MovieChat Forums > Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) Discussion > Is anyone else not bothered by Andie Mac...

Is anyone else not bothered by Andie MacDowell?


I've seen a number of comments relating to the movie that completely trash Andie MacDowell's performance. While I certainly don't think she'd ever be considered for an Oscar for this role, I thought she did a decent job. Am I missing something here?

reply

jfhester wrote:

I thought she did a decent job.
I thought she did a great job. She gave Curtis and Newell the "Carrie" that they wanted, and I think that "Carrie" is wonderful.
Am I missing something here?
Not at all, but I believe a lot of people miss that this is not a conventional romantic comedy. Essentially, the role of the man and the role the woman are reversed. Curtis subverts romantic comedy conventions in every way that he can work in without turning it into a parody.Carrie is not their idea of a romantic comedy heroine, and so they dump on Andie McDowell. The people who dump on Andie do not want a better actress to produce a better realization of the same Carrie, they want a different Carrie. They want a different Carrie from the one that Curtis and Newell wanted, and they do not understand that.I also think that a number of people come here, see the dumping on Carrie, and just do the same without any intervention by their brain.David-CG's very useful Scripts for Firefox: http://userscripts.org/users/67626

reply

My take on the criticism is that Carrie the character has a very dry sense of humor, so most of her lines are spoken in a matter-of-fact tone that might make it seem like bad acting (including the line about it raining). I assume this is the way the director wanted AM to play it, and it works for me.


"Well, for once the rich white man is in control!" C. M. Burns

reply

Clothes-Off wrote:

I assume this is the way the director wanted AM to play it, and it works for me.
Andie McDowell was nominated for three Golden Globes including one for this picture. She is a fine actress.Carrie is not what she seems when Charles first sees her. She turns out to be a woman who could well fall for Charles and be happy with his lifestyle and his personality.In spite of being gorgeous, Carrie is a very real person — there is a "homey" quality to her — that I find extremely appealing.I don't think Fiona, or someone like her, would be a good match for Charles.
Fiona: Do you think I'd hate him as much if he wasn't my brother?
He is very much like Tom.David-CG's very useful Scripts for Firefox: http://userscripts.org/users/67626

reply

Well, Pia Zadora has a Golden Globe, but I agree she has been good in several films like The Muse, The End of Violence, and of course, sex, lies, and videotape and Groundhog Day.

"Well, for once the rich white man is in control!" C. M. Burns

reply

Yea, Golden Globes don't mean very much. Andie McDowell may have been nominated for a Golden Globe for this, but Jennifer Love Hewitt has also been nominated for one and I hardly consider her Meryl Streep. Andie was good in Groundhog Day, and SLV, but still don't care for her as Carrie no matter how much so other posters on here try to convince me she's brilliant.

reply

Honestly, it seems to me that there were some who didn't like her, for whatever reason, and the idea that she had somehow ruined the movie - or it would have been much better without her - has become a standard response. Sort of the thing you are supposed to say or think about this movie.

I'm perfectly happy with her in the role, and at this point, couldn't picture someone else playing the part.

reply

jfhester wrote:

the idea that she had somehow ruined the movie - or it would have been much better without her - has become a standard response. Sort of the thing you are supposed to say or think about this movie.
That is also my belief.
couldn't picture someone else playing the part.
I can't either, but I can picture a different actress and a different director producing a "Carrie" that some people would like more. That would fit their idea of romantic comedy heroine better and that they would be happier with. But it wouldn't be the same.David-CG's very useful Scripts for Firefox: http://userscripts.org/users/67626

reply

I think she's just about perfect. They've given her a few naff lines and she's up against a really good British cast but overall she more than holds her own.
There was a reunion program recently where they listed all the other actresses who were interested in the part - which seemed to be just about everyone in Hollywood at the time - so they certainly got the actress they wanted for the part.

reply

A Carrie who could actually act would have better served the film.


reply

IloveMuggy wrote:

A Carrie who could actually act would have better served the film.
Andie McDowell is a fine actress. I strongly suspect that you object to her acting because you object to the results, but I believe that Richard Curtis and Mike Newell got the performance that they wanted and the "Carrie" that they wanted. They just didn't want the "Carrie" that you want.

reply

ppllkk wrote:

Andie McDowell is a fine actress. I strongly suspect that you object to her acting because you object to the results, but I believe that Richard Curtis and Mike Newell got the performance that they wanted and the "Carrie" that they wanted. They just didn't want the "Carrie" that you want.


