A Wedding (1978) User Reviews

An affair to remember

[majikstl · 8/10 · 11 January 2002]

I think this film does a splendid job of showing both the charm and the pitfalls of Robert Altman's style of direction. And curiously, it may be his most likable film.

Of course, Altman's trademark soft-focus drama and overlapping soundtrack are in evidence here, giving us a clear approximation of what it is like to be thrust into a big, bustling and poorly-organized social event. A WEDDING shows us what Altman does best, creating an atmosphere where individuals come into and out of focus seemingly at random and the storyline unfolds less like a narrative than as a string of half overheard bits of gossip. The large and varied cast performs with seemingly exaggerated gusto, a necessity to help make clear the individual threads of the tangled narratives. You either love this about Altman's films, or it infuriates you -- sometimes it does both.

Yet, as much as this meandering style of film-making can exhilarate the game viewer, it can also rob the story of a sense of gravity. Certainly, the point of the film is that such an event as a phoney-baloney society wedding is a trivial affair, at the same time when the film turns to matters of life and death, the Altman style makes this seem trivial as well. Altman has never been able to punch home his films with "a big climatic moment" -- and he has never really tried -- and that is what is missing from A WEDDING. It just sort of peters out, like guests who randomly wander out of the party without saying goodbye.

Still, there is something endearing about A WEDDING that is missing from much of Altman's other works. Despite the large hubbub of characters, this is an intimate affair and little bits of bittersweet drama filters through. The lightly sketched vignettes give us an insightful vision of family ties in various states of unraveling. The characters, though ludicrous from a distance, are somehow endearing when viewed up close. Kudos must go to vivid performances by such unlikely costars as Carol Burnett, Pat McCormick, Dina Merrill, Geraldine Chaplin, Lillian Gish, Nina Van Palandt, Mia Farrow and Lauren Hutton, some of whom have but a few seconds of screen time to create memorable characterizations. Like many a real-life wedding, A Wedding is vaguely disappointing, yet strangely unforgettable.

Cool Altman ensemble

[John Bethea · 8/10 · 2 December 2000]

I found this to be an interesting and insightful portrayal of the different strata of American society, and how flexible and inflexible they can be when confronted with issues they MUST deal with. It's a wedding for Christ's sake! Can't miss that! I think it's beautiful that Altman, borrowing heavily from various forms of Commedia dell'Arte, tragic plays of Shakespeare, and other classic literary works, uses a wedding to create the tensions throughout the film. Remember, this is the bride and groom's special occasion, yet everyone else seems so put out and upset with having to deal with one another, as if they are the ones going through with the ceremony, that they will be the ones marrying each another. In today's world, this is an absurd notion, and Altman knows it. You get the feeling he really enjoys watching this all-american, suburban family cringe at the idea of being married to the mob, though all of them know this is probably the last time they all be together. He's always had such a cynical view of the nuclear family. This would really be one of Altman's best films if it wasn't for the silly pretentiousness of some of the roles, especially Mia Farrow's. I must admit that I love the ending, which most people I know hate.

Finally caught up with A Wedding last night and love it!

[id247 · 8/10 · 20 September 2009]

Robert Altman films can be hard work at times, and others you just get pulled into straight away.

A Wedding is an instant attraction, a real delight, full of some great characters, and many funny one-liners, the first hour is a real chuckle, the second hour gets down to more serious issues, but if you've ever been to a wedding (and who hasn't?) you will identify with many moments from this.

Some really great performances especially from Carol Burnett, the housewife with a moral dilemma, Howard Duff, the lecherous alcoholic doctor, Viveca Lindfors, the nutty guest, and Geraldine Chaplin as the very irritating wedding planner.

Well worth a look! 8/10

One of the last classic 70's films to come out of the decade...

[mrcaw12 · 10/10 · 29 June 2004]

