Dracil’s BlogJournal

May 15, 2008

Wedding Crashers

Filed under: Reviews — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — dracil @ 6:50 am

So, one of my friends really likes this movie and told me to watch it, and someone else joked about crashing the non-wedding party on the boat during the wedding last weekend and referenced this movie, so I thought I should probably watch it.

Hmm… I don’t think I was in the right mood to be watching this or something.

1) I got kinda annoyed by the wedding crashing actually.  Maybe it’s because I was just at a wedding recently that I found their behavior annoying.  I’m not sure what girls who watch this film think of how the film portrays them in this segment.

2) Why is the fiance always a douchebag?  It’s too easy and overdone.  Make the fiance actually a good person for once so the main character must choose to tear a perfectly fine relationship apart for his own selfish reasons.  The douchebag fiance thing also makes the girl just seem completely incompetent, and she’d be doomed to a horrible marriage if it wasn’t for this wonderful womanizer to bring her to her senses.  See Futurama for how to do this right.

3) The fairy tale story of how manchilds will magically grow up when they meet The Girl.  Sure, it does happen, and the right girl will be a big motivation for guys to shape up, but at the same time, most likely, you are not The Girl.  Odds are, you will be a part of a string of girls he meets before he meets The Girl, if he meets her.  That said, it’s also completely overdone, and as noted in #1, guys like those in the movie only exists because there are womenchilds for him to play with, something a lot of girls seem to miss as they whine about guys that don’t grow up.

4) How’d they even get in anyway.  The last two weddings I’ve been to, there are guest lists and assigned tables for each person during the reception.  Yes yes, suspension of disbelief, but argh.

5) Not directly related to the movie, but the theme of marriage.  One of the things brought up in The Third Chimpanzee (which I’ve been reading) is adultery.  Specifically extramarital sex.  Apparently, 5-30% of American and British children are not sired by the father, but by a different man.  And given the relatively low rate of conception in humans, that means the actual adultery rate is a lot higher!  A sobering thought and possibly related to why I didn’t enjoy the movie as much as I should have.

For the most part though, I liked the movie better once they got out of the wedding crashing part.



  1. If the fiance (btw, fiancee is the girl) was right for her, she wouldn’t be talking to/enjoying his company so much, and presumably he wouldn’t have stayed.

    Then you wouldn’t have a story, which would defeat the whole point of the movie.

    Trusting your fiance != incompetence. Obviously the trust was misplaced, but without trust they wouldn’t have a relationship in the first place.

    Oh and it’s a comedy. It’s supposed to be overdone otherwise it wouldn’t be funny. Maybe you were expecting a drama (that’s the scenario you proposed because there’s no way to make THAT funny).

    And uh.. that’s quite a range.. is it more like 5% or 30%? that’s like saying 1-99% (it’d still be true but it doesn’t give any real information).

    And I love how you imply only the girl is the adulterer in a marriage when guys are more likely to cheat.

    Comment by deneb7 — May 15, 2008 @ 1:15 pm

  2. Whoops, fixed. Thanks. :)

    I think if she was in a happy relationship, she’d still be smooth-talked into the main character’s company. He is essentially a professional womanizer after all.

    It’s not trusting fiance = incompetence. It’s trusting a lying douchebag fiance. I’m assuming the girl and her fiancee been dating a while, so either he’s *really* good at hiding his true nature, or she’s *really* bad at noticing it. Either way you put it, he’s probably as good as the wedding crashers at lying to girls, and she’s about as good as the other girls at detecting the lies by both of them (in fact, she didn’t know for almost the entire movie). Essentially the movie’s saying men are lying scum and women are naive victims who don’t know any better.

    I know it’s a comedy, hence my note in the beginning that I was probably in the wrong mood to be watching it. I think Futurama pulled it off quite well, so it’s not impossible.

    The numbers depends on the specifics of the study. 5 to 30 is the general range given by the book. The specific example of probably the earliest study on this was from the 1940s, which compared the known blood groups at the time for the baby and its supposed parents. The number of babies conceived from adultery was about 10% back then (I believe this does not include babies conceived by unmarried women, who could be having sex with either unmarried or married men). More known blood groups, DNA analysis since then means more cases can be detected now. At the same time, better contraceptive use means more adulterous relations will not result in a baby either.

    Uh, where did I imply the girl is the only adulterer? Obviously she’d have to be having sex with someone else. And it’s true, guys are more likely to cheat, 30-50% for women, and 50-80% for men according to one study (even if men cheat more, there must be a willing woman for him to cheat with)

    However, the book is talking about something that’s based on an important difference between men and women. Only guys can be cuckolded. Women know that baby that comes out of them is theirs, guys don’t (outside of the baby being completely different and paternity tests, which didn’t exist/was done back then, and is still legally limited now in some places as far as paternity fraud is concerned).

    I suspect the reason paternity tests was used here is not to imply that women cheat more often (and in fact the book talks about how guys are generally more interested in extramarital sex), but because it is a reliable statistical lower-bound on adultery. You know for a fact that the woman cheated with at least one man if the baby is not the father’s. But you still have no idea (pretty much impossible unless you interview every single woman about it and assume she’s truthful) to know who and how many men were cheating with her.

    Anyway, I think I was just in a cynical mood when I watched the movie, though it mainly started with the scene where they were throwing the women they were going after on the beds.

    Comment by dracil — May 15, 2008 @ 3:22 pm

  3. […] based on paternity tests done, but they also vary, hence the 5-30% figure that I mentioned in my review of Wedding Crashers.  The book I got it from mentioned a specific study showed a 10% non-paternity rate in the […]

    Pingback by Protect Marriage? « Dracil’s BlogJournal — May 15, 2008 @ 8:43 pm

  4. I think if the relationship was good in the first place, he’d be a friend and nothing more — it’s not like anything happened until after she found out her fiance was a lying a-hole.

    Also I still think he wouldn’t have stayed or tried so hard if he didn’t know the fiance is bad news.. the whole point of them going to a wedding was for single girls — it’s not like they intended to break up relationships.

    The movie doesn’t make generalizations about men/women. It puts different men/women side by side as contrast (girl and sister, fiance and other guys). It definitely uses stereotypes and exaggerates them, though.

    You may not think women are oblivious enough to know the guy’s cheating, but I think you’re underestimating the power of denial when a woman wants something to work out.

    If it’s based on paternity tests, doesn’t that mean they had a reason to think it wasn’t his in the first place? That means the data is totally biased and can’t be applied to the general population.

    If anything, the guy was more suspicious of the girl than he should have been if 70-95% proved to be a match. I still don’t understand how you can rely on a range of 5-30% to say anything concrete.

    The fact that you focused on it being disappointing for guys even though there are more cases of guys cheating makes the implication that only girls cheat, or that it only matters when girls cheat.

    Also, I think your conclusion assumes that everyone goes through year long courtships before marriage, which isn’t necessarily true. She could have gotten pregnant before the husband, which wouldn’t be adultery.

    Oh, and I love how you push the blame on women when the guy cheats “there must be a willing woman”..

    I can also say “there must be a willing guy”. It’s not about willingness of others, it’s about loyalty of the spouse.

    Comment by deneb7 — May 16, 2008 @ 11:09 am

  5. I don’t think she ever found out about the lying part, only the a-hole part. And actually, she kissed him in the middle of the movie. She didn’t find out about her fiance’s a-holeness until the very end of the movie during her sister’s wedding.

    Sure, breaking up relationships isn’t their goal, but it’s simply not a factor, which isn’t that much better. They’re after sex and that’s all that matters. He also didn’t know the fiance was a bad person until later on. He met the fiance at the reception, and the fiance was a perfectly fine, normal guy then. He didn’t care, he still went after her. At the time, this could be nothing more than a selfish act because there was nothing bad (as far as he knows) about her boyfriend.

    There was no good young person in the movie (I think the father was cool). Both the girl and her sister bought into the lies by both guys. The fiance and the wedding crashers all lied to the girls. Different men and women, sure, and yet the results were all the same.

    And denial is a good thing? I don’t see how that helps what you’re saying except maybe it’s somewhat admirable how committed some women are to the relationship.

    Sure, paternity tests requested by the parents may skew the data higher than it should be since they may have a reason to be suspicious. But the blood group test done in the 1940s wasn’t requested by the parents. It was done by the doctor for research and it was a random sampling of babies and parents. Thus, that 10% there was not biased. Neither was the 30% rate in the 1970s that I mentioned in my new post done by kids as part of their science class experiment on blood types.

