Diagonaldi Very well executed

MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

ShangLuda Admirable film.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Jekkyl This is a decent movie presented in a unique way and it has some good performances particularly by the stars. It does get a little bit boring sometimes but is worth watching.

SnoopyStyle Kym Buchman (Anne Hathaway) gets out of drug rehab temporarily after nine months to attend her sister Rachel (Rosemarie DeWitt)'s wedding. She is brought back by her father Paul (Bill Irwin) and Carol (Anna Deavere Smith). Paul is divorced from her mother Abby (Debra Winger). The wedding is taking place at the family home. Rachel forces Emma to surrender the maid of honor to Kym. The general chaos and Kym's trouble dealing with her situation starts taking its toll. Despite resentment from all sides and a truly sad history, they never stop being a family.Everybody has had to deal with a wedding whether it's their's or friend or family's. Jonathan Demme brings that sense to the screen. The acting is first rate especially by Hathaway and DeWitt. There is one scene with Debra Winger and Hathaway that goes over board. I think the mother is handled wrongly in that section. The confrontation should be cut out and she should have a better heart to heart after the wedding. The last act is generally low energy with a wedding montage and cleaning up. That's why it needs something amazing from Winger.

Urantia The delirium tremens that seemed to have afflicted the camera contributed to my total inability and utter unwillingness to subject myself to what would have been almost two hours of cinematic torture had I not opted instead to abandon this failed attempt to capture and sustain my interest. Before that, I did skip ahead a few times only to realize that the shaky-cam footage was a curse that afflicted this movie in its entirety as opposed to only being selectively used for some specific purpose during certain scenes. I realize there's no need to hire a focus puller when there's no concern over staying in focus since this is something that is impossible to achieve when using a dancing camera lens in an attempt to capture photographed frames of light bouncing off moving or stationary objects. And no dollies would have been needed either so that would also reduce the movie's budget. But there is a plethora of good reasons why focus pullers and dollies (and similar rigs) are used by most competent movie directors whether they are rich and famous or just starting out as raw rookies exploring the world of low-budget independent cinema. It's difficult for me to fathom that the same guy who directed this movie directed "Silence of the Lambs"! I'm certain that there are critics out there who actually did like this movie and might attempt to justify the use of the shaky-cam as being some kind of intentionally applied artistic choice that visually enhances some underlying emotional aspect of the leading lady or one of her dramatic counterparts. But by way of analogy, if someone splattered dog feces on a blank canvas and called it "art", I don't care if every single living person on this planet as well as any other planet hailed it as a stroke of artistic genius unparalleled in every intricate aspect of its supposedly creative attributes. To me, it is and would always be nothing more than dog sh_t going through various decompositional stages after being framed in white.

The_late_Buddy_Ryan Hard to believe that it's been five years since Jonathan Demme's last full-length fiction film, now available for streaming on Amazon Prime. This time around, we were struck by how powerful and affecting the ensemble scenes are—the rehearsal dinner, the ceremony itself, even the much-maligned dishwasher-loading contest. These sequences feel like a kind of virtual reality in which we're not just emotionally engaged as spectators but almost physically present as participants. They were so effective, in fact, that the scenes that took place in less crowded rooms and explored the conflict between the sisters—serene bride-to-be Rachel and shattered, attention-hungry Kym—started to seem like a distraction, even though the script was just about perfect (also hard to believe this was Jenny Lumet's first produced screenplay) and the performances could hardly have been better. Ever since "Something Wild," Demme's been crazy for world music and multiculture, and in "Rachel…" every time you look around, somebody's plucking on an oud or sawing out a modal tune on a fiddle. Loved it! (Also loved the scene where Anna Deavere Smith tells them to knock it off.) Didn't mind the twitchy, crazed-wedding-videographer-in-everyone's-face camera-work. Clearly the dancing and festivating goes on for quite a while (though be honest now, what's a wedding reception without a samba troupe and break dancing?); maybe JD felt we had to experience a bit of celebratory burnout before the subdued, melancholy tone of the final scenes. The boho excesses of Rachel's family and the overstuffed production may give snarks and quibblers a lot to complain about, but all in all "Rachel…" is a brilliant, soulful film that should give you as much pleasure to remember as it does to experience.