Though not as fully realized a film as MASH or Nashville, this is still a great film worthy of study in film classes and deserving of a better reputation than it currently receives. Altman showcases a wedding between two different classes of American society from vows to alcohol sodden, pot hazed, emotional let down end. I think what bothers most people about this film is that it doesn't hone in on any particular story line or character. Curiously, many recent films, Love Actually and Magnolia, for example, also present many story lines, but in too much detail, attempting to force the audience to care about each and every disparate story line and in my opinion, fails miserably. Altman, instead, only presents snippets of conversations, glimpses into the characters assembled for the wedding. For some reason this movie reminds me very much of the famous painting by Velasquez, Las Meninas. Velasquez's painting shows a royal family, posed rather informally and in the background can be seen the painter himself, painting the picture that is in fact being viewed. Many clues are given by the painter about the people shown, but nothing is obvious. Things are not as they appear to be. And the painting can keep it's audience at a distance if the viewer is not informed or it can bring the viewer into it's closed circle, if the viewer has the intelligence to know where to look. So too, does Altman's A Wedding, keep it's viewers at a distance and yet at the same time, constantly provides portals into the world of its characters. I think Altman does an outstanding job of treating the viewer as if he were an invisible guest at the wedding. Though the bride's father is a successful business man, he's a self made man and not to the manor born and while he can afford to give his daughter an opulent wedding it does not alter the fact that the family his daughter is marrying into, comes from a different echelon of society. One that has lineage and history as well as financial success. It's hard to relate to the groom's family unless one has been exposed to or comes from that world. Altman accurately portrays the idosyncrasies and cultural idioms that make up the world of the cushioned and privileged. This is a great film that holds its own in film culture and in the pantheon of great films from Altman.

Promises promises

[jotix100 · 7/10 · 26 November 2004]

Robert Altman's "A Wedding" was shown recently on cable. Having seen it when it was first released, I was curious as to how it kept after all these years. Being an admirer of Mr. Altman's work, it was worth watching again, although the movie seems a bit too long on second viewing.

Mr. Altman brings two families into a formal wedding that are as dissimilar as oil and water. The groom's family is old money and the bride's is new money, perhaps, although the latter one seem to be out of place. The immediate reaction is: why are these two people marrying? Frankly, it makes no sense, at all.

We are treated to a wedding reception from hell! The wedding party as well as some of the few guests that attend the reception are an odd lot indeed. Logic would indicate that if a wedding is at the center of the story, the bride and the groom should be more prominently focused, but this being an Altman film, they are not as important as the people around them.

There is the old matriarch with no sense of time, at all! Then there is the old bishop that might be in the beginning states of dementia. The old family doctor who likes to touch all females' breasts. We have a wedding planner who has no sense of style. The mother of the bride is swept off her feet by the uncle of the groom in a hysterical sequence. The sister of the bride also had relations with the groom and his class at the military academy!

We get to spy on most conversations. Mr. Altman makes us silent witnesses to what is going on behind the scenes. This is his device for telling his story; he lets us hear snippets of conversation to get an idea of what is really going on.

"A Wedding" is a minor Altman. Somehow this story doesn't grab the viewer the same way as some of his best pictures, but it's a fun ride all the same. At the end we have learned the secrets of the two families and frankly, most of it was not that interesting. That is why, perhaps, this movie, although it tries, never found a wider audience when it came out in 1978.

This film is for Altman fans, mainly.

After a life time of watching films, one that I remember best.

[felixnoir · 9/10 · 20 November 2009]

I like people who approach art in new and unconventional ways. 'A Wedding' is one of the best Altman films for me, because it goes the furthest towards abandoning a unified structure and rational storyline, and presents a loose ensemble of stories and moments.

A review of the time said it well for me. The film has any number of stories, but few are presented completely. For some, you only see the beginning. In others, it is only the middle, or the end. The camera is voyeuristic, often seeming to stumble on fragments of things, looking through plants, people partly out of shot.

For me, first seeing the film at the age of 22, I found it quietly hilarious from almost the very first shot. In that early shot, two boys are unrolling a red carpet. Because it has been sitting unused for so long, the roll has gone flat, and this makes the boy's arm wobble as the carpet unrolls. I laughed out loud. That is an introduction to the understated humour and fine comic irony of the film. I think this is why the film is under-appreciated in America. Americans seem to like to attach a flag to their humour: "Don't be offended. This is intended as a joke." Whereas 'A Wedding' seems to have more in common with the comedic tradition of Tati. I still think 'A Wedding' is one of the funniest films I have ever seen.

For me, this film was years before its time. It reminds me of modern bands such as TV on the Radio or, especially, Animal Collective. There seem to be a lot of loose ends, unconnected bits, things that shouldn't really go together, stuff happening in layers that go in different directions. Yet somehow it all works. It hangs together, although perhaps the only unities are those of time and place. And when you actually try to reproduce the effect (perform the works) you very soon find out that the seeming artlessness conceals a level of skills and professionalism that is actually of the highest standard - something that has strongly impacted on my own approach to art.

