-defined and flighty to begin with, and she didn't write the awful "Is it raining? I hadn't noticed" eye-roller at the end. Friends have told me other actresses could have been much better in the role; I highly doubt it.

Definitely worth grabbing on video. The DVD holds no significant extras -- kind of a disappointment, since the screenplay book shows many deleted scenes and rejected TV spot scripts -- *some* of them must have been filmed.

Rating:
Summary: Picture Perfect Weddings & the Funeral is Perfect too
Review: A witty romantic comedy with a sardonic edge, FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL follows the engaging Hugh Grant and his friends as they search for love in a whirlwind of nuptials.

Always a guest, never a groom (he's Best Man once, but forgets the rings), handsome, timid Charles (Grant) meets Carrie (Andie MacDowell) at a wedding and falls instantly in love with her. She returns to America, and the next time he sees her--at another wedding--she's got a wealthy fiance in tow. He's devastated, she's oblivious, tongues wag. Can once in a lifetime, bolt-from-the-blue love survive bad timing, comically misunderstood intentions and the well-meaning interference of friends? Charles finds out--two weddings (one of them his own) and a funeral later--but not before things come to some very sticky passes.

Casting is everything in FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL; the more one falls for Grant's ineffectual-but-adorable upper-middle-class schtick, the more charming everything seems. MacDowell is the weak link in a fine ensemble that includes the splendid Kristin Scott-Thomas (A HANDFUL OF DUST) and Simon Callow (A ROOM WITH A VIEW); among the film's highlights is a fairly devastating reading of W.H. Auden's Funeral Blues.

Rating:
Summary: Not enough funerals
Review: If it's possible for a movie to be any worse, I don't know how. Oh, that's right... LOVE ACTUALLY!

This meandering, pointless hodgepodge of unsympathetic and amoral characters in unbelieveable settings is a complete waste of time and film. And what was the ending about, anyway? Hugh and Andie agree to "not be married" for the rest of their lives? So, like, they're gonna just shack up for life? We all know that works soooooo well... see Hugh's non-marriage to Liz Hurley for details.

One star, but only because I can't give it zero.

Rating:
Summary: In the name of the father, son, and the holy spigot...
Review: Rowan Atkinson, who plays the nervous and shy Father Gerald, speaks those lines at a wedding. His writing partner, Richard Curtis, wrote this sweet, good-natured comedy of a circle of friends, all in their thirties, who attend weddings and gradually wonder the mysteries of love. Is it better to hold out for that ideal person or as the bumbling, nice, but not exactly fashion-modellish Tom puts it, "I always just hoped that, that I'd meet some nice friendly girl, like the look of her, hope the look of me didn't make her physically sick, then pop the question and, um, settle down and be happy." The follies of finding anyone just to prevent from being lonely is also explored here, but so is the chain reaction that occurs at weddings, i.e. other people in turn end up getting married in serendipitous circumstances.

The opening scenes to the first marriage of the various friends getting ready, set to an Elton John song, sets the stage for the story. The scenes of the slow-rising Charles and his female roommate Scarlett result in a series of comical scenes that elicit the f-word from them both, including missing the offramp leading to the wedding site.

It's at the first wedding that Cupid launches a projectile at Charles (Hugh Grant) via Carrie (Andie McDowell), an American who appears at the wedding with a big black hat. What might have been a missed opportunity later turns depressing for Charles when he finds out she's engaged. Indeed, he has a history of ex-girlfriends that leads the sensitive Henrietta to call him a serial monogamist. But Charles is bewildered with awe at people who are actually ready to take that lifelong committment. After all, despite divorce being commonplace, the sanctity of wedding still carries importance. Both Grant's goofy and McDowell's sweet and lovable performances lift this film up, with the latter's winning smile, but they're not the only ones.

Fiona (Kristin Scott Thomas), nicknamed Fi or even Fifi, has a dignified beauty colored by a cynical tongue. In the first wedding, when Scarlett gushes over the bride, she says, "Scarlett, you're blind. She looks like a big meringue." She also unleashes her tart tongue at meek Father Gerald, training to be a priest. She says it's rather like the first time one has sex, "a lot less messy of course, and far less call for condoms." Gerald titters with nervous laughter.

Of the other characters, Gareth, played by Simon Callow, is flamboyant, simply jovial, full of life, a true romantic, someone it's fun to hang around and be merry with, and as we learn later, a culinary eccentric. Seeing him cutting loose on the dance floor in the first wedding is a highlight. He plays with the theory that marriage is the last gasp between two couples who have run out of things to say, then says that true love is the driving force behind marriage.

The pint-sized Scarlett (Charlotte Coleman) is another funny character. She has a shock of short bright red hair, sings offkey at church, and gets flirty with strangers at weddings. It was quite a shock when I heard of her death from an asthma attack last year.

And David, Charles's deaf brother who's quite a dish, also gains some laughs in the conversations he has with his brother, and also with a girl who fancies him enough to take sign language lessons. Is that love or what?

