The Best Christmas Pageant Ever (2024)

I've seen two films this year that deliver a premise of Christmas potentially being ruined by an unruly group of siblings. The first one was Nutcrackers. The second one is this, based on a novel by Barbara Robinson that was previously adapted into a TV movie back in the early 1980s. This is the better of the two films, but it's a surprisingly close call, considering how the third act almost undoes the goodwill earned throughout the first two acts.

Judy Greer plays Grace, a woman who ends up inadvertently in charge of her town's Christmas pageant. It's kind of a big deal, and looks to be thrown into chaos when the Herdmans decide they want to participate this year. The Herdmans are a group of brothers and sisters who have a reputation for causing mischief and mayhem wherever they go. They bully other kids and sneer at most adults. But maybe having them be part of the pageant will help others in the town remember the real meaning of Christmas. Or maybe it will just provide extra stress for Grace, her husband (Bob, played by Pete Holmes), their daughter (Beth, played by Molly Belle Wright as a youngster, and Lauren Graham when older/in her capacity as narrator), and their son (Charlie, played by Sebastian Billingsley-Rodriguez).

Now that I have browsed through the filmographies of writers Ryan Swanson, Platte F. Clarke, and Darin McDaniel, as well as that of director Dallas Jenkins, it's easier to see why The Best Christmas Pageant Ever is how it is. What could have been an entertaining mix of comedy, emotional manipulation, and Christmas cheer ends up eventually locking in on the messaging, to either preach to the converted or try to win others over. You still get some emotional manipulation, as expected, but the early promise of laughs being mixed in to sugar-coat the religious pill is discarded for most of the second half of the movie.

The real shame here is how the cast seem to be wasted, especially when they have so much fun with the scenes setting things up in the first half of the movie. Greer and Holmes work very well as the parents, both Wright and Billingsley-Rodriguez are fantastic as the kids initially overwhelmed by, and afraid of, the Herdmans, and Beatrice Schneider is fantastic as the young girl, Imogene, playing mother hen to her chaotic cluster of siblings. The fact that these main cast members all do so well throughout, as does the rest of the supporting cast (special mention for Kyle Heiman being great as young Gladys), is part of the reason why the film still works well enough, but it's a real shame that they end up feeling rather subdued as the message of the movie starts to overshadow the performances.

Some will enjoy this a lot more than I did, and I'm well aware of the fact that me wishing the movie was something a bit different won't seem fair to those who wish for something Christmassy that, well, remembers to put the Christ back in Christmas (for want of a better phrase). It still needed a bit more though, and Jenkins isn't a good enough director to distract viewers from the times in which the movie grinds to a halt to hammer home the main point. There's still plenty to enjoy here, but a lot of people might feel as if they've been forced to attend a sermon as the end credits roll. Which wouldn't be entirely incorrect.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Shudder Saturday: Jamie Marks Is Dead (2014)

We come, once again, to a film that is very good, and very well made, but perhaps not what people may be looking for if they're scheduling some standard horror genre fare. Although Jamie Marks Is Dead is very much, as it says, about Jamie Marks no longer being a sane pick for the dodgeball team, it's a teen drama that has more in common with the likes of River's Edge (I STILL need to see that film, but the imagery here certainly brings it to mind) and Submarine than it does with any full-blooded horrors. There are ghosts here, yes, but they're barely any more ethereal than teenagers who hide away from their peers as they deal with their problems.

The story begins with some snapshots of teen life. Sort of. It all really begins with the discovery of the corpse of Jamie Marks (Noah Silver), a young man who seems to have spent most of his high school years being an outcast and a victim of bullies. A shared fascination with the death brings Gracie (Morgan Saylor) and Adam (Cameron Monaghan) closer together, which allows them to stay distracted from their own problems. Adam, in particular, is struggling with the fact that his mother (Liv Tyler) was paralysed in an accident caused by a woman (Lucy, played by Judy Greer) that she is now friends with. Things get more intense when both Gracie and Adam start seeing, and talking to, the ghost of Jamie, which gives them hope that they can find out exactly what, or who, caused his death.

