Something Borrowed

I had begun to hope... I should have known better.

Something Borrowed is about Rachel (played by Ginnifer Goodwin), an overworked lawyer just hitting her thirties, feeling unaccomplished and old.  In the midst of this momentary mid-life crisis, she does something completely against her character - she sleeps with her best friend's fiancee.  At first, what seems like an incredible mistake, is discovered to be the best thing she ever did.

This film contains actors Ginnifer Goodwin (as Rachel) as I stated before, John Krasinski (as Ethan, Rachel's basic conscience), Kate Hudson (as Darcy, the self-absorbed best friend) and Colin Eggelsfield (as Dex, Darcy's Fiancee).

This film had its good moments and its bad moments.  Thanks to John Krasinski and Kate Hudson, I witnessed a mere fragment of what I wanted this movie to be.

Kate Hudson played her role - dare I say it - perfectly.  I had absolutely no issues with her portrayal of Darcy, in fact, she is exactly what I imagined.  She was selfish, biased, confident, arrogant, manipulative, but then at times, alluring, loyal and enticing.  She played that best friend role us girls know all too well.  It's that role of having to have all the attention, having to always get her way and then when you think you've had just about enough, she finds a way to reel you back in.  They are seductive characters and Hudson accomplished this wonderfully.  You love to hate her in this film.

John Kransinski was not exactly what I imagined, but he trumped whatever that was in the first place.  He was demanding.  He demanded our attention to the reality of the situation.  He was straight forward, to the point, brutally honest, funny and acted as Rachel's conscience.  When he screamed, you felt his frustrations. When he acted out, you felt that he was justified.  He spoke for the audience and allowed us to live through him.  He was that much and more.

And now, to the actors that I was disappointed in.  Ginnifer Goodwin was too "goody two-shoe".  It was obnoxious because she never let go of the good/pure/innocent version of herself that contradicted everything else she did.  In the book, she begins to resent Darcy, getting really angry with her.  Sure it's petty and unreasonable, but at least it was understandable.  Suffice it to say, you don't get this version of Rachel in the film, even though it is what made her character interesting. There was no strong emotion from her, and when she finally let some of it out, it didn't seem enough.  Her anger never seemed enough and her love never seemed enough.  She wasn't enough!  I don't think this has to do with her acting - she is a good actor.  I think it has to do with the screenplay and the director.  They didn't give Rachel's character a fighting chance to justify her actions.  They left out the scenes that strengthened Rachel and Dex's relationship, so you couldn't actually sympathize with them for their actions. 

Frankly, I didn't care much about them, especially Dex.

Eggelsfield was boring.  Other than looking good, which I kind of disagree with, he just stood there.  His acting was passive, his character was passive.  He was portrayed as a spineless snake.  And the worst of it was, that even when he "redeems" himself, you still don't think he has any redeeming qualities.  He's just there to act as a thorn in Darcy and Rachel's relationship.  He wasn't a character to me, but a prop for Hudson and Goodwin's use. The most annoying scene was near the end when Dex finds out the truth about Darcy (which I won't give away).  It's appalling and he barely reacts.  In the book, he swears at her, gets really angry, screams, but in the movie he just stands there and says his line.
He was nothing like the Dex from the book. 

Ultimately, the film was okay.  There were two strong characters and two weak characters.  And because of that, I give this film 6.5/10 for not fully bringing the book to life.