This movie is one in a long line that fuels my internal argument over what should actually be considered a movie. Certainly I was in a dark theater when I watched it. There was a beginning, middle, and end. I’m sure a small (or large) fortune was spent in its creation, but right around there is where the similarities between Wedding Crashers and my definition of a movie ends.

Don’t get me wrong, I did laugh several times. Out loud even. But for me that is more and more becoming less and less a good reason to visit the theater. In a perfect world, movies, a series of still images played in rapid succession with the intent of telling a story, would do just that. This movie, much like another recent Vaughn film Dodgeball, is more like a series of jokes strewn together with some expositional dialogue and a few cameos (side note: a cameo by James Carville is a big stretch). The “story” is basically Sleepless in Seattle without the telephones, or You’ve got Mail without the computers, or any other Nora Ephron movie except instead of cute little moments there are tits and profanity. Again don’t get me wrong I have nothing against tits and profanity. In fact I’m glad to see them both in a movie together again, something I haven’t seen in quite a while in a mainstream film (perhaps only because I haven’t been paying attention). But I digress. Let’s get down to specifics as that will more than likely curb my rambling.

1. Musical montages should not be allowed in the first 15 minutes of a movie and should never exceed five minutes in length. Strike one and two for Wedding Crashers. It’s possible that I’m the only person that really hates musical montages, but boy how I hate them.
2. Expositional dialogue should never be so obviously displayed as it is in this movie. I’d say it shouldn’t be in a movie at all, but that might be asking too much. Before the gem of a musical montage the entire set up for the movie is a one shot on Vaughn and a one shot Wilson cut together in which they point blank explain to each other (for the obvious “benefit” of the audience) what they have been doing for the past few years and what they will continue to do for the duration of the movie. It’s poorly acted, scripted, directed, conceived, not funny, and I think it gave me kidney stones. They are speaking of crashing weddings as the title would suggest, but for a bit of an exercise let’s pretend the title of the movie is Picnic Havers, a movie about people who have picnics. If the same writers wrote this movie the following would surely be an excerpt:

“Hey, it’s picnic having season again.”
“Great, I love having picnics!”
“Good me two. Now we’re going to need a picnic basket for our picnic.”
“I agree on having a picnic basket for our picnic. We should also fill the basket with something.”
“Food!”
“I agree! Food would be perfect for our picnic. Rule 73 of having picnics is that you should bring food in a picnic basket.”
“Man this will be awesome.”

In a strange coincidence only Nostradamus could have foreseen, in every screening of the film this is the exact moment when blood will come gushing out of every audience members ears from the newly formed and ruptured aneurisms caused by such poor writing.

The last thing I’ll mention, or second to last thing rather, is the presence of Christopher Walken in this movie. I think he has more than spent his “I’m Christopher Walken and will obviously bring something to this character just by being me” capital. The only thing he really added to my movie going experience was that whenever the movie stopped being funny I could think about what our country would be like if he actually held the office of Secretary of the Treasury or any other cabinet position for that matter.

Now to the last thing I will mention. I saw this movie alone. There is something to be said about going to see a funny movie with a bunch of friends and having a good time thus making the movie funnier. I would suggest doing that and not going alone. Oh wait….That’s not the last thing. 2 hours?? Why the fuck was the movie 2 hours long?? Geez.