"27 Dresses" Conservative Review

Pro: Men waiting for a sex-change operation can jump-start the process and increase their estrogen count simply by watching this movie!

Con: As cool as it may seem when you are alone, having man-breasts is just wrong.

Synopsis:

Jane, a tall, beautiful young woman (Katherine Heigl) just can’t say “no” to her friends, her family, or her secret love and boss (Edward Burns). In an attempt to avoid the emptiness in her own romantic life she has agreed to be the bridesmaid in 27 weddings. But when her sister (Malin Akerman) “steals” the man she loves and asks Jane to step into ugly bridesmaid dress number 28, Jane realizes it’s time to be the lead role in her own life, not the supporting player. With the unexpected romantic attention and help of a wedding announcements writer (James Marsden), Jane might just learn to say “no” while still being able to say “I do.” (VOMIT!)

My take:

Most men chafe at the idea of watching a “chick flick”, many times with very good reason, but occasionally one comes along that provides some comedy without making men cringe and attempt to castrate themselves with the DVD remote. While “27 Dresses” has the usual overabundance of emotion, syrupy sweet moments, and song/dance numbers, it actually has some funny lines and clever situations that are not predicated on the debasement of men as most films of this genre are. Although the movie lacks such male-approved staples such as gratuitous nudity and explosive violence, it manages to remain entertaining for most of its length (that’s what SHE said!).

A Conservative View:

As soon as you suggest that the characters in a modern romance aren’t “good” people because they engage in multiple easy, uncommitted sexual relationships, Liberals start howling that you are “prude”, “repressed”, or “religiously fanatic”. The implication being that in modern America any enlightened individual realizes that it is perfectly okay to have sex with anyone, anytime, anywhere and there are just no real consequences. Now “27 Dresses” wouldn’t have been a comedy, or at least much fun, if it delved into all the problems that are created by indiscriminate sexual congress, but did it have to portray sex so casually?

In the film, Jane’s best friend is, for lack of a better word, a total slammin’ whore. Yet nothing adverse happens to her at all. Jane’s sister sleeps with a man on the first night they meet -- not even a date -- and then later agrees to marry him. Jane herself sleeps with a man she does not love simply because he got her drunk and sang a song with her. The man she actually professes to love is in fact the one she hasn't slept with. It seems in this film, as in a perfect Liberal world, sex is completely divorced from love or even affection. The bizarre implication is that sex is something you would do BEFORE you dated to see if you liked the person enough to make the emotional commitment to spend time together fully clothed.

What a great world for single, atheist males; everyone else should be suspicious.

Although the reality of contemporary American mores would suggest that some of the characters in the film should have meaningless sex with strangers, the film wouldn’t have been less successful or entertaining if the main character had abstained. The movie could have ended exactly the same way if Jane had NOT slept with the writer, and the only thing that would have changed would be that she might actually have become a good role model for young woman.

Conclusion:

“27 Dresses” provides decent entertainment for the male gender, the female gender, and even perhaps the man-bra-wearing transgendered. The moral message about ever-slackening sexual restraint is disappointingly modern, but with a glimmer of hope: in the end most of the characters, slut and Puritan alike, just really want to get married.