Most Overrated: Bridesmaids
April and I had plenty of opportunities to see Bridesmaids. Living in LA we somehow stumbled onto an email list for free advance screenings every week. Several invites came for Bridesmaids in the months before it opened and each time we kind of sort of wanted to go but ended up spending the evening with Don Draper instead. When the film finally opened and scored 90% on Rotten Tomatoes we started kicking ourselves. (Jon Hamm was even in it in a very Draper-esque role!) Yet somehow our friends insisting it was funnier than Superbad failed to propel us to walk 10 minutes down the block.
Now it turns out that our laziness — a kind of entertainment sixth sense? — was correct. The culture and our peers had promised a female version of The Hangover – gross-out humor and drunken debauchery except now it’s the women’s turn to show that yes, testicles were not required for actors to humiliate themselves in self-destructive spectacles for our comedic enjoyment.
But while Hangover, Superbad, and others in this genre of R-rated gross-out comedy require many elements for success there is a glue that holds them all together: the strength of the characters and their relationships. Say what you will about the judgment of the protagonists in Hangover, they’re all at least likable, decent guys trying to be friends to one another. There’s a sense of camaraderie that viewers can lose themselves in, imagining that they too are one of the guys, and recalling their own wild parties from youth.
But Bridesmaids is just Phyllis Chesler’s Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman reenacted by Saturday Night Live actresses.
When April and I finished Bridesmaids I thought that my problem with it was primarily technical. Just that the characters were not developed enough and the jokes inadequate. The sequences between Kristen Wiig and her police officer love interest were refreshing but seemed like they belonged in another movie. The dialogue didn’t have the smart crackle of Knocked Up, 40-Year-Old Virgin, or Funny People. There were a few chuckles and clever exchanges but no catch phrases I’d ever reference in public. Still, it wasn’t boring or unpleasant — I’d at least give it a C+.
Having thought more on the themes and characters of the film, though, the film’s genuine problems come into greater, distressing clarity: the terrible ideas it puts forward about both friendship and marriage. Here’s a question for those who have seen — and especially those who like — Bridesmaids: are any of the characters friends? The Bridesmaids defender might answer, “Well, they might not be very good friends much of the time but they’re trying and certainly by the end of the movie they’re being better friends.”
****WARNING SPOILERS FOLLOW****
Wrong. Rule number one of being a friend: you do not facilitate and encourage self-destruction. If you are someone’s friend then the first time you meet their fiance should not be after they’re engaged. Friends watch very carefully when someone they care about — man or woman — is in a relationship. And real friends are honest with each other when they’re involved with an evil man or vampiric woman. As a friend it is your duty to judge the ethical, moral, and competency level of your friends’ potential mates so they do not end up broken and victimized. You do not stand by while your friend marries someone who will ruin his or her life.
But that’s what the women in Bridesmaids do. Notice how the Bride Lillian (Maya Rudolph) has a husband-to-be Doug who is not an active character in the film at all? Recall how his own sister Melissa (Megan McCarthy), describes him as an “asshole” in a discussion. And what does it say about Doug that his mentor’s wife, the film’s evil, “too perfect” antagonist rich girl Helen (Rose Byrne) is a lonely, deeply unhappy, abandoned woman? You know a man’s character by the company he keeps. (And also observe Bridesmaids’ subtle Marxism of the protagonist being a recently bankrupt proletariat and the antagonist a bourgeoisie lady who did nothing to earn her wealth but marry strategically.)
Lillian prepares herself for a life married to a narcissistic, workaholic man who will probably cheat on her. And her supposed friends are too busy obsessing over their own self-doubts and meaningless, junior high social life pecking order contests to notice.
And observe the film’s other cynical caricatures of marriage, each foreshadowing the doom awaiting Lillian: there’s Rita (Wendi McLendon-Covey in a riff on her Reno 911 “cougar” persona) who complains of her three disgusting teenage boys and their father who ignores her sexual needs. The film juxtaposes her with a younger vision of marital apocalypse, Becca played by Ellie Kemper is the dorky Christian Gen-Y newlywed of the bunch, a virgin on her wedding night now married to an uber-nerd who we later learn is also incompetent and bizarre in bed. (The writers’ inter-generational jab of her pathetic character is clear: “These optimistic millennials getting married too young can’t possibly be happy! They must have weird, dysfunctional sex lives.”) Later these two women supposedly oppressed by the patriarchy bond over alcohol. Their story lines are not resolved at film’s end and they just resume their miserable lives.
Of the Bridesmaids featured on the poster the only one depicted as having any level of happiness and consistent sexual satisfaction is Melissa who lives her life in imitation of a man, making sacks of money with her elite government intelligence career and kinky public sex adventures with whoever she wants. The film’s themes might as well have been cribbed from Jessica Valenti, Naomi Wolf, and Amanda Marcotte: marriage leads to unhappiness, men will not love you, the path to fulfillment is in casual sex (an opportunity for the sexually aggressive, enlightened woman to exploit and dominate over a weak male) and financial independence. Can anyone name a film that more proudly champions the bleak nihilism of Gen-X, third wave feminism?
Another of the open secrets about the Judd Apatow comedies is that vulgarity and nudity only act to hide very socially conservative plots. The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Knocked Up, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Funny People, Get Him to the Greek, Superbad, and Pineapple Express all promote abstinence, fidelity, pro-life values, and the consequences of irresponsible drug and alcohol abuse. Bridesmaids goes in the opposite direction, viciously caricaturing the very institution it pretends to celebrate. Three years ago I described the phenomenon of social conservatism embedded in R-rated raunch fest as “stealth conservatism.” Let’s hope that Bridesmaids is an aberration in the House of Apatow’s usual steadier course. But given its overrated levels of critical and financial success it’s hard to be sure.
Also see Roger and Lionel’s take on Bridesmaids in this episode of Poliwood:
******
So there we have my first pair of cinematic heresies for 2012. But the gaps in my 2011 viewing are still large. Anybody else have recommendations for other underrated films to seek out and overrated to avoid from last year? Or disagree with my choices?
Categories: Movies, Television
Tags: Jon Hamm, Mad Men, Movies 2011, Netflix, Overrated, Underrated
You are right on about Bridesmaids, so I guess I’ll have to watch Green Lantern.
10 years ago (just to pick a space on the timeline), my wife and I were heavy movie goers…I’d say we watched 30+ films a year. The last two years, if you add them all up? ZERO.
Hollywood has tanked. And they only have themselves to blame.
Kiddie crap. Who can relate but a child? Enough of the comic book nonsense. Find magic in the real world. It’s everywhere.
My thoughts exactly. Underrated or overrated these are movies for adolescent tastes. I can’t imagine how any adult can sit through the previews let alone the movie.
Bridesmaid was never worth going to a theater for. Movies like that irritate the heck out of me for mocking the original set of family values intrinsic to this nation.
A recommendation I do have though is the Rum Diary starring Johnny Depp. Fantastic story based on a real writer trying to make journalism work ethically in Puerto Rico during the 1950s. Very low key for Depp yet extremely deep once the pieces begin falling into place.
I thought I was the only one who didn’t like Bridesmaids. I thought it was crude, vulgar and not the least bit funny. I found every single one of the characters despicable. I wouldn’t want to spend 5 minutes talking to one at a party, much less plan a wedding with them. The “hilarious” seen at the bridal shop? Grotesque. Not the least bit funny. And this was the best comedy of the year? May get an Oscar nomination? Yet Hollywood wonders why it’s losing viewers.
I don’t have any movies two recommend, having fallen victim to quality serialized shows as well, but here are two more of those that I can recommend to further consume your time:
Downton Abbey- A British show, its first season is on Netflix and it is currently airing on PBS Sunday nights. I will buy this when its run is finished, it is that good. The sets and wardrobe alone are unbelievable, the ensemble cast and multiple, entwined story lines are marvelous. My 13 yo old son is my Downton Abbey-viewing pal, so it’s not just for the ladies.
Babylon 5- Conservative values set in space, and much less nihilistic than BSG (though I do own that series as well). If you can get past the cheesy makeup and primitive CGI (it’s from the ’90s), the story and characters are superb. Also on Netflix. I am watching it for a second time to figure out the things I missed the first time around. I can’t say enough about this show, it may be some of the best TV ever made, for sure the best scifi.
B5 also had the novelty of treating human religion as a real and valuable thing. Most SF treats religion as either an infection (hello, Lucas!) or something humanity moved on from, but aliens still occasionally practice (hello, Star Trek!). B5 had good and bad characters with religious beliefs and commitments.
I second Downton Abbey. Wonderful show with many characters you can invest in….worthy folks.
Bridesmaids was repulsive. I almost walked out of the theater during the opening scene of the ugly, graphic sex. My first thought was, this is a chick flick? Hated it except for Megan and the puppies. That was the funniest part of the whole movie.
David:
You opened the door so I’m coming in. I did not watch Mad Men when it debuted. I heard Rush rave about it and many, including yourself, are obviously with him. So when we got NetFlix, I began watching the series from episode one. Early on I found it very entertaining, even intriguing, I was hooked. My personal highlight was January Jones coming down the grand hotel stairway to join Dan for Dinner in season two; that moment provided the most divine combination of beautiful actress and setting I’ve seen since Ingrid Bergman asked Sam to “play it again” at Rick’s (I’m old).
