MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Review: Bridesmaids

It’s funny.

It’s a mess of a movie. But it’s funny.

Kristin Wiig is a funny person and would do really well to have a strong director or producer helping her to color inside the lines a bit more. A movie is not a sketch show. However, she is very funny.

If they gave out Oscars for comedy performances, you couldn’t find a better nominee than Melissa McCarthy, who has been a dangerous, scene-stealing comedic actor all the way back to Go in ’99. She kills in this film… worth the price of admission all by herself. In great part it’s because of what she gets to play… the fat girl who doesn’t know and doesn’t really care that she’s fat. Really, this is her Jackie Gleason role… light on her feet, completely convinced of her ideas in the world, and profoundly sincere. She was written as the Zach Galifianakis of this movie… but she is better than that… because she isn’t out of control, she’s remarkably grounded.

Maya Rudolph is the straight man here and does a nice job with it.

Wendi McLendon-Covey was the surprise in this core cast for me. I don’t recall seeing her before, though she has a long resume. But she’s dry and funny with some wonderfully raunchy and truthful dialogue here. Underused.

Rose Byrne was pretty perfect in her role… but that is where the movie goes a little off the rails for me. The story is basically Wiig’s character vs Byrne’s, fighting for the “soul” of the bride. But because this is really a Kristin Wiig movie, the balance is way off. That said, the third act for the Byrne character is quite smartly written.

The film also really rocks the secondary characters. For me, the small turn by Matt Lucas an Rebel Wilson was glorious. Chris O’Dowd was interesting and unexpected as Rhodes. Seeing Franklyn Ajaye as Maya Rudolph’s dad was very cool, as was Jimmy Brogan as the priest. And Jon Hamm has a good old time as a pig man who says what he really thinks.

I laughed a lot in this movie. I recommend it. But I wish I could say that I thought it was up to the best of the Apatow: The 40 Year-Old Virgin, Superbad, Talladega Nights… even Anchorman. The problem with Apatow as a producer is that he doesn’t seem to rein anyone in. So this film, which would have improved significantly by cutting 10 minutes or so, is allowed too much rope. Paul Feig is a competent, but not outstanding feature director. He’s a terrific TV director. But the writer is in control of the television show set. Here, the buck stops with the director. And with two very talented, but new-to-features screenwriters (Wiig and Annie Mumolo), someone needed to fight for the filmmaking even when it made the crew laugh.

I don’t think the film lives up to some of the pretensions being hoisted onto it. Nor does it deserve some of the brickbats. It’s just a pleasant, funny couple of hours at the movies with a few great moments. It’s not as daring as The Hangover… or even The Hangover Part II. But it doesn’t have to be. It is likely to make you laugh… often. Duh! Winning!

Be Sociable, Share!

21 Responses to “Review: Bridesmaids”

  1. JKill says:

    I just got back from it, and I think one of the things I found pleasing about it was how old-fashioned and uninterested in gimmicks it was. The screenplay is very far from the high concept comedy that has been in vogue in the last decade or two. It’s essentially a pretty small scale, character driven comedy focused on Whig’s protagonist but with a lot attention paid to the ensamble. McCarthy, as it says in the review, is incredibly f***ing funny. I loved her and her character. All of the bridesmaids and the bride were given enough to do and all have amusing, unique voices without detracting from the main thread. Whig is utterly winning and funny and endearing. The romance subplot is really well handled and charming. I agree that it’s a little long but I loved it, and because I found the characters so likeable I don’t think that will be as much as a problem on future viewings. It’s a thoroughly funny and heart warming movie.

  2. A Kaye-Smith says:

    Agree!! Rebel Wilson is a stand out. I wish there was more of her and Matt Lucas but potentially we’ll see that in Bridesmaids II!

  3. NickF says:

    Chris O’dowd being good in this wouldn’t surprise me. He’s great in The IT Crowd and he was likeable in Pirate Radio. I haven’t seen Dinner for Schmucks yet.

  4. torpid bunny says:

    This review is a bit confusing since it seems like David really likes a lot of elements but then suggests it’s not even as good as Superbad? And then implies that Anchorman was worse then all the named Apatow comedies? WHAT?

    ANCHORMAN IS A CLASSIC. Since we just engaged in a disgusting round of ranking superhero movies (PUKE), I have a right to rank Apatow.

    1. Anchorman
    2. Knocked Up
    3. 40 YOV
    4. Talladega Nights
    Many other films but none really standing out above those. I think Anchorman is the funniest and also the most satisfying story. Plus for me it’s Ferrell’s best performance.

  5. storymark says:

    Anchorman is the only Apatow comedy I couldn’t finish. I know many that love it, but it just didn’t appeal to me in the slightest.

  6. torpid bunny says:

    Well that’s unacceptable.

    “I wanna say something. I’m gonna put it out there; if you like it, you can take it, if you don’t, send it right back. I want to be on you.”

  7. Hopscotch says:

    I’m definitely interested in seeing it. But I suspect DP is on the money about Apatow’s productions aren’t quite “reined in”. That was my problem with Get Him to the Greek and Pineapple Express. both just ALL OVER the place. Scenes and conceits that just stretch and stretch. I know the film is over two hours, and I don’t doubt it could be shorter.

    Why I mainly want to see this film is because when I first moved to Los Angeles I went to the Groundlings Theater fairly often (my roommate was in the school). It’s an improv theater like Second City. I saw Wiig, Annie Mumolo, McLendon-Covey (from Reno 911), Melissa McCarthy and Ben Falcone (in the trailer he’s the guy on the plane that McCarthy hits on…in real life, they’re married) on stage doing sketches and improv.

    I’m not exaggerating when I say my face hurt from laughter some nights. Wiig especially, glad to see they all made into features together.

