Thank God He Met Lizzie (1997)

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

There's something about Australian film. Canada has some filmmakers worth watching, many more as a percentage than nearly anywhere. But they are of all sorts, many different worlds as if being Canadian were only a gateway to imagination.Australia is different. There's something distinct about Australian film-making and acting. You can see it permeate all the gems from that place and from people from that place. I like it because it is deeply rooted in the sort of self-reference I study. But I also appreciate it because it serves the way I watch movies: the effects of each one giving me footholds and crevices in exploring the next.I watched this because it has Cate; simple enough. Cate does do some Cate-ish things toward the end, and they are useful, but the stuff she creates is a sort of emotional framing device for the real matter of the thing, which is a finished but not finished romance.Now you have to know that I am coming at an appreciation of this in part because I know it is not the story that matters, but how the story unfolds. Romance and movies are tied in this way, allure. Seduction. Reward.I'd like to recommend this to you because of how it is put together, and the deftness of how it handles how romance and love relate to one another. I guarantee that if you watch this with someone else, you two will come away with different notions of what you have seen. And can I give a higher compliment? Its about a relationship as seen from another one. One great choice is that the two lovers aren't defined. The attraction and the failure aren't explained. He's sort of stuffy and she sort of aggressively grabs life, but things are left vague beyond that. We see the milestones of their relationship but none of the machinery. It must have taken significant disciple to open things this way to judge by how rarely we see it.So we have this arc, this huge arc of love. And we have it presented openly and more important, cinematically. There's mastery here. In the little ways things are revealed. You'll know it from the first scene which is a very long tracking shot in a house party, where we see many parallel seductions. Its the little compositions that matter.At the wedding reception, for example, there's introspective banter between two strangers as he first explains why there are no "types" of women left for him to accept and she counters with several certain capture strategies that we know would each work in the short run.There are dozens of little annotations like this.Two scenes to watch for. I imagine these two were the first to appear in the writer's mind.Our couple have been living together for years and are decorating the Christmas tree. They are casually nude in that way that is past the honeymoon. They haven't had sex in months and that knowledge is haunting them. They both know something is over and are wondering what that implies. She is on a ladder and he is holding her legs, his cheek against her buttock, wondering. He turns to place his face in her crack and she gently but firmly swats him away with a decoration, his face but not his support. Its perfect drama by itself and in the larger flow.Another scene. He is getting married to another woman later. The first woman isn't at the wedding but her friend is. This person is as "crazy about life" and impulse compared to the first love as that love is to the new wife. He approaches her for a dance. She awkwardly starts with some club moves, you know the dance moves that tell small stories. He interrupts and draws her close in for a tender dance instead. Its an amazing set of choices all around.So you'll want to see this, if you love competent cinematic storytelling. And especially if you have been bitten by the Aussie movie bug and are also interested in romance.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

Cherie Nowlan's directorial debut resulted in this curious movie, which is well worth seeing. It features two stories. The primary story involves Guy's (Richard Roxburgh) courtship and marriage to Lizzie (Cate Blanchett). The background story, told in flashback, features Guy's earlier passionate but tempestuous relationship with Jenny (Francis O'Connor).The movie, released in USA as "The Wedding Party", centres not so much on the wedding itself but on Guy's memories of his relationship with Jenny as various people and situations at the wedding party remind him of his adventures and misadventures with Jenny. The curiosity is that, because of the passionate relationship, the background story is actually more interesting than the primary story.The message, if indeed there was a message and I read it correctly, is that passionate but stormy relationships are exciting in the short term but can lose their impetus over time, whereas more stable relationships are likely to stand the test of time.Cherie Nowlan has delivered a classy production in her directorial debut. Why hasn't she done more? Richard Roxburgh, who is virtually on screen the entire movie and who therefore carries the plot, is well cast as a quiet, unassuming fellow who can be obstenate and even nasty when aggravated. His essentially nice guy role is a contrast to his villainous roles in movies such as "Doing Time for Patsy Cline" and "Moulin Rouge". Cate Blanchett's character is slightly superficial but her acting ability, which would the next year catapult her to international stardom and an Oscar nomination for "Elizabeth", is readily apparent. Francis O'Connor has the far juicier role of Jenny and handles it well. Jane Turner performs a nice comic turn in a minor role as the wedding party co-ordinator.There is a lot to like in this movie. Unfortunately its Australian title - "Thank God He Met Lizzie" - suggests a period piece and does not correctly portray the passion in Guy and Jenny's relationship. The USA title - "The Wedding Party" - similarly misses the mark because Guy and Jenny's relationship is the focal point of the movie - or, is, at least, the most interesting focus of the movie. Title aside, it's a movie worth seeing.

Guy meets Lizzie and in a mad rush they marry. During the wedding, Guy's memories float to the turbulent relationship with the other woman - Jenny. Alexandra Long's script delivers the goods but let down by poor quality production values. The other saviour comes from O'Conner's performance as the manic Jenny.

They don't make movies like this anymore! Thank so much to Alexandra Long for sharing your insight into life and relationships. The first time I watched it in February 2000 I cried for 1 hour after watching it. I blamed Guy for getting over Jenny too quickly. Last week when I watched it again - Sept 2000, I saw things differently. They had hit a brick wall in their relationship and didn't know how to fix things. That's life - If only they went to a marriage counsellor! All principle characters I thought were superb in their translation of their parts - Richard, Jenny and Cate - they might have been my neighbours across the street. Real people, with real reactions and emotions.