Soon thereafter, however, I stopped watching the series. I made it through the first two and a half seasons before I could take no more. In those thirty or so episodes there did not emerge a single person of character or integrity. You’d think there would have been at least one person to serve as a focus of moral clarity, but there wasn’t. Even Peggy, the most likely early candidate, proved she was little more than shallow, self-serving, and whorish. When it became obvious early in season three that my dear January would soon rival her husband in debauchery, I said, “here’s looking at you kid,” and dropped the series from the NetFlix personal queue.
Why do so many people find this modern Caligula so interesting? If I were lucky enough to run into Rush at the course and join him for lunch, my first question wouldn’t be about Newt v. Romney; it would be, “what did you see in this bottomless sewer, this utter degradation of everything of value in a civil society?”
What did I miss?
Skinny ties, Miesian architecture, ’63 Coupe de Villes and a bottle of Maker’s Mark make the nihilism go down so smoothly. And it helped that the early episodes explored the early ’60s, which the Boomers had largely airbrushed out of history. The challenge for Mad Men going forward will be to bring something fresh to the table, now that they’re entering into the period of the ’60s that “everyone remembers.” Based on last season’s paucity of first-rate episodes, they’ve got their work cut out for them.
I agree. I watch it for the sets and wardrobe. And Christina Hendricks whom I have appreciated from the first time I saw her on Firefly as the woman Mal “accidentally” married. The people are hideous, but at least they get what they deserve- so there’s that.
“Soon thereafter, however, I stopped watching the series. I made it through the first two and a half seasons before I could take no more. In those thirty or so episodes there did not emerge a single person of character or integrity. You’d think there would have been at least one person to serve as a focus of moral clarity, but there wasn’t. Even Peggy, the most likely early candidate, proved she was little more than shallow, self-serving, and whorish. When it became obvious early in season three that my dear January would soon rival her husband in debauchery, I said, “here’s looking at you kid,” and dropped the series from the NetFlix personal queue.”
I had those exact same sentiments at about that same point in the series! But my wife was already hooked so she kept dragging me through the episodes. I still enjoyed the show at the time for the reasons that Ed highlights and for the general great acting, engaging plots, and sharp dialogue. But the evil characters did start to bother me — almost getting under my skin when they’d do selfish, stupid things. But then you know what seemed to start happening? Some of them started to try and get better. My friends who had already seen the series promised me that this would happen and it did to some degree. (Whether it’s enough to satisfy you and make the show an entertainment choice is not something I know — I don’t know your tastes.)
But I very much sympathize with you not wanting to spend the evening with a bunch of evil, self-destructive people screwing up their lives more. I reject watching many shows and movies for just that reason. (Or I just need to really be in the mood for it.) After spending a few years of full time employment in new media where I’m spending all day keeping track of news stories when it’s time to close the laptop for the evening more and more I’m preferring escapist, positive options instead of dramatic reminders that people are broken.
Ed and Dave:
I appreciate your input gentlemen — my respect for your opinions runs deep. I too loved every aspect of the program Ed mentioned, especially the cars. Were it not for the excellent period work, I’d have left much earlier.
I’m happy to hear from Dave that a character or two may have embraced at least a degree of personal redemption after I climbed out of the pool. Both of your notes, however, make clear that should I decide to give the show another chance, I should not expect George Bailey to appear as managing partner. I’ll have to think a bit before deciding to dive back in. If I knew the lovely Mrs. Draper was among the redeemed/redeemable, it would sure make my decision easier.
Hate to be the bearer of bad news but she actually gets worse and Draper gets a little better. Pete Campbell makes the biggest improvement, not that he’s someone I’d want to befriend in real life, though.
Yes to Downton Abbey. Excellent story, excellent actors and the costumes alone make it worth watching!
One interesting thing about Downton Abbey is that they have not followed the all-too-predictable path of portraying the aristocrats as utterly unlikable, exploitative snobs, which I suspect is what we’d find if this were made in Hollywood. We Americans also have a difficult time imagining that a servant would see their job as a source of pride and respect. As Lord Grantham said, “We all have our part to play.”
The only things worth seeing in the theater this year were, IMO, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows 2 (although I had so hoped that the last volume would be entitled “Harry Potter and the Big Can of Whoopass”) and Hugo, in which the 3D actually helped the experience and wasn’t just a gimmick. The only reason to see ANY movie in a theater these days is if it meets 2 criteria: 1)it’s really, really good! and 2)it’s big and elaborate enough that something would be lost on a home TV screen. Otherwise, why spend all that money? A first-rate drama for adults or romantic comedy can wait for DVD.
Oh, and JDanielBoone: If you want to see the swinging early ’60s on TV without the nihilism of Mad Men – but also without the very high literary quality – try Pan Am on ABC. It’s just a fun soapy romp mostly about (and for) girls, but they get the ambience right, and the characters make the occasional honorable decision.
