MovieChat Forums > Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) Discussion > Pretty good movie, but.....

Pretty good movie, but.....

posted 5 years ago by stickman38 (3439)
2 replies | jump to latest

yeah, it's overrated. I recently saw this for the first time and I'm not sure why the Brits like it so much.

The first 45minutes or so are quite dull to be honest. The second half of the film is pretty good though.

However, Carrie (played by Andie McDowell) is not all that likeable. For rom-coms to work the lead characters need to be somewhat likable. She's sleeping with Charles but engaged to Hamish which to me indicated that she really wasn't all that interested in either one of'em. I won't rag on Andie McDowell's acting skills or lack thereof, it looks like people have already pointed it out numerous times in here. I did like her a lot in Groundhog Day but I feel like her performance in 4Ws fell a little short. Plus, I still don't know how the hell Hugh Grant became a big name celeb, he seems like a very one dimensional actor. Perhaps he was a perfect fit opposite Andie McDowell. Neither one of them really outshine the other, they're both kind of lackluster.

Seriously, I found the supporting cast/characters to be way more interesting than the leads. Why he passed up on Fiona will remain as one of the greatest movie mysteries of all time.

At any rate, I still wanted to see this movie because of the huge acclaim it got from the critics and fans alike. But it's a 6.5 out of 10 from me.

[–] spurtle467 (1558) 5 years ago

I as a Brit am not bothered by this movie either, or most Richard Curtis films. I mean it's ok but not my sort of film. Rom coms are not my favourite genre in the world and they always seem to be what Richard Curtis does. Maybe it's also that I can't relate to these middle class characters and the way they interact with one another. I guess I'm quite a cynical person and have a taste for darker humour anyway, and this just isn't my cup of tea.

Hugh Grant is a pretty good actor though. He's someone whose acting chops have come a long way since this film, where he ended up being typecast as the posh bumbling English gentleman for a while. Check out Paddington 2, he's great in that.

[–] rudeboymurray (3290) 5 years ago

It was a huge deal in the UK - one of the highest-grossing films ever in its day - but I was never all that taken with it. McDowell was not only not likeable, she is horrendously wooden in the role - it has to be one of the worst performances by a lead in a mega-hit movie of the 90s. Just dreadful. And while I see why people fell head-over-heels for Hugh Grant here, I prefer him when he shows a little more of an oily side, as in Bridget Jones or (especially) About a Boy.

The main problem i have with Richard Curtis movies is his incessant need to cram in as many stupid or annoying supporting characters as he can - it's as if he comes up with the idea of a character and CAN'T leave them out of his screenplay. It's called script-editing, Richard! This film is crowded with eccentrics, only a few of whom are memorable (Kristin Scott Thomas steals the film imo). 5/10 from me.