Friday, 30 September 2011

Randomness: Kate Hudson and Something Borrowed

I was determined, foolishly I suppose, to give Something Borrowed a chance. Granted it was a significant time after it came out. And, true, I didn’t expect to find its romantic/comedic posturing to be anything revolutionary. But – and this is not an insignificant but – I still feel that despite her romantic amblings Kate Hudson is, at the very least, an interesting actor to watch and Big Love has long made me a believer in Ginnifer Goodwin. The added presence of John Krasinski only served to assured me that despite all the thinly veiled criticism lodged against it there must be something to savour here.
          
It’s probably been examined to a point where it seems hackneyed, but I find the act of infidelity a provocative discussion topic. Thus, film represents a fine medium through which to examine in – theoretically, of course. The film rests on the “friendship” of Rachel and Darcy, and the object of the film’s tension lies in the fact that Rachel is secretly in love with Darcy’s fiancĂ© Dex. Early on in the film the two, both drunk, sleep together and the continuing of that affair is essentially the film. What’s exasperating about the film, though, is that it never has the gumption to examine these prickly issues with any effort at practicality. Goodwin’s Rachel is a sickly sweet girl, and Darcy is something of a harridan so it’s only natural that we root against the blonde.

Kate Hudson, though, evoking an allure that she sometimes eschews in the worse of her films is magnetic as Darcy. The film doesn’t care for her. Regardless of how much they set up the film as a friendship ripping apart at the seams, the script offers no indication as to a significant liaison between the two ladies. From every direction Darcy is painted negatively making any potential tension come off as a grossly insignificant. I kept thinking that the film was going to end up with some surprise redemption of the character but a final one-two punch in terms of revelations completely destroys the credibility of it even as Kate surrenders completely to the script. She and Krasinski are the only two who come off as worthy of attention. I’ve never found Goodwin as shrill, and Colin Egglesfield as the leading man is terribly ineffective, even he looks vaguely like Nadal. Apparently the novel on which it is based has a sequel where Darcy’s character is redeemed and an ambiguous ending (out of touch with the actual film) suggests that it might be filmed too. But, really, this film is so exasperatingly not so much absolutely terrible, as abysmally lazy that I can’t even appreciate a silver lining….

First Half: B-
Majority of Second Half: C
Final Fifteen Minutes: F
Grade: D
Kate Hudson trying: B-
        
Anyone else saw this one? Am I alone in thinking Kate was trying hard?

No comments: