Review of Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) by Jesse O — 13 Jan 2015

This movie, seeing part of Hugh Grant's phase as a bumbling, fumbling fool, probably wouldn't have seemed as annoying in 1994 as it does 20 year after the fact. I honestly am not aware how long he had been doing this up to this point or if this was the start of it.

I know he did a lot of period movies prior to this, and after this too. The thing is, while people, including myself, think the act is simply just too simplistic and generic, Hugh Grant has proven to be a really talented actor.

He has good comedic timing and when he's given a playboy type role, like in the Bridget Jones' films and About a Boy, he can excel at it. He's still talented as the bumbling fool who stammers a lot in this film, but it's just something that I've seen far to often to truly like anymore.

But I digress part of me really liked this film, and I think Brits are the best at making these light, breezy rom-coms, but there's also parts of me that are like 'this is the most British romantic comedy I have ever seen' and not in a good way.

I don't mean that as an insult, of course, as, by and large, I've loved many films from Britain, and the entire United Kingdom as it stands, but there's just something about it. I can't quite put my finger on what it is, but it just took a bit away from my enjoyment of the film.

One of the first things I can point to is the fact that I think the film is simply too long for its own goods. While the film sees plenty of highlights in each of the weddings, spread out somewhat equally through each of the four weddings, I just still think that one of these segments could've been simply cut out just for the sake of time and pacing.

I just think that, outside of the very obvious comedic highlights, everything in between these highlights, particularly the stuff between Hugh Grant and Andie McDowell, are pretty dull. I doubt I'm the only one that thought this but, outside of the movie wanting you to believe it, Hugh and Andie have a bland chemistry with each other.

Their romance is just really dull to watch, in my opinion, and the fact that the film is all about Charles falling in love with Carrie makes it even worse. Personally, if it were up to me, Charles would've ended up with Fiona.

..Hugh just had far more natural chemistry with Kristin Scott Thomas than Andie McDowell. Because of that, the film has a really disappointing conclusion. Not to mention the dullness of their actual romance.

That really took a lot away from the film, to me. That's not to say it isn't a good film, because it is, but it hasn't stood the test of time particularly well. You can't hold that against the film, I know, but you can't also hold it against me for not viewing the through 2014 eyes.

Other films have universal themes that can be applied to any generation, this is not one of them and it's definitely more noticeable. Were there really no better movies in 1994 that THIS received a best picture nomination at the Oscars? It doesn't really matter in the long run.

Let's just say that this isn't THAT good as to have deserved the nomination. I hate to seem as if I'm shitting on the film, because it's not bad by any means. The dialogue is good and it has plenty of very funny moments with a good cast, but its insistence on focusing the romance on two characters that have no chemistry whatsoever really hurt the quality in the long run.

The movie is still pretty good, but I was expecting it to be much better. Still, if you want something light and breezy, then this will definitely be up your alley, if you haven't seen it already at least.

Give me Love, Actually any day of the week.