Based on a novel, "One For Sorrow", by Christopher Barzak, Jamie Marks Is Dead is one of those films that is easy to see struggling to find a target demographic. The issues explored are relevant to teenagers everywhere, but the presentation is more serious, and surprisingly grounded, than teen viewers may want. Older viewers, such as myself, can still identify with the things being worked through, but writer-director Carter Smith, who previously delivered solid horror for fans with the excellent plant-based nastiness of The Ruins, seems unwilling to believe that people will be drawn in by the drama alone. He adds an occasional scare here or there, which may stem from the source material, when things may have worked better with more time spent straying away from the horror elements.

Monaghan and Saylor are both very good in their roles, playing up their sensitivity and empathy without making it all seem too much like an assumed affectation. They work well together, but also separately, and Monaghan gets some excellent scenes in which he can direct his frustration and anger at Tyler and Greer, who both do well in supporting roles. Silver is slightly hampered by the fact that he has to spend a lot of his screentime looking miserable and lonely, for obvious reasons, but he gives a good performance, and the film is at its best in the few moments that have all three of the main characters shifting the dynamic between them. Madisen Beaty is also very good, playing another spirit named Frances Wilkinson who has her own, volatile, way of reacting to living souls around her.

There's nothing really wrong with this, in terms of the performances, the technical side of things, and the visual style. It's a good story, and it's generally presented well. It's just disappointing that nobody, whether that's Barzak or Smith, or both, was unable to nail down something more fitting and consistent when it came to the overall tone.

I tentatively recommend Jamie Marks Is Dead, but I don't know who I recommend it to.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Halloween Kills (2021)

Here's a bit of a shocker. I wasn't a big fan of Halloween (2018). Despite my problems with it, however, it was impossible for me to deny that it was an attempt to set right a franchise that had so often gone off into choppy waters, to put it mildly. Halloween Kills is worse than the film that preceded it. The big surprise is that I think it is arguably worse than every film that preceded it. 

Following on immediately from the end of the previous film, Halloween Kills is the tale of Michael Myers getting out of a burning house and killing a whole load of people on his way to wherever he may want to be heading. Is that wherever Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) is? Is it his childhood home? Is it somewhere he can face off against an angry mob who rally around the chant that "evil dies tonight"? Wherever it is, events are interrupted by numerous flashbacks to scenes that show the aftermath of that fateful night all those years ago. The night he came home.

David Gordon Green is back in the director's chair again, and he co-wrote the script with Danny McBride and Scott Teems (the former also returning to the same role he had on the last film). So let me start by saying what this film gets right. Entertaining scenes of mayhem and death. This feels like the Halloween movie with the biggest bodycount yet, and the kills have a decent mix of variety and brutality. Michael Myers is as unstoppable as ever when he's all revved up for a major killing spree. 

The other thing the film gets right is the score, making plenty use of classic music cues in the right places.

That's it. That's all this movie gets right, and that's why it manages to do what I thought was impossible, become a new low point for the series.

Now let's go through the many things that the film gets wrong. 

The cast. They're either not that good (Andi Matichak still fails to make much of an impression as young Allyson, granddaughter of the legend that is Laurie Strode), unceremoniously sidelined because they need to be held back for the next - final - instalment (Jamie Lee Curtis), or forced to make one bad decision after another on the way to an ending that treats them as badly as any minor supporting character. This applies to Judy Greer, Robert Longstreet, and Anthony Michael Hall, among others. The fact that Hall is playing Tommy Doyle, joined here by Lindsey Wallace (Kyle Richards reprising her role), makes the misuse of his character arguably more egregious than the misuse of any other characters.

The many nods to other movies that everyone wants to pretend doesn't exist in this timeline. This has been a pet peeve of mine before, but it's even worse this time when so many details seem to have been included for fans to point out as nods to previous visits to Haddonfield.

Leading on from the previous point, there is almost no scene in Halloween Kills that doesn't highlight either some dialogue, character, or scene from the 1978 movie. It makes up what feels like the majority of the runtime, and it's bloody infuriating. This is a film that shows a flashback of Michael Myers clambering over a car just to allow the film-makers to feel smug when they show a near-identical shot of Michael Myers clambering over a car. There is a big difference between dropping in references to please fans and making your film little more than a collage of those references.