    No, the reason that I and the research focused on paternity tests is because it’s more reliable (people will lie about their faithfulness, but if the tests don’t match, they don’t match). Nobody denies that guys cheat more. That’s not the argument we’re making. This isn’t about being disappointing for guys. The argument is that guys cannot know whether a baby is theirs or not, but a woman always does. There can be no doubt that the woman, and at least one other unknown person, were adulterous. Maybe the husband was too, but we don’t know which woman he was with out of hand. Nor do we know which man the woman was with either. The upshot is that this fact of nature can still be used for studies when people are not being truthful. Until men start giving birth, or babies start being born with the name of their biological father engraved on their forehead or something, this will remain the case.

    Sure, not everyone goes through >9-months courtships, but be realistic. How often is a woman going to have sex with a guy, get pregnant, dump him, and immediately get a new boyfriend and wed the new guy all within 9 months? 10%? 30%? Not likely. Shotgun weddings aren’t that common, and shotgun weddings with a prior man’s baby (unless you’re suggesting she’s cheating on the fiance during the engagement)? Even less. It may account for a tiny fraction of these paternity test results, but I think you’ll agree it’s insignificant and thus essentially irrelevant.

    I’m confused as to what your point is here. Nobody, not me, not the book, not anywhere else, is denying that guys are more interested in extramarital sex. Nobody is disagreeing with you so it makes no sense that you seem to think we are. On the other hand, there does seem to be a perception that women somehow are all pure and not interested in extramarital sex at all, which is simply untrue. That may be why you think I’m being unfair on women (from what I’m seeing here, it does seem you carry this “pure woman” perception, though I could be wrong). On the high end, the kind of numbers we’re looking at is something around 40% adultery rate for women and 60% adultery rate for men. Yeah, that’s a 20% difference, but that’s still a 40% adultery rate for women there. On the low end from what I found, it’s still 22% men vs. 14% women, an 8% difference (and given the motivation to lie and paternal test studies, the rates here are probably too low). I don’t focus my time on men because 1) it’s common knowledge that nobody denies and 2) the paternity tests make no sense when applied to women, because other than surrogate mothers, 100% of the babies belong to their mother. It’s useless data. No woman is ever going to be worried that the baby isn’t theirs. But this is a very real concern for men, even as some of these concerned men are out having sex with other men’s wives. And willingness (or infidelity) and loyalty are just flip sides of the same coin.

    I can’t believe we’re having such a big discussion over my cynical take of an unserious romantic comedy, but I guess I did start it with my review. :P

    Comment by dracil — May 16, 2008 @ 1:51 pm

  6. I think during the reception he found out and was upset that she had a fiance. And they didn’t kiss till after he found out the fiance’s a jerk. It’s been a while since I saw the movie though so maybe I remembered it wrong. If I’m right though, breaking up relationships WAS a factor.

    And I mentioned the sister because she knew what she was getting into, and actually tricked the guy. Maybe you missed the part where he found out she wasn’t a virgin after all and just pretended to be one because she thought guys liked that? Anyway, like I said she provided a contrast. I’m not saying anyone was good or bad.

    I mentioned denial because it seems hard for you to believe that she didn’t know. Even if she had a suspicion, she was probably in denial because he seemed like such a good guy to her.

    Like I said, never underestimate the power of denial. It’s like saying, “do parents really not know their kid was doing drugs?” Yeah maybe they had an inkling, but they refused to believe something bad of their child. Same concept.

    Oh and by the way, it’s not really a romantic comedy, it’s mostly just a comedy. Or at least, it’s a guy’s version of a romantic comedy? It’s like American Pie. If you didn’t like American Pie, you probably won’t like this either.

    As for your digression, I was annoyed because it sounded like you were implying guys are pure and have to worry about women having babies with other men.

    Oh and then you implied it’s not so much the guy’s fault for cheating because of the “willing women” who line up to have sex with married men (at least, that’s what it sounded like from the way you said it).

    Willingness and loyalty aren’t equal and opposite. You can be willing if you didn’t know they were married. Plus, the other person isn’t the one that took a vow.

    So the bulk of the blame should be placed on the spouse, not on the other man/woman. I think commonly, the blame is misplaced because the spouse doesn’t want to blame the person s/he loves.

    Oh and you’re also implying it’s ok for guys to be adulterous because they don’t have the consequence of having a baby as evidence.

    I’m just saying, it’s not about the baby, it’s about respect, trust, and loyalty in the relationship.