William Goldman said in 'Adventures in the Screen Trade' that directors are basically very good storytellers. But here we don't have one story at all, we have a slice through 20th century society. A picture that is a picture, not a picture that tells a story. This film reminds me of a statement by Vonnegut, that he thought perhaps The Novel had corrupted the public mind, because in a novel, there are important and major and unimportant and peripheral characters. In this film everyone is of equal importance. For me one of the failures of this film is Carol Burnett. That's not because she is not an excellent actress, or very funny. But she stands out, and while just about everybody else is playing slightly tongue-in-cheek but straight, she plays this as overt comedy.

I don't know if I agree with those commentators who say this is a blistering satire. I don't believe it is, any more than Boccaccio or Chaucer are blistering satires. It is much more like 'Peasant Wedding' by Bruegel, full of picaresque characters, a canvas of muddled humanity trying to fill their days. It is gentle, and if it turns darker as it continues, there is a great deal of darkness in Chaucer and Boccaccio too. Indeed I wouldn't be surprised to find that Altman had been deliberately trying to create something similar to 'Peasant Wedding' in a modern art form. The absurdist influence is also strong. This is a European film, not an American film.

So I consider 'A Wedding' to be a finer movie than 'Nashville', and in fact one of the great movies of the 20th c. It is more understated, less obvious, without clear stories or points to make. In that is its greatness. It is genuinely subversive. It is a movie that uses a quite different structure and method than almost any other movie you have ever seen. It is a movie that lets its characters all talk for themselves. I think 'A Wedding' is a landmark movie, a reference point that should be part of the training of every filmmaker. I don't think Altman ever bettered it. This, with his own company, was his chance to do what he really wanted to do. It is one of the three or four films that has had the strongest impact on my own life and art. After half a century of filmgoing, I still clearly recall image after image. 'A Wedding' still sticks out in my head as one of the high points of all that time.

A big cast attends the world's worst wedding

[blanche-2 · 6/10 · 3 January 2017]

Robert Altman directs a large cast - Carol Burnett, Lillian Gish, Howard Duff, Dina Merrill, Geraldine Chaplin, Vittorio Gassman, Desi Arnaz Jr., Viveca Lindfors, Mia Farrow, and many others, in "A Wedding" from 1978.

I've never been crazy about Robert Altman's big ensemble movies - for me they are too chaotic.

This film brings chaos to a new level when Muffin (Amy Stryker) marries Dino Corelli (Arnaz). The wedding itself, with its many bridesmaids and groomsmen, goes all right, with the exception of the Bishop (John Cromwell) having the beginnings of dementia. When everyone arrives at the Corelli home for the reception, all hell breaks loose.

The bride's sister Buffy (Farrow) isn't speaking to anyone; she seems upset, and we find out later why. The wedding planner (Chaplin) runs around telling people how to act, including instructing the bride and groom how to make the first cut into the cake. A guest and doctor (Duff) tries to keep everyone from knowing that the matriarch of the family (Gish) just died upstairs. He also likes to brush crumbs off of the breast part of women's clothing.

Tulip (Burnett), mother of the bride, is stalked by the husband (Pat McCormick) of the groom's aunt (Dina Merrill) with whom she danced. He swears his love and wants to meet up with her in two weeks in Tennessee when she visits her aunt, in a hotel across from a Dairy Queen.

The bride's old boyfriend and the groom's old girlfriend both show up and make out with their ex-partners.

The groom's father is an Italian criminal in hiding.

The security people (John Considine, who also co-wrote the script) and his female partner seem like they work for Mossad. As Considine tells one guest, "Don't make me neutralize you, Sir."

Many, many funny bits. One of my favorites was Chaplin's instruction for dancing. "First the bride and groom dance to their favorite song. Then the FOB dances with the bride. Then the MOB dances with the groom...." And of course, Burnett being chased all over the house by McCormick. Viveca Lindfors is a scream as a crazy guest who makes big, dramatic proclamations. Nina van Pallandt, a member of the groom's family, is getting injections of something in the bathroom.

I'm not a huge fan of Altman's style of overlapping dialogue and big casts that seem to meander, but if you appreciate it, this is the film for you. It's lesser Altman but still good.

Wonderful, vintage Altman

[fuldamobil · 9/10 · 27 February 2002]

This is a fascinating comedy from Robert Altman's peak period

before his 80's downslide. A Wedding is sadly underappreciated,

and really deserves to be rediscovered, especially after the recent

success of Gosford Park which is an obvious companion piece to

this film. Both films deal with class and gender distinctions and

feature an eccentric group of party-goers who can't seem to leave

the soiree and are trapped in a mansion (obviously inspired by

Buenel's Exterminating Angel). A Wedding is filled with great

performances especially Carol Burnett, who is the heart of the film;

Geraldine Chaplin; Desi Arnaz Jr.; and Mia Farrow. Highly

recommended.

