Made of Honor

There is a basic framework for the romantic comedy: two people meet but do not become romantically involved because of friendship, other relationships, or a career in prostitution. Then the two part ways, and during this separation one or both realize that the other is the “one.” Finally, one person makes a grand gesture to win the other’s heart, and the story ends just as sweetly as it began. Obviously there can be many variations on this framework, but essentially this is what we’ve come to expect, and in many ways it’s this predictability that we look forward to the most. This basic desire, it seems, is exactly what Sony Pictures was banking on when they made “Made of Honor.” The problem, however, is that they relied solely on this framework, forgetting that an actual film with developed characters and a substantive plot is necessary as well.

“Made of Honor” stars the “McDreamy” Patrick Dempsey and the plain-in-comparison Michelle Monaghan (“Gone Baby Gone”) as two friends—the womanizing Tom and innocent Hannah, respectively. The two meet in college at Cornell—a poor beginning, in my opinion. Ten years later, Tom is the rich inventor of the “coffee collar” and Hannah works for the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and they’re still best friends. But then Hannah suddenly travels to Scotland on business for six weeks, and during this separation, Tom realizes that Hannah is the “one.” But alas, when Hannah returns she is not alone, but engaged to a rich Scotsman who can dunk and is apparently very well “endowed.” Thus, in order to win Hannah back, Tom agrees to be her maid of honor and prove his worth.

Ideally, an exciting thrill-ride of hilarious quests and heartfelt moments would ensue after this agreement, but that’s not the case. Rather, what occurs is a boring, forgettable, and poorly-written period of nothingness. The film is essentially a basic plot outline strung together by scenes of empty dialogue. Instead of adding depth and intelligence to the story, the screenwriters become redundant, reiterating the premise of the film over and over again. The casting company even forgot to do their job as well, as one of the most distracting issues in the movie is the gap between the actors’ ages and the ages of the characters they are meant to portray.

Ironically, the result of relying entirely on a tried-and-true framework is that the framework itself begins to fail. Normally, Hannah’s innocent expressions would be considered endearing as the plot deepens and the audience allows the story to take them on a ride. Without a deepening plot, however, the audience knows exactly how “Made of Honor” is going to end 20 minutes into the film, making Hannah’s innocence annoying and unbelievable.

This is not to say that there weren’t a few enjoyable moments in the film. There is a collision with a waiter that will certainly incite laughter in some, and the recurring image of a man playing basketball in short-shorts will at least give you something to think about during the long periods of nothingness.

Nonetheless, throughout the film’s final sequences, I found myself waiting for something interesting to happen—anything other than the mundane—to no avail. What puzzles me most is that films like “Made of Honor” are still being made in an age when romantic comedy masterpieces like “Pretty Woman” and “Notting Hill” (oh, Julia Roberts, how high you set the bar) are available for reference and preference. Hollywood has already given us the real thing—slightly predictable, but not dully inevitable—so for Sony Pictures to assume that we won’t notice the difference between an original romantic comedy and a formulaic one is simply rude.

My suggestion: If you want to know what this movie is about, watch the trailer. But please, save your money and your time, because this movie is “made” of nothing.

—Reviewer Jessica O. Matthews can be reached at jmatthew@fas.harvard.edu.