DVD review: "Bride Wars"

For some movies, watching the trailer is like seeing the entire movie in a two-minute-and-30-second version compilation of the best moments, with all the boring stuff edited out. "Bride Wars" is one of those.

As far as chick flicks go, it's not awful -- just utterly predictable. Anne Hathaway and Kate Hudson play two friends who have shared the childhood dream of holding their weddings at the Plaza Hotel in New York. But whoops, the über-powerful queen of wedding planners (Candice Bergen, apparently consigned to these old battle-ax roles now) accidentally books them on the same day, and neither will back down. So the BFFs become bridezillas from hell trying to sabotage each other's dream wedding.

The obvious solution is to have a joint wedding, of course, but we've got a movie to put on here, so out the window that goes.

There are clever bits, such as Hudson tinkering with Hathaway's tanning machine. The scene where she walks down a New York sidewalk, emerging from the crowd the color of a neon carrot, is priceless. As for the grooms, the movie mostly seems to forget they exist.

Inevitably, though, the movies takes a sappy turn as the comedy dries up and the tear ducts start flowing.

The extras are appallingly skimpy. There are three very brief deleted scenes, including an alternate opening. And a featurette titled "The Perfect White Dress" is nothing more than a 5-minute commercial for Vera Wang. Perhaps the product placement deal the studio struck with the dressmaker mirrored one of the funnier lines in the movie: "You don't alter a Vera Wang to fit you; you alter yourself to fit Vera Wang."

I guess in the real-life bride wars, integrity is the first thing to surrender.

Movie: 2 stars
Extras: 1 star

Review: "Bride Wars"

Catching up with a flick that came out a couple of Fridays ago. I had a chance to see it early and post a review on opening day, but that was in the middle of my gout bout.

"Bride Wars" is the sort of movie that seeing the preview pretty much gives you a two-minute version of the whole movie. Anne Hathaway and Kate Hudson play friends since childhood who have always dreamed of getting married in June at the Plaza Hotel in New York. Lo and behold, they both get engaged at the same time, but a screw-up by the world's most powerful wedding planner (Candice Bergen, who seems consigned to these sorts of brittle old battle axe roles now) leads to them being booked on the same day. Neither will budge their dream wedding date, so it's all-out war where these BFFs turn into bridezillas from hell.

If you've seen the preview, then you already know the terrible tortures they inflict on each other in order to convince the other to blink. Rich treats are sent to one's office to make her pork up so much she can't fit into her Vera Wang dress. A sabotaged tanning booth turns Hathaway into a carrot-colored disaster. Hudson's hair gets turned blue. And so on.

Of course, in the process both terribly miss their close friend, even as they resort to the nastiest of tactics, and re-examine their relationships with their grooms-to-be -- remember them? The movie barely does.

As someone who recently went through this process himself, I have many thoughts on over-indulgent weddings. The first is that anyone who would spend six figures on a wedding has entirely too much money, and needs to be smacked. The second is that while it's OK for a woman to dream about her wedding day, obsessively planning it for years is psychotic. Anybody who would run into their beloved's office and loudly demand to be married, as Hudson character's does, deserves to be alone forever.

Finally, the obvious solution of a double wedding is presented and then pitched overboard without any reasonable justification -- other than the filmmakers' need for this bride war to happen, logic be damned.

Whenever people ask me how a male critic can review a chick flick, I respond that I have no objection to good chick flicks. "Bride Wars" is not one of them.

Hurray for ... January?

January used to be the absolute pits for movies. All the big holiday movies came out in November and December, and the studios didn't start rolling out their good stuff until Spring.

Changes in recent years, though, have led to January becoming one of the better months for new movies, apart from the summer and holiday seasons.

First, the Academy Awards got moved up to February, which ended up compressing the time frame where ambitious films could get noticed. Some Oscar hopefuls started opting out of the crush, debuting in just a few cities in December to qualify, then waiting until January for their big roll-out. "Million Dollar Baby" followed this strategy a few years ago with virtually no hype, had January essentially to itself, and the money and golden statues rolled in.

Now many of the big Oscar wannabes are waiting until January to hit most markets, including "Gran Torino," "The Reader," "Defiance," "The Wrestler," "Revolutionary Road" and several others.

More importantly, studios have discovered that if you put out good movies during what is normally considered a slow time, avid movie-goers will show up.

So this month, in addition to those other movies mentioned above, some high-profile releases are slated. They include "Notorious," a biopic of rapper Biggie Smalls; "Bride Wars" with Anne Hathaway and Kate Hudson; the third installment in the "Underworld" franchise; and the Rene Zellwegger romcom "New in Town."

Worthwhile movies in January ... whoda thunk it?