The Romantics

Home
Movies
TV Series
Animation
Upcoming
Explore
- Download App
- Video Downloader
Blogs

English

العربية

Filipino

Français

हिन्दी

Indonesia

বাংলা

اردو

123movies search icon

muted

The Romantics - 123Movies

The Romantics

5.0

/10

12765 people rated

2010•1 h 35 m•United States

Seven close friends reunite for the wedding of two of their friends. Problems arise because the bride and the maid of honor have had a long rivalry over the groom.

Comedy

Drama

Romance

You May Also Like

User Reviews

Uya Kuya

19/03/2024 04:08

The Romantics is neither funny nor romantic. A huge disappointment in spite of its promising cast. Katie Holmes played this role in exactly the same way she played Jackie Kennedy. I was around when Jackie was all the world's sweetheart, and believe me, she was never the sad sack portrayed in The Kennedy's television series. With all Tom and Katie's money you'd think they could get this woman an acting coach!! Josh Duhamel is not a great actor either, but when paired with someone with talent, he gives an adequate performance and is just so darn good to look at. He doesn't even look good here! The supporting actors do a better job and there are some good moments. The movie ends too abruptly. So sad, what could have been a good summer movie was a disappointment. That being said, if you're desperate while you're waiting for Bridesmaids, it is watchable.

Skib

19/03/2024 04:08

A group of old college friends reunite for a wedding. The maid of honor (Holmes) and the groom Tom (Duhamel) are still not sure that their relationship is over. After the worst sequence of wedding toasts ever during the rehearsal dinner Tom disappears and Laura finds him and the begin to talk about their feelings. The other members of the wedding party are all looking for Tom and trying to keep the bride (Anna Paquin) from discovering what is going on. This is another plot that has been done to death. The cast and acting are enough to keep you watching and entertained but the writing really hurt this one. I can't go farther without giving the movie away, but watch it and you will see what I mean. I give it a C+. Would I watch again? - I don't think I would

Asampana

19/03/2024 04:08

there was something about this film i liked it was the underlying honesty of how the characters felt about the wedding and just how they were doing period in life, the way they were trying to not so obviously (but very obvious) hide there true feelings and trying to not have meltdowns for all of them,this get-together was kind of a bomb not trying to explode but in the mines and i felt the pain of it,as for the characters of Katie and josh they had true real passion and inspiration for each other so painfully obvious that Anna Paquin's character should have and did notice, i loved the obvious love and inspiration they had for each other. i feel that rivalry wise Anna's character had ultimately lost to Katie's character no matter who in the end was marrying josh's character, there was a strain to that friendship and in the end it so beautifully broke in a uncomfortable way for both anna's character and katie's and i felt the characters played there parts well, im pulled to the film i enjoyed it and will probably buy it, it kind of reminds me of the sadness of another film i adored for its pain called closer look it up =)

🍫Diivaa🍫🍫

19/03/2024 04:08

This was actually the worst movie I have ever seen. I am only writing this review to warn anyone else who might think it's a good idea to watch this. It's not. I would have rather spent an hour and forty minutes getting tortured by cannibals than watch this movie. I would rather eat y own body weight in live tarantulas than watch this movie again. If you are looking for a fun night get a bunch of your friends together and start this movie, the last person to want to contemplate suicide rather finish the film wins the game. I guarantee it doesn't last longer than 30 minutes. I am emotionally, physically, and mentally revolted.

Tjela Naphtha

19/03/2024 04:08

Galt Nietherfoffer wrote the novel in which this film is based and directed her own adaptation. Not having read the book, it is hard to make a more objective comparison. It is another wedding picture, but in spite of its subject, the screen treatment does not break any new ground. We are sure that the the creators started with another movie in their minds. We are taken to a Northern Long Island location where old moneyed types live, quite a contrast from the flashier Hamptons. Lila Hayes is getting married to Tom. The two families have gathered for the wedding rehearsal and the obligatory dinner. Laura Rosen, who is the maid of honor, has a reason for being uncomfortable, she is in love with the bridegroom. Lila, a callous young woman, knows all about it, but she is going ahead with her plans to be a bride the following day. After dinner, the wedding party decides to keep celebrating at the beach. A lot of alcohol is consumed and Tom and Laura rehash their differences, for Tom realizes the kind of life he is to expect to live with Lila, a woman he obviously does not love. After all the awkward comments from all the so-called friends, we cannot help but wonder: will Tom marry Lila, or will he not? Well, do not expect fireworks to go off any time soon. The miscasting of Anna Paquin derails the film. This is a film that fall between "My Best Friend's Wedding" and "Rachel Getting Married", this last one kept popping into our mind at the time of the rehearsal dinner toasts. Kathy Holmes has done better. All the male roles are so uninteresting one wonders why were they included. The ultimate problem lies on the fact that we do not connect to this wedding as we should have.

