I went into this one with much trepidation. I always liked Sam Claflin in the Hunger Games franchise (Finnick!), and a certain plot device revealed in the trailer had me clinging to a faint hope that maybe this would be the wedding-movie equivalent to Death at a Funeral, a film I thought was hilarious. But it really didn’t look good. And, well? I’d say the end result is an exercise in wasted potential.
Jack’s number-one job on his sister Hayley’s wedding day is to make sure everything goes perfectly for her, and if he has a chance to make up for lost time with the one who got away, all the better. Unfortunately, a major wildcard has just shown up in the form of Hayley’s coked-up ex, who crashes the reception determined to win her back. Hayley enlists Jack’s help in an incredibly bad idea: neutralizing her ex by spiking his champagne with sleeping drugs. Against his better judgment, Jack reluctantly agrees to the plan, not realizing a group of kids are about to run around switching all the name cards at that table.
The central hook of the movie, hammered home by a wise old unseen narrator, is that love is at the mercy of the whims of chance. The rearranged seating opens up multiple outcomes for this farcical question of who will end up drinking the drugged champagne. Done well, this could’ve gone the route of the iconic Community episode “Remedial Chaos Theory,” giving us a multiple-timelines comedy where part of the fun is seeing how small changes ripple out and affect the unfolding events. Instead, we finish the first outcome around the 50-minute mark, do a quick rewind, speedrun through a montage of other possibilities, then stick with a second main scenario until the end of the film.
So the film doesn’t use its premise all that well, and it doesn’t do much better by its characters. Despite a talented cast, there isn’t much for them to get off the ground in this flimsy, cliche-ridden story. Jack is a wet blanket of a protagonist, and while Sam Claflin does get to show off a bit of entertaining physical comedy, his charm is wasted here. We’re not really shown a compelling reason to root for Jack and Olivia Munn’s Dina to get together. Jack’s devotion to his sister is lovely, but Hayley has been a major contributor to her own prospective downfall here. Although I like Freida Pinto, she’s given hardly anything to do as Jack’s chilly ex Amanda. As friend/guest Rebecca, Aisling Bea, who appeared in the Doctor Who New Year’s special “Eve of the Daleks,” is saddled with a lot of belabored humor early on, but in the second half, things turned around for her somewhat.
Side note: part of the conceit here is that the groom is Italian and the wedding is in Rome, so there’s only one “English table” at the reception, which is how we end up with awkward arrangements like Jack sitting next to his ex. But regardless, this whole friend group dynamic is very confusing. It’s unclear how all of these people fit together and wound up being the sole wedding guests on Hayley’s side.
All right, onto Joel Fry! He plays Bryan, Hayley’s maid of honor (he wants to go by “man of honor,” she won’t let him.) While a lot of the ensemble is given just one or two character aspects to focus on—i.e. Rebecca is annoyingly chatty and obsessed with Bryan, Amanda’s current boyfriend is intensely jealous of Jack—Bryan has a lot going on. He wants to be there for Hayley but is still hung up on the “maid of honor” thing, and he somehow made it until the wedding day without realizing he’s supposed to give a toast at the reception. He’s an actor who’s determined to make a good impression on a famous Italian director who’s also a guest at the wedding (?), and he focuses on that to the point of neglecting his maid-of-honor duties. He’s dreading having to spend the reception with Rebecca “clinging” to him and begs Jack not to leave him alone with her.
That’s maybe too much going on for a supporting character, and not all of it necessarily holds together. In the second half of the film, Bryan describes himself as “a totally self-obsessed, neurotic mess,” which kind of covers it, but beyond all that, he’s also slotted into being whatever the film needs him to be. Early in the film, he proves unreliable as he’s overly focused on this director over Hayley’s actual wedding, but later on, he’s shown to be a pretty supportive friend to Jack. It’s not entirely clear what prompts the round of self-reflection that gets him to the “self-obsessed, neurotic mess” revelation, and he manages to deliver, not one, but two load-bearing romantic speeches at critical points in the movie.
But my god, if Joel Fry doesn’t do his best to sell the hell out of it. While I wouldn’t say he saves the movie or anything, I enjoy watching Bryan the entire time he’s onscreen. Fry’s comedic physicality is used to really good effect, he somehow brings complete sincerity to bullshit lines, and as he juggles Bryan’s selfishness, insecurity, supportiveness, and more, he kind of makes it all feel like it works.
And okay, here’s the thing about actors I like in bad movies. As I’ve said before, every actor has some clunkers in their filmography, that’s just part of the business. Maybe things didn’t pan out creatively, maybe there was meddling that messed with the end result, maybe bills just needed to be paid. Either way, every actor has been in bad movies. Sometimes in these instances, there’s nothing for them to salvage or they can’t rise above the lackluster material. At others, their role is so minor that I just sort of tune out until their scenes come along. And at others, they give it their all and become the best thing about a bad movie.
I’ve definitely been impressed by the latter situation before—like, Peter Dinklage is genuinely fantastic in Tiptoes, and Tiptoes is such a terrible film. It’s a major testament to their skills when they can pull off something like that, and it’s always neat to see. On a personal level, though, it can be weirdly frustrating too. What I mean is, if I’m watching a bad movie for a particular actor and their performance isn’t very good or there’s not enough of them to make it worthwhile, whatever. I write off the time I spent watching that film, check it off my list, and maybe grumble at them being wasted in it. And that’s all—I’m done with that movie and won’t ever give it much thought again. But when an actor I like is good in a bad film, as much as it impresses me, there’s this weird little part of my brain that goes, “Aw dammit, are you really making me like this stupid movie? Am I gonna have to watch this again because I like you so much in it?”
That’s kind of what’s going on here. I know this isn’t a good movie, but when Fry is onscreen, he kind of makes me like it anyway. If the script weren’t so lazy and unfocused, this could’ve been great.
Second side note: again, there’s no real explanation for his shift in perspective, but I do like seeing Bryan come through for Jack as a friend in the later part of the movie. Bryan winds up doing quite a bit for Jack, even if he has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the worst of it. However, as much as I honestly enjoy that aspect of the film, I wish we could’ve seen a little more of Bryan’s friendship with Hayley. We basically get two brief snippets where we see the level of affection he has for her, but for much of the film, he feels more like Jack’s friend than hers. A trio-type situation where he’s best friends with both of them would be fine, I just want to be able to see it—while I like that Bryan is Hayley’s maid of honor, I wanted to get more of their friendship to know why he’s her maid of honor.
Accent Watch
Southern British English.
Recommend?
In General – Nah, too much wasted potential.
Joel Fry – Dammit, I might! I think it’s worth watching once, at least to see him.
Warnings
Thematic elements (including a comedy of errors about accidental drugging,) language, sexual references, drinking/drug use, and brief comedic violence.
No comments:
Post a Comment