Wedding Crashers Best Flick of Year

The story ofÃ?¯Ã?¿Ã?½ “Born to Run” is about as new as that saucy tale of “Video Killed the Radio Star” being the first music video to appear on MTV (they are so embarrassed twenty years later, that they apparently stopped showing videos). We know that BTR was Bruce fighting for his career, and that you can hear it on the recording. As cheesy as it sounds, I agree with it, and you probably do as well. A similar sentiment was echoed by my friend on the way out of Wedding Crashers. He said that it felt as though Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson were fighting for their careers. Again, maybe a little cheesy. But again, undeniably accurate.

The true miracle is that these two megastars are not gritty Jersey boys chopping away to save a career that no one valued (especially his record label). They are, as I mentioned, megastars, with millions of dollars and no reason to try. They don’t have to wait in lines anywhere, and I’m pretty sure that any female on the planet would listen to their argument. Vinny V. just came off of a superb complementary role in Mr.& Mrs. Smith (which I think made some money), and Owen Wilson can always fall back on the fact that he can make movies like Behind Enemy Lines and I Spy if he needs to do so. Yet they really showed up.

I am not precisely a media conspiracy theorist, but I like to make up reasons that things happen in Hollywood, without any basis in fact or research of any kind. For example, I am reasonably certain that Wedding Crashers was completed a long time ago, and it got shelved to stave off negative association with a couple of other “Frat Packer” miscues. (I heard about the term “Frat Pack” from a friend, so I can’t cite its origin, but I have been told it describes the new troupe of fellows making the over-the-top comedies that my demographic and I are meant to enjoy) I suspect that in the wake of Old School, anybody with a Wilson, Vaughn, Ferrel, or Stiller (by association) had $80 million to make a movie.Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½

And then Dodgeball appeared, and after watching it I felt that I never wanted to watch a movie by any of those guys again. I feel bad and strange saying that, because I didn’t not enjoy the movie, and I laughed heartily throughout. I guess the problem could best be summarized by Steve Carrell’s character in Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (though I actually enjoyed that movie A LOT). I think that this turned off some movie goers, and so Wedding Crashers was set aside until the collective memory died down. Maybe they changed it a bit too, who knows. Either way, I had to wait around, and I hated it.

Maybe they just wanted to strike while the iron was hot. As Ms. Carina Chocano points out (she’s a wonderful young lady that reviews for the LA Times), this is one of the only movies that is actually an original script, written by writers, from the imagination of writers, and not something that was a commercial sure thing based on some synergistic media product.Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½

Maybe they saw the opportunity to present an original movie as sufficient to take the chance that people may or may not be ready to enjoy a Frat Pack comedy again. Based on the line around the block for a Saturday matinee (and the fact that I had to sit in the fifth row for the 1:20 show that preceded it), they were right.

I have never ever heard laughter like I heard at Wedding Crashers. The entire theater was in hysterics for one specific scene (like laughing-so-loud-it’s-annoying hysterics), and it wasn’t a one-liner; it was probably 30 seconds. I’m sincerely not positive that there was dialogue during that 30 seconds of the movie. Chris Walken’s lips were moving, but I truly couldn’t hear over the din of the laughter. It was quite striking.

I really don’t care to unpack the hilarity. You know that the movie is going to be hilarious. These are two funny people cutting up for a whole movie. It’s a preposterous premise that works very well, though I thought they could have belabored how wonderful it would be to crash a wedding. No sweat though. I realize that people want “arc,” “conflict,” and “story” in a movie, and I’m not stepping on any toes for that.

Instead, I’m going to write about Rachel McAdams, a wonderful ending, an endearing angle, and one complaint (so as to be balanced).Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½

Rachel McAdams is one of the treasures of Hollywood. She is so ridiculously pretty, so preposterously sweet, so exceptionally exceptionalâÂ?¦ it would be annoying if it wasn’t so perfect and (usually) distracting. That’s the only part that’s annoying; every time I see her I lose my train of thought. I hope that she becomes a frequent and integral part of the American movie-going experience. She has really earned it with The Notebook, Mean Girls, and this little ditty. Let’s see if my love for her is big enough to overcome the pending Red Eye. I suspect it will be.

The ending was (as I alluded) wonderful. This was very close to a romantic comedy a lot of the time (you’ve got Ms. McAdams on screen with an impossibly sincere Owen Wilson, it was inevitable), but they really did a good job maintaining the integrity of its intention. They were willing to have fun with whatÃ?¯Ã?¿Ã?½probably shouldÃ?¯Ã?¿Ã?½have been an overly-sentimental ending. I am very proud of all of the humans involved in this process.

I think the true point of distinction of this film was the fact that it was tremendously sincere (in a perhaps insincere way). In order to bag the dames, they use any number of angles to seem like sweet and sincere men. They don’t just hit on pretty girls and then dance with them and then screw their brains out.Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½

They dance with flower girls; they drink scotch with old guys; they sing “Shout” with abandon. Wedding Crashers celebrates the wedding/wedding reception cycle as a uniquely human experience. If it were just about scoring with babes, then I don’t think Wedding Crashers would have been a very good movie (though it would have been hilarious). The fact that they identify that rare moment at a wedding in which everybody is happy, and enjoy that moment (before taking advantage of emotionally unstable girls) is kind of nice.

Now for the only criticism I can offer (and this tenuous at best). Mr. Wilson’s adversary for Ms. McAdams affections is vilified. This may seem trite, and it admittedly is. But it was the only part of the film that felt contrived in any way. They did a pretty good job making him seem like an annoying and undesirable mate, and didn’t need to belabor the point.Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½

I have always wanted to see a movie that provides an acceptable alternative and a perfect alternative, so that there will actually be a clash of conscience within our young damsel. This way she can make a choice that makes her truly happy and offers the opportunity to lead an exceptional life. How else am I going to pull the woman of my dreams away from an acceptable mate?

Oh, shitâÂ?¦ ISLA FISHER! I forgot about the supreme performance by Isla Fisher. She is a live wire. A comedic genius, unbelievably cute, and a sex pot (or at least she plays one in movies). She’s going to occupy your brain in way with which you aren’t quite comfortable; it’s very natural.Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½Don’t get your hopes up, though, fellows – she’s engaged to the young man who portrays Ali G on cable television and DVDs, and he’s funnier than you. No matter what you try, I’m sure she’s very happy and already on track to lead an exceptional life.

Oh, let me rant one sec before I go. Don’t go try to crash weddings now. It’s not an original idea (anymore), and you are just going to blow it (and probably ruin two families’ special nights in the process). Enough weddings have been ruined at the hands of Best Men mimicking Vince Vaughn in Old School. That’s pretty funny in a very specific way. Just showing up at a wedding and getting drunk while trying to score with loose women leaves far too much room for human error. Besides, they invented bars for that.