The many scenes that are supposed to show the events of Haddonfield in the 1970s generally look well, but they are a) totally unnecessary, and b) full of choices made by people who wanted to recreate certain moments and characters without considering whether or not they should. This leads to intrusive camerawork and some terrible audio that can take viewers out of the movie.

Any commentary on trauma and mob mentality is undermined by the weak script. Why bring so many characters back if you’re only going to use them to make the same mistakes that everyone makes in these movies? They even mistake someone else for Michael Myers, which I think it the third or fourth time that idea has been used in these movies. There are individual moments that have characters showing how affected they have been by the night that terrified the entire town, but they are disappointingly brief. And none of the mob mentality stuff works, with no real feeling of “angry villagers with torches” ever coming close to actually causing a problem for the monster they want to drive away.

Halloween Kills has worked for a hell of a lot of people, and it seems to have been a big hit at the box office already, so you may end up at the opposite end of the spectrum from me. Some people have heard the film criticised and wondered what viewers were expecting. I’ll tell you. All this had to do was be true to the characters, true to the idea of making it a worthwhile story branching directly from the events of the original movie, and full of good kills. At least the kills are good. 

Sadly, any other film in the series manages to do what it sets out to do better than this, which even keeps our favourite scream queen so far away from most main scenes that it’s akin to watching a cut of Aliens re-edited to keep Ripley in stasis for most of the runtime.

Worst. Halloween. Ever. (so far)

4/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Playing With Fire (2019)

Smokejumpers, they're a special breed. They are parachuted into the middle of raging fire sites and tackle the raging infernos like absolute heroes. Like firefighters, except they're not like firefighters. Certainly not according to the characters in Playing With Fire.

John Cena is Jake, the stoic leader of his team, a group made up of Mark (Keegan-Michael Key), Rodrigo (John Leguizamo), and the fairly uncommunicative Axe (Tyler Mane). Jake has the chance for a big promotion, which would allow him to feel as if all the years living under the shadow of his beloved, departed, father have all been worthwhile. Which makes things even more stressful when the team end up temporarily caring for three young children (played by Brianna Hildebrand, Christian Convery, and Finley Rose Slater). 

Absolutely harmless family fun, as predictable as it is amusing, Playing With Fire has an okay mix of youngster causing trouble alongside a number of very enjoyable turns from the adults. As well as those already mentioned, Judy Greer pops up to be a love interest often overlooked by Cena as he tries to focus on his career, and Dennis Haysbert is the man who will make the final decision on the promotion, which means he is due to visit just after the kids should be dealt with and moved from the station by that point.

Director Andy Fickman feels like a good enough person for the job here. He's done family fare before, even if he's also given us Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2, and he's helped by a decent script from Dan Ewen and Matt Lieberman. When I say the script is decent enough I mean that it gets you from A to B to C without any major turbulence or ill-advised tangents. You should know what you're getting with this movie, and you get it.

Cena is fun in his main role, required to look stern and straight-laced until shown how good life can be when you loosen up slightly. Key is hilarious, Leguizamo is a fun addition, and Mane is enjoyably intimidating to look at while having a soft heart. Greer and Haysbert are also pluses, but the latter is really nothing more than the required third-act obstacle/problem. As for the young co-stars, they're bearable. Hildebrand is actually pretty good, but it's not necessary for her to be as annoying or problematic as her younger siblings.

Few of the set-pieces feel as good as they could be, but they're pitched at just the right level for younger viewers, but this moves along nicely enough from start to finish, providing a good opportunity for Cena to grow his audience demographic. Disposable fun, and it leaves you chuckling with some fun out-takes over the end credits.

5/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Halloween (2018)

Horror fans. At heart, we're easily pleased, according to some anyway. And we're an optimistic lot, at least when it comes to films that aren't cynical remakes. Time and time again, we have been given assurances about remakes and reboots. This time they're going to get things right. It's going back to the spirit of the original. This will be a film for the fans. And that's what we were told with Halloween. Indeed, early word on the film was fantastic, and a lot of fans are very happy with it. I am just not too sure what they have seen in it that I have missed.

Here's the plot. When a couple of true-crime podcasters get to visit Michael Myers in the sanitarium that has been his home for forty years they do their best to get a reaction from him, seemingly to no avail. The podcasters then go to visit Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis returning to her iconic role), now living a sheltered existence, staying locked inside her own home, to the detriment of her relationship with her daughter (Karen, played by Judy Greer) and her granddaughter (Allyson, played by Andi Matichak). And it's only a short while from then until Michael *gasp* escapes and *shock* heads to find Laurie once again.

