source: The Groomsmen

This movie tries to make certain ideas seem totally acceptable or even to be necessary in life, which is totally untrue. I won't go into it all but the one that really seemed to be the most annoying was the movie chunking out the idea that a person HAS to be married. I don't know where they felt like this idea had to be incorporated into it. Absolutely 100% not true!!! And, to carry it even farther, the idea that just because a woman is expecting a baby that it should be mandatory that the couple get married. That is even worse!! I mean, marriage in itself is a horrible mistake but to compound it with having a baby being the chief reason for someone to get married, that is truly HUGE on the mistake gauge. I am sure everyone has heard that "two wrongs don't make a right". Well, DUH!!! No kidding!!! I just found the movie to be very misleading as far as being compared to real life. And I know that "it is just a movie" but it was one HORRIBLE movie in my opinion!! I did find one thing about the movie that I enjoyed but it is not worth the agony of watching it...The Music! That can be found by simply turning on the radio or playing a CD. Classic Rock style. :)

If you read the back sleeve of this DVD at you local Blockbuster you would come away with the feeling that it is a comedy, and therefore, will provide you with a humorous experience. Instead, what you get is a poorly executed, dramatic, character study, which not only has a Mack-Truck ending, but you find has wasted hours of your life which you can never recoup. The story begins off slowly, and you hope that the pace will pick up... it doesn't. The past life of each 'groomsman' in this 'week-long bachelor party' is shortly touched upon only enough to drive forward the weak (*ahem* non-existent) plot. Oh, Brittany Murphy is in it... for about 1 minute of screen time. Overall, this was a huge let down and a waste of $3.95 for a rental.

"There's a difference between getting older and growing up." That is The Groomsmen's other, more appropriate tagline, but the one they used was "Till death do we party!". Having said that, one can say that The Groomsmen is a surprise; for one, it's not a laugh-out-loud comedy, despite starring sitcom staples and a misleadingly happy poster. It does have comedic elements but it is more dramatic than funny. The audience gets the feeling that Burns is trying to communicate honest men's points of view ala Sex in the City via such varied characters. Paulie (the incredibly talented writer/director/producer/actor Edward Burns) knocks up his longtime girlfriend Sue (Brittany Murphy), and so they plan to get married. A week before the wedding, he meets up with his four groomsmen, each with a different take on being a thirty-something and how that affects their friendship. Donal Logue (from TV's Grounded for Life) plays Jimbo, Paulie's older brother who is having marital and job troubles and frequents a strip bar. Mike (Jay Mohr) still lives with his father and was dumped by his hot girlfriend for being too childish. T.C. (John Leguizamo) was the one who went AWOL on them for eight years, harboring a personal secret and is finally able to come to grips with it by finally telling his childhood friends. Dez (Matthew Lillard) takes a startling turn as the responsible, got-it-together guy in the group, with the kids and the wife. Amazing that he gets this role after being typecast in such movies like Scream, Without a Paddle and Scooby Doo. While The Groomsmen suffers from being a tad flat, largely because of misled expectations, it is earnest, and deliberately takes its time, soaking in Burns' version of suburban New York.

Let us sincerely hope, that the rest of the world will not conclude, that the five brothers/friends of the Groomsmen are representative for the average American adult. I cannot believe they are. These five don't know how to cope with anything. 35 and only then come out of the closet? Solving infertility by picking up a *? Come on. The Groomsmen basically is a soap. We see an endless chain of relational problems. As soon as one is solved - or just disappeared - the next one pops up. Thr idea is to hold our attention. As far as I am concerned: it doesn't. To give the soap a male touch there is a lot of stereotypical "f*** **u". As even Burns got bored of it, he adds the well known gesture with a certain finger in one scene. Acting is decent, there are less than a handful nice jokes, plot is absent, characters are quite uninteresting. Of course end good, all good. All in all a quite forgettable movie. If you want to know how it is to be a male 35, watch Kramer vs Kramer instead. Note the talented John Leguizamo. In The Alibi his talents were much better used.