I strongly suspect that you have no idea as to what I object to, or want, or anything else regarding this movie. So please tone down your pretentious assumptions.

As I posted before, a Carrie who could actually act would have better served the film. In no universe is Andie McDowell a "fine actress." In fact, she's a very bad one.

reply

IloveMuggy wrote:

I strongly suspect that you have no idea as to what I object to, or want, or anything else regarding this movie.
That could be because you did not bother to explain. You just trashed Andie McDowell. Perhaps you would care to explain.
So please tone down your pretentious assumptions.
My assumption is that you do not like the character "Carrie." That is the usual objection; a number of people simply want a different romantic comedy heroine than the one Richard Curtis wanted and gave us. If you do like "Carrie," but you think that a different actress would have done a better job of producing the same character, can you explain in what way.
In no universe is Andie McDowell a "fine actress." In fact, she's a very bad one.
You are entitled to your opinion. I do not agree with you and neither do a number of professional critics. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000510/awards?ref_=nm_awd

reply

Ha ! Well said ! I totally agree. Andie MacDowell is completely stiff and not believable as a carefree sexually adventuress woman, at all. In my opinion !😋

reply

seahorsespa wrote:

Andie MacDowell is completely stiff and not believable as a carefree sexually adventuress woman, at all.
I agree completely, but Carrie is not a "carefree sexually adventurous woman." That may be what you expect her to be or want her to be, but is not what Richard Curtis and Mike Newell gave us or wanted her to be.This comes up a lot. People object to Andie McDowell's performance because they want a different Carrie than the one the writer and director wanted and gave us.See: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109831/board/view/236602761?d=236602761#2 36602761Carrie's number 17 was while she was still in college. Leaving out the man she married and the man that she ends up with, Carrie has 14 sexual partners in about as many years. That may seem excessive to you, but it is quite modest in terms of unmarried women pursuing a career in a big city in the real world. It is quite modest in terms of the less sexually active women in Friends and Sex and the City.Carrie is completely believable as a woman who wants to settle down and will be happy with Charles for a mate. There is something very homey and comfortable about Carrie if you look at what we are shown and not just what Fiona tells us. She looks completely natural holding a baby at the end.

reply

No. It is not. By every reasonable survey of lifetime sex partners in the US, the vast majority of women have 3-6 partners as the total. In a lifetime. Not 33 plus. This was written deliberately to "shock" the audience, not to make Carrie look "quite modest." That is the entire point of her running through every single boyfriend for her puppet Hugh Grant's dopey benefit in that scene.

I don't care how an actress "looks" holding a baby in a still shot at the end of a rom com. She always looks pained and vaguely irritated (that is true of Andie MacDowell generally). This is why so many people find Carrie so off-putting. The Carrie of Four Weddings has Samantha's sex partner numbers (SATC) minus Samantha's frankness and charm. This film also has none of the feel of Sex and the City, none of its zany lighter spirit and truly great comedy, so I don't think the comparison works.

This film always left my wife depressed, and she could never understand why it had a small core of diehard fans who defended Andie MacDowell's obviously strained acting and the awkward storyline and Carrie's quite unpleasant "American" character. She registers at a shop where a gift costs two or three thousand pounds?!? Carrie (here not in satc) seems very shallow, and callous (her sudden appearance at Hugh Grant's impending wedding is unforgivable -- I don't care about rom com conventions or rule breaking or whatever -- it does not work and feels terrible.) I can't imagine that anyone finds the mean-spirited humiliation and shame of "Duckface" actually humorous. Carrie's behavior in just that scene, showing up suddenly at the church, is wildly selfish -- why not contact him before ffs to say "hey I know the timing isn't great but I still have feelings for you?" Instead she shows up at the church when her marriage conveniently is falling apart and once again has Hugh dancing like a puppet for her every whim. People don't like Carrie, and my wife is one of them -- she feels that the dreadful writing of her character combined with MacDowell's flat affect and lack of interiority as an actress make Carrie extremely unlikable. She has said that she feels dread whenever she sees her on screen in this film. That is hardly the goal of this type of film.

