comment #1

Count Vronsky says ...

It's true!

comment #2

sardine says ...

for all the talent involved the movie is not very good. It is not a return to form.

comment #3

cinefan says ...

Umm, Owen Gleiberman actually gives Rachel Gets Married an A grade and calls it Demme's best film since Silence of the Lambs so you can't really say that he had a big beef with the racially-diverse-couple aspect.

comment #4

roquentin says ...

The first half of Rachel Getting Married felt like a multi-cultural hipster utopia...not completely divorced from reality (as a former Brooklynite, plenty of people are trying to live out this dream), but floating somewhere in some alternate and ethereal Demme plane.

BUT...the film starts to sink when Rachel's problems come into focus, and I think it balances out the feeling of being a lived-in Gap ad by really delving into the family strife. It ends up being a remarkable film, and I don't think you have to ignore the unreal feeling of melting-pot fantasy to enjoy it fully.

Just because it takes place in Demme-land doesn't mean it's not a great movie or not eventually connected to a very real and penetrating emotional core.

Would it have been a bit fuller if the groom weren't so stiff? Sure. The acting contributed a great deal.

But like many posts have recited on this board, this wasn't the story of the groom and his family. If you remember, the best man wasn't exactly the most well-rounded character either, and he was white. In order for the film to work, considering its heavenly 21st Century vibe ("This is heaven, right here!"), Demme had to zero in on Rachel's family. He digs deep with them and creates what for me was one of the best films I've seen this year.

comment #5

JD says ...

Personally, I think this one of Demme's best, but not a return to form because his last two films (Heart of Gold, Man From Plains) were both excellent.

As for Jeff's racial ranting, I'll repeat what I've written before: just because it's not onscreen, doesn't mean it's not there. But the movie's not about people having trouble with Rachel's marriage, it's about problems WITHIN the family. The whole point is that, even with outsiders (a status exagerrated by racial difference) everywhere, the real conflict comes from similarity, familiarity, and close proximity (ie. family). To have these characters take issue over the groom's race would completely undermine the meaning and intent of the film. Basically, you're just saying Demme -- a warm-hearted humanist -- should have made the cold, bitter, mean-spirited movie you would have made, Jeff. And then we would have had, what, Burn After Reading? I'll take Demme's version, thank you very much.

comment #6

Joshua Mooney says ...

Is there a whiter man on the planet than Robyn Hitchcock? He's whiter than David Byrne, even. But I didn't at ALL miss the lack of commentary on the bi-racial nuptials in "Rachel," because the film was clearly and ONLY about Rachel and Kym's dysfunctional family. My problem with the film was that it was self-indulgent and over-long (I felt by the end that I'd been to a wedding where I didn't know anyone but still had to grin through all real-time toasts, etc.). Too much improv by non-actors, for starters. At no point did I mistake it for an Altman film, and I'd give it a B-minus at best. My own family one hell of a lot more traditional, staid and WASP-y than Rachel's, yet when my cousin married an African man (as opposed to an African-American) who was also deaf, the wedding was simply a happy event without any discussion of "differences" or "otherness." Those two people were in love, and everyone knew it, and that what all that mattered. Same thing with Demme's film.

comment #7

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

Hats off to whichever HE regular went through all of the trouble it took to pull off that "Count Vronsky" stunt. Very funny and made me actually chuckle.

I am surprised Jeff linked to this because when I saw this yesterday via MCN after I went through some of the comments my first thought was "Jeff ain't gonna be linking to this" because one of the posters mentioned a very taboo HE subject from last year.

comment #8

frankbooth says ...

Sometimes I wish I was a pretty girl
So I could WRECK myself in the shower....

Watch your mouth, Mooney! The Man with the Light Bulb Head is coming for you!

comment #9

Joshua Mooney says ...

frankbooth: Meet you in Bryant Park, behind the liberry, with the Balloon Man as my second.

comment #10

K. Bowen says ...

I read something interesting on this subject. Demme originally offered the part of the groom to .... Paul Thomas Anderson. So race wasn't foremost in his mind.

"As for Jeff's racial ranting, I'll repeat what I've written before: just because it's not onscreen, doesn't mean it's not there. But the movie's not about people having trouble with Rachel's marriage, it's about problems WITHIN the family. The whole point is that, even with outsiders (a status exagerrated by racial difference) everywhere, the real conflict comes from similarity, familiarity, and close proximity (ie. family). To have these characters take issue over the groom's race would completely undermine the meaning and intent of the film. "

Agreed.

comment #11

tjfar67 says ...

African Americans even have a thing or two to say about mixed couples dating/marrying. I hear it at work almost daily.

comment #12

??????????? says ...

comment #13

Strathmore says ...

Turkiye'de sohbet sohbet etmenin kolayligini chat chat sitemizde farkedebilirsiniz. Chat sohbet sohbet odalari sohbet sitesi Sohbet chat mirc Sohbet forum Sohbet Chat sohbet sohbet izlesene Oyun guncel haber

-------------------------------------------
forexmali
Shbt
porno
sex
sikis
porno izle
sex izle
porno film
adult videolar
porno
porno izle
sex
sex izle
sex
sikis
porno izle
porno
gubidik

comment #14

janee says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability server