Rated PG-13 for sexual content including dialogue, and some drug material
Cast: Kate Hudson, Ginnifer Goodwin, John Krasinski, Colin Egglesfield, Steve Howey
Director: Luke Greenfield
Love is a powerful force whose grip is strengthened by an individual's fighting need to deny themselves the possibility of romance in favor of their independence. Jane Austen understood this better than anyone. The heroines in her books took tremendous pride in their individuality which made the magnetic pull of attraction all the more vigorous.
Romantic comedies today seem to want to echo Austen's denial-as-a-means-to-fuel-the-attraction approach, but far too many make a single yet crucial error. "Something Borrowed" is the latest film to make such a mistake. Its heroine, a shy but successful New York City paralegal named Rachel White (Ginnifer Goodwin) denies herself the chance for true love... not because she's fiercely independent, but because she's forlorn and doesn't feel worthy. That's a critical blunder that derails the entire movie. Nothing douses the flame of passion faster than a desperate need for the flame.
Based upon the novel by Emily Griffin, the story opens at Rachel's (gasp!) 30th birthday party, which for many women is an inexplicable kiss-of-romantic-possibility death. This is nowhere near the truth. (Ladies, listen... if a man seeks a woman specifically in her twenties, he's not looking for appealing, he looking for specific. Be grateful, leave the demographic behind, don't look back, and embrace the accrued knowledge as you enter a far more fulfilling period in your life. Wisdom is sexier than you think.)
We learn of another reason for Rachel's melancholic demeanor... her one true love, Dex (Colin Egglesfield) is now engaged to her best friend, Darcy (Kate Hudson). Six years prior, Rachel lost her nerve and surrendered the opportunity, which Darcy snatched up with obnoxious vigor. Rachel struggles to put on a happy face. Dex holds a torch for Rachel as well, yet never really expressed his feelings. After the celebration (and as a drunken Darcy sleeps off yet another bout of partying), Rachel and Dex share a cab ride... and a lot more.
Rachel is stirred into an emotional frenzy; the only advice is from her childhood friend, Ethan (John Krasinski) who may have his own secret to impart. The rest of the movie is a labyrinth of romantic dubiety, as each character struggles to come to terms with what (or who) they really want. Or don't want. Or would like to have, but don't deserve. You get the idea.
By making the lead character so lacking in self-confidence, the film has to compensate in ways that throw off the story's balance. Consider best friend Darcy. Instead of fostering into her a fully-dimensional persona with both good and bad qualities, which would in turn make the narrative developments intriguing, the movie is reduced to making her a nauseating, perpetually intoxicated, shrill individual who could try Gandhi's patience with deplorable ease. Rachel feels guilty and wants to do right by her, although surviving ten minutes in Darcy's presence without planting her fist through her face already puts her well ahead of the curve. Yet the film needs Darcy obnoxious, as it helps us cheer for Rachel.
Or consider Dex. Rather than making him morally and emotionally complex, the movie requires that he be a one-note statue of class status timidity, unable to drop a life he hates for a life he wants. If he were more noble or decisive, the audience might believe him to be too good for Rachel. Can't have that.
And that's the problem. The whole movie feels dumbed down to compensate for the heroine's lack of self-esteem. Ginnifer Goodwin certainly has a likable screen presence; she can carry a romantic comedy. The script lets her down here. Kate Hudson and Colin Egglesfield are limited by the strict confines of their characters.
Maybe the film was going for something a little more morally complex, which is fine, except that would require the characters to possess much fuller dimensions than depicted here. You can't have it both ways. The movie tries to hedge its bets, and the end result is a story that offers up a happy ending while somehow apologizing for it at the same time.
The film does have some bits of humor here and there, though nothing that evoked more than a mild grin. The characters exist solely at the whim of the writer. In the books of Austen, we're made aware of the complexities and the qualities and reasons why the lovers should end up together, and ache until the end when they finally rise above their own prejudices to embrace that love. Here we're simply awaiting the filmmakers' decision that... yeah, now would be a good time for them to pull their heads out of their asses.
The effect isn't quite the same.
* * out of * * * * stars
Romantic comedies today seem to want to echo Austen's denial-as-a-means-to-fuel-the-attraction approach, but far too many make a single yet crucial error. "Something Borrowed" is the latest film to make such a mistake. Its heroine, a shy but successful New York City paralegal named Rachel White (Ginnifer Goodwin) denies herself the chance for true love... not because she's fiercely independent, but because she's forlorn and doesn't feel worthy. That's a critical blunder that derails the entire movie. Nothing douses the flame of passion faster than a desperate need for the flame.
Based upon the novel by Emily Griffin, the story opens at Rachel's (gasp!) 30th birthday party, which for many women is an inexplicable kiss-of-romantic-possibility death. This is nowhere near the truth. (Ladies, listen... if a man seeks a woman specifically in her twenties, he's not looking for appealing, he looking for specific. Be grateful, leave the demographic behind, don't look back, and embrace the accrued knowledge as you enter a far more fulfilling period in your life. Wisdom is sexier than you think.)
We learn of another reason for Rachel's melancholic demeanor... her one true love, Dex (Colin Egglesfield) is now engaged to her best friend, Darcy (Kate Hudson). Six years prior, Rachel lost her nerve and surrendered the opportunity, which Darcy snatched up with obnoxious vigor. Rachel struggles to put on a happy face. Dex holds a torch for Rachel as well, yet never really expressed his feelings. After the celebration (and as a drunken Darcy sleeps off yet another bout of partying), Rachel and Dex share a cab ride... and a lot more.
Rachel is stirred into an emotional frenzy; the only advice is from her childhood friend, Ethan (John Krasinski) who may have his own secret to impart. The rest of the movie is a labyrinth of romantic dubiety, as each character struggles to come to terms with what (or who) they really want. Or don't want. Or would like to have, but don't deserve. You get the idea.
By making the lead character so lacking in self-confidence, the film has to compensate in ways that throw off the story's balance. Consider best friend Darcy. Instead of fostering into her a fully-dimensional persona with both good and bad qualities, which would in turn make the narrative developments intriguing, the movie is reduced to making her a nauseating, perpetually intoxicated, shrill individual who could try Gandhi's patience with deplorable ease. Rachel feels guilty and wants to do right by her, although surviving ten minutes in Darcy's presence without planting her fist through her face already puts her well ahead of the curve. Yet the film needs Darcy obnoxious, as it helps us cheer for Rachel.
Or consider Dex. Rather than making him morally and emotionally complex, the movie requires that he be a one-note statue of class status timidity, unable to drop a life he hates for a life he wants. If he were more noble or decisive, the audience might believe him to be too good for Rachel. Can't have that.
And that's the problem. The whole movie feels dumbed down to compensate for the heroine's lack of self-esteem. Ginnifer Goodwin certainly has a likable screen presence; she can carry a romantic comedy. The script lets her down here. Kate Hudson and Colin Egglesfield are limited by the strict confines of their characters.
Maybe the film was going for something a little more morally complex, which is fine, except that would require the characters to possess much fuller dimensions than depicted here. You can't have it both ways. The movie tries to hedge its bets, and the end result is a story that offers up a happy ending while somehow apologizing for it at the same time.
The film does have some bits of humor here and there, though nothing that evoked more than a mild grin. The characters exist solely at the whim of the writer. In the books of Austen, we're made aware of the complexities and the qualities and reasons why the lovers should end up together, and ache until the end when they finally rise above their own prejudices to embrace that love. Here we're simply awaiting the filmmakers' decision that... yeah, now would be a good time for them to pull their heads out of their asses.
The effect isn't quite the same.
* * out of * * * * stars