Carrie, from the evidence given us, appears to be incapable of genuine emotional involvement. She is unfaithful to her husband-to-be with her at-her-will sex buddy Grant, but still marries the wealthy Scottish guy for reasons one can only really guess at since they have zero chemistry and seem to barely know each other, only to of course to end up in a divorce. Speaking again of SATC, that kind of flippant flightiness is NOT something Samantha does. Samantha has the balls to set the terms of her relationships directly, openly, and honestly (see her dealings with Smith). One thing Samantha does not do is engage in endless game playing, which Carrie of Four Weddings does with relative ease.

Also, by even Cosmo's standards, it is NOT "quite modest," not at all, to have had seventeen different sexual partners by the age of 21 (college) and to never marry or have a long-term relationship as an adult woman in her later twenties and thirties but have a string of partners so that her number is in the mid-thirties (same as her age). I am not a religious person and have no objection to any of it on any religious or "moral" grounds but it is certainly not "quite modest" by the standard of averages, and that was the point! The entire point of that scene is to shock BOTH the audience and Grant's character with the reveal that Carrie has had 33 sexual partners.

"I love those redheads!" (Wooderson, Dazed and Confused, 1993)

reply

MrAleisterCrowley wrote:

By every reasonable survey of lifetime sex partners in the US, the vast majority of women have 3-6 partners as the total.
Is there some part of "single woman pursuing a career in a big city" that you do not understand. Her sexual behavior is consistent with what I have observed and with Rachel and Monica in Friends and Carrie and Miranda and Charlotte in Sex and the City.
This was written deliberately to "shock" the audience, not to make Carrie look "quite modest."
That is just nonsense. You obviously did not listen to the commentary on the DVD. Richard Curtis and Mike Newell were quite amused and amazed that some British politician — the name meant nothing to me — was shocked and assumed that it was some sort of joke. Nope, it is real life unless you live in a bubble someplace.
The Carrie of Four Weddings has Samantha's sex partner numbers (SATC) minus Samantha's frankness and charm.
You are either incredibly ignorant or just lying. There is no comparison to Samantha. The comparison is to Carrie and Charlotte and Miranda.
Carrie's behavior in just that scene, showing up suddenly at the church, is wildly selfish
If you had any understanding of human emotions, you would understand it. In any event, that is the traditional ending. The scene happens at the church for dramatic reasons. The plot gods demand it.
This film always left my wife depressed
What do your wife's problems have to do with talking about this movie.
Also, by even Cosmo's standards, it is NOT "quite modest," not at all, to have had seventeen different sexual partners by the age of 21 (college)
I never said that was modest. You are grossly misrepresenting what I said. I said that she had 14 sexual partners in the roughly 14 years after college not counting the man that she married and the man she ended up living with.Slightly over one a year is quite modest. Very modest for an unmarried woman pursuing a career in a big city. The appropriate comparisons in Friends and Sex in the City come in at 2 to 3 a year. At one point, Miranda says that she has had 40 lifetime sexual partners. I never regarded her sexual behavior in the series as anything unusual.And you're not worth any more effort at least until you learn to count.P. S.
One thing Samantha does not do is engage in endless game playing, which Carrie of Four Weddings does with relative ease.
Carrie is not playing any games. She is completely straightforward about what she wants, but Charles does not respond. You simply do not understand what is happening in this movie.If you have any interest in understanding what is going on in this movie, read:www.imdb.com/title/tt0109831/board/flat/236602761

reply

1) I like Andie MacDowell a lot.

2) I loathed this movie.

3) Using the sex lives of fictional women from television shows to bolster your assertions about normal sexual activity is ludicrous. Especially as you use the term "in the real world" as you do so.

reply

catjoescreed wrote:

2) I loathed this movie.
Okay. I have to say that I liked the movie a lot more after I understood how clever it is.
Especially as you use the term "in the real world" as you do so.
In my experience, Carrie's sexual behavior since college is well within a normal range for a woman pursuing a career in a big city, and actually low normal. Unfortunately, there is no way for me to demonstrate that convincingly.
3) Using the sex lives of fictional women from television shows to bolster your assertions about normal sexual activity is ludicrous.
The point is that many people regard Carrie as a slut. But if you are going to regard her as a slut, you also have to categorize Rachel and Monica and Carrie Bradshaw and Charlotte and Miranda as sluts.I know some people do, but I believe that most people don't. Probably because we observe their behavior and don't just get a catalog of lovers. Samantha is another story, and Phoebe to some degree, but as I watch the lives of the others, I don't see anything excessive or unusual.Based on my experience, the sexual activity of all the women mentioned is completely normal and average given their circumstances.

reply

My, you're really invested in this, aren't you?

after I understood how clever it is.