Just watched the first 20 minutes of the Green Hornet and turned it off. Goofy, silly stuff. We went back to watching season I of Justified.
Excellent piece. I too found Green Lantern enjoyable for what it was, certainly undeserving of the Skip It moniker that Moviefone suggested. My now ex-girlfriend (4yrs) sincerely enjoyed Bridesmaids, while I found it difficult to finish. Your article further reminds me why I am today single.
I likewise appreciate the shout out to The Wire you gave, it is hands down a favorite of mine. All the other shows you mentioned I am current on as well, it seems good cinematic taste is not yet dead.
As for a film suggestion, my new favorite film is The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (American version). Granted I am a 26 year old male with a dormant childhood fascination with goth chicks, but I believe the film also stands on its own. Any cinema that can take me from clenched fist and feeling violent in one scene, only to satisfy my need to kill in another is top notch in my book. Highly recommended.
Drive!
phenomenon of social conservatism embedded in R-rated . Horror movies are like that since friday the 13th
I read “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” several years ago, and thought it not bad, though overlong and burdened with extraneous side-plots. The American movie version (I didn’t see the Swedish edition) thankfully edited out most of the digressions, and stuck with the main plot. It’s violent and at times hard to watch (there’s actually an anal rape scene; don’t feel sorry for the victim, she’s able to take care of herself) but everything’s pretty standard in terms of suspense movies.
I also recommend another adaptation of a book into a movie, though I think this one is from 2012 rather than 2011. John LeCarre’s “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” is dark, gloomy, murky, and remarkably densely-plotted. The first 45 minutes of the movie you can’t get up to go to the bathroom: if you do you’ll likely miss major plot developments. Gary Oldman’s George Smiley is a very tightly-wrapped bureaucrat who used to be the right-hand man of the guy who ran British Intelligence (“Control”, played by John Hurt and seen only in flashbacks, as the character has died just prior to the start of the film). Oldman’s Smiley is very quiet and contemplative, and while there are emotions there, they’re all below the surface. You only learn that his wife cheats on him, and periodically leaves him, when one of the other characters mentions it; and later when you see one of the other character’s shoes untied at an inappropriate moment. Subtleties in the plot like that are just wonderful; the acting is pretty terrific throughout (Benedict Cumberbatch, the Emilio Estevez of Great Britain, is very very good playing Smiley’s sidekick Peter Gwillem, for instance), and the staging is wonderful. The movie mostly takes place in early-70s London, and it looks relentlessly drab and dank, sort of shabby. Very very good.
2011 was a year when it was hard to justify going to the movies, BUT I loved “Real Steel”. I went to see Hugh Jackman and boxing, but was wonderfully energized by a terrific underdog, come-from-behind, father-son finally bonding, with a superb twist on boxing. I am about to add it to my Netfliz queue just to see if it feels that good again.
On one recent day when only an in-theatre experience was essential escape, I saw the second Downey-Law “Sherlock Holmes”, hoping to not get a headache from the hand-held camera jerkiness of the first one. Fortunately, that camera fad had a short life, and the 2011 Holmes was rousing good fun, especially for anyone who ever read the original stories by A C-Doyle.
I love horse films, but was disappointed by “War Horse”. terrific cinemetography, but weak narrative. Plus, maybe I am getting enough of WW1 trench warfare with Year 2 of the outstanding “Downton Abbey”
I saw “The Help” on dvd, and enjoyed it very much, especially the two performances that just got the Oscar nods.
Perhaps I am missing something with this post, but “Moneyball” was the best film of 2011 – although I do admit that it does help to know a lot about baseball, the game.
The only comedies worth watching seem to need Natalie Portman or Katherine Heigl. The male comedies are targeted to 13-year olds.
I am considering adding Season 1 of “Justified” to my queue although I hink I saw season 1, just can not get enough of true American grit. Keep thinking both Romney and Obama need to be locked in a room and forced to watch all of “Justified” in sequence. Necessary shock therapy.
We just finished Season 1, bought Season 2, and are taping Season 3. Did you catch Tim Olyphant as Bullock in Deadwood?
We have a bit of catching up to do on the movies, based on your response, having seen (of the nominated top 10) only “The Artist” OK, but not great, and “Midnight in Paris;” not bad, for what it is.
The trench warfare in Downton Abbey will have to be pretty small-scale based on their budget, but then, I’m guessing that there are only a few people at the war we will be worrying about. They do the individual trenches OK, but the actual battle scenes, I have my doubts about.
Seriously? Knocked up is one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen, same with the green later. Good lord you have no taste. A movie written by Kristen Wiig and Maya Rudolph, arguably two of the funniest women in comedy right now, is somehow bad to you. But something written by Seth freaking Rogen and his band of retards, you consider that funny? Wow. Just wow.
*lantern*