Lungelo Mpangase

19/03/2024 04:08

Five former college friends travel for the wedding of the wealthy Lila Hayes (Anna Paquin) with Tom McDevon (Josh Duhamel) at her family's beach house. The maid of honor Laura Rosen (Katie Holmes) was the roommate of Lila in the college and the groom Tom was her boyfriend. Laura still misses Tom and the groom is not sure that he shall marry Lila. Along the eve of the wedding day, they have a dinner rehearsal and drink a lot of booze, and Tom and Laura get close to each other and rekindle their love. "The Romantics" is a film about reunion and this there have produced solid movies and my favorites are "Peter's Friends" and "St. Elmo's Fire". Unfortunately "The Romantics" is dull, boring, characters with no chemistry and poorly developed in an awful screenplay and story. Summarizing, it is a dreadful film. Laura is a despicable characters and I do not understand why she goes to the wedding to be the maid of honor and spends the night with the groom and vomits her feelings to Lila ten minutes before the wedding. Tom is a weak and uncharismatic character. Candice Bergen seems to be constipated with her grimaces and the sexy Swedish Malin Akerman and her thighs are the best that his film can offer. My vote is two. Title (Brazil): "O Casamento do Meu Ex" ("The Marriage of My Ex")

user1055213424522

19/03/2024 04:08

I wanted to like this movie, I usually enjoy small character studies, but sadly this film was a disappointment. Maybe it was too much to expect Katie Holmes to carry the story. Unfortunately her lack of range and/or talent is obvious in this film. And, Anna Pacquin, who is so good and fiery in True Blood, is left with little to do except be a bitch. Malin Ackerman plays a riff on her 27 Dresses role. Candice Bergn is mostly absent in the film. Finally, Josh Duhamel stumbles through the movie with the same stunned look on his face for the whole film. It is hard to imagine either woman in this film would be attracted to him. Character driven films are only enjoyable when we learn and understand the motivation behind the characters, or when we watch them grow and evolve. In this film we learn little of the character's background story or motivations, and there certainly is no growth. Overall the film is a sad mess, and I will not be recommending it to my friends.

lady dadzie

19/03/2024 04:08

At first glance The Romantics gives the impression that it might be one of those trendy new value packed romantic comedies laced with bits and pieces of top talent aimed at getting fans in the seats but offers little in the way of good story telling. A good example being the dull "He's Just Not That Into You" or the recent "Valentine's Day". Luckily the Romantics is not one of those types of films, in contrast it's a true ensemble piece where the actors work stronger as a unit then alone. The casting by long time producer, first time feature length Director Galt Niederhoffer is near pitch perfect and the players work together seamlessly to create a smart story about the unpredictability of love and how we may get older and wander but some things just never change. The Romantics are a crew of preppy (former J.Crew models from the looks of their cloths) late 20 somethings that come together on a Hamptonish Long Island estate for their friend Lila (Anna Paquin) and Tom's (Josh Duhamel) wedding. Lila has asked her old college roommate and friend Laura (Katie Holmes) to be her maid of honor. This a rather devious gesture by Lila because Laura has a long standing history with the groom Tom. Of course with the old gang getting together again Laura must push through the torment and do her part at the wedding. The friends are all well aware of the tension between Lila, Tom and Laura and expect fireworks to fly before the the wedding bells ring. Tensions begin to build at the wedding rehearsal dinner before kicking off a wild night that finds old lovers reuniting and old friends rediscovering themselves. The Romantics asks the question is the nostalgia of our past love just a sugar coated flashback or is that first true love the most pure and most enduring love? From what we can gather here, there is no clear answer only a process of trying to understand ones true feelings. The Romantics stays true to the process, allowing the events of the movie to unfold in a very honest and rewarding manner . Where other lesser films might try to force the jokes and push forward to a obviously predictable ending the Romantics is at its best when it focuses simply on people's feelings and the raw emotion of the moment. What is abundantly clear after viewing this movie is that Katie Holmes is a really great actress, not good, great . Believable, honest and fragile, in the role of Laura she elevates the material here and there leaves little doubt that she deserves consideration on her own merits sans her TomKat status. Additionally Josh Duhamel delivers a very rewarding performance , he brings a lot of charm and honesty to the performance. His chemistry here with Katie works incredibly well. The entire cast all have there moments in the Romantics, however its hard not to see that many of the players here deserved more screen time and more chance for developmet. Elijah Wood in particular needed more face time, he is an absolute riot fest here. To add to that Dianna Agron of Glee fame turns out a great little performance as Anna Paquin's sister in the movie. Strikingly gorgeous and infatuating on screen Dianna is a star in the making, her moments with Anna were gems. Fans of Malin Ackerman, Anna Paquin and Adam Brody will probably feel let down that each star didn't receive a bit better treatment, however there are still little treats in each of the their performances which should satisfy most fans.

