User Reviews

"My Best Friend's Wedding", really...

Even though I don't dislike it, I can't say that I enjoy it either. This movie is intended to be a romantic comedy, but doesn't convince me because it fails.

Yes, it has some humor and some funny moments (especially by Rupert Everett's character, George). However, the rest of this movie's humor ends up being ridiculous and somehow annoying. Besides, this movie isn't sweet or truly romantic for a love story.

Also, the character played by Julia Roberts (Julianne or simply Jules) is pure evil, rude, jealous, selfish and greedy. Her intentions are dark. What she does is really mean: she tries to steal her best friend's bride to get him back, but she (Jules) never let him love her when he loved her.

Some catchy songs can be listened in this movie, especially "I Say a Little Prayer". The marriage at the end is beautifully made and the final scene is comical. Rupert Everett is hilarious in this movie and I like very much Cameron Diaz's character (Kimmy Wallace) in this movie. She's enchanting, adorable, sweet and beautiful: the opposite of Jules.

Overall, this is a bitter and crude movie. Not a keeper or a movie to watch over and over.

This was a pretty good romantic comedy, though two things bothered me about it. Our heroine is Julia Roberts. Heroine??? She's actually being quite despicable in this role -- actively deceiving everyone in an attempt to steal a man who is "her best friend" from his fiancé, a rather sweet person, even though she had years to marry the guy! And, to a large extent, her actions are simply out of spite. I guess her turn for the better in the climax is supposed to restore her goodness to our eyes...but it didn't quite work for me. The other issue I had about the movie was that it seemed long, although it comes in at only 105 minutes...and I'm not quite sure what I would have edited out. Maybe it was just my mood that evening.

Now despite my reservations, I still classify this as a pretty good film. Perhaps more because of the acting than the plot. Let's face it, Julia Roberts -- nice or not -- is pretty hard to beat. I was pleasantly surprised by Dermot Mulroney; I never paid him much attention, but he is REALLY good here! It almost seemed as he was living the part, rather than acting it. Cameron Diaz is surprisingly charming here as the fiancé; perhaps we have typecast her in other types of roles; I enjoyed her performance. And, Rupert Everett is along as the "heroines" best gay friend...I think he had a copyright on that kind of role. And the supporting cast does very nicely, although no one stands out (but there is an early role here as a bellboy for Paul Giamatti).

Is this a great film? No. But it's good. Definitely worth a watch...at least according to its nearly $300 million box office.

This is the film that basically relaunched "pretty woman", Golden Globe nominated Julia Roberts back on the star board, and quite rightfully so. Basically she plays Julianne Potter, who once had a relationship with now best friend Michael O'Neal (Dermot Mulroney). After a phone call she probably thought it could have gone further, but then she hears that he is getting married. Now she is trying everything she can to put a stop to the wedding of Micheal and fiancée Kimberly Wallace (Cameron Diaz), and maybe get her man back. Along the way she gets help from another good friend, the great gay character played by BAFTA and Golden Globe nominated Rupert Everett, George Downes. In the end though, she realises that Michael loves this woman and she allows them to marry, but she still gets a nice dance with George. Originally in the story she was meant to get her man back, but I and the test audience are glad they changed it. It was nominated the Oscar for Best Music for James Newton Howard, and it was nominated the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Comedy/Musical. Julia Roberts was number 29 on The 100 Greatest Movie Stars, and Rupert Everett was number 39 on The 50 Greatest British Actors. Very good!

I think I like the movie most for Rupert Everett. His walk (which he describes as panther like) was amazing. he sticks to his friend, giving the only sensible advice possible. Say a little prayer for you was amazing, his story of his engagement with Julia was so delicious.

Julia's mean streak was magnificent.. also her eyes when she sees her best friend being carried away.

I enjoy this movie every time, and cannot miss the Rupert parts at all !

Although if you look closely, the sudden love for Dermot Mulroney is not natural. Not for a minute would a character like Julianne be happy with someone like him. She could rough it in seedy hotels, but not be tied down to someone's schedules.

So you are kind of relieved that Julianne walks free in the end. And she does have this magnificent friend like Rupert who drops everything and comes to her rescue. If he hadn't been gay, he would have been besotted with her and that is the kind of a man Julianne really needs

I like it that Julianne remains single in the end. That is what life is like, sometimes you have to hand over your loved ones and deal with life on its own. There is no magic guy who appears the minute you are single.

From what I've read here on IMDb this one split the vote straight down the middle, seems you either love it or loathe it. I found a lot to admire and little to dislike. It comes out of a long tradition that dates back to the earliest talkies; attractive, affluent people, living in luxurious apartments/houses, wearing expensive clothes, dining in expensive restaurants and generally being charming and romantic. We've been there with Cary Grant and Irene Dunne, Grant and Katherine Hepburn, Grant and Ingrid Bergman, Fred and Ginger, Claudette Colbert, Audrey Hepburn, Franchot Tone, Bill Holden, Doris Day, Rock Hudson and now the new generation, epitomized here by Julia Roberts. The story is relatively unimportant, all we ask is twelve reels of escapism, a set piece or two, a song or two, lots of laughter balanced by the odd tear, a soufflé' that segues into a lemon mousse and sends us out into the night with a smile on our face and warmth in our heart. This one delivers as well as any and better than most.

