Add a Review

  • People may question my taste if I admit to admiring Tony Slattery, and I'm quite aware that I'm in a rightfully tiny minority here. So, for me to then claim with complete conviction that he is far and away the best thing about this film, should prove to the majority what an absolutely atrocious waste of time this is.

    Slattery is, in fact, the one member of the cast who puts any effort into creating a character. This character may be every bit as loathsome and unsympathetic as the others featured, but at least his gurning and gyrating proves that is trying to make the best of a very slim script. Everyone else just looks bored and pained to the point of contempt - contemptuous of themselves that they find themselves involved with this utterly unlikable feature, and contemptuous (it felt, watching it) with their audience, for paying to see it.

    The plot has potential, but the farce is unravelled lazily and with no attention whatsoever. The character of Claudagh could have been pivotal, and the eventual conclusion seems designed to make it appear that she has been behind the pay-offs of at least two of the characters. However, it takes the viewer about a second to realise that none of this makes any sense whatsoever: the strands of the plot are not pulled up sharply, as in classic farce, but resolved clumsily and coincidentally.

    The soundtrack too is abysmal - what on earth were they dancing to in that nightclub? Even the worst of recent British comedies have managed to create some semblance of contemporary British life. This was released in 2000, but feels every bit as dreary and uninspired as a damp November Tuesday evening in 1982.

    Quite the worst film I've seen since... ooh, Carry On England. Poor Tony - he's worth so much more.
  • ... to continually produce badly scripted movies ?

    Make no mistake , the core problem with THE WEDDING TACKLE is the screenplay. Didn`t anyone notice before they started shooting that this film has no premise , no plot and is full of under developed characters ?

    As soon as the movie started I thought I was going to be watching some sort of bitter/sweet rom-com , then I thought I was going to be watching a bawdy sex comedy , then I thought I was going to be watching a comedy thriller , then I thought I was going to be watching a farce and all these conclusions took place within the first 15 minutes of the movie , which incidentally feels like it was made by a bunch of under talented film students . If people in Britain can`t be bothered to develop a script for a cinematic release why should people flock to the cinema to see their movie ?

    " Anything else you want to warn us about Theo ? "

    Yes . You know the worst actor in Britain ? , the one from EASTENDERS who got shot by a bunch of daffodills in 1988 then returned to the show last year , you know the actor who`s so wooden he only gives a good performance as a forest . Well he plays the villain in THE WEDDING TACKLE which that alone is reason enough to give this thoroughly unentertaining movie a miss

    " TAXI "
  • no wonder the British film industry is in such dire straights! The script has as much wit as the graffiti in the toilet of my local pub, the director could take lessons from a traffic warden, the actors flounder like fishes out of water, and the technical credits look like the crew never stopped their partying from the night before quite long enough to even consider caring about this stinking, rotten mess.

    The story is dumb, the dialogue is wooden, the performances are perfunctory, and the attempts by the director to spice the tale up with frissons of kinky sex are unfortunately the only thing we're igven to laugh at - and this is unintentional! If this is the best the filmmakers can do, let's hope they all kept their day jobs - cos they ain't getting' no more money for movies from no-one!
  • I can only agree with the previous reviewer - a complete and utter waste of time and money. This film has the misfortune to be one of the worst I have ever seen - I only stayed 20 minutes, and that was around 19 minutes too long. The advert for the local curry house was like Gone with the Wind compared to this. Poor script, rubbish editing, some terrible acting and the use of some bizarre plot contrivances... what were the makers thinking of off? A 3 year could have done better than this.

    Still, my curry was good
  • I agree with several of the other reviewers that this film's script is really rather poor. I can see how some of the intended "jokes" might have seemed funny to the writer and his mates when they were putting the thing together. However, the truth is that what you might think is a funny script often doesn't translate well into a funny film unless the director possesses the right touch, which in this case he clearly does not.

    The first 15 minutes are pretty dreadful and do very little to set up any plot or premise. In fact its all a bit confusing (I think others have made this same comment). I think that I was only prevented from turning the film off at this point by the thought that one of the girls might eventually get her kit off. Didn't happen, however as the film went on I did become vaguely interested in how the rather flimsy story would pan out. So I was at least semi-entertained for the final 45 mins.

    I would still hesitate to call the film a comedy. More of a lighthearted romance. Certainly not the worst film ever and not too bad as a time killer provided you only turn on half way through and avoid the pointless and misleading opening scenes.
  • When I saw this film, in the cinema, there was only one other person in the audience. It's not surprising.

    Although I like Neil Stukes and don't mind James Purefoy, they were both completely pointless in this film.

    The plot was nearly there, but the business with the names in the diary was confused and confusing. Just when you start to think you may know what's going on the issue is clouded once again.

    The film ends where it should be beginning - the titles start just as each of the amoral characters is about to get a nasty surprise. The aftermath would be interesting. It would be a film worth watching.

    As it is it feels like you've just listened for 90 minutes to someone telling a shaggy dog story and then forgetting the punchline.
  • pixieplace21 February 2007
    I really enjoyed this film. It has a great British cast, a tubby Tony Slattery is very entertaining, and is packed full of really funny moments. Adrian Dunbar puts in his usual faultless performance as Mr. Mac and James Purefoy's Hal is the epitome of slippery smoothness. It's a really welcome change to find a good home-grown comedy. We should be encouraging more film-making in this vein rather than always knocking it following the dislike of one critic. I found the characters well written and engaging and well portrayed. The film is more of a black comedy than merely a light hearted canter. A must for those who like comedy with a bite. I certainly think this film stands heads above other supposed British romantic comedies like ' This Years love ' which I believe was hardly classified correctly as a romantic comedy- rather a poor drama. The Wedding Tackle is a highly enjoyable romp, one which deserves a visit. I cannot understand why this film has not been more highly rated it ticks all the boxes for films in this category and beats many others that have received more critical acclaim. Cold feet with a vicious streak as one critic says. A definite must see.
  • Robin Kelly15 August 2000
    This has been called one of the worst British comedies ever but the key to getting something out of it is to not think of it as a comedy at all. That way the one or two smiles in the movie come as a pleasant surprise.

    The cast is excellent and the dialogue is OK but that isn't nearly enough to compensate for the inconsistent characters and poor plotting.

    There is a line in the movie which says "you can't just change your mind just like that". It is said by a character who has a major change of mind for no possible reason, either explicit or implied. That is typical of the characterisation.

    There is a plot device - the diary - which sets lots of things in motion. This isn't particularly convincingly set up but I went along with it. However, who was supposed to have written it and why? That is typical of the plotting.

    I don't feel as ripped-off as I have done by other films but British films have simply got to stop rushing into production when the script isn't ready.