This movie sickened me. The disrespect shown consistently towards George, the Father Of The Bride, by virtually EVERY character in the film(except ironically, the groom himself) from the in-laws flaunting their wealth but refusing to fly their own relatives to the wedding(supposedly they offered to pay but the fact that George's "pride" wouldn't allow it still tells me they didn't try very hard to change his mind), to the selfish daughter, to the repulsive character played by Short(the man seemed consistently to forget throughout the film just who exactly was paying his salary), to even Nina the wife, who chooses to ignore him and can't even be bothered to seek him out during the reception, causing him to miss the cutting of the cake and the throwing of the bouquet. I'm just amazed at the way George took it all in stride.
Personally, if the Short character (in one of the film's most offensive scenes) had the nerve to tell ME that I had to worry about parking the cars while he "oversaw" the cutting of the cake, I'd had thrown his ass out of my house along with his "assistant" so fast their heads would spin. If I had missed out on the chance to eat some of that expensive food with my family and friends, and my wife didn't care enough to track me down and make sure I was present for some of my daughter's most precious moments, I wouldn't have danced with her at the end, I woulda thrown her out too and filed for divorce.
Overall, a terrible comedy that has the wrong idea for getting its laughs out of cruel mean-spirited situations. Thumbs down...
I couldn't believe that Annie left the house without even bothering to say goodbye to her father..He's been bullied into paying a ridiculous amount of money for the wedding of her dreams, and the spoilt little cow couldn't even be a*sed to seek him out for a few minutes...
His wife was just a moaning biatch who totally dominated him, and never gave him any say in the whole thing..
I also thought that the way Annie behaved when Brian's parents bought them the car was sickening. His parents were much wealthier than George and Nina, but Annie didn't seem to realise that the car cost a lot less than her parents had spent on her wedding.. George was upset that they only gave them a coffee maker, and she was sooo patronising about that...
To defend at least the part about Annie leaving the house before saying goodbye to her father, I think the situation there was simply that she was on her way to her honeymoon and had a plane to catch that night, so she had to leave for the airport by a certain time. My whole thing with Annie was that I couldn't believe she was going to marry some guy she'd known for only something like five months. For all she knew he was just some dude scamming around Italy pretending to be a computer expert. And what was with that pitiful flea market engagement ring? :P
My whole thing with Annie was that I couldn't believe she was going to marry some guy she'd known for only something like five months. For all she knew he was just some dude scamming around Italy pretending to be a computer expert.
Wait a minute, there! I know a couple who dated for 6 months before they wed, and they've been happily married for 40 years!
reply share
If it works for them, and others like them, great. I'm just saying I personally am not a believer in love at first sight. Lust (or attraction) at first sight is probably closer to the truth for most. I have been in the best relationship of my life for three years and I am far from even wanting to move in with him even though the subject has been discussed. I've lived on my own for more than ten years and I guess I still haven't had enough of the independence factor. Not that I'm not a romantic somewhere within my soul, just not the flighty type of romantic.
People who believe in love at first sight are usually divorced soon after. Lust at first sight is the correct term. Ladies: NEVER move in with a guy...a sure fire way to destroy a good thing. Shacking up is tacky and a waste of time. If he loves you, he'll marry you! Don't ever cheapen yourself! This film just reminded me of the crap...pure crap...that goes into a wedding. All that money for a wedding that just looks like everyone elses!
Couples out there...if you really want to do something special....invite ONLY the people you can count on. Trust me it's not very many--usually the numbers are way under 20. Do not waste your energy on something that will suck the life out of you (case in point: Bridezilla episodes) Often brides are so consummed with planning that they completely overlook the marriage aspect (not to mention the groom) It's just a party, people. KIS! KEEP IT SIMPLE! We got married on the beach in winter. Only 13 in attendence including the Justice of the Peace. Lovely. Special. And no frills. no DJ. No fancy photographer, no seating (we all stood), no flower girl or ring bearer, no bridesmaides, no best men, no organist, no flower arrangements (I had a very small bouquet I picked from my garden), no invitations with RSVP (I just called them all), no band, no caterer, no nothing. I wore a beautiful green dress and he wore a blue suit. We even went barefoot but I kept my overcoat on. Dinner was down the street at a beautiful restaurant. Believe me....if you keep your wedding simple you are guarantee'd a happy marriage. And isn't that what it's supposed to be about?? Yes, there are expections but why on earth would you want to put yourself through that? KIS! KIS!! KIS!!!