I'm sure you didn't mean that to sound so condescending. Isn't it possible that an intelligent, educated person, one who "understands" the movie, might just simply not like it?

Andie MacDowell is my age. I can't say about Carrie, of course, but it's been my experience that women of my generation, even, and perhaps especially, professional women in the cities, don't quite live that "Looking For Mr. Goodbar" lifestyle.

reply

catjoescreed wrote:

My, you're really invested in this, aren't you?
Invested in what? My response to
2) I loathed this movie.
was "Okay." Now, it would be condescending for me to explain to you what "okay" means. Do I need to do so?
Isn't it possible that an intelligent, educated person, one who "understands" the movie, might just simply not like it?
Of course, and I did not imply or say anything else. I did not like the movie that much until I understood how clever it is does not mean that you don't like it because you don't understand how clever it is. You seem to me absurdly sensitive, and, Yes, that is being intentionally condescending. And you deserve it.I would say that a number of people dislike Carrie because they don't understand what is happening in the movie, but that is not the same thing as just disliking the movie. That is simply a matter of taste.
but it's been my experience that women of my generation, even, and perhaps especially, professional women in the cities, don't quite live that "Looking For Mr. Goodbar" lifestyle.
I don't know where you find Mr. Goodbar in all of this. That is not the case.In my experience, the representation of female sexuality among career oriented women in Four Weddings, Friends, and Sex and the City is completely in line with what I've observed. And I do not observe that the women in the two sitcoms, with a couple of exceptions, are generally regarded as sluts. Of course some people see them that way. What I'm primarily asking is that Four Weddings Carrie be judged by the same standards as most of the women in the sitcoms. She frequently isn't.It seems that we have known different people and had different experiences. Have you ever lived in a sexually free group like that in Friends? Actually, Friends is a sanitized version of reality.

reply

I saw it differently. I've just watched it for the first time and thought her performance was a serious blotch on what was an otherwise perfectly serviceable comedy. She seemed to be completely detached from the situation in every scene in which she appeared. I also thought her delivery of almost every line was wooden and unconvincing and there was very little chemistry between her and Grant. It probably didn't help that I wasn't overly enamoured with her character, sleeping with another man after getting engaged and turning up at the last wedding didn't endear me to her.

The rest of it was OK, very middle class and English but did capture the nuances, awkwardness and banality of weddings well.

I wish I had done a lot of things. I wish I had... I wish I had stayed. I do.

reply

Christof_McShine wrote:

It probably didn't help that I wasn't overly enamoured with her character, sleeping with another man after getting engaged and turning up at the last wedding didn't endear me to her.
Possibly you do not understand that Charles was the one that Carrie wanted all along. She only married Hamish after Charles had shown no interest in her after she had initiated sex with him twice.I am inclined to be more forgiving about what people do when they are in love than you are. Or perhaps you do not understand that she was in love with Charles all along.

reply

Yes I did understand that but she slept with another man after committing herself to someone else and she decided to wait until the wedding day before trying to win him back. Classy stuff.

I wish I had done a lot of things. I wish I had... I wish I had stayed. I do.

reply

Christof_McShine wrote:

but she slept with another man after committing herself to someone else
I am inclined to cut people a lot of slack in trying to get the person that they really want, and Charles is the one that she really wants. You would have her not try for Charles again and maybe always regret it? I do not judge her at all for that.
she decided to wait until the wedding day before trying to win him back.
"Decided" is a rather gross distortion. She was in a considerable mental state and she had no idea what Charles's response to her would be. Maybe he has moved on. Maybe he is really in love with Henrietta. Maybe he will reject her out of hand. In the state that she is in, I can understand why she put it off to the very last minute because she is taking a considerable risk.
Classy stuff.
You are much more judgmental than I am. I take circumstances into account in a way that it seems you don't.

reply

Fair enough - you have your perspective on it, I have mine.