Okay, there's something off about Halloween that I can't put my finger on. Something to do with the way that those involved insisted it would work as a sequel to the original film, while ignoring all of the other movies that came along after it, yet not quite nailing a consistent tone throughout, not seeming to handle the manners of Michael correctly, and not managing to give fans a finale worthy of the wait. What should have been a potential last hurrah ends up instead being a bit of an eye-roll and a shrug.

Director David Gordon Green doesn't do a bad job when he allows himself time away from the main characters and plotting. That one tracking shot, shown in preview clips that were used to advertise the movie, is pretty great, allowing us to watch Michael mingle with unwitting trick or treaters as he wanders around and commits a couple of impressively short 'n' sharp kills. And there's a decent sequence that features a scared child and a babysitter who assumes that it's all down to imaginary terrors. Unfortunately, Green does worse with a number of scenes that seem to warp the characters for the sake of a fresh start in the series. The script, co-written by the director with Jeff Fradley and Danny McBride, has just as many silly moments as many of the other sequels it is so desperate to erase from the canon, and, worst of all, it doesn't do justice to the characters that deserve better treatment. Those characters would fare a lot worse if they weren't played by such good actors. And did I mention that everything is kicked off this time by true-crime podcasters? Yes, it may lack Busta Rhymes and webcams, but let's not pretend that this isn't as gimmicky and mistakingly attempting to be trendy in the same way as, oh, Halloween: Resurrection was. Things lift up when scenes don't feel like they're either reacting to trends or dishing up fan-service but, sadly, most of the film seems to be stuck in those two camps.

The cast help immensely, and it goes without saying that Curtis gives another great performance. Greer is good, although playing the overly-tense character that she's been stuck with many times before, and Matichak is a likeable younger potential final girl who could easily carry on the Strode legacy, as far as I'm concerned. The wonderful Will Patton is . . . wonderful, if sorely underused, in the role of Officer Hawkins, and Haluk Bilginer tries to fill a Loomis-shaped gap, but is let down by the writing in the second half. Virginia Gardner, Dylan Arnold, Miles Robbins, and Drew Scheid all do well as teens who may find themselves in peril, and Jefferson Hall and Rhian Rees are those pesky podcasters.

Is this a bad horror movie? No. There are some good kills, and an attempt to craft some iconic Myers moments. It just isn't a masterpiece, not in comparison to many other horror movies and not even in comparison to the preceding films that those involved view as lesser instalments in the series. A lot of the characters here do typically dumb stuff to get themselves in a position to be picked off, a number of moments feel like they bring the luggage of the other movies that have been ignored/discarded, and the ending doesn't feel true to the characters.

But that doesn't matter whenever Michael grasps hat knife handle and starts walking towards his next victim while that classic music plays. Because us horror fans, well, we're easily pleased sometimes. I know I am.

6/10

You can buy the movie here.
Americans can get it here.

Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes (2014)

The continuation of the franchise that was superbly rebooted with Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes, this is that rare thing indeed - a Hollywood movie sequel that stands toe to toe with the preceding movie. It is, no pun intended, a slightly different beast, yet it still mixes the same smarts and eye candy that the film before it had in abundance.

About ten years have passed since the events of Rise, and that decade has seen many humans die out from a nasty virus while the apes have grouped together and developed their societal structure to best keep themselves safe in their brave new world. Caesar (Andy Serkis) is still the leader, which is all well and good until the camp is unwittingly trespassed upon by a group of human survivors on a recon mission from a nearby base. Led by Malcolm (Jason Clarke), the humans are hoping to fix a power system that resides within a large dam. Unfortunately, that large dam resides within the territory of the apes. Malcolm determines to show that humans can be trusted, once he gets over the initial shock of meeting these intelligent apes, and this leads to a fragile truce. Koba (Toby Kebbell) sees the truce as a sign of weakness on the part of Caesar, and hatches his own plan to ensure that apes are kept safe from humans.

