Last Wedding (2001) Reviews

• Three Vancouver couples watch their relationships crumble in both hilarious and devastating fashion.

  Donald Walkinshaw2002-06-05

  Bruce Sweeney's Last Wedding is a hilarious but flawed look at three couples whose marriages all fall apart. This is the reverse of a romantic comedy. The comedy is there all right, but there are only fleeting glances at any thing that could be called romance. The film starts just before the wedding of Noah and Zipporah, the last of the three couples to tie the noose - I mean knot. From that point on, it's all downhill, as we watch how these three relationships crumple in a pile of miscommunication, and infidelity. Some of the moments in this movie are uproariously funny, but there is too much sadness in between. That is really the only flaw - the slow pace. But the acting is sensational, and there are many memorable moments - both of which definitely overshadow the pacing problems.

• City of Glass People: Bruce Sweeney's Vancouver

  Adrian82001-10-18

  *I don't think this contains spoilers, but it is pretty involved and so may reveal aspects of the plot that you would rather have surprise you. If you'd rather go in to the film without preconceptions, don't read on.* Apparently, Last Wedding received critical acclaim for its strong character development, its taut atmosphere, its remarkable dialogue, and its portrayal of Vancouver as Vancouver (a novel idea, considering the plethora of appalling Hollywood films that routinely convert the city into San Francisco, Los Angeles, or even Hong Kong). Despite good acting and attentive, often beautiful cinematography, however, Last Wedding is a hollow, almost nonsensical study of the banal dysfunction of urban social life. Did I mention that it's a comedy? The film is generally funny, especially in the first half, and pleasing in its visual familiarity (So very Vancouver, and there is a Winnipeg Jets cap, and a quintessential trip to the cabin to fish . . . ). But: Character development is irritatingly imbalanced. This may be because the film was shot over three consecutive summers and so fell victim to the intermittent availability of actors and crew. Under these circumstances balance and continuity must be challenging to attain, and the film suffers as a result. Of the three couples represented, only one is explored enough to lead the audience across the rickety bridge between motivation and action. Sarah, played beautifully by Molly Parker, is an ambitious young architect who lands her dream job fresh out of university despite a slump in the market, and who must struggle with her idealistic spouse's resentment of both her success and her ethical and aesthetic perspectives regarding architecture. The scenes involving this couple are brilliantly executed, and appear (uniquely) topically rooted in Vancouver's identity. The other two couples are another story. One is ploddingly two-dimensional: Randy English Professor cheats on Luddite Librarian Live-In with Ambitious Sexpot Student. From a narrative perspective at the very least, this subplot climaxes prematurely. The third couple's story is utter nonsense, and seems to have been included only as an ill-advised attempt at comic relief. The wedding of the title is that of Noah and Zipporah (actually, the title is a reference to the wedding before theirs, but to theirs by inference. Don't ask, it seems like an arbitrary titling decision. No surprise, really). Noah works in waterproofing supplies and lives in Zipporah's obligatorily leaky condo. Vancouverites should know what I mean when I say this is dime-store irony. Zipporah is a beautiful, sensual fashion plate with delusions of becoming a country music icon. Nothing about them, from their tense initial interactions through their rushed wedding and the arbitrary deterioration of their sanity and their relationship, makes anything approaching sense. We laugh at Zipporah and Noah, not with them, and only because we're expected to. In all these cases, the only dubious trait shared by the characters is their inability to interact functionally with one another. And why can't they? They are, at any given point, selfish, thick-witted, spiteful, and actually insane. I found empathy for the characters unattainable, as they lacked emotional depth and the motivations for their actions and statements were inadequately explored. This could in fact set up an interesting motive for the location of Last Wedding. The city of Vancouver is often characterized as beautiful but new and soulless, without history or personality - in Douglas Coupland's words, a city of glass (and maybe this isn't how Doug meant it, but it works). Perhaps that is the link between the setting and the characters in Last Wedding. Bruce Sweeney's characters are people of glass, by turns transparent, brittle, distant. Unfortunately, this representation is so haphazard and incongruous that it fails to make its purpose clear to the viewer. Perhaps it wasn't intended at all? Last Wedding is an awkward, senseless collage of humour, depraved selfishness, and Vancouverism. Make of that what you will.

• Enjoyable and believable story in a Canadian setting

  Enid-32001-10-28

  This is an amusing and believable story about three young couples who are not particularly well suited to each other. They all discover this, but one couple has to get married to find this out. The film is set in Vancouver, which, for once, is not dressed up to be some American city. It was nice to see Canadian references, such as Canada Council grants and the Cambie Street Bridge. The film is very funny in a low keyed, unhysterical, thoroughly Canadian way.

• It sure is realistic (spoilers)

  vera_upr2005-10-15

  I watched this film last night. I liked it very much. 'Last Wedding' tells the story of the three couples and the problems they confront. The problems, all serious, range from miscommunication, physical and emotional abuse, professional conflicts to cheating. But I have to say that some people seem to be confused by the title of the film and think that all the main characters are married. That is not the case. As a matter of fact, only one of the couples is married. The other two live together. The main reason why I decided to write about this film is that I was really surprised for one or two of comments I've read here. The main couple, the one we met since the start of the film, and the one that gets married, is the protagonist of a real messy relationship. After only six months of meeting each other, Noah (Benjamin Ratner) and Zipporah (Frida Betrani) decide to get married. They do it but things don't go well since the beginning. Noah doesn't know it but her wife wants to make it as a professional singer but apparently she doesn't have enough talent. So, she stays home with nothing more to do than watch TV. She doesn't confide in her husband whom she doesn't even let enter to her music room. Noah, on her part, is falling apart. He always had doubts about the wedding but he kept it going. But, after the wedding, he's devastated. His wife won't talk to him. And then the violence comes. In one very poignant scene, the telephone rings, Noah asks Zipporah to answer it, she ignores him even though she has the phone at her side. Noah loses it and breaks one of the ceramic horses figures that Zipporah collects. How does she reacts? She takes the phone and hits one of Noah's ears with it. It wasn't the first time we saw a violent Zipporah but until that point we've never seen her actually hitting her husband. After that, Noah tries to discuss her relationship with Zipporah but she refuses. She thinks everything is all right. One particular interesting detail is that all the times Zipporah realizes she has messed it up, she tries to seduce Noah. At the beginning of their relationship, that would work. Zipporah would lose it and then have incredible sex with Noah and things would go back to normal. But of course , that wouldn't work forever. Noah gives it up and takes every opportunity he has to humiliate Zipporah for her singing skills (she hits him again after that one) and her lack of formal preparation. So, to sum it up, this couple's relationship terribly SUCKS. I decided to write so much about Noah and Zipporah because some people here have written that this couple was the funniest one. But I am sure that if instead of Zipporah, Noah would've been the one who physically abused his wife, nobody would dare to say that it was funny. Oh, yeah, this husband hits her wife, develops an abusive relationship with her, and every time he does hit her, he brings flowers... oh, yeah, VERY funny. No, it isn't. Hey, I know this movie is supposed to be a comedy and it is, but I can't accept that what it makes it funny is a gender bias. Men cannot be abused. If they are, it's funny. No, it's not funny. I felt bad not only for Noah but also for Zipporah. The other two couples face difficult problems also. College professor Peter (Tom Scholte) cheats on Leslie (Nancy Sivak) with a student. Arquitect Shane (Vincent Gale) seems unable to cope with his girlfriend Sarah's (Molly Parkers)sudden success. We don't get to explore these two couples very much. For example, I was confused with what were the real roots of Shane's discomfort. Was it because he was experiencing professional jealousy of his girlfriend? Or was it because they had really different perspectives of how architects should work? Anyway, the lack of information doesn't stop us from getting their conflicts. The main asset of this film is that it rings real. Watching the film makes you promise not to make the same mistakes of the characters. "Get to know each other well before marriage" "Listen to each other" "Don't cheat" "Respect each other's interests" are some of the tips.

• an endearing treat

  musicbones2001-09-07

  Last Wedding is a slow moving heart warmer. Three men in a tub: rub-a-dub-dub. The movie is about how they messed up with the loves of their lives, but it isn't painful in the least. You'll laugh all the way through. The acting is draws you in, so you are fascinated by these real life characters. Your heart goes out to them, despite their glaring faults. The directing is expert. The editing and camera angles play up the slow building drama to the max. If there is a fault, it is the lack of a powerful dramatic arc. However, some would call that refreshing. The lack of "special effects" was fine, too. There was no shortage of lasting lovable memories.