And I have sat through Shanghai Surprise, so that's saying a lot.Who on God's earth would find something like this amusing? It is, on one hand, your garden-variety "men are such children, and women are shrews" "urban" comedies that get rammed down our collective throats every day.On the other hand, what makes this movie unusual is that none of the characters, especially the male ones, have any redeeming qualities whatsoever. NONE whatsoever. I could really care less about the young architect with her jealous prick boyfriend who is so loving toward her, he makes her life miserable simply because she is a success. I found myself channel surfing during their parts. Then there is the obligatory story of an English professor throwing away a perfectly good relationship to setup a pert young no-nothing with firm tits, no morals, and no expectations. It's your typical nauseating story of some supposedly educated man lapping up whatever drivel Young Student spews because he wants in her pants; she actually writes a "poem" that seems more like a contribution to The Penthouse Letters, and the entranced doofus academic behaves as if she is Chaucer and the Bard rolled into a skanky blonde package. Predictably, he screws the student, the girlfriend finds out, and she kicks him out of their home. And of course, he is miserable, realizing (as much as a mongoloid is capable of realizing) that he threw away a good woman for an easy, meaningless screw. YAWN. Didn't we see Woody Allen do this a hundred times, and only better? My most scathing comments are for the third couple, Zipporah and Noah. I cannot understand why anyone would find the antics of Noah humorous, laughable, or even tolerable. Zipporah is an annoying spoiled yenta, yes. Noah, however, is an insufferable rat mistaken for a human being, the most loathsome character I have ever seen on my television screen. He is rude, he is condescending, he is obnoxious, he is physically extremely unappealing, and he is verbally and physically abusive. In one "comedic" scene, The Happy Lovers are not speaking...again. Noah decides to communicate with his wife by taking a hammer and smashing one of her beloved horse figurines to bits. That's not funny; that's emotional abuse. Then there is the wacky instance when Noah decides to refer to his wife as a "half wit." He humiliates his wife in front of his mongoloid, miserable friends, first by belittling her choice of apparel (she looks great) and then by treating her like the ignorant hired help. He belittles her ambitions of being a singer, first by sneaking around behind her back, violating her privacy by vandalizing her music room; second by actually making fun of his wife's music by singing it in an off-key country twang. This is comedy? I used to work in the homicide bureau of the local county prosecutor, and I can tell you this: it's emotional abuse like this that gets spouses shot. Poor Noah is so miserable (you get the feeling that this rodent masquerading as a man doesn't need a beautiful young wife to make him miserable; he's just a dismal excuse for a human being), he is leaving his wife on the sly. Because he lacks gumption, a polite way of saying He Has No Balls, he sneakily packs his bag while Zipporah is asleep. When she awakens, he flees the house. When she finds the packed bag and confronts him, he drives off and hides like a sissy girl...that is, after he emotionally torments his wife by stopping as if to start a conversation with her, only to burn rubber, driving away, when she walks to his car window. This is funny? No, this is at the very least the grounds for divorce. The very last scene we see of this happy couple is when Zipporah finds her rat spouse cornered, as if in a trap, in a seedy hotel room. Noah wasn't even man enough to answer the door when she found him, so she takes matters into her own hands in the form of a tire iron, which she uses to smash the window. The only way that this film could have redeemed itself is if Zipporah took the logical next step with that iron and killed the sniveling, abusive, repulsive rat.

Last Wedding is a character driven piece with intriguing little peeks into the inner workings of people as they make their way through life.Though sometimes the scenes begin to drag a little they then catch their breath and come back to life again. It's a good movie for a rainy day. This movie explores the many tangled emotions that throw even the most confident bride and bridegroom into panic. And then there's life after the honeymoon. Whether you are about to be married, newly married or celebrating your 50th anniversary you'll find something that rings a bell of familiarity.The abrupt ending, as previously mentioned, was a little disappointing but I'm sure we'll be seeing more of Benjamin Ratner and the rest of the cast.

*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.

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.