On Film — 27 Dresses; Cloverfield
27 Dresses — Fox 2000 Pictures
Katherine Heigl stars in a movie that was supposed to come out last week, but was bumped to this week — 27 Dresses — a movie that’s supposed to be better than it is.
Heigl plays the “always a bridesmaid, never a bride” girl, whose served in the sidekick wedding position 27 times. Now, she’s on the sidelines again, watching her sister marry the man she loves, played by James Marsden, who’s getting a lot of exposure, lately. Good for you, James!
This was so promising. But, critics are calling it overly formulaic, uninspired and an insult to the romantic comedy. The thing is, if you like romantic comedy and you like Katherine Heigl and go for emotion over execution, you’ll like this. There’s just nothing special about it. For a better date night, go rent the classic romance “Somewhere in Time” instead.
Cloverfield — Paramount Pictures
It’s arguably the most anticipated horror film in a long time — Cloverfield, formerly known as 1-18-08, formerly known as Untitled J.J. Abrams Project. Yes, the man behind the hit TV series Lost is behind this flick, too.
The movie starts at a going-away party in Manhattan. The party quickly takes a turn for the worse when a monster attacks the city. It’s basically a Godzilla movie told through the video cameras of those attending the party. And, it’s effective.
The film runs a short 80 minutes, roughly. But, it’s good that it’s short, as the filmmakers gave it the right amount of pacing to make it an effective thrill ride. And, the monster is something to behold.
“27 Dresses”, on the other hand, is not. Don’t waste your money at the theater. Wait to rent it, only if you like romantic comedy lite.
“Cloverfield,” on the other hand, is the first must see movie of 2008.
While this isn’t as groundbreaking as expected, it is well told, well paced and well put together.
Posted: January 17th, 2008 under Film.
Comments: none
Write a comment