A disaster

[zetes · 7/10 · 31 May 2002]

But not without a great deal of interest, especially for Altman fans like myself. It's actually one of the most disappointing films I've ever seen. I caught the first hour about a year ago on television, and I was enthralled. "One of Altman's best!" I exclaimed. Or at least I thought that it probably would be if I ever got to see the last half of it. Now I finally found it, and I am hurt.

The first hour is brilliant. It's the kind of film Altman is best known for, the ensemble piece, this one about a wedding. Perfect, Altman has two huge families to play around with. There are dozens of characters, perhaps more than he had in his masterpiece, Nashville. It's amazing, the family dynamics, the characters' histories, their feelings about the union between Dino and Muffin, etc. It's all staggering, entertaining, hilarious, and brilliant. The first hour buzzes along like fireworks.

But then it begins to trip. You can actually see it coming. There are just too many characters and too much going on. Most of them had had their moments up to that point, but some, such as Ms. Farmer, who seems to be somewhat important, we don't know anything about. However, to make it even worse, Altman and the other screenwriters begin to add more characters (what's with Briggs and Tina? They're just a horribly cheap plot device, and the two actors are awful!), come up with more plot twists, and insert a sort of very miscalculated humor (especially with the drunk aunt or whatever she was, the one dressed like a gypsy). It's like watching a train wreck for almost the whole of the second half. A few good scenes turn up, but far more bad ones. For instance, what the hell was Altman thinking when (SPOILERS, although the film itself is its ultimate SPOILER) he had Geraldine Chaplin come unto Muffin? I mean, for God's sake, the film had like 20 minutes left. That just came out of left field. Its parallel is even less believable, although at least that one has some precedent character development in the film. Both of these scenes are exploitative.

END SPOILERS

Although it is a disaster, A Wedding does contain enough to make it well worth seeing once. Mia Farrow is really good. And if you ever wanted to see her naked (she is quite a beauty, I admit), here's your chance. That scene was awful and should not have been in the film. It's another moment that just made me sigh with anger. This may be Geraldine Chaplin's best role. Although Nashville is in my personal Top Ten, I have to admit that the only part of that film that strains the film is the character of Opal, the ditzy, pseudo-BBC reporter played by Chaplin. In A Wedding, she plays the wedding planner, and she is amazing. It's far too bad Altman took a dump on her character by adding that penultimate scene of hers that I mention above in the spoiler. At least he kind of made amends by giving her the excellent final shot of the film.

Mildly Interesting In A Strictly Voyeuristic Sort Of Way

[sddavis63 · 4/10 · 2 March 2009]

I laughed once during this movie, when Dr. Meecham (Howard Duff) - heading to the basement of the mansion as the powerful storm strikes - says "It's like the last 10 days of Hitler!" Perhaps, although I think the last 10 days in Hitler's bunker were probably more interesting. "A Wedding" isn't a bad movie. In a strictly voyeuristic sort of way it's even mildly interesting. The title explains everything. The whole movie is about the wedding of Dino and Muffin (Desi Arnaz, Jr. & Amy Stryker) and the reception that follows at the groom's home. The two families don't mix well, and the movie basically portrays their interactions. There's no real consistent plot to the story; just the account of the two families mixing. There's the senile bishop who conducts the wedding, the death of the family matriarch, an unexpected pregnancy and an unexpected love at first sight moment, but there really wasn't any one central point here. Neither was there anyone who stood out to me as being the real star of the movie. This was definitely an ensemble cast, with Carol Burnett as the bride's mother being probably the best known, and a variety of other actors and actresses who, in years to come, would become better known (Pam Dawber, Mia Farrow, and Dennis Franz leap to mind.) There's a very small role for the famous Lillian Gish as the matriarch who dies near the start of the movie (although her body stays front and centre through the movie.) In general, the performances were all pretty decent. The movie is too long, with a running time of a bit over 2 hours, and while the first hour seemed pretty well paced, the whole concept got a bit tired after that. 4/10

Hilarious

[Ismaninb · 9/10 · 10 December 2006]

It seems, I am one of the few commenters who think this movie very funny. Maybe it is, because I am not American. In my opinion A wedding is a great spoof of American culture. It is not a prerogative of the English to keep up appearances. Maybe it is just my weird sense of humour. There are few things as funny as people trying the best they can to run everything smoothly and perfectly, just because decencey commands it, and failing. Altman mercilessly shows the inevitable result: hypocrisy. This is what happens, when people deny human shortcomings. That's why I think A wedding is not typical a 70's movie, but has enduring qualities. Compared to Gosford Park it is easy to follow all the subplots. I like A wedding even better than Mash.