Yes, I had a wedding like that the first time. It didn't last 2 years. Second husband, we lived together then bought a place together. WE got engaged and then married. We've been married 10 years. My point is, it's ok for you to tell others to do what you did because you feel you have the perfect relationship, had the best wedding etc. but that is not going to work for everyone. I was gonna let you *beep* me, but I got my rag, and I know how you hate a mess
Believe me....if you keep your wedding simple you are guarantee'd a happy marriage. -----------------------------------------
i don't necessarily agree with that. i don't think anything *guarantees* a happy marriage. i think not getting *carried away* with planning a wedding can surely be a sign of the stability of your relationship, but some people can plan a big, fancy wedding and still live happily ever after. just like some people can have a small ceremony and break up in a year or less (renee zelweger/kenny chesney... a good friend of mine from high school...)
I agree with the "not living together before marriage" thing. Cause what is there to look forward to after marriage? You should just marry the "right" person after a long engagement, and go to counseling before marriage whether you get along or not (so you can discuss how you each squeeze the toothepaste out --lol) because if you really love each other you could live together. Because the love is real, not sex and shared money and stuff.
Annie was upset about the blender because she felt he was trying to tie her down as a house wife because it is an appliance. She didn't care about price.
I'm glad there are girls like you still out there.. I know someone who met a guy, and he proposed to her after just a month, and she accepted (but she did want a long engagement). I'm surprised people make such quick decisions sometimes, but if it works for them, more power to them. I like to take things a little slower, and it makes me worry about missing the boat when the time comes.
She was 22 years old! She was immature,rude and bitchy. She even wanted to leave Brian just because he bought her a blender. What the hell did you expect from that idiot!?
I also agree that sometimes it is best to live together for awhile before you commit to a marriage. You might believe you really love someone for better or for worse, but after the marriage would be a sticky time to realize that your loved one's most personal idiosyncrasies are deal breakers for you. Some people need that kind of a wake up call to maybe realize that they aren't as ready to commit to one person forever as they originally thought.
I also agree that sometimes it is best to live together for awhile before you commit to a marriage. You might believe you really love someone for better or for worse, but after the marriage would be a sticky time to realize that your loved one's most personal idiosyncrasies are deal breakers for you. Some people need that kind of a wake up call to maybe realize that they aren't as ready to commit to one person forever as they originally thought.
Actually there have been studies stating that cohabitation increases the chances of divorce if they choose to marry. So if you're going to live with someone without marrying them first, it's best to just keep things as is rather than getting married because you're just setting yourselves up for failure.
"Ever has it been that love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation" reply share
Well, it's all probably relative. There are countless studies concerning people and relationships. However, what makes some relationships last and others fail is likely just simply a mystery. I personally don't believe in love at first sight (I think I mentioned that on another part of this thread) and I wouldn't guarantee the success of any relationship where people meet and "fall in love" and marry within weeks. But I guess there are some relationships that have withstood the test of time even in circumstances like that. My other statement is my personal belief and doesn't prove or disprove the ability of a couple to last in such a situation. But we can't deny that there are definitely relationships where people thought they knew someone, got married and then discovered something about the other person that was enough of a turn off to cause the end of the relationship. I'm just saying, be sure you know who you're marrying. It's a no brainer. And what better way to be sure you know someone IMO than if you spend pretty much 24-7 with them, talking, communicating and seeing exactly who they are during a time when they normally wouldn't be with you.
And what better way to be sure you know someone IMO than if you spend pretty much 24-7 with them, talking, communicating and seeing exactly who they are during a time when they normally wouldn't be with you.
Unfortunately, even living with someone doesn't guarantee you'll know them. Yes, you'll their habits like living the window open at night or leaving their laundry on their floor. However, you may or may not know them as a person. My friend lived with her boyfriend for eight years.. Guess what? He had her fooled completely. Everything he said was a total lie and he was living a double life. You can only know someone if they are honest about what they tell you.
"Ever has it been that love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation" reply share
That example proves the point. Their relationship would have fared no better whether they lived together beforehand or not, because he was a jerk who wasn't being truthful about himself and chose to be dishonest. Not everyone is going to be like that. Most people are going to be honest about who they are. But again, it's all relative. One way is no better than the other. All you can do is what you believe is right and what you think will make you most sure you're making the right decision in the long run. And if living together before marriage makes some people better inclined to commit to "for better or worse" then so be it. If not, more power to you for having that foresight before jumping in with both feet.
If living together before marriage helps people know each other better, then why is the divorce rate so high? Cohabitation is more common than ever before and yet the divorce rate is out of control. By your argument, the divorce rate should not be high at all. After all, if you live with someone for a number of years, you should have a fairly good idea of what they're like before marrying them. There shouldn't be any surprises, right? Wrong. People are not simple at all.
You wanna know why many relationships fail? It isn't always a question of how well a couple knows each other before tying the knot. That is a very important aspect, but it isn't the only one. The other reason is that people naturally change and mature over time. Hopefully, the person's basic personality remains the same, but sometimes even this changes to the point where they're unrecognizable. The person you marry at 25 is not necessarily the same person you'll be married to at age 40 or at age 75. Unfortunately, sometimes a couple who is able to finish each other's sentences at the beginning of a marriage may be at each other's throats later on. You really can't tell. Marriage is a huge gamble. The only ones that survive these days are the ones where the couple is able to find some common ground--a shared interest or belief. They need something to unite them.
"Ever has it been that love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation"
I actually never argued for or against the validity of the divorce rate. It is what it is. People divorce for many reasons. It could be argued however that a lot of people just simply no longer take marriage all that seriously and maybe that is why the whole institution of marriage is gone to hell, who knows. My original point was nothing guarantees a happy marriage, what may work for some people isn't going to work for others. Living together may work for some in making sure they are prepared for the challenges of marriage but that might not be the case with other couples. Again no one really knows. Study systems can be flawed too.
No!! Live together first! I know religious aspects play into it, but go away together, vacation, hotel for the weekend, something. Made the big mistake of waiting til after the wedding to find out we can't be under the same roof. Better to discover that prior and call the whole thing off. Otherwise you'll wind up trapped. For years. And years.
I lived together with my now husband for 1.5 years before we got engaged. He and I both thought it was a good idea to live together with someone for at least a year before you get married. That way you know if you can tolerate each other, and put up with the other's habits.
It is ridiculous to get into the "living together" argument. Those who see no problem in floozing around will forever claim that they are "saving a divorce" by "testing" their ability to live together.
In fact, couples diminish their likelihood of developing a successful marriage by FIFTY PERCENT by living together first. So, with the average chance of a successful marriage also at about fifty percent, those who move in first are intentionally cutting their chances of success down to twenty-five percent. Those are not good odds in anyone's book.
The problem with "living together" without the sanctity of marriage, is that the situation cannot be duplicated without being binding. People cannot "pretend" they are married, anymore than they can "pretend" they can breathe underwater. So, the participants are NOT testing their ability to live together as husband and wife; they are only testing a roommate with privileges situation. Nothing is being demonstrated other than a complete and total lack of respect for themselves, each other, their parents, their families, and their loved ones. And, people notice. Women are in control; they dictate living arrangements, why settle for anything less?
And yet, with all that, this was a stupid movie. The family was miserable to George; they treated him like a drip. George seemed so conflicted he couldn’t even be honest with himself. On one hand, he claimed they were completely happy, and had a wonderful life; the next moment he was obsessing about money and complaining that the MacKenzie family had more. Was this a novel concept to George and Nina? I also wondered why they didn’t have more money with both of them having businesses in LA, and only two children. The only thing that saved it for me was the music. The songs were great. And, compared to the yawner of a part II, this film was genius.