  8. Hopscotch says:

    Storymark, I know it’s a cliche but the first time I saw Anchorman I honestly didn’t get what the hell was so funny. On subsequent viewings it’s grown on me and I like it a lot. BUT, fans of that movie definitely give the unfunny stretches major passes.

  9. David Poland says:

    Sorry if that was confusing… but I consider Anchorman one of his best.

  10. anghus says:

    Anchorman was one of those movies that i liked when i saw it the first time and loved it more and more upon subsequent viewings.

    I don’t think there’s a single comedy that i loved the first time i saw it. you laugh, you enjoy yourself, but the truly great ones can make you laugh again and again. and that’s when you realize it’s greatness.

  11. actionman says:

    So you saw The Hangover 2, eh…..?

    Pineapple is my personal fav Apatow, follwed by 40 yr old, then Knocked Up. Funny People has so many great lines but is waaaaaaay too long.

  12. leahnz says:

    “I don’t think the film lives up to some of the pretensions being hoisted onto it. Nor does it deserve some of the brickbats…”

    wait on, DP, aren’t you the one often complaining about ‘critics’ poor form in gauging their critiques according to others, either as a result of supposed group-think or the desire to be a contrarian? and yet this review gives away you doing the exact same thing, appraising the film according to what others have written/said before you, and tailoring your written reaction with the reviews of others in mind, rather than just providing your own interpretation. what other reviewers think should be immaterial, but apparently you feel the need to naysay others’ assessments and jockey for position in the pack.

    (and fwiw your opinion is not, never has been and never will be in any way “objective” when it comes to viewing movies – not because there’s something wrong with you, but because objectivity requires distance, complete disconnection and deals in fact, wherein viewing movies/art is an unavoidably personal/individual pursuit as seen thru your own personal filter, thereby rending your assessment/opinion/interpretation of movies in no way objective and 100% subjective, just like every other person on the planet, no matter how full of themselves they may be)

  13. David Poland says:

    Leah – 2 things. First, mentioning how others feel about a film is not the same thing as “tailoring your written reaction with the reviews of others in mind.” I offered what I think and I mentioned some of the other stuff out there. So, no, I don’t consider that poor form.

    Second, I have never claimed to be 100% objective as a critic. But there are some objective criteria, whether you like it or not. They don’t generally speak to whether you like something or dislike something. But they do exist and professionals should be expected to be aware of them, even if they go against personal taste. And I would say that most of the critics I think are any good manage to deal with the contradiction all the time.

  14. leahnz says:

    regardless of the semantics of the issue, why do you feel it necessary to mention how others feel about a film in your own critique, to claim that it’s wrong? because whether you want to admit it or not, this IS gauging your reaction to a movie according to others. also, this is something most professional critics avoid doing, because it IS poor form. you are providing YOUR critique, or do you feel it’s your place to review the reviews as well? if others’ opinions don’t figure into your final written assessment, then why mention them at all? this practice implies a degree of pomposity, having to insert an ‘i think others are wrong’ at the end of your own piece, and i am not the first person to note this tendency.

    also, you’ve never claimed to be 100% objective as a critic? i didn’t say you had, i said you are ZERO % objective as a critic, because “objectivity” is simply not possible when assessing art. i mean, if bridesmaids is 200 minutes long (made that up) and you say, “bridesmaids is 200 minutes long”, yes, an objective assesment. if you say, “bridesmaids is too long”, entirely subjective. and so it goes. you claim there’s “objective criteria” by which you and others judge movies, so what exactly would those be, could you elaborate/give a few examples? i’m genuinely curious as to what you think objective criteria for judging movies is, perhaps i’m overlooking something i never considered.

    (edited to say, you also claimed that ‘star trek’ was “objectively mediocre”, contributing to my skeptical view that what you think is objective assessment is, in fact, a subjective opinion)

  15. library says:

    I bought Anchorman on VHS for a dollar. I didn’t even bother finishing it. I’m mystified what people see in it.

  16. Peter says:

    David, even when Apatow is directing, he doesn’t rein himself, so I don’t expect that when he is just producing. I do agree that the movie is very funny though.

  17. Lisa says:

    Saw it tonight, found a lot of it funny. And whatever my issues with it, I’m glad it’s going to make a lot of money and open up opportunities for a lot of terrific female comedians. Particularly McCarthy. I could have watched her for two hours all by herself, and she was what kept me re-engaged with the movie when I started to drop out. What I loved about her character was how positive her objectives were. Her storylines never involved bringing anyone else down.

    Which brings me to my issue with the film: I could never get behind Wiig’s character. She was so negative through every step of the film, not even attempting to be supportive of her friend. Instead, I found myself siding with Rose Byrne’s character, and I was relieved by the time the filmmakers let us like her as well.

    I also wished the very funny Maya Rudolph had more to do. In fact the same goes for most of the other characters–I was surprised the conversation between Wendy McLeondon and Ellie Kemper on the plane was never continued later. I cared about these characters because they cared about things other than themselves.

  18. anghus says:

    kristen wiig’s character was difficult to root for, but i think that’s why i liked the movie so much. it was nice to have someone who really was a basket case, whose life had really turned to shit. It reminded me of Ben Stiller in There’s Something About Mary. Flawed, fucked up, indulging in insane behavior but eventually does the right thing.

  19. Josef says:

    What man would plausibly want to marry Rudolph? She’s hideous.

  20. yancyskancy says:

    Josef: Paul Thomas Anderson may not want to marry Maya Rudolph (or maybe vice versa), but they’ve got two kids together and another on the way. Do you find that plausible?

  21. Remarkable contribution on Jersey Shore. Everyone loves this show a whole lot I dont even know why LOL, Most definitely i’ll return for more post later.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon