Review: MIFF ‘10: The Wedding Party
The Wedding Party
Dir. Amanda Jane
Sometimes its hard to criticise local films, as whenever I begin to there’s that a nagging feeling that maybe everyone should go easier on them, be more forgiving or something so as to be more supportive of the industry or some such notion.
Richard Moore, Artistic Director of MIFF, even said in his speech before the premiere of opening night film The Wedding Party, that the audience’s response could be “critical” (lol) as to whether the film found a distributor or not.
So let me excuse myself first off by saying that The Wedding Party is not my type of film; Aussie-genre-farce-whatever is not my “thing”.
Moore also said in his speech before that there is a belief that Australian filmmakers are a bunch of downer sad-sacks (not verbatim) but The Wedding Party proves that we can make rom-coms too.
Being a huge rom-com fan, I wish that were true. Instead The Wedding Party turned out to be a game of ‘Spot The Top Ten Movie Clichés’: (1) Climactic running scene, (2) 14 year old girl dancing alone in a room (and to A-Ha The Church are you serious?), (3) reverse car parking gag, (4) Risky Business-esque striptease, etc. Committing the biggest rom-com cliché crime of all, lead actor Josh Lawson had a terrible case of the Hugh-Grant-wannabes – sadly, he was such a poor man’s Hugh-Grant-wannabe.
The rest of the film was a lot of talk about love (with little chemistry), relationships (most of which I didn’t care about) and sex (yet the film felt decidedly un-sexy, save the few Isabel Lucas half naked money-shots). For all the multitude of characters and story lines, most of them felt undernourished and uninteresting. Also the whole guy-who’s-secretly-into-S&M-so-we-can-do-sight-gags thing felt horribly dated, but worst of all, like most of the film, unfunny.
The soundtrack provided by J Walker of Machine Translations also unfortunately proved impotent and the final five minutes (of what seemed to be an awfully long 120) was all so much ridiculous beds-and-squeals-and-smiles, for a moment I thought they were about start plugging tampons.
The saving grace was in fact the 14 year old daughter (even if she was dancing to A-Ha The Church and not something culturally relevant) who probably also had the benefit of the best role and who, unlike the rest of the cast, didn’t seem to be aping some idea of what a rom-com character should be like and turning it up to 11.
Of course I think a lot of people that saw the film at The Regent last night also liked the film – there seemed to be a lot of loud laughs at the right moments. However I was a bit distracted by the guy snoring behind me.
- Samantha Chater
Richard Watts
23/07/10 - 3:49 PM
I’m in complete agreement with you Samantha – this was an inept film: weakly written, limply directed, flabby and over-long.
Maggie
23/07/10 - 4:57 PM
I hated this film! I was secretly hoping for it to be a spirited romp that would open the festival with cheesy aplomb. Like you, I really wanted to like it. It’s a local production, it was partially bankrolled by MIFF funding, and it is a feature by a first-time female director (a rare creature round these parts). Also, I love this festival and have a lot of respect for those who program it and make it happen. But last night, as I became increasingly dismayed at how shit this film is, I realised we can’t let this film off easy for the sake being all nicey-nicey about MIFF’s appalling choice of opening night film. So thanks for being honest.
I think the buzz on the floor at the after party was that it was crap to varying degrees. I wonder if it will get a distribution deal, or if it deserves to? Does it have an audience?
I have to say though, the after party was so much fun and made up for the cinematic lack. Champers was a flowin’, the B-grade celebs were a flockin’, legendary Steve Bisley was loitering at the bar, and Richard Moore was cutting sick Stipe-ean moves on the dance floor, letting off a lot of crazy hair steam and getting the show on the road.
Eloise
23/07/10 - 5:04 PM
I quite liked The Wedding Party – at least the first 90 minutes of it. The cliches were there, but most of the leads were charismatic. As were the locations – my hood! Not to mention my friend’s uncle’s pub. This made me warm to the film, less so than did the 14-year-old girl’s banal voice-over. This, and the messy multi-thread finale made the film fall flat. Best thing about it, and the whole evening at the Regent: Steve Bisley.
Maggie
24/07/10 - 10:06 AM
Bisley! I agree. Best thing.
chris
24/07/10 - 2:10 PM
Note: Factual error in review. “and to A-Ha are you serious?”/”(even if she was dancing to A-Ha and not something culturally relevant)” The song that Nikita Leigh-Pritchard is dancing to is The Church’s ‘Unguarded Moment’.
Brad Nguyen
24/07/10 - 2:24 PM
Thanks, I fixed that up. But really – The Church? That reinforces the point, doesn’t it.
Chris
24/07/10 - 3:29 PM
Not really b/c A-ha would’ve clearly an 80’s retro pop reference which as you allude would’ve made no sense, whereas the Church’s back catalogue has a more timeless quality. Sorry, not sure what your point was.
Brad Nguyen
24/07/10 - 3:51 PM
Well, I haven’t seen the film so I’m not judging the film per se, but most 14-year-olds haven’t heard of The Beatles, let alone The Church. The 80s retro pop of A-Ha is possibly more “of-the-moment” (as in “this” moment). So I guess the point I was making is if you think it unlikely that a 14-year-old would listen to A-Ha, it’s even more unlikely that they would be listening to The Church.
Chris
25/07/10 - 10:10 AM
Dealing with the most important point first – the reviewer made a factual error twice. Critics must also be prepared to accept that they have made mistakes rather than contort the mistake into reinforcing their point, which it actually doesn’t. Anyone who confuses A-ha with The Church obviously should think a little more carefully before commenting on music. To your other point (and as you say, you should refrain until you actually see a film before weighing in on the argument so as to understand the context, because the character in question was in the family living room where her parents CD collection would have been; The reviewer’s criticism was that the music of ‘A-ha’ (sic) was not “of the moment” and not relevant; now you are claiming that ‘A-ha’ is actually more of ‘this’ moment, which would contradict the original point made twice by the reviewer. I’m confused. Isn’t it better to admit there was a factual error and that perhaps the point hadn’t been fully thought through?
Brad Nguyen
25/07/10 - 1:22 PM
Hey Chris, it’s not that confusing. Samantha thought that a 14-year-old dancing to a-ha (as you like!) was a nod to irrelevancy. She made a mistake. It was The Church. I’m of the opinion that The Church is even more irrelevant. I didn’t say that a-ha was relevant, merely (possibly) more relevant than The Church.
But I take your point that in the context of the film, the girl was in the living room and could be listening to her parent’s music. Perfectly reasonable.
But anyway, apart from that minor point, how did you find the film?
Chris
27/07/10 - 11:25 AM
Hi Brad, sorry for late reply, I haven’t been on this site for a while. I have an association with the production so I merely commented on the factual error in the review. Having declared that association though, I can honestly say that the film is a lot of fun, has tested brilliantly with non-film festival audiences and I haven’t heard a vocal response to humour in an Australian movie like the one last Thursday night in a long time. There was a laugh riot throughout the whole cinema (I spent a good deal of time up the back) and even spontaneous applause at some stages. Even the most cynical reviewer has mentioned that. But as the slogan says – it’s a matter of choice. It’s not a film for cine-philes craving the next Tarkovsky retrospective. I would direct readers to Screen Daily and Screen Hub’s review for a more balanced assessment.
filmlover
02/08/10 - 3:26 PM
Saw this film on Saturday night at MIFF. It was so funny. Steve Bisley in his best role yet! Adam Zwar and Josh Lawson also brilliant! I don’t understand this somewhat negative review. I thought this film was extremely well made. It seemed to me that the whole cinema was laughing along too! So great to see an Aussie ensemble film that is actually funny.