Film

What's on at the cinema plus reviews of the latest movie and DVD releases

Updates:

Rachel Getting Married (2008)

Director: Jonathan Demme

Time Out rating

Average user rating

19 reviews

Movie review

From Time Out London

The defection of scrappy young indie turk Demme to the Hollywood mainstream disappointed many: it’s a long downhill march from the wise and unpredictable ‘Something Wild’ to the cautious tedium of ‘Philadelphia’. But after a half-decade honing his skills as a documentarian, the director is back where he belongs with a freewheeling, fiercely independent comedy drama.

Anne Hathaway is smartly cast as Kym, the straight-talking black sheep on furlough from rehab to attend her sister’s wedding. The first half is structured as a series of blazing rows, as one by one the family members lose their patience and lash out at the thoughtless Kym. The second half – the big day itself – shows these old wounds healing, as forgiveness overcomes rancour.

Jenny Lumet’s script is well constructed and unflinching in its depiction of family trauma, but it’s Demme’s approach that sets the film apart. Improvising much of the dialogue and all the camera moves, he creates a loose, strikingly intimate sense of captured reality that forces the audience into the action. Even the music is exclusively diegetic, with old lags like Robyn Hitchcock and Sister Carol East providing a wildly diverse soundtrack to the celebrations.

‘Rachel Getting Married’ is not for everyone: it’s overlong, unfocused and as smugly middle class as an episode of ‘My Family’. But those who surrender to Demme’s disarming, almost participatory technique will find themselves overwhelmed, exhilarated and inspired by the eternal possibilities of cinema.

Author: Tom Huddleston 2009-01-20 12:00:29

Time Out London Issue 2005, 22-28 Jan. 2009

Bookmark

User reviews of this film

michael said...

Posted on Sep 08 2009 02:18 Well Done Time Out to stand up for this film which is NOT a crowd pleaser. It is a fiction film shot with Demme's Documentary skills. It is a family portrait which will tend to alter our expectations of how fiction is photographed, with apologies to viewers who are "allergic" to handheld cameras. We will watch this film [along with other experiments like Timecode] in film studies of the future. Cineastes will enjoy many of its virtues; easily bored viewers need not apply.

Report as inappropriate
Nandini said...

Posted on Apr 22 2009 11:42 Wasn't anybody reminded of Mira Nair's Monsoon Wedding?

Report as inappropriate
Dan said...

Posted on Mar 09 2009 22:16 Beautiful performances, and masterful, bravely structured script and direction. I'm normally very impatient, but wasn't bored once.

Report as inappropriate
Jason said...

Posted on Feb 20 2009 02:12 Why do movies like this get the green light? What a pile of crap.

Report as inappropriate
habib said...

Posted on Feb 17 2009 20:31 Pretentious crap! Come on people, there is no justification for the many problems of this movie. 1. How is a shakey grainy handheld camera realistic? How?? Come one people will fall for any gimmick in the name of art! 2. The long drawn out speeches. For what? Realism? Come on!!!

Report as inappropriate
al said...

Posted on Feb 12 2009 22:05 I saw this movie, despite it not showing anywhere in Hull, and thought it was pretty damn good. I enjoyed the cinematography which made it feel like a documentary and made it all feel very natural and i enjoyed seeing Anne Hathaway as your usual rich girl disappointment junkie. I thought this brilliantly built up to the gradual discovery of a major accident, that has clearly torn a family apart and left it very disfunctional. These parts of the film were great, however i cant say i enjoyed the different cultures aspect to the film and didnt understand why they had chosen to put every culture under the sun and all their different music in it or why it was necessary. I didn't enjoy these bits and it didnt feel very realistic. I think it would have been better left as a domestic tragedy that gradually builds up, eg the confrontation with the mother and the car crash, as is seen so often in these rich seemingly perfect neighborhoods. I did not think these elements blended and had the music been left out would have reduced the issue of the length. However it was a good little film

Report as inappropriate
didi said...

Posted on Feb 09 2009 21:12 Actually, as anyone who has seen Festen will agree, the filming style and direction was not unique. I suppose it makes a change from your average hollywood form, but it goes on way too long. Too long. People were walking out, and it felt like 3 hours, though I don't believe it was... Interesting material though. Can't believe Time Out gave it that many stars.

Report as inappropriate
Joe said...

Posted on Feb 09 2009 13:20 Well, would have to disagree with you there Marin! Every story or work of fiction is "contrived", the author makes it up. You object to this "art" movie without really saying why. Is the movie "pretentious" simply because a different technique is employed by the director? Is there only one way of shooting a film?
Clearly, the point here, was to depict the drama in the most lifelike way possible, by using unstructured direction and dialogue, and clearly, you've missed the point! And I can't understand why you're put off by a multiethnic cast, as if it's somehow unrealistic.
You don't like some of the more ordinary or mundane scenes in the film, but that's why it works. By showing all the details, quirks, mannerisms etc. of the main characters, in various settings, a far more striking effect is achieved. You are drawn closer in.
If this film is still on in your area go see it, and Marin you should definitely watch it again!

Report as inappropriate
Marin Popa said...

Posted on Feb 08 2009 01:09 Pretentious “art” movie. Everything was contrived. Starting with the image, filmed with hand held camera (to give the sensation of a drug addict?) to the multiethnic cast. They ran out of ideas before they even started, so we had to endure the marriage speeches (endless anyway) twice, to see a contest of filling up a dishwasher and an endless concert of