The reason that couples that get married without living together first are less likely to be divorced has nothing to do with this ridiculous idea of "living in sin" will ruin the marriage.
Couples that don't believe in living together before marriage are less likely to believe in divorce, period. Mormons and Hasidic Jews and Jehovah's Witnesses don't tend to live together before marriage, and their divorce rates are practically zero. Do they have the secret to happy marriages? No, they just live in a culture where divorce isn't a socially acceptable option. In many cases, they'll stay together even in cases of abuse and adultery.
I know I'm two years late, but I wanted to add something.
All of your reasons for the divorce rate is higher among those who live together are true. But you didn't mention another reason.
People will often move in together without discussing their expectations beyond just living together. This can lead to sliding into marriage because it seems like the logical next step, not necessarily because the couple is a good match. That's why communication is so important!
and how come there were no speeches or any of the usual parts of a wedding? You would think for all George's emotions about his daughter he would have given a speech...
I totally agree about Frank - specially when they paid his salary PLUS invited him to the wedding- I don't get why he had to be invited when he was working at it anyway??? that was a bit stupid...
At one point Annie asks 'where's my dad' - but doesn't bother to go look for him... that was totally wrong...
and when he tries to go the back way so he doesn't miss her throwing the bouquet - how is it that he took such a long time when she had to go upstairs and get changed???? that was a bit strange too...
I have a brother who is very wealthy,i wont say how much,he is in his early forties,and has a fiance who is much younger than him,she's a similar age to me actually,as i am in my twenties.My parents also have a big age gap,which seems to be a strange coincidence.I,on the other hand,am still working class,that's what we call it in the U.K,not sure what it is in America,the classes that are higher than that here are middle class and upper class.And most of my imediate family are working class too,although some are in the higher classes.So all of them ended up that way because of their jobs.
I hardly know my brother,as he is my half brother.I cant help feeling depressed and slightly jealous by how their lives are,although sometimes,i do feel that my brother has changed since he became wealthy,and seems quite spoilt,and he seems to spoil his fiance.They have big houses and expensive cars,and go on expensive holidays,e.t.c.If it were me,even if i had alot of money,i would stay pretty much the same as i am now.
One scene that really made me think Annie was spoiled was where Brian had bought her the blender and she said she didnt like it,and i also agree with what another poster said about the scene where Brian's aprents had bought her a car.I knew how George felt when he was embarrassed about his present as it wasnt an expensive one.
They are going to get married,and to be honest,i'd rather not go to the wedding.For one thing,i dont really like going to weddings,or any kind of parties for that matter,it depends really,and another is just for my own personal reasons.So i can kind of relate to this film in that i can see bits of my family in it,and see how George didnt want to make too much of a deal about the wedding.
I sympathise with you, Beth. I hate it when people start earning money and they're all of a sudden completely different people. I hated the part with Annie and the blender. I'd honestly rather get a blender than some useless romantic piece of crap. I mean, my friend just spent $6000 on an engagement ring for his fiance. I rather get a car that I could actually use (albeit, a cheap one) and a $100 ring. Expensive weddings are so ridiculous.
Actually, it's been statistically proven that people who live together before marriage are more likely to end up divorced. Many many people before these few decades got married, who did not live together, and have been married for many many years. What would I discover, that my hubby leaves the toilet seat up and the cap off the toothpaste off?
During the dating and engagement period is when you learn what the roles should be, who is responsible and takes pride in their things and home, what they want in the other spouse and out of life, living together seems like a man getting his cake and eating it too.
I would never live with someone before we'd get married, I love my apartment and I can cleary see how his is meaning if he keeps it clean or not, etc, by going over there.
It just seems living together is a hassle when you break up, bills need to split, debt needs to be paid if any was accumulated, divying up each other's belongings and hopefully nothing gets broken or stolen. What incentive is there to get married if you live together before?
It may sound like a good idea, but again, more end up in divorce, that says something.
Expensive weddings are a symptom of a lot of problems in our culture.
For one, we've lost the sanctity of marriage, but not as a result of the expense. It's due to the fact that our pop culture no longer values faith and family, and feminism has destroyed female dignity.
Understand that Marriage is a Sacrament. You're not making your vows to one another. You're making them to God. That's why most marriages are performed in places of worship. When you make a vow to God, you're effectively putting your immortal soul on the line. That's why the Bible frowns on divorce: Mosaic Law and Christ allow for divorce on certain grounds, but they don't approve of it because you've made a pact to love, honor, and cherish the person you've married for richer, poorer, sickness and in health, to death do you part. Lots of marriages end as a result of money problems, and a lack of sex. Sorry, buds, but did you marry for the sex and money? Whenever I hear people say why they divorced, I basically point out that making a vow means nothing to them.
What happened?
Well, several things happened that took the focus off of God and onto the material. It's a cultural decay that ridicules and undermines things that are important to things that are not. We have a multi-billion dollar industry that plays to women's vanity in various ways, to the point that every Single woman has a dream wedding already in mind. Note that men do not have such dreams. To men, Marriage is not about the Wedding, it's about Life thereafter.
We have a culture that has been developed, mostly through the concepts espoused by modern feminism, that seeks to erode all personal responsibility from women.
Think about it. In our culture, women can opt out of parenthood through abortion. Men have no such right. Indeed, women can falsely accuse anyone of anything, and not be punished for it (the Duke Lacrosse Case is but one example). Women can commit paternity fraud and not be held to account. Among other things this has caused is the fact that women bring more than 70% of the divorces in this country, and in 90% of cases they get alimony and child custody. Men end up becoming Pay-Per-View Dads.
Consider that. For most women, the vows only mean something when they can use it to their advantage. For most men, vows are vows. Most men do not bring divorces because they made a vow, and to men, keeping your word is a mark of honor and character. Women, today, are not ever expected to behave with honor and character. It's nice when they do, but the operative word here is "expected."
There are very few expectations of women these days. They're not obligated to shoulder responsibilities as they once did. There was a time when women were courted, and an elaborate dating ritual was born out of this. There was a time that the only women who dressed provocatively were prostitutes. Today, we now have Slutwalks, a rather silly display at defiance against...what, exactly, isn't specified. The so-called patriarchy, which never really existed in the West anyway, at least not the way feminists believe.
Women cheat on their spouses as much as men do, it's just they're better at lying about it then men are.
On top of all this, men tend to almost worship women. Lots of men put women on pedestals because that's what we've been taught to do. We think that by kissing her ass, buying her gifts, wining and dining her, we'll get laid. It's very flawed thinking, but there it is. As a result, many women feel very entitled. When they date a man, they expect him to pay for every dinner, buy her gifts on Valentine's Day, her birthday, and remember the day they met. And it doesn't stop when they make wedding vows. I've known lots of women who would find it an insult if she was expected to go dutch even on the first date.
When you combine a princess mentality severed from a sense of personal responsibility, character, and honor, you're bound to have what you see in the film Father of the Bride.
George Banks is a product of the culture; the emasculated man who has no idea why so much money is being spent on one celebration, and has no control over it whatsoever. He doesn't know how it happened, and he has no counter to it all, because he's been guilted, in essence, to cater to whatever his wife and daughter want, regardless of practical concerns.
the problem is 'franck'! the dude sounds related to that crazy nazi guy in 'indiana jones & raiders of the lost ark' that got his hand burned with the amulet!
Oh, and remember, next Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
Oh, fudge off. I'm an atheist feminist who has been happily married for 23 years. You don't need religion or "god" to believe in commitment to another person. Common sense and self-respect are a good foundation. George was lacking in both.
I totally agree with you. Also I would like to add this rubbish we are getting from America regarding marriage and divorces. In ALL American films (and I am sure echoed in life) we get this "I want to (blub blub) be with you (blub blub) for the rest of my (blub) life." Yeah, until you have a little tiff then it's off to the next one. Pathetic. This godawful movie appeals only to facile fascists who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. I bet it is being used as a Taliban recruitment video.
A bit of a bleak way of looking at it but I agree sort of lol. I think what the movie was really trying to show was how much of a middle man George felt and his struggle to let go of his little girl. It's probably why he kept missing things like that. Doing things to keep his mind off the reality.