my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Wedding Crashers (2005)

Author Topic: Wedding Crashers (2005) Lyle Romer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1400 From: Davie, FL, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 07-15-2005 06:32 PM                     Can I have the last hour of my life back? Yes, the running time is about 2 hours. It started off pretty good and funny and then something happened. It was like they switched writers and directors mid way through. The rest of it dragged on and on and on and wasn't really funny anymore. It went from comedy to bad drama. 1 1/2 *'s (out of 5)  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-15-2005 09:04 PM                        The only thing fans of this movie need to know is, what's the Greco factor?  |  IP: Logged Mike Heenan Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1896 From: Scottsdale, AZ, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 07-15-2005 09:36 PM                     Yeah, is it really a "boob filled raunch fest" (thanks Drudge, lol) or just slightly more risque than the usual comedies starring these fellows.  |  IP: Logged Lyle Romer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1400 From: Davie, FL, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 07-15-2005 10:00 PM                     Well, there's one little montage where you get to see a few sets of boobs although the quick cut editing made it difficult to truly enjoy. Had they put the toplessness in the 2nd hour, maybe it could have helped salvage the movie. It was definitely pretty raunchy in some scenes like the extremely graphic handjob given under a table (I'll leave out the characters involved so as not to give away a spoiler).  |  IP: Logged Jeremy Jorgenson Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1002 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: Feb 2005 posted 07-15-2005 10:36 PM                        I certainly wouldn't call that scene "extremely graphic". I quite enjoyed the film start to finish, I viewed the change in tone as intentional, rather than ineptness. It made sense for what was happening with the main characters... and it's not like it was some sort of "Full Metal Jacket" type of shift or anything.  |  IP: Logged Adam Martin I'm not even gonna point out the irony. Posts: 3686 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Nov 2000 posted 07-15-2005 10:40 PM                     This is just crap with Vince Vaughn being Vince Vaughn. quote: SPOILERS And when Will Ferrell showed up, I thought I might just have to walk out. Too bad I was waiting out Friday night traffic. Owen Wilson was the only [occasionally] redeeming factor in a crappy movie with a crappy script.  |  IP: Logged Richard Greco Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1180 From: Plant City, FL Registered: Nov 2003 posted 07-16-2005 12:09 AM                     Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooobbbbbiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeees  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 07-16-2005 12:56 AM                    This movie is a train wreck. The comedy is too raunchy for most women. The romance chick flick aspects will turn off most guys who came to see the raunchy comedy. This is one of those movies where the foul language seems "forced". It was definitely a PG-13 plot. But unfortunately, the film makers felt compelled to force some language and what not into it just to turn it into an R rated movie. Why? I'm not sure who they were trying to target with this.  |  IP: Logged Dominic Espinosa Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1172 From: Boulder Creek, CA. Registered: Jan 2004 posted 07-16-2005 06:02 PM                     I thought it was too long. They just tried to cram too much into it. The plot was rediculously predictable. It was made on the same formula as almost every movie you see in the summer time. The first 3 reels entertained me and then the whole thing dragged down. I found some of the situations amusing and some of the dialog was funny but overall it was just...Okay, let's move on. The one thing that bothered me more than the montages was the father character (Walken). He just didn't play a good father. The character was very poorly written, perhaps since they took up so much time with the other characters? Also, I hate montages. P.S.: This film would have been just fine without the nudity and foul language.  |  IP: Logged Richard Greco Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1180 From: Plant City, FL Registered: Nov 2003 posted 07-16-2005 11:50 PM                     Seriously though, this was VERY funny and actually had a plot. Yeah it was cliched, but it was fun from beginning to end. I agree the nudity wasn't necessary. But I do like boobs I think Rachel McAdams is much hotter as a brunette than a blonde.  |  IP: Logged Jeremy Fuentes Mmmm, Dr. Pepper! Posts: 1168 From: Corpus Christi, TX United States Registered: Jan 2004 posted 07-17-2005 10:06 PM                     quote: Mark J. Marshall I'm not sure who they were trying to target with this. It seemed like they were targeting both men and women. And possibly relying on word of mouth to get people to go see it. For example women that were dragged to see it by their boyfriend, could have ended up enjoying it due to the fact that it ends up being a nice romantic comedy, that happens to have some R rated humor. Those women will tell other women to go see it because of the romantic comedy side of it, guys will tell their friends to go see it because of the R rated humor/women/Will Ferrell. I use the term R rated instead of raunchy, because raunchy would assume that I was offended by something in the movie, and I wasnt at all. Obviously, I really enjoyed the movie. Seen it 3 times already.  |  IP: Logged Pravin Ratnam Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 844 From: Atlanta, GA,USA Registered: Sep 2002 posted 07-24-2005 02:42 AM                     I liked it even if I was disappointed the raunchy movie I went to see was never shown. INstead I got this cute date flick with a few crumbs thrown my way. For a date flick, it was pretty good. I liked it. Too bad they used an obvious body double in the scene where the sis ties up Vaughn. Was this movie really 2.35:1 or were my eyes deceiving me. Hmm, i wonder if Spielberg found this choice silly. Heh.  |  IP: Logged Steve Scott Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1300 From: Minneapolis, MN Registered: Sep 2000 posted 08-20-2005 02:46 PM                     If they would have cast lower listed actors for this one, they would've had to put "National Lampoon's" in the title. Vince Vaughn has no good character points to embellish and Owen Wilson has no intelligent dialouge. The nude women in the opening montage get just as much respect from the screenwriter and director David Dobkin as do stars Rachel McAdams and Jane Seymour. This film also qualifies as the first in years in which Christopher Walken has no memorable content The film blows its load waaaay to quickly, essentialy before any of the setup begins. For the rest of the time, you get to choose whether you feel worse for the heartless Vaughn & Wilson, the inexplicibly insane gay son character or the daughter getting trampled on by her stereotypically asshole-ish preppy fiance. I probably give the most empathy to Will Ferrell in his cameo. He tries to breathe exuberance into a horribly thin throwaway role which ought to have been one of many desperately needed weird-counterpoints to this otherwise clockwork script. Vaughn & Wilson do appear to be enjoying the food quite well. Even though I've vomited every time I've consumed crab meat, it seemed a taste-tempting treat, worth much greater than the price of admission for this pile. I'm just so glad everyone got what they wanted in the film, and I got to leave this film knowing everything in movieland went smoothly without any new comedy or plot points to make formula audiences uncomfortable... St. Anthony Main, #3, Dolby SR  |  IP: Logged Dave Williams Wet nipple scene Posts: 1836 From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA Registered: Jan 2000 posted 08-22-2005 01:10 AM                        quote: Mark J. Marshall I'm not sure who they were trying to target with this. Well I think the studio was quite sure of who they were targeting, now with 208 million in domestic and overseas grosses, I think it hit the mark. Money is a key reason people produce movies. I for one had a great time, very enjoyable, would see it again, and recommend it to people that I believe would enjoy it. It is not going to be everyones cup of tea, no movie ever is going to be that. That bieng said, I loved it, and my wife didn't think it was too raunchy, and I love chick flicks. YEAH Ciao  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-22-2005 12:38 PM                        Saw this last weekend. I thought it was okay, not nearly as laugh-out-loud funny as I was expecting, and the scene at the end with Owen Wilson desperately pleading with the girl in the church right in the middle of the wedding was just flat-out dopey. Why not wait until after the wedding to talk to her, fercripesake? She wasn't going anywhere. The fact that the preacher, the parents and everyone else just stood there while this whole speech was going on was just too ridiculous. Another thing that bugged me is, one of the weddings takes place in a Catholic church but the thing bore absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to a real Catholic wedding. Don't they research this stuff AT ALL? Catholic priests do not say "I now pronounce you man and wife....you may kiss the bride." I agree the Christopher Walken character was seriously under-developed. They should have taken inspiration from DeNiro in "Meet the Parents" and made him a real badass, he'd have been better. This movie could have easily been a PG-13 by leaving out the naked boobs and a few of the f-words, but might not have done the business it has with that rating. I mean I liked the boobs, but they were admittedly unnecessary. My rating: 2 1/2 out of 5 stars.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.