Matt Reeves has taken over the directorial duties for this instalment, and he's quick to show that the franchise is in safe hands. An opening sequence, showing the spread of the virus that appeared at the end of the previous movie, gets everyone up to speed before things settle down as we get to see the heirarchy and day to day workings of the ape community. This also allows everyone to adjust to the amount of CGI onscreen, which I have to say feels quite flawless for about 95% of the time. There are wobbly moments here and there, but the computer-generated characters and visuals on display here rank up with the best that I've seen. Reeves complements the CGI work with smooth, and sometimes vertiginous, camerawork, perfect pacing and a nice sense of restraint.

A lot of the good work starts with the script, by Mark Bomback, Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver, which takes time to show main characters and dynamics, translating a lot of the ape communication that is in the form of sign language (which means, impressively, that this is a mainstream blockbuster that also forces people to read during quite a few scenes). Every step is taken to ensure that there's a touch of realism at the heart of everything.

Serkis and Kebbell may not be visible onscreen in human guise, but it's their work that should be praised above anyone else. The two men give fantastic physical performances that make their lead characters just as real as anyone else onscreen. Clarke does a great job as the good man who may win Caesar's trust, and he's ably supported by Keri Russell and Kodi Smit-Mcphee. Let's not forget the fact that they were probably acting out most of their scenes alongside actors in motion-capture suits, or even just props that allowed them to maintain eyelines, so the full integration of CGI and non-CGI characters here is testament to the hard work from everyone involved. Judy Greer, Nick Thurston and Karin Konoval also get to monkey around, while Gary Oldman is the other notable human performer (and he's as good as ever).

Smart, touching, often tense, this is a real treat. There are one or two mis-steps, including a disposable human character who may as well just have "stubborn ass" tattooed on his forehead, but if the next movie maintains this level of quality then we may just end up with the greatest ape-centric movie trilogy of all time. Not that there's much competition, mind you, but it will still be a great achievement.

8/10

http://www.amazon.com/Dawn-Planet-Apes-Blu-ray-Oldman/dp/B00MH8DU9Q/ref=sr_1_2?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1418937298&sr=1-2&keywords=dawn+of+the+planet+of+the+apes

And remember that you can go ape for my e-book. It's very reasonably priced for the sheer amount of content.

The UK version can be bought here - http://www.amazon.co.uk/TJs-Ramshackle-Movie-Guide-Reviews-ebook/dp/B00J9PLT6Q/ref=sr_1_3?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1395945647&sr=1-3&keywords=movie+guide

And American folks can buy it here - http://www.amazon.com/TJs-Ramshackle-Movie-Guide-Reviews-ebook/dp/B00J9PLT6Q/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395945752&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=TJs+ramshackle+mov

As much as I love the rest of the world, I can't keep up with all of the different links in different territories, but trust me when I say that it should be there on your local Amazon.

Carrie (2013)

"You will know her name" was the tagline used to advertise Carrie, which kind of highlights the whole problem with the film. Any horror fan already DOES know her name, from either the source novel (by Stephen King), or the original movie, or the belated sequel, or even the OTHER remake. Let's not mention the stage musical. Which means that Carrie is a film pushed/marketed towards younger viewers, or perhaps even non-horror fans.

It all starts off with a bit of unnecessary unpleasantness as we get to see Julianne Moore endure an unexpected home birth, welcoming Carrie White into the world. Moving forward many years, Carrie (Chloe Grace Moretz) is now in high school. She's not that popular, and it probably doesn't help that her mother is a strict religious zealot. Things come to a head when Carrie is surprised by her first period while showering. She has never been told about the changes that her body will go through. While needing help, and being terrified, the other girls simply taunt and humiliate her. As well as the usual changes that young women go through, Carrie also finds that she has a unique talent for telekinesis. Studying up on the subject, Carrie decides to develop her powers. Meanwhile, Sue Snell (Gabriella Wilde) is one of the few young women feeling bad for her part in mocking Carrie, and convinces her boyfriend, Tommy (Ansel Elgort), to take the poor lass to the prom. Mean Chris Hargensen (Portia Doubleday), however, plans to make sure that the night is memorable for all the wrong reasons.