    Comment by deneb7 — May 21, 2008 @ 4:37 pm

  7. No, the fiance was not a jerk at all as far as he knows. Unless you consider being rough during the football game to be a jerk, but I don’t think he was doing it intentionally. Nobody but his friend who was being tackled, not even the guy himself, thought the fiance was being too rough. He even thought his friend was just pretending. In fact, the main character was the one who was the jerk instead, emptying the contents of the eyedrops into the fiance’s drink. The fiance did made a call in private to look up the the two characters but he didn’t know about it. So no, he did it completely for his own selfish reason. While rewatching the part, the girl and the fiance were already dating for 3.5 years as well.

    So the sister tricked the guy who thought he was tricking her. Ok, so she’s more like the guys than the other girls, but that that just makes her as bad as them. You’re not really convincing me that these people are good people. I believe that’s actually intentional. It’s easier to laugh at people who are bad when bad things happen to them. That’s why you don’t (well at least I didn’t) feel any sympathy for the characters.

    This denial line isn’t really getting anywhere. If she suspects anything, then either the character’s really good at hiding it, or the actress was bad for not being able to portray that at all. We can argue this as long as we want, but since we’re making speculations on things that are not present in the movie, it’s pretty much pointless to continue.

    I actually liked American Pie. I also really liked There’s Something about Mary. But this movie just did not do it for me. Most places list Wedding Crashers as a romantic comedy (Amazon, IMDB, boxofficemojo). Only Yahoo movies and rottentomatoes list it as just comedy, but rottentomatoes also listed 27 Dresses as only comedy.

    Willingness and loyalty are flip sides of the same coin for the person. If you are willing to commit adultery, then you are not loyal to your spouse. If you are not married, then you are not committing adultery, as you cannot be willing to have an extramarital affair when you are not married (it is premarital sex to you), nor can you be loyal to a non-existent spouse.

    As for the digression, I think you are reading way too much into it. I have said twice already that that’s not what I’m saying. I have made it as clear as I can why these studies were conducted the way they were and why the conclusions mean what they mean. If you’d rather ignore all that and insist on reading implications directly contradicting what I’ve said, then fine. I’m just not going to bother anymore.

    If you’re trying to defend the movie or the actions of the people in it, it’s really not working. And all the sarcasm and implications is just making me dislike it even more. So I’m gonna stop now before I end up completely hating the movie.

    Comment by dracil — May 21, 2008 @ 9:10 pm

  8. I think I’m being misunderstood here.

    Re: the movie – you seem to have missed the part where I said I’m not saying who’s good or bad. What does good or bad have to do with it anyway? It’s a deliberately exaggerated slapstick comedy, for crying out loud. Trying to bring morality or anything serious to it just makes no sense.

    Like I said, it was your attitude in the last part of your post that bothered me, and I couldn’t care less about whatever your book said.

    If you think your attitude was fine, then please continue arguing. Otherwise, I have nothing more to say.

    Comment by deneb7 — May 23, 2008 @ 7:49 am

  9. Uh, this whole post was intentionally doing a cynical take on the movie. Did you miss the part where I said I wasn’t in the right mood to watch the movie? If you don’t care who was good or bad, then why did you spend 3 comments arguing about how so and so isn’t really so bad? I even suggested a few comments back that we’re spending a lot of time on something not that important, but yet it continued.

    As for my attitude? From the person who keeps making sarcastic comments and would prefer to “read between the lines” instead of the lines themselves so that what I’m saying can be completely reversed? Since when did reading between the lines mean something other than that the person is intentionally trying to say something without actually coming out and saying it? When you say someone made an implication, you’re saying the person said it without actually saying it in words, so yes, you are actually accusing me of saying it, just that I’m doing it indirectly. There is a big difference between saying “you implied” and saying “you seem to be implying.” You’re doing the former, while claiming to be doing the latter. Even saying that I’m “unintentionally implying” something wouldn’t sound nearly as aggressive.

    And when you combine what you said with sarcasm, it actually becomes a bit insulting and that’s why I’m getting annoyed. To be honest, I half-expect a passive-aggressive response to this saying that if I’m so sure of myself, then I can go ahead and continue doing things the way I do and suffer the consequences. But maybe that’s just because I’m annoyed at this entire thing right now.

    Seriously, I know more about the consequences of adultery than I hope you’ll ever know, so claiming I’m making those implications is just… for lack of a better word, wrong.

    Comment by dracil — May 23, 2008 @ 8:17 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: