DISQUS

Lon · 6 months ago

Great review, except I'm not sure I understand that last line. Is the suggestion that McConaughey would be better served by taking on more challenging roles? I'm not sure there's any real precedent for this...When he leaves his comfort zone to portray lawyers and scientists, the results are generally pretty gruesome. (Think "Time to Kill" and "Contact").

All of his most "memorable" roles (and here I'm thinking primarily of Wooderson from "Dazed and Confused") are just different takes on this same laid-back surfer persona. I think the answer for him is to really (1) be a supporting character or (2) try to make the least-stupid films possible that still have appropriate parts for him. Or just stop making movies and spend the rest of his days smoking pot and playing naked bongos, which is probably what he'd prefer to be doing anyway.

Robert Levin · 6 months ago

My thinking was that I'd like to see him try to stretch again and take parts like "Time to Kill" or "Contact," both movies I'm actually willing to defend. But I'm on board with your pot smoking/naked bongos suggestion as perhaps the most viable alternative lol.

blckmanjew · 6 months ago

why did you guys review this movie?

Neil Miller · 6 months ago

We try and review every movie, just for you.

Bob Smith · 6 months ago

I saw the movie this evening and I thoroughly disagree with this review. The things the reviewer disliked -- including Mr. McConaughey's performance itself -- I found charming and so did the audience I was with. They actually clapped at the end.

If you're going to write a convincing review it helps to back your points up somehow and not simply assume that your readers will automatically nod their heads in understanding and agreement with statements like "Breckin Meyer in old man makeup = bad idea." Why was it a bad idea? I thought he looked convincing and realistic. And the scene, though very brief, was poignant and tasteful.

Here's another statement with no credibility: "The filmmakers stuff it to the brink with shrill stereotypes, as if making a point to compile all those characteristic of wedding movies." What about the presence of these so-called stereotypes in the movie suggests that the filmmakers were using them to make some sort of point? Maybe those characters were simply familiar to the writers, entertaining, and part of the world of weddings. I believed them and I thought they were often very funny.

Finally, how about this one: "Rather director Mark Waters, and screenwriters Jon Lucas and Scott Moore, create an entire motion picture out of a succession of scenes in which the nose of an archetypal McConaughey character is summarily rubbed in the wreckage of the women he’s loved up and dumped." To coin a phrase, the reviewer says that like it's a bad thing. A motion picture IS a succession of scenes. The movie WAS about a character whose nose is rubbed in the wreckage of his past. Again, so? What's bad about that?

It seems to me that the reviewer intended to dislike this movie simply because it starred Mr. McConaughey and was about weddings, I guess. But the review failed to convince. In fact, reviews like this one, which put the movie down without making a case for doing so, made me WANT to see this movie all the more... and I was glad I did. I hope it's a tremendous success.

Robert Levin · 6 months ago

Bob, of course the experience of watching a movie is an entirely subjective one, and I'm happy you got your money's worth here. Nonetheless, my response to your points:

A) I could have expanded on the comically overdone application of makeup on Breckin Meyer, who looked like a pockmarked clown and seemed to purposefully add an extra gruff old man intonation to his voice, but to do so would have stretched the review to an unwieldly length.

B) What are shrill sex obsessed bridesmaids who never express a single cogent, meaningful idea behind their desire to do McConaughey or some other man, but wedding stereotypes? Also, saying that it was "as if" the filmmakers were making a point is not to say they necessarily were, but that there were so many examples of these throughout the film they might as well have been.

Robert Levin · 6 months ago

C) Yes any motion picture is a succession of scenes, but typically there will be some sort of shape to them, some sort of narrative arc that offers you some reason to become immersed therein. That's even the case in more experimental ventures, like the new Jim Jarmusch film. This movie had McConaughey observing tidbits from his past that functioned as mini short films, and little else.

D) I definitely did not intend to dislike the movie, and in fact never do when I'm reviewing something, but I know the vast majority of critics agree with me and I suspect the vast majority of the moviegoing population will too. Still, I'm genuinely glad you liked it, as I'd never wish a bad time on anyone.

RobertFure · 6 months ago

But Matt M. has dreamy eyes and abs! Everything he does is awesome!


Except Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation.

HempKnight 757 · 6 months ago

I thought Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation was one of his better films. McConaughey is garb in just about everything. Why do you think he is doing a chick flick? Best way for him to make profit from women because their pretty much his only fans unless your a gay dude then you most likely want him too. Him and Keanu just need to go ahead and do Surfer-Cops.

PaulSileo · 6 months ago

Would I like to hang out with McConaughey? Yeah. Have a few beers? Yeah. Maybe do a J? Indeed. Watch him in a movie? No, thanks.

Sorry, but McConaughey's film roles worth a shit are few and far between. He seems like the kind of guy I'd like to party with, and that's about it.

WiseFlickGuy · 6 months ago

Haha, great review. Though McConaugey's last several roles were nothing spectacular, there does seem to be a strong niche for these types of movies. Though most sensible critics rate this below average, regular viewers actually give this an above average rating (~65%). As long as these movies are making money, sadly they will still come

wiciltd · 6 months ago

I always find it hilarious when men review movies that are meant for a female audience. They cannot seem to wrap their head around what women want. There are a reason these movies are so successful, because they follow a formula that gives women warm and fuzzy feelings. Feelings like guys get when they watch Bruce Willis in Die Hard.

This is not meant to be some thought provoking peice of art, rather just sorbet to clense the palate of a daily life that is generally full of dissapointment and unhappy moments. These movies have existed for a very long time perfected originally by Doris Day and Sandra Dee to name a few in the 50's. Matthew does his job and he does it well, his laid back handsome persona leaves women satisfied. He is the eye candy that women want and I think his long stint of romantic comedies: How to Loose a Guy in 10 Days, Failure to Launch and Fools Gold proves that. However, you cannot discount his acting. He is an excellent actor and has taken on serious roles as mentioned previously in A Time to Kill, Contact and a personal favourite of mine Frailty.

I loved this movie... It wasn't cutting edge, it wasn't fancy, but it was exactly what I needed after a long week.

doomes · 6 months ago

omg!! Breckin Meyer's makeup... so bad! I couldnt have summed the movie up in words so perfect if I had tried.