It still doesn't deter from what I thought was a dreadfully flat performance from MacDowell.

I wish I had done a lot of things. I wish I had... I wish I had stayed. I do.

reply

Christof_McShine wrote:

It still doesn't deter from what I thought was a dreadfully flat performance from MacDowell.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I do not share it, and Richard Curtis and Mike Newell do not share it. Andie McDowell is a fine actress, and if they had wanted a different performance, they could've gotten it. There is no indication that they did want a different Carrie and she works perfectly in the film that they made.It is frequently not recognized, but FWF is a deliberately very unconventional romantic comedy, and this confuses a number of people who expect something else. In particular, they expect more their idea of a romantic comedy heroine, but Richard Curtis and Mike Newell got the Carrie that they wanted. And the movie was very popular and very successful although not to everyone's taste as you demonstrate.

reply

i'm not bothered. she did fine for the role

reply

Entirely not bothered; in fact I was very pleased Andie MacDowell took the role of Carrie and did such a great job playing her.🐭

reply

[deleted]

WelshMajor wrote:

Carrie comes across as quite a cold person - not uncaring, but aloof.
I don't see that at all. I see her is quite warm and there is something very homey about her.
If the character is written in this way, there are actresses who can still instil a sense of warmth and vulnerability into the character
I don't agree at all. I think she was written as a person with warmth and vulnerability, and it comes out in her performance.Whether or not it applies to you, I do believe that a considerable number of posters here simply don't understand what is happening in the film. Briefly, Carrie is trying to interest Charles and Charles refuses to be interested.Many people see what they expect to see, not what is actually happening in this movie. Richard Curtis is systematically playing with the conventions of Romantic Comedy, and the results are not what people expect.You can find an expanded version of that here.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109831/board/view/236602761?d=236602761#2 36602761I would be interested in where you disagree with what I wrote.

reply

[deleted]

WelshMajor wrote:

I think where a lot of people perhaps take their view is in her attempts to seduce him - by being that forward and aggressive about it.
I agree completely, and I have made the point repeatedly that people frequently don't like Carrie because she does not fit their idea of a Romantic Comedy heroine.I'm not arguing about why people dislike Carrie — I think I know why they do. I am arguing that they dislike Carrie because they don't understand what is going on. They don't understand that Carrie wants a relationship with Charles. (She is frequently accused of being an ice maiden who is leading Charles on, prick teasing him. That is just crap. She is there for the taking.) They don't understand that she is flying back to United States the next day and she needs to know right away if he will show any interest. People frequently don't remember from his best man speech about his fear of commitment which does not bode well for him being interested in exploring a relationship with her.But what people really don't understand is that Richard Curtis has reversed the usual sexual roles. That is the most obvious but only one of the ways in which he is played with the conventions of Romantic Comedy. Carrie is taking the usual man's role. Charles is taking the usual woman's role. And that upsets people because it is not what they expect. In particular, they do not want their Romantic Comedy heroines to be sexually aggressive.So, I agree with you about why many people don't like her, and I think it is because they really do not understand what is going on.
if a man went after a woman in a similar situation and with similar ideas, we would make informed assumptions about that character.
Yes, we would assume that he is a normal Romantic Comedy protagonist, and that he is either in love with the woman or is going to fall in love with the woman.And I would much rather hear your specific comments on what I wrote than what critics wrote many years ago, probably with a deadline, after seeing the movie once and quite likely a couple of other movies that day. I'm talking about what actually happens in the movie. That is what people systematically do not understand. I am not particularly interested in what other people "pick up on."
her attempts to seduce him - by being that forward and aggressive about it.
By the way, you are begging the question when you use the word "seduce." People "seduce" people that they want to have sex with but have no other interest in. Seducing someone is generally regarded as a bad thing. Here, Carrie is showing her interest in, and trying to evoke interest from, a man that she believes she could be very serious about.P. S. I should add that I think the people who object to Andie McDowell's performance want a different Carrie in another way. I think they want a Carrie who is more alluring, more mysterious, more the femme fatale. The Carrie that Richard Curtis and and Mike Newell gave us is none of these things. She isn't "hard-boiled." She isn't "airheaded." She is a remarkably normal, affectionate woman who happens to be beautiful and has been living in the fast lane for a while.But Carrie is not what she seems to be when we first see her. She is not the woman that Fiona describes. Charles was always her first choice. Even after she was engaged to Hamish she is still trying to attract Charles. The woman holding the baby at the end of the film is the real Carrie. The woman who is a good match for Charles is the real Carrie.A number of people seem to expect a different sort of Romantic Comedy heroine, and they blame Andie McDowell for giving them a real person. But that is what Richard Curtis wanted.Many people see what they expect to see, and this is a very unconventional Romantic Comedy. A lot of people, including apparently many critics, did not pick up on that when they first saw the film. By the way, you will not find any of the crap that you quoted in Roger Ebert's review.