This is a popcorn movie, a chick flick, that leaves a lot to be desired all around in the ethics department. Normally I am a huge fan of Julia Roberts but in this woeful tale, she fails to come across as her typical vulnerable and endearing self.

The improbable plot revolves around a food critic, Julianne, who learns just days before the wedding that her long time best friend (and former lover), Michael, is about to be married to a lovely rich, blonde girl named Kimberly. In fact Michael invites Jules to be...no, not his best man...but the maid of honour. Jules flies from her home in New York to Chicago for the wedding, not to wish the newlyweds well, but instead to steal Michael away from Kimmy and make sure the wedding never comes off at all. She has four days in which to convince the unsuspecting groom that she herself, not Kimmy, is the bride for him.

My first of many problems with this unlikely tale is that former lovers do not tend to make ideal best friends for all the reasons revealed in this movie, namely lingering passionate feelings and issues of jealousy. Furthermore, Jules's second best friend (as it were) is also a man...her editor, George, who conveniently happens to be gay. Does this girl not have any female friends at all, like most young women?

Actually, George comes off as the character in the movie with probably the most integrity, which isn't saying a lot in this tale of immoral fluff. He's a true friend to Julianne, flying from afar to be with her and offer comfort. He indeed gives Jules sound advice, namely to just tell the guy she loves him, and later when it's obviously not working out, to graciously let Michael go. However, George is cast as the stereotypical homosexual friend, which has all been done to death by Hollywood. Jules pretends to be engaged to George in order to elicit jealousy from Michael (just one of her countless lies), but this fabrication doesn't seem to go anywhere. They never really officially undo the ruse. By the way, I love Dionne Warwick's singing but found the entire singalong at the rehearsal dinner just too silly.

Jules is a stellar example of the old expression...With friends like her, who needs enemies? She's no friend at all to Michael (much less a BEST one), having no concern whatsoever for HIS happiness, until possibly the very end. Instead she's essentially nothing more than a jealous ex lover who lies, manipulates, and connives. Jules uses every trick in the book to split up Michael and his fiancée, including attempting to get Michael fired, allegedly at the behest of Kimmy and her dad. True, she repents of this horrendous deed, but it's hard to cheer for a "heroine" this unscrupulous. She doesn't get Michael in the end, nor does she deserve him. One gets the impression that this is not true love, but more a case of wanting what she cannot have. For some reason, Scarlett O'Hara came to mind while I was watching this.

Michael is indeed handsome, but the description that comes to mind here is "jerk". Frankly, Kimmy can have him! I wouldn't want to marry a man that reminisced ad nauseum about old memories with a former girlfriend right in front of me four days before our wedding. Is he too clueless here to perceive how left out and potentially jealous Kimmy feels? I was practically waiting for him to bring up past sexual escapades with Jules and expect Kimmy to politely listen! Michael is surely one of the most insensitive grooms ever to grace the big screen. Also, he sort of leads Jules on, dancing rather romantically with her while they recall their old song. Not to mention jocular references to her about having seen her naked in the past. Not my idea of a nice platonic friendship for a man about to marry another woman.

Personally, I was cheering for the loving bride to be, played to perfection by Cameron Diaz. Except that it's a little hard to buy her passive tolerance of her fiancé's rather unusual close friendship with his ex girlfriend or her colossal stupidity in not seeing through Jules's motivations from the start. Otherwise, she's definitely the sympathetic character of the piece, as when Jules sets out to humiliate her rival by insisting Kimmy sing at the karaoke bar, despite her vehement protests. Of course poor Kimmy is made to look like a female needing liberation when she announces that she's quitting college in the interests of her future husband and his career. Oh dear me no, it would never do for anyone entering a marriage to contemplate any sort of personal sacrifice! I found the whole ladies washroom scene near the end tasteless and ridiculous, when all the women are cheering on the potential verbal cat fight between Jules and Kimmy. Surely the screenwriters could have come up with better than this.

Just an aside, what is the point of the pathetic ice sculpture joke other than to be crude? I normally love the romantic comedy genre, but the quality seems to be sadly deteriorating these days. This isn't the absolute worst movie I've ever seen but really, it isn't that amusing a comedy nor is it much of a romance. Hopefully Jules experiences a bit of personal growth, but that's about all that can be said for this story.

I didn't like this film. The whole premise of a woman setting out to sabotage and destroy her best friend's wedding. Okay, so Julia Roberts plays the conniving woman - I guess that is supposed to make us fall in love with her and forget all the havoc she is wreaking. I for one didn't find it funny. In fact, most of the film annoyed me. Including, and especially, the stupid sing-along songs and those idiot twins.

Okay, so they try to redeem the bad plot by having Julia not be successful in the end and we are all supposed to forgive her for being so ruthless - right? Wrong - it just didn't work for me. Not funny.

Not funny.

Still not funny...

I love Julia Roberts and I wanted to like this movie so badly. But her character is just not likable and at the end you don't even want her to get the guy. So in that respect the ending was the only one that made sense. On the other hand he wasn't really that likable either.. It kind of annoys me that nothing really changed throughout the movie. Her situation in the beginning is the same as in the end. He doesn't even once really doubt his feelings about his fiancé and ends up marrying her. So what really was the point of it all?

I give it 7 stars because of the actors and their great performances - especially Julia Roberts. And because it was entertaining. But I have to say I did expect more from this movie since I've always been told that it's a classic and a must-see.