Another bit of trivia. According to Richard Curtis, Henrietta's nickname was toned down to Duckface for propriety. Guess what it was originally going to be? Hint: Duck gets replaced by a word it rhymes with. And for those who don't know, the poem read at the funeral is W.H. Auden's "Funeral Blues".

With winning performances all around, great lines, be they witty, acerbic, or poignant, Four Weddings And A Funeral is a funny, romantic, and heartwarming winner from director Mike Newell (Enchanted April, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire [pending]). It give me hope that someday, maybe someday'E And if you don't like it, your name is duckface.

Rating:
Summary: A romantic comedy which lacks chemistry.
Review: I had heard so many good things about this film that when I finally saw it, I was surprised to find it so very disappointing. The story revolves a group of people who constantly find themselves at weddings, and yet they themselves never get married. At one wedding Charles (Hugh Grant) is entranced by an American woman, Carrie (Andie MacDowell). Upon finding that they are staying at the same hotel, they end up in bed together. The following day Carrie returns to the States, leaving Charles forlorn and alone. A few months later Carrie turns up at another wedding, announcing that she's engaged to someone else. Nevertheless, she and Charles hop in the sack once more. Carrie then proceeds to marry her fiance, and Charles continues to pine for her, wondering if perhaps he should settle for any ordinary woman rather than wait for the perfect one.

The entire plotline is rather shaky to begin with, though it could have been done well, with some tweaking. But the main problem is that the romance between Charles and Carrie just seems utterly unrealistic. They meet for the first time, barely speak two words to each other before sleeping together, and Carrie promtly leaves the next morning, and yet Charles is madly in love with her. Why? They have nothing in common, know nothing about each other, and have known each other for one day. Carrie's idea of conversation is detailing the bedroom talents of each of her 33 lovers. And she sleeps with one man while engaged to another!

The movie is further dragged down by the fact that there is not a whit of chemistry between Grant and MacDowell. As I watched them, I felt... nothing. Not boredom or disdain, but just a big flat resounding nothing. Grant acted very well, and MacDowell did a passable job with a less-than-ideal role, but the two just don't work together. I know Grant can do a great romantic comedy - I've seen plenty of his other movies - but MacDowell is clearly not a good match.

The rest of the cast was fairly good. In fact, I enjoyed the numerous sideline romances far more than the central one. There are many funny moments (though a couple of the jokes fall horribly flat), and even a couple touching ones, just not between the main characters where they should have been. I liked many of the other characters, and found myself rooting for their romantic success rather than Charles and Carrie's. They actually interact with each other, whereas the relationship between Carrie and Charles seems to be based only on the fact that they've slept together. The movie wasn't an entire waste, and connoisseurs of Hugh Grant should see it, but it's not one I myself would watch again. I'd recommend it as a rental only.

Rating:
Summary: God, it's awful
Review: What a hideous movie! I was furious when it was done because I had just wasted two hours watching a movie that has nothing to recommend it. This movie is neither funny nor inspiring.

It was interesting in the beginning. Will the two main characters get together? My sympathy for Andie McDowell's character slipped when she had sex with Hugh Grant while engaged to someone else, and disappeared altogether when she recalled one by one her many lovers (32 of 'em). It's impossible for me to believe that she would remain faithful while married.

Hugh Grant's character was not much better. When he couldn't have Andie, he asked someone else, someone who was absolutely crazy about him. Too bad the plot required that she be left at the altar.

The only characters I liked were the two gay guys (what an incredible poem one read at the other's funeral).

The two main characters were sexual slimeballs. I hated this movie.

Rating:
Summary: heroine must be likeable, and andie is not
Review: ok. i loved the british characters. they were funny, touching, and altogether sympathetic. i would have preferred kristin scott thomas's character as the heroine, but oh well. i loved their sense of humor, and at the same time, i felt their sadness poignantly, particularly when john hannah gives his elegy. i think i actually teared up a bit. there were many of these precious moments.

but leave the damaging factor to the american heroine. i'm an american, but i just could not and would not identify with andie mcdowell's character. she kept trying to give that mysterious elusive quality to the character and just utterly failed. rather than seeming elusive and aloof, she seemed more like a tease that just wasn't worth it.

don't get me wrong, i'm a huge fan of romantic comedies, but that also means that i like my romantic comedies to be perfectly executed. the casting diretor failed miserably when casting andie mcdowell. either that or the screenwriter just didn't want to be nice to his heroine. but then, i really think andie's character could have been much more sympathetic if a different actress had played it - maybe even julia roberts, even when i'm not exactly a fan. i mean, how could a casting director think that viewers would find andie's character more desirable than that of kristin scott thomas (i forget the characters' names). i was honestly smacking myself in the forehead crying, why, charles why?

i understand a lot of people did like this movie, and i admit that this movie had so many great moments. but i stand by my humble opinion that andie mcdowell, simply put, sucked.