I'm sure Edward Burns gets plenty of complaints about his films, and I'm probably part of the minority that has enjoyed every single film he's done so far (at least out of the films he's written and directed). I can sort of understand why. Film is meant to be a visual medium, and as much as I enjoy his work, Burns is not exactly a director whose prime concern is the visuals. But I don't care! I'm one of the few film buffs who has never checked out any of the "Lord of the Rings" flicks. Why is that? Because I don't give a damn about special effects or CGI or elaborate sets or elaborate costumes. I care about interesting characters and interesting dialogue, and Burns always delivers in those two departments. I can relate to many of the characters in his films. I can't relate to Hobbits or whatever creatures you see in those "LOTR" flicks. Having watched the film's previews, I thought this might be Burns' attempt at making a more mainstream feature. But it wasn't. It was a typical Burns flick with typical Burns characters, who all have troubled love lives and swig Heineken like no tomorrow. "The Groomsmen" has a few flaws. Some of the NY accents sounded fake and came and went. Jay Mohr is from Jersey, so he really didn't have to try so hard to fake a NY accent when his real accent sounds close enough anyway. Also, hearing John Leguizamo sing was an example of "Don't quit your day job." He sounds almost as bad as I do when I sing karaoke, and I'm pretty sure even a garage band would have a better singer than him. His voice crackles whenever he hits the high notes. Being a baritone, I know what that's like. That's why I don't sing in a band. Plus, the "faking" of the guitar playing wasn't always convincing, even to someone who's never played guitar. And finally, the payoff to the subplot involving Leguizamo's character could've been a lot stronger. I'm not going to give away the twist involving his character, even though someone else on IMDb probably will. Other than those minor flaws, I really enjoyed the film. The cast is solid, though I'm sure Brittany Murphy was put in the movie simply to add star power. I don't hate Brittany as an actress, but a better, lesser-known actress could've played the role instead. The music is great as well. Thanks to Burns, I have two of the film's songs stuck in my head...but that's a good thing. He chose to use good songs from the 70's and 80's that weren't necessarily hits. If you're not a fan of Burns' work, this film probably won't change your mind. If you are a fan like me...enjoy the show.

Where do you start with this mess? The best stuff - TC. The scene between Matt Lillard and Ed Burns in which he tells him how his life has changed since having kids. As a father, this is the truth. Jessica Capshaw is such a beauty. I actually felt bad for Jay Mohr that he never got to reconcile with her, but how could you blame her. Mohr's character is horrible, and what a waste of a comedic talent, too. (In the DVD, there is a section called "Jay Mohr's takes", which you would expect to be funny, but is anything but. The worst stuff - Unfortunately the rest. The soundtrack is like a bad sampling of 80's music - Loverboy, Billy Squier, Greg Kihn. And who said Leguzamo (sp) can sing? How could the other band members put up with is irritable vocals, or were they dubbed? I know that Ed Burns likes to use local talent and that's fine, but get some who can act.

This was potentially the worst movie ever. Terrible acting, places where there should be emotion completely lacked any effort. This appeared to be an "I owe you" movie with people that I considered decent actors completely flopping their roles for Edward Burns terrible directing and acting career to continue. Stay as far away as possible, don't even watch it if it is on TV, I cannot get that 2 hours back. Seriously, every copy of this movie should be burned. Edward Burns, while a decent looking guy is quite possibly the most uninspired actor ever. Shaggy is a one-role character that needs to stick to Scream and Scooby-doo, this was completely out of character and his acting was poor because of it. Donal Logue, who is the only actor worth seeing that appeared in this movie, gave a tremendously poor performance.

Do not watch this if you value your free time. First things first, despite the light hearted looking box this movie is not funny. The box may give the appearance of the next instalment of American Pie but trust me that if you want that kind of action go elsewhere. Still interested in it as a drama, shame on you. The Groomsmen wallows around in the sad tales of the lives of 5 mid thirties men. The problem is that whilst the film tries to give an insight into the relationship issues experienced by the five men, it doesn't do so with any purpose or direction. The film feels like it desperately needs some meat in it. The fact that it tries to deal with all five men at once does not help. In my case no problems were built on enough for me to care whether they were resolved or not. Also of note is that none of the issues seem to reach critical mass. At the end of the film they all seem to be resolved with minimal fuss and effort. The feeling I was left with was a case of "What was the point". The film is further dragged down by some questionable performances. Brittany Murphy spends the entire film standing with one hand under her fake belly. I have never met a pregnant person who needs to hold the belly at all times so it looked more like she was preventing the prosthetic from slipping. Ed Burns character just seems wooden with no passion or emotion. The fat guys wife is just plain irritating. As a final wrap up I would say that the story line and acting was more suited to a soap opera than a film. I really hope that me wasting more of my life writing this helps others not to waste their time watching this drivel.

Was the movie good? Not bad. It was good for what it was, a coming of age kind of film for thirty somethings. What it was not, was the advertised content on the DVD sleeve. Quotes from the box: "..a week-long raucous bachelor party filled with laughs at every turn." --- This it was not. "Join in the revelry at this wild bunch relives their glory days with hilarious antics that you'll never forget." --- A complete, out and out lie. The DVD sleeve touts this as a laugh filled film full of fun. Its anything but. I chuckled 4 times...maybe 5. It was not hilarious to say the least. It was simply a flick about a guy second guessing his upcoming marriage and his whiner brother and loser friends. Sorry. If you wanna laugh, get a different film.