Karima Gouit

19/03/2024 04:08

What starts out as a decent romantic comedy quickly devolves into a self-indulgent joke about whiny, privileged white kids who (gasp) don't know what to do with their lives! It wouldn't be so insulting if it didn't masquerade as a film about academia and intelligence, yet feature such astoundingly sophomoric scripting. Any juice that can be squeezed from the "post-college malaise" hokum is soured by cliché and archetype. And its pseudo hipster posing (the music and costumes shout indie cool as loud as they possibly can) don't cover up the fact that this movie has no substance to match its style. Performances are fine, but not spectacular, apologies owed to the supporting actors who don't have characters to hang a portrayal around. Malin Akerman and Adam Brody stand out because of their jovial personalities and familiarity, but the rest of the cast struggles to stay afloat in a sea of underdevelopment. The great conflict at the middle of the picture is a love triangle between Katie Holmes, Anna Paquin, and Josh Duhamel, but you care so little about these three people that you'd just as soon see them end up alone. As for realism and stakes, ask yourself this: have you ever thought of Josh Duhamel as a brooding academic? In summation: a mainstream romantic dram-com dressed up like an indie film that sins thrice: it's boring, clichéd, and insignificant. A shame considering all of the young talent involved.

kemylecomedien

19/03/2024 04:08

Anyone who has ever seen a movie is familiar with the term "low budget." While it's easy to appreciate what a great film maker can do with a low budget, it's frustrating to see what a poor film maker can do with that same budget. The Romantics falls squarely within the latter. This movie is a disaster from the very first frame and never recovers. What went wrong? You could start with the amazingly generic plot. This movie was only Gillian Jacobs stumbling her way through a British accent away from being the same movie as Helena at the Wedding. I have not read the book that this movie was based upon, but I would wager that it's an unfathomable improvement. I could forgive the generic plot, and I could even forgive the stilted acting performance from 90% of the cast, but what really makes this movie an unenjoyable mess is the high school production quality of it. The director chose to shoot by hand rather than use a tripod and as result, each scene is a herky-jerky, poorly framed exercise in abysmal cinematography. In fact, if you suffer from motion-sickness, I guarantee this movie will require you to look away at times. As badly as I wanted to pay attention to the movie, I was continually distracted by this fatal flaw. Low budget or not, the first thing the director should've paid for was a tripod. It would have made more sense than the one lone scene where he called for the use of a crane to get a 15-second overhead shot in a scene that was completely useless in the movie. Lastly, without providing any spoilers for those still brave enough to try this movie, the last five minutes are laughable. The plot comes to a fiery head (finally) within the last five minutes, only for the final shot to cut to black without providing the viewer with any answers. At that point, it's unlikely that you really cared all that much about those answers any way, which is yet another reason why this movie is more of a joke than anything else. This movie would be perfect for a film school instructor trying to teach the do's and don'ts of film making to a young class, but outside of that, watching it would be a complete waste of your time. The only laughs you'll get from it won't be intentional.