reply

They don't understand that she is flying back to United States the next day and she needs to know right away if he will show any interest.


She turned down Charles's attempt to start a conversation at the end of the reception, and also rebuffed his attempts at conversation back at the Boatman, leaping straight into sex. Why would Charles think she was interested in anything more than a one night stand?

And Charles does come right out and say that he loves her after the day spent looking at wedding dresses and recounting her tally of past lovers. Yet she goes on and marries Hamish, "because I love him." Carrie was both poorly written and badly acted, IMO.

reply

TrentinaNE wrote:

She turned down Charles's attempt to start a conversation at the end of the reception, and also rebuffed his attempts at conversation back at the Boatman, leaping straight into sex.
Carrie knows what Charles said about commitment in his best man's speech. See the quote in my previous post. She knows he is going to be difficult to interest, and since she is flying back to the United States the next day, she needs to know right away if she can interest him. If she can, maybe she can put off the flight or maybe she can fly back soon.She does not have time to court Charles because she is not going to be around, and so she takes the direct approach.
Why would Charles think she was interested in anything more than a one night stand?
Charles knows perfectly well that Carrie is interested in a relationship with him and it scares the hell out of him because if he fell for her she would not be as easy to dump his usual girlfriends. Charles equates love and the trap of commitment.Do you remember what Carrie said as she is leaving the morning after the first wedding?
Carrie: But I think we both missed a great opportunity here.
And Charles says nothing. It was not Carrie who did not try to take the "great opportunity." It was Charles.This might also explain to you what is happening.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109831/board/flat/236602761_____________________________________________________________
http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-06-07

reply

This might also explain to you what is happening.


No need to be condescending. It's YOUR VIEW of what is happening.

Carrie is around 35, and she has decided that it is time to settle down.


Charles knows perfectly well that Carrie is interested in a relationship with him


It was not Carrie who did not try to take the "great opportunity." It was Charles.


I think you're projecting an awful lot into what is actually shown on-screen. That's fine, but don't expect everyone else to see it the way you do.

reply

TrentinaNE wrote:

No need to be condescending.
I am not trying to be condescending. This movie is much more sophisticated than most Romantic Comedies are. Richard Curtis leaves a lot more for the audience to figure out than is common in popular comediesCurtis is playing with the conventions of Romantic Comedies in a variety of ways. Most obviously, he has reversed the usual male and female roles. People are so used to having the male lead yearn for a woman out of his league, and for the woman to reject him, that a lot of people don't recognize the situation is reversed here.Carrie is pursuing Charles who shows no interest in exploring a relationship with her.I think that Carrie wants to settle down because she pursues Charles aggressively and because she agrees to marry Hamish. Hamish is a powerful, rich, self-assured man and such men can typically be quite charming when they want to be. That is what she has seen of him. It is an offer that any woman in their mid-30s would take seriously, and an offer that Carrie cannot expect to have repeated as she gets older.Carrie must have had many men interested in her before, but she has not married them, and now she seems determined to settle down.I think Carrie is about 35 because that is when women hear their biological clock ticking loudly and decide to do something if they want children.Charles's most prominent character trait is his fear of commitment. He tells us us that in his speech at the first wedding. Henrietta tells us that — graphically — at the second wedding. We have already seen four of his ex-lover's at his table there.Do you think that Charles's fear of commitment plays no part in the plot? Or what part do you think it does play? I think it explains Charles otherwise extremely strange behavior — not trying to see again this gorgeous woman who made her interest evident — and you seem to be ignoring it.If Carrie had not said, "I think we both missed a great opportunity here," you could argue that she is just after sex, but she does say it.What do you think she meant by it? Why do you think Charles did not respond to it?I always thought that Carrie was after Charles romantically, not just after sex. It was obvious to me, but apparently not obvious to everyone. But when Carrie says, "I think we both missed a great opportunity here," it is obvious what she wants from Charles, and what he is not going to give.Since Carrie graduated from college, she has had 14 different lovers not counting the man that she marries and the man that she ends up with. This is roughly one a year. That is very low, in the real world, for an unmarried woman pursuing a career in a big city. It is also way below the body counts in Sex and the City and Friends. The evidence is that she is much less inclined to casual sex than her peers in real life or in other series.
Why would he view this as anything more than another opportunistic "boink"?
Because Charles understood what Carrie wanted the first time, and he understands that she still wants to explore a relationship with him. He understands that even if you don't. What Carrie is interested in is confirmed by what she said when she was leaving the first time.It is also confirmed by the fact that after her marriage with Hamish breaks up, she tries again for Charles. That was a considerable risk as the last thing in the world that she needs at that point is to have him say that he has moved on and is not interested.We know that Charles's fear of commitment is on both of their minds the morning after the first wedding because of Carrie's Fatal Attraction joke. Charles has not shown any interest and it is her little bit of revenge.If Charles just thinks it's sex, why does he not ask for any contact information, why does he not ask Carrie when she will be back in London, why does he never try to contact her. If it is just opportunistic sex, why wouldn't Charles want to have it as often as possible?When Carrie propositions Charles after the first wedding, he initially rejects her and gets in the car to go to the castle. Why would Charles turn down sex with a really beautiful woman if he thought it was just sex. As we know, Charles is very attracted to Carrie, and it scares him.
this was a HUGE opening for Carrie, which she ignored.
The wedding announcements have been sent out, and she is choosing a wedding dress. Carrie has no idea if Charles is serious or not. He is not shown any interest in her before that in spite of her efforts. So, she is supposed to bail on an offer — an offer that is unlikely to be repeated — to marry an attractive, wealthy, powerful men because Charles quotes someone to say that he thinks he loves her? Be serious. It is too little and too late.Charles did not even say, "I love you."[Edit: 7/26/15] Charles cannot get himself to say the words, "I love you," even when Carrie prompts him at the end of the conversation.
Charles: Well, I thought it over a lot, you know.I wanted to get it just right.Important to have said it, I think.Carrie: Said what, exactly?Charles: Said, you know, what I just saidabout David Cassidy.Carrie: You're lovely.
You have not said anything that would lead me to reconsider my interpretation._______________________________________________________________
http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-06-07

reply

When Carrie propositions Charles after the first wedding, he initially rejects her and gets in the car to go to the castle. Why would Charles turn down sex with a really beautiful woman if he thought it was just sex. As we know, Charles is very attracted to Carrie, and it scares him.

Again, I think you are projecting an awful lot here. Charles is used to serial monogamy with mildly attractive women who probably always waited for him to make the first move sexually. I thought he was simply flummoxed by the prospect of ANY kind of involvement with a sexually forthright woman who Fiona had characterized as out of his league. His conversation with the John Hannah character confirms this, IMO.

Charles: “Do you think there really are people who can just go up and say, "Hi, babe. Name's Charles. This is your lucky night?"
Matthew: “Well, if there are, they're not English.

But your attempts to write a dissertation defending an alternate view have been entertaining. :-)

reply

TrentinaNE wrote:

I thought he was simply flummoxed by the prospect of ANY kind of involvement with a sexually forthright woman who Fiona had characterized as out of his league.
You may well be right that that was part of it. It seems that we agree that he is frightened of Carrie. I believe that he also sees her as someone that he might be really attracted to and thus tempted to make a commitment to.Don't be confused by Charles's diffident style with women. He is not shy around them.
Henrietta: Oh, God! The way you used to look at me! I just misread it, that's all. I thought you were going to propose and you were just working out how to leave.
A lot of women are very drawn to men like Charles, and he would not have had any trouble finding much more attractive women than his ex-girlfriends. I believe that he is afraid of having a girlfriend that he really, really likes.You responded to a very minor point. Where do you think Charles's fear of commitment fits into the plot? What do you think Carrie meant by, "I think we both missed a great opportunity here," if she was not talking about the opportunity for a relationship?Why do you think that Charles never asked Carrie for contact information or tried to contact her in the entire movie?Alternative interpretation to what? I do not know of another interpretation that accounts for the most obvious elements in the story, and you certainly have not produced one.This really is a very clever move if you understand what is going on. I think most people do, but they do not post here to complain because they like the movie.It is the people who don't understand what is happening who dislike Carrie and complain about her.
http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-06-07

reply

No, she did a decent job, no worries. Surely she is the least objectiionable American actress that could have played the part and yet she catches tons of flack. Odd.

