Can a rom com without a good romance still work?

I run a blog called Rom Coms and the Real World and recently wrote a review of Four Weddings and a Funeral. I enjoyed lots of elements of this movie but hated the central romantic pairing. Does a rom com need to have a believable romance to be successful? You can read my full thoughts at: http://realworldromcom.blogspot.com/2012/11/review_15.html

There isn’t much of a point to trying to recount the plot of Four Weddings and a Funeral because this film is more of a character piece than anything else. The most interesting dramatic tension comes from the film’s title. We know there are going to be four weddings and a funeral because that’s what the film is called. This gives some sense of rising action to the movie (there’s only one wedding left!), but I wonder what it would be like to watch this film without knowing what it was called. Would it feel more plodding? More aimless? Thankfully, we don’t have to concern ourselves with such concerns because the film’s title is part of its charm. Audiences agreed and in 1994 this movie became the highest grossing British film to date, making over $245 million. It was also nominated for the Oscar for Best Picture, pretty high praise for an unassuming romantic comedy.

The romance in Four Weddings comes secondary to the friendship of a ragtag bunch of weirdos. (It’s like Friends except everyone is Phoebe). At the center of the group is Charles (Hugh Grant), an awkward cad who is both charming and insecure. Scarlet (Charlotte Coleman) is Charles’ roommate, a flaming redhead with disarming honesty. The group’s heart belongs to sensible Matthew (John Hannah) and his boisterous lover Gareth (Simon Callow). Rounding out the company is icily sarcastic Fiona (Kristin Scott Thomas), her awkward, aristocratic brother Tom (James Fleet) and Charles’ optimistic, deaf brother David (David Bower). There’s something slightly morose about each of these friends. It’s like they escaped from a Tim Burton movie and wound up in a quirky British romance, but are determined to make the best of it.

Despite the fact that they don't get a ton of individual screen time, there’s a sense that these characters exist when we’re not seeing them. I realize that sounds a little ridiculous, as they obviously don’t exist when we’re not seeing them, but they feel like real human beings, not stock characters thrown on screen for laughs. The group dynamic makes perfect sense; although they don’t fit with the rest of the world, they fit with each other. When one member of the group dies (I don’t think that’s too much of a spoiler given the film’s title), the loss is palpable. Kristen Scott Thomas and John Hannah (aka that guy from The Mummy) are particular standouts amongst a stellar cast. Thomas displays just the right amount of vulnerability behind her icy exterior and Hannah delivers a dozy of a eulogy that’s heartbreaking, but not mawkish.

Compared to the thespian-glory of her costars, Andie MacDowell looks sadly miscast as Charles’ American love interest, Carrie. She’s not particularly alluring, intelligent or funny. The role itself is fairly underwritten, but I can’t help feeling like a more capable actress could have given Carrie a little more spark. In my mind it’s England: 7, America: zip. In fact, let’s make it England: 17 because Hugh Grant gives a performance worth 10 points.

By 2012 Hugh Grant has long become...

Read the rest at: http://realworldromcom.blogspot.com/2012/11/review_15.html