Forgotten Altman

[preppy-3 · 7/10 · 3 April 2008]

Dino Corelli (Desi Arnaz Jr.) is marrying Margaret Brenner (Amy Stryker). Naturally everything goes wrong. There's the married woman (Carol Burnett) who's being chased around by another man; a lesbian wedding planner (Geraldine Chaplin); a gay captain (Craig Richard Nelson); a senile priest; a topless portrait of the bride as a wedding gift; the old head of the family (Lillian Gish) who is bedridden etc etc.

This isn't even close to being one of Altman's best works like "Nashville" and "Short Cuts". There are far too many characters, it meanders all over the place and it's too long. Still it's not his worst ("H.E.A.L.T.H." is MUCH more horrible). This comes across as him trying to please the audience. The story lines are pretty conventional and the PG rating prevents him from throwing in tons of female nudity (which he seems to love showing in all his films). It's not bad but it doesn't look or feel like an Altman film. I was seriously surprised to see he directed it--I thought it was just some by-the-numbers director who doesn't even try anything different. Direction aside the plots are pretty predictable and Altman doesn't do comedy that well. The bits with Burnett only work because of Burnett's considerable comedic talents. The acting varies from terrible (Arnaz Jr.) to OK (Stryker) to very good (Burnett and Chaplin). Not the total fiasco that people have said it is but definitely a lesser Altman. A 7.

One of the better lines: "Sir I don't want to have to neutralize you"

Messy Ensemble Movie Sinks Faster Than the Time It Takes to Watch It

[evanston_dad · 4/10 · 10 September 2007]

It never gives me pleasure to report that any Robert Altman film is a dog, but there's just no denying that "A Wedding" rolls over and dies about mid-way through. Altman tries to instill the same sort of divine chaos on his massive ensemble that he did in "Nashville" to such tremendous effect, but without the strong narrative threads that anchored the earlier movie, this one flounders around without going anywhere.

Mostly to blame is the absolutely terrible script, that no fewer than four people worked on. In an interview on the DVD, Altman reveals that the script was virtually made up as it went along, with scenes planned for filming late in the day being written that morning! Well, the improvisation shows, but in this case not in a good way. Altman has always been famous for giving his actors the freedom to experiment and build their characters in any way they'd like, but in "A Wedding" too much freedom is a bad thing. The characters in this film seem to each live and move in a universe separate from all the others; none of them is consistent, and nearly all simply act arbitrarily in what I suppose is meant to be a zany, farcical way, but instead comes off as incoherent.

Altman's project was actually probably doomed from the start, because the subject of weddings just isn't important enough for the brand of scathing satire that Altman brings to his movies. Somewhere in the unfocused mess of Altman's film is a very funny, light-hearted farce that pokes fun at an institution that Americans take very seriously, and there are some parts that work very well. But there are simply too many characters, too many plot lines, too much STUFF going on in general for the movie ever to come to any sort of conclusion. Altman's point seems to be that weddings are silly, but that's not the hook on which to hang a two+ hour film. And by the end, hot-button topics like abortion, homosexuality, class differences, etc. are being introduced at whim without the slightest effort at fleshing them out or tying them into one another or the plot (such as it is) at large.

The greatest tragedy in "A Wedding" is that a cast of marvelous actors is wasted. Carol Burnett is perhaps the biggest, most recognizable star, but unfortunately she's saddled with a terrible role that she can't do a thing with. Vittorio Gassman and Nina van Pallandt, as the parents of the groom, have a lovely moment together during which they reminisce about how they met and which is one of the film's sole attempts to build sympathetic characters with a history. John Considine has some funny moments as chief of security, one of which involves him escorting the doddery and cranky bishop to the bathroom. Pam Dawber, of all people, breezes into the film at mid-point and does some nice work as the groom's ex-girlfriend. And Lillian Gish is her usual cute self in a couple of early scenes as the family matriarch. She's lucky that her character gets to die before the movie's barely gotten started, so she can avoid the whole debacle. As for everyone else, they do the best they can, and there are throw-away moments here and there that are amusing, but they mostly get lost in the shuffle, and there are some characters whose names, let alone their relationship to anyone else, we never even learn.

To his credit, Altman had been making on average a movie a year for about ten years by the time "A Wedding" was released, and it was the first out-right bad movie he directed. That's a pretty good record. However, he would make up quickly for lost time by releasing in quick succession "Quintet" and "Popeye." I guess no one can have a winning streak forever.

Grade: D

Wedding Day Blues

[tieman64 · 19 June 2009]

"A Wedding" begins with a rather dull wedding ceremony, director Robert Altman introducing us to his bride, groom and their respective family members. As a priest proceeds to wed this couple, a documentary crew frantically begins to film the event. This documentary crew, which will be pop up countless times throughout the picture, encapsulates Altman's own approach to film-making. Though bound to a single space or event, his camera restlessly jumps from character to character, eavesdropping on his large cast as he attempts to tease out individual character arcs.

After the wedding ceremony, Altman's cast is chauffeured over to an elaborate after-party held at a beautiful mansion. It is here where the fun begins, "A Wedding" suddenly revealing itself to be the precursor to Altman's own "Gosford Park". We watch as maids, assistants and security personnel bumble about this large house, performing chores and tending to business as they attempt to keep the party underway. We watch the various families mingle, chat, dance, search for bathrooms, bedrooms, wine and dine and pose for photos. Everyone is up to something, and Altman has fun chartering their petty moments, movements and conversations.

An hour into the picture, though, and we start to realise just how mean spirited the film actually is. What began as a gentle comedy becomes a rather cynical attack on manners, marriage, family customs and social traditions. Altman's attacks are perfectly valid, of course, but the film's caustic shift in tone catches us completely off guard.

And so when Altman reveals that the groom got the bride's mentally ill sister pregnant, things take a progressively darker turn. Suddenly we realise that seemingly happily married couples are really busy having affairs or plotting sexual rendezvous. We realise that the father of the groom, far from the suave gentleman he appears to be, is really a wealthy criminal in hiding. Seemingly normal characters then begin to reveal their neuroses, whilst others have homosexual encounters in showers, smoke marijuana or discuss abortions. To top it all off, there's a dead woman in a room upstairs and the film ends with the only truly open and honest young couple in the picture, dying in a road accident.

By the time the credits roll, Altman has succeeded in sucking all the joy out of what began as a happy ceremony. His bride and groom leave the party with a sense of disillusionment, both families drawn further apart by their very proximity.

7.9/10 – Though not as ambitious as "Gosford Park", this little farce is still a lot of fun. Its only flaws are a slow initial 15 minutes, a rather one dimensional mode of cynicism, and Altman's style itself, which can be rather off-putting if you're not familiar with it. Worth one viewing.

A wonderful film!

[scottrbliege · 10/10 · 26 October 2020]

I had the pleasure of playing trombone in the Chuck Banks Orchestra during the wedding reception scenes. We were on set for around 20 days right in the middle of one of the hottest summers on record in Lake Bluff, Illinios. Most of the movie was filmed at the Armour Estate, which is located in Lake Bluff, IL., right on Lake Michigan. I was only 15 years old at the start of filming, and was picked up every day by a limousine and dropped off at the Estate. That was a summer that I will remember for the rest of my life.

Wedding Party

[elo-equipamentos · 6/10 · 8 May 2017]

I'd watched this picture in 1989 not entirely following a low grade, now carefully l saw in fullest way, but still l found it overrated, an original plot indeed, this kind humor maybe is dated but works sometimes, the casting helping so much with a dozen famous actors, some really great, but there's a lot whose had nothing to say or be in the movie, a really mess!! Have some many characters to fill the picture that needed four hours long to explore all them....as l says still original!!!

Don't ask me what statement this is making

[mls4182 · 10/10 · 17 June 2021]

I just love the film. A wonderful collection of bourgeois and full out crazy people. If you are used to movies with more structure this may not be for you - but on the other hand it might be a refreshing change.

Impressive technical exercise, if short on substance

[gridoon2024 · 7/10 · 2 December 2022]

Only two directors that I am aware of can orchestrate a large ensemble cast so efficiently in the movies : Robert Altman and Woody Allen (as if to strengthen the connection, "A Wedding" features Mia Farrow as part of the ensemble). This is one of Altman's most lightweight films: it's an impressive technical exercise (with an equally impressive cast - newcomer Pam Dawber stands out in a small role), but rather short on actual substance. There are plenty of colorful characters but lacking in emotional depth, there are lots of mildly amusing moments but they don't add up to much. Worth seeing, primarily for Altman fans. *** out of 4.

Buried Treasure...

[TonyDood · 8/10 · 26 November 2017]

"A Wedding" falls under the category of films that have to be experienced more than once to be appreciated, or perhaps even enjoyed. I saw it in the theater when it came out; I was a kid and the movie was billed as a mainstream comedy but far from laughing at what I witnessed I was disturbed by it. Raised on Disney films and related pablum, nothing had prepared me for the black humor, cynicism and nihilism that makes up what is, in my opinion, Robert Altman's most enduring work. It certainly isn't a film I'd recommend to anyone looking for light romantic fare (try "Father Of The Bride" and please, do wake me when it's over). It gets better every time you see it, certainly. The problem might be, as I've heard from non-fans of the films of Ken Russell, for those who didn't enjoy a movie the first time why on earth would they revisit it? I didn't see "A Wedding" again until I was older but when I did the film was on TV and possibly censored (there's a lot PG-rated cursing and some non-sexual but surprisingly lengthy--and superfluous--nudity), making it less of a shock to my then-conservative system. But viewing the film again I began to make sense of what at first appears to be chaos, a film that shows a world stuffed with hateful, base people acting in the worst ways humans can, and presents it for laughs. The same thing would happen when I discovered the films of John Waters some time later. I think a film like "A Wedding" goes down easier at home than in a theater, even more so after repeated viewings, where you can study the movie the way it should be studied, as an "art" film and not a mindless Hollywood comedy.

"A Wedding" is, of course, a record, in real time, of a wedding event where the daughter in a nouveau riche family marries the son from a family with "old" money and just about everything goes awry. Along the way we are introduced to a never-ending cavalcade of family members. One might complain that it's good no guests showed up, it's hard enough to tell who everyone is even after a couple viewings, but I think that's the fun of repeat viewings--untying the tangled knots. I'm reminded of the film "1941" from a few years later; I didn't get that movie either until I realized the "plot" is basically one crash after the next. This is true of "A Wedding" as well; if you try to find a comfortable comedy plot line or look for single characters to follow you will be frustrated...you're much better off just relaxing and enjoying the big, rambunctious ride and allowing it to take you where it will go...you'll be dropped off safely when the ride is over, to be sure.

Roger Ebert, who gave the film a positive review, likened watching the movie to being an invisible guest at the ceremony and after seeing the movie dozens of times I can think of no better description. I also come up short while thinking of another movie that is similar in presentation. Certainly Altman did overlapping dialog before and after this film. I'm no great fan of his work but agree with many that when he hits the mark he hits it well...and when he phones it in it's a whole lotta no fun. Altman was fond of creating over-long movies where the plot revolved around groups of people intermingling with no apparent (at first) goal. Others, like P.T. Anderson, have picked up the mantle of this technique and run with it. But I'm hard-pressed to think of any movie that so effectively sticks you in the center of the "action" (such as it is; very little happens, it's like a filmed play), even when you dearly wish you could run away screaming.

But the real genius of the film to me is the line it walks between humor and horror. On the one hand you have Carol Burnett using her (brilliant) stock tools to illicit the familiar kinds of laughs you'd have found on her variety show at the time; on the other you have her in a truly uncomfortable situation followed by a moment of unflinching, devastating tragedy, where she plays it straight and hints at some of the serious acting work she'd perform in future roles. The cast of mostly-knowns (either then or now) is composed of dignified, familiar actors playing against type as a rogues' gallery of grand grotesques, but the more you examine these strange, mostly unpleasant people the more you (uncomfortably) begin to realize they're pretty much accurate portraits of the people you know (or are).

Finally, the mounting tension of wondering what on earth can possibly go wrong next (culminating in a convulsive fit and an act of infidelity) leaves you on the verge of going numb...but strangely satisfied. Just as in real life, there are no happy endings, there is seldom a satisfying resolution to the conflicts we experience and very little of what happens in the world makes sense. It all just sort of "is." But if you're lucky, you get a filmmaker like Robert Altman to point a camera at it all and help us to gain understanding of the world around us, or at least to laugh at the absurdity of it, even if we're crying at the same time.

"A Wedding" is far from perfect but is also a film I can't recommend enough, that is, at least, to serious lovers of cinema. I'm afraid it would be entirely lost on those expecting merely a "comedy," but there are plenty of those types of films out there--this one is for the rest of us.

Altman playing to his strengths

[Red-Barracuda · 6/10 · 12 March 2024]

I remember when I watched this the first time, I didn't like it at all. So, here we are several years later and I decided to have a mini run-through of several films from 1978 and decided to give this one another go. Well, I have to say I was pleased that I did, as it proved to be a much better experience the second tie around. It's a film which is pure Robert Altman - I reckon it would be pretty easy to clock this as one of his efforts even if you missed the credits. As such, it's a comedy-drama with multiple mini plot-strands, a huge ensemble cast and overlapping dialogue all the way. So, its an example of a director simply playing to his strengths and delivering more of the same (in a good way).

Like a lot of Altman, the story is not really the point and could be summed up pretty briefly - set over a single day at a high society wedding when a rich Southern clan merge with an Italian American family with links to the Mafia; we watch the various guests indulge in a myriad of sub-plots, which reveal much about them. The groom's grandmother dies, family secrets emerge, there's sexual liaisons, hints at organised crime and a fatal accident. Like other Altman movies, the ensemble cast and improv-sounding dialogue give it a loose feel, while the vignette nature of the thing ensures that it never gets bogged down in any plot strand in particular and keeps moving all the time. The cast work well together and its overall a more entertaining experience than actually attending a wedding.

Mediocre Altman is better than no Altman...

[JasparLamarCrabb · 5/10 · 31 August 2005]

After taking aim at war, western movies, country music, Raymond Chandler and Bergmanesque psychodrama, Robert Altman points his stinging lens at the institution of marriage and ALMOST hits a bullseye. The "plot" is simple: the gathering of two disparate families for a hopelessly stuffy wedding. A WEDDING, with its large cast and intersecting story lines has the look and feel of a classic Altman film but really doesn't jell. As the bride's parents, Paul Dooley and Carol Burnett are very funny --- with Burnett doing a less demented version of her Eunice TV character. Geraldine Chaplin, as a wedding coordinator of questionable sexuality is another big plus. Mia Farrow, as the nearly mute sister of the bride, is quite funny once you realize what she's been up to. A lot of other performers like Dina Merrill, Desi Arnaz Jr., Pat McCormick simply get lost in the mix.

Altman gives us everything that we expect of him in "A Wedding"...and I wouldn't have it any other way

[lee_eisenberg · 10/10 · 9 January 2020]

If Robert Altman depicts a major gathering - think "Gosford Park" - then we're in for some shocks. And that's just what happens in "A Wedding". My favorite scenes were the ones where Pat McCormick's character hits on Carol Burnett's character, but this is one movie where there all sorts of fun surprises in store. With a giant cast and countless overlapping conversations, I loved every minute of it. There's a reason why Altman became known as one of the people who revolutionized cinema in the '70s.

Definitely worth seeing.

For Altman fans only

[smatysia · 5/10 · 30 December 2003]

Interesting enough, I suppose. A myriad of sub-plots weave through a disastrous wedding reception. It largely fails to engage, though. A lot of things zoom in from way out in left field. Altman fans should check it out, but I don't really recommend it for anyone else. Grade: D+

Altman in the extreme-but may be more accessible because of that.

[CubsandCulture · 9/10 · 4 August 2020]

Altman's large collage films-i.e. Nashville, Gosford Park, Short Cuts-are what he is known for. He was the master of this form. I am pretty sure this is his most extreme example of this type. I have just watched it for the first time and I think there are 48 named characters and about 15 plots. The amount of information conveyed is staggering. It is not as smooth as it is in Gosford Park or as economic as it is in Nashville. Unlike those fine films I found some of the characters a little hard to keep track of-it might have to do with everyone being in similar dress because of the setting. Regardless, the attentive viewer will be able to follow the main points easily enough; because the film is mocking marriage customs the big beats in the story are really obvious and straight forward. I think this film teaches you how to watch an Altman film in that the main through-line is *never* unclear. Following the steps in the wedding reception makes Nashville's political campaign central chunk more apparent.

With that being said this is a wonderfully daft film. It is farcical, laugh out loud funny. The various reveals-especially the finale-are all shocking while building on the prior scenes logically. The film is almost as sharply observed on class, social standings as Gosford Park and the two films should be watched together to get a better sense of what each says. The film has a zest for life and its overall vibe is that Altman-isque tragicomic.

The acting is of course wonderful. I particularly liked John Cromwell (the Bishop) and Pat McCormick ("Mack"). The actors were all loose and clearly having a ton of fun making this film and a great deal of them had to play open, ravenous sexuality. The film feels very today in its treatment of sex, including strikingly enough lesbians and gay men.