One would think that Hugh Grant would be the one that would be criticized. He did ditch his fiance on their wedding day.

reply

Guys, just because the damn Globes hyped her up, let's not get carried away over-analyzing her performance to find a hint of spark or nuance. For me, she was painfully mediocre.

And you know me to be right too, which is why you're reading this.

reply

ynesh_91 wrote:

let's not get carried away over-analyzing her performance to find a hint of spark or nuance. For me, she was painfully mediocre.
Andie McDowell's performance was subtle and very finely nuanced. You seem to be one of those people who want a different Carrie than the one that Richard Curtis and Mike Newell wanted and gave us. That is fine, but don't blame the actress for giving us the character that the writer and director wanted.
And you know me to be right too, which is why you're reading this.
That is really dumb and arrogant.

reply

You seem to be one of those people who want a different Carrie than the one that Richard Curtis and Mike Newell wanted and gave us.



Oh my freakin' God. How many f cking times are you going to say this? Jesus Christ.


The ratio of people to cake is too big.

reply

lisanovel wrote:

How many f cking times are you going to say this?
Probably as many times as different posters blame Andie McDowell because they don't like the Carrie that Richard Curtis wanted.Many people want a more traditional romantic comedy heroine, and they blame the actress rather than the writer and the director.

reply

I'm starting to think that this person may have personally cast Andie McDowell in the movie, or is her agent!

They've said the same thing on multiple threads, and seem to have a stake in proving that Andie McDowell's flat performance as Carrie is somehow a definitive acting performance since she was nominated for a Golden Globe- which means nothing.

reply

Milla_Hooks wrote:

I'm starting to think that this person may have personally cast Andie McDowell in the movie, or is her agent!
Nope. I am just someone who has been pissed off at the sometimes vicious dumping on Carrie and/or Andie McDowell.Your post is not an example of that, but your post is a prime example of not paying any attention to what I am actually saying.
seem to have a stake in proving that Andie McDowell's flat performance as Carrie is somehow a definitive acting performance since she was nominated for a Golden Globe- which means nothing.
I have never said that Andie McDowell's performance was "a definitive acting performance." What I have said repeatedly is the Carrie that we got is the Carrie that Richard Curtis and Mike Newell wanted. I believe that the people who object so strenuously to her acting performance do so because Carrie is not their idea of romantic comedy heroine. They want a different Carrie, not a better realization of the Carrie that Richard Curtis and Mike Newell wanted.Assessments of acting performances are subjective, and I don't agree with you. The point about her being nominated for a Golden Globe is that there are a lot of other people who don't agree with you. She has also been nominated for two other individual Golden globes.

reply

Assessments of acting performances are subjective, and I don't agree with you. The point about her being nominated for a Golden Globe is that there are a lot of other people who don't agree with you.


Yet, there are clearly a great deal of people do agree with me judging by this board. Besides, awards in Hollywood are often given to actors based on their popularity at the given time and politics not necessarily based on the film they've been in or performance they gave. Not saying that she is a terrible actress, but for this film? Nope, sorry.

reply

Milla_Hooks wrote:

Yet, there are clearly a great deal of people do agree with me judging by this board.
There certainly are, but people have more incentive to come here to complain than to praise.And when they get here, dumping on Carrie seems to be the thing to do, so if they are at all inclined that way they do it.The people who post here are not a random sample of people who have seen the movie.
but for this film? Nope, sorry.
Nothing to be sorry for. You just want a different Carrie than the writer and director did.This is a very unconventional Romantic Comedy. It does not give some of the audience what they expect and what they want. So they complain about Andie McDowell who surely could have given a different performance if that is what Richard Curtis and Mike Newell wanted. But they didn't.

reply