While it felt redundant to surmise the plot in that previous paragraph, it seems most appropriate for this review. Because the main word to use in describing Carrie is redundant. Writers Lawrence D. Cohen and Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa bring nothing new to the table, because there's nothing else to be siphoned from the story. Director Kimberly Peirce then makes everything worse by throwing around a load of unnecessary, though not unexpected, CGI and by the poor choices that she makes with the direction given to the cast.

Oh, that cast. I actually feel quite sorry for most of the people involved here. One fantastic cameo from Hart Bochner aside, the cast all have the potential to be great in their roles, but are largely wasted by the script and inept direction. Doubleday wasn't great in the role of Chris, but Wilde and Elgort were both perfectly fine as the two youngsters trying to give Carrie one great night out. Greer comes out of it best, portraying a sympathetic P.E. teacher without overdoing it. The same can't be said of Moore and Moretz, unfortunately. The former pitches her performance in line with the original turn by Piper Laurie, so that's not so bad, but Moretz is asked to portray Carrie in full telekinetic mode as someone twitching their head around and making wiggly hand movements like someone overacting at a Harry Potter LARP event. She's great with the other aspects of the role, portraying the sweetness, shyness and general insecurities of the character with ease, but the last 20-30 minutes leave her flailing, literally.

Yet, as much as it angered and frustrated me, I still found enough individual moments in Carrie to stop me from completely hating it. I couldn't say that it ever even reached the level of average, but the cast helped it to stay away from the very bottom of the barrel. They just couldn't stop it from being so, and you have already guessed my next word, redundant.

3/10

http://www.amazon.com/Carrie-Blu-ray-DVD-Digital-UltraViolet/dp/B00GNAO796/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1404752854&sr=1-1&keywords=carrie

27 Dresses (2008)

I can't help thinking whenever I see Katherine Heigl in a movie that she's somehow going out of her way to annoy as many people as possible. She's pretty but also comes over as pretty irritating and, worst of all, she has a knack for picking some of the worst projects that she could work on. Her knack for picking crap is actually uncanny.

In 27 Dresses she plays a young, successful woman named Jane who just loves being the bridesmaid and looks forward to one day when she will be the bride. She loves the joy and celebration of THE BIG DAY and, as you might have guessed, has kept all of her 27 bridesmaid dresses. She also happens to be in love with her boss (played by Edward Burns) but he takes a bit of a shine to her sister (the lovely Malin Akerman) and then there's a writer (James Marsden) who is intent on annoying Jane while also trying to find out more about her.

Directed in a completely by-the-numbers fashion by Anne Fletcher and written by Aline Brosh McKenna, 27 Dresses is the kind of movie that women can easily enjoy without giving too much thought to. But when any thought IS given to it the whole thing starts to look inept and ugly.

The cast have little to no chemistry. I don't really find Heigl that enjoyable to watch onscreen nowadays, after so many poor vehicles, and Edward Burns is inoffensive but has all the charisma of a grain of brown rice. Malin Akerman is usually someone I like but her character here is selfish and unpleasant, making her as unappealing as the others onscreen. James Marsden tries his best, and does well, but there's too much working against him. Thankfully, Judy Greer has fun playing the one decent character who is always fun to see onscreen - she's Jane's friend and gets the few decent lines that the script has.

So what's so inept and ugly about it? Well, the lack of chemistry between anyone makes the forced meetings and interactions feel even more false than usual. The motivations of the characters also, quite frankly, stink on most occasions. If those things don't bother you then take a moment to consider that the central, overriding, message is all about a successful woman with a great life feeling that nothing is complete without her marrying a man. Oh, I know that you can dig around through the layers of various romantic movies (be they comedies or serious films) and find the same, or very similiar, central idea but it's just so horribly blatant here that it's yet another aspect that makes Heigl in the lead role pretty unlikeable. She's a doormat, an easily cajoled and flighty woman who just wants to be a bride. That used to be the only thing that 10-year-old girls would spend their time thinking about back in the 1950s. Times have changed since then, maybe someone needs to tell Anne Fletcher and Aline Brosh McKenna (which is a harsh thing to say because McKenna has written a number of screenplays a LOT better than this sorry effort - but it makes my point).

Then that same person could try to save Katherine Heigl from herself, though I fear it may already be too late.

4/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chick-Flick-Triple-Dresses-Happens/dp/B0029TQW70/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1345931309&sr=8-3