27 Dresses

Sweet and nurturing and passive-aggressive, Jane (Katherine Heigl) is yet another movie girl in need of rescue.

27 Dresses

Director: Anne Fletcher
Cast: Katherine Heigl, James Marsden, Ed Burns, Malin Akerman, Judy Greer, Melora Hardin, Brian Kerwin
MPAA rating: PG-13
Studio: 20th Century Fox
First date: 2008
UK Release Date: 2008-03-14 (General release)
US Release Date: 2008-01-18 (General release)

Sweet and nurturing and passive-aggressive, Jane (Katherine Heigl) is yet another movie girl in need of rescue. Ho hum.

27 Dresses begins with a dreary overview of exactly how she's arranged her life in order to feel virtuous and long for something more at the same time. Having planned cross-town weddings for two friends -- one more or less U.S. traditional, with white gown and satin pumps, the other Hindu, with flower garlands and saris -- she also agrees to oversee them on the same day. This means she rides back and forth in a cab, paying the driver extra not to watch her change her bridesmaid dress repeatedly in the back seat (and so allowing for cheap titters). The brink-of-chaos craziness is summed up when Jane is advised to remove her bindi at the white wedding by her best friend from work, Casey (Judy Greer, who should be starring in her own movie already, preferably one less trifling than this one). Oh my god! What if someone had seen her!

Jane's desire to please is on equal display during her regular workaday life. An assistant at an outdoor-equipment company, she's in love with her boss George (Ed Burns), who barely notices she's alive -- except when he needs her to pick up his dry cleaning. Jane's more or less fine with this arrangement, dreaming that someday he's realize he loves her too and pop the question, at which point she will no longer be wearing the inevitably hideous bridesmaid's costume, but instead, the scrumptious bridal gown. Until then, she puts off Casey's suggestions that George isn't worth all her mooning, though it should be said that Casey, along with every other woman who speaks in the film, appears to believe that marriage is the proper ambition for girls.

Jane's saga is not quite complicated when her sister Tess (Malin Akerman) returns home from Europe, where she's been doing something in the fashion industry. Pretty and alternately vacuous and scheming, Tess is the notorious object of many men's affection, which makes Jane jealous, if only because she had to take care of Tess when they were children following their mother's earl demise. So much for deep psychological background: the sisters have issues, exacerbated when Tess sets her sights on George and he reciprocates, believing her when she declares her earnest and long-term veganism, as well as her love of hiking. As neither is remotely true, Jane is suddenly stuck: wanting to look after her little sister still, she's also wanting to protect George from such manipulations. What to do? What to do!?

Jane takes the silly road, and agrees to plan their wedding.

Enter Kevin (James Marsden, once again willing a cardboard part into multiple dimensions). He's the weddings columnist at the local paper, whose descriptions have been so moving to Jane that she keeps clippings in a box, so she can read them again and again. The film inserts a pseudo-complication in putting Jane and Kevin together without hr knowing he's the writer she so admires, and so the scene is set for misidentifications and rom-commy disorders. Not only does Jane not know what Kevin does for a living; she also doesn’t know that he's not a true believer like herself, and instead sees his columns as a means to an end, a features gig. He decides her story, as the perpetual bridesmaid, is the ideal stepping stone, convinces his editor to let him run around interviewing Jane and her sister and George for a few weeks. You can't actually imagine how dull this gets.

Though Kevin shows early signs of bucking formula, he is, in fact, the precise embodiment of same, resisting like Cary Grant or even Hugh Grant is wont to do, and at last giving in to the dictates of genre. He spends the predictable sort of time with Jane, including an afternoon's montage sequence where he photographs her trying on all her 27 bridesmaids' dresses, as well as a night when they're stranded due to ridiculous weather and driving circumstances, and -- guess what? -- end up drunk and entangled.

Though the movie pretends to be about Jane reshaping her relationships with Tess and George (exactly the sort of Clueless Male Lead who gives romantic comedies a bad name), it's less about her evolving independence than her learning her proper generic place. And for all his considerable charm and seeming resistance to expectations, Kevin is just the man to deliver such excruciating sentiment: for all her seeming empathy and strength, he says, Jane really needs someone to take care of her. Urgh.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.