Just watched this movie with two female friends. One my best friend for 40+ years and the other a friend I’ve known for 12 years and recently introduced to my BFF. I loved how my friends became friends with each other. No sense of loss only more fun for everyone. We were all appalled at the depiction of friendship as competition. Depicting two friends as rivals was so mean spirited and just not funny.

Who would “fire” their best friend as their maid of honor? Really?

At list the characters in THE HANGOVER cared about each other and were kind.

It were my friends and family that had my back, my friends and family ranging from really thin to in-betweenie, that tore a new one out of anyone that ever tried to treat me less as a person.

So I really resent the implication that women are all naturally, I guess the best term would be “catty,” and that as a fat person my life is lived miserably.

As for your points about McCarthy’s character Megan, it seems like a no-win situation for the movie makers. You criticize the movie because you think the other women’s acceptance of her as a friend – particularly without any digs against her weight and looks – is unrealistic. Yet, had the movie made a joke of Megan in the “realistic” way you describe, then it would be (rightly) criticized as yet another tiring and infuriating perpetuation of size-ism, looks-ism, etc. I liked the fact that the other women did not make an issue of the things you point out. Even if you’re right that it’s not the way many women would have acted in real life (and I question that; not all women are superficial jerks), isn’t it a good thing to see such nonjudgmental portrayals in the media?

[To be clear, I do not think the movie's portrayal of Megan was flawless; there is definitely room for criticism. But I don't think the criticism should be focused on the fact that the other characters did not denigrate Megan's looks.]

I couldn’t agree more – this film was an excellent stepping stone in the direction of that mainstream feminist comedy I see in the near future. And it was very refreshing to realize by the time the credits were rolling that the guy playing the groom didn’t have a single line in the film. It was more about Wiig’s character coming to terms with her best friend possibly becoming a more distant or different best friend to her.

I thought the movie was friggin’ funny, I laughed my ass off. Sad that so many people are turned off by Judd Apatow’s name. It was directed by Paul Feig and written by Wiig and another woman. Apatow ensured that the damn thing would be made in the first place, and for that, he gets 10 cool points. Besides, I find some of his films funny, I’m sure I’m gonna lose feminist points for that but I’ll bounce back.

Huh, I didn’t get this from the movie. I thought Annie’s ambivalence was much more strongly tied to her feeling that she was losing her best friend to Helen (not to Lillian’s husband-to-be). Yes, the fact that Lillian’s life was moving forward while Annie’s was in retrograde contributed to the ambivalence. And not having a relationship was perhaps a (small, IMO) part of the retrograde. But I felt the closing of Annie’s business was really highlighted as the thing that fast-tracked her downward spiral.

In general, the film, to me, was mostly about the the fear and ambivalence that often marks even happy changes. The scene with Annie and Lillian in Lillian’s apartment right before the wedding really brought that home.

Regarding Melissa McCarthy’s character Megan, the movie initially did make her the butt of some jokes. But over time she was revealed to be the only one of the bunch truly comfortable in her own skin. It was her strength and unapologetic sense of self that inspired Annie to crawl out of her hole and start trying at life again. By making Megan the linchpin of Annie’s turnaround, I sort of felt like the movie was kind of tsk-tsking the audience for laughing at Megan in the first place. I might be overreaching here though…

Anyways, as I’ve made clear in this forum many times, I don’t like much about current wedding culture and the WIC. Yet I liked this movie. Go figure.

@veggiewood as one of the people who made a sort of “wow, right on” comment I thought I should probably respond to this! I was thinking less along the lines of, “that’s precisely what I’d say about film X” but more that, based on Michelle’s description of the film and it’s basic plot, the questions she raises about what it does and doesn’t do sound like the very issues I would have with a film that is as she describes. They’re issues I often have with the sort of slapstick big-screen comedies that “Bridesmaids” falls into as a category.

@AmBam in response to your question about what comedies are funny … I find humor to be a surprisingly difficult subject to tackle, because it’s so personal. I’ve gotten into more painful arguments with people who felt I was censuring what they found funny / got pleasure from than I’ve had arguments with people over what they find sexy (NOT kidding!). Part of it is that I don’t think it’s a simple question of “what do you find humorous?” because sometimes humor can be funny even when you find it distasteful, prejudiced, etc. We find cross-dressing funny for example because our culture trains us to believe that “men” dressed as “women” are incongruous. Likewise the comedic effect of supposedly “ugly” people acting in ways we don’t believe (culturally) they’re entitled to act.

So what I find funny isn’t necessarily always what I appreciate as comedy.

That having been said, I think Eddie Izzard has wicked timing. I still love the wit of the West Wing even years after its gone off the air. Genre shows like Dr. Who and Buffy and Bones crack me up on a regular basis. Firefly for the win! And my girlfriend and I watch a lot of British Comedies. The cast of Vicar of Dibley is not to be beat. Nor Chef! or My Family either

I really appreciate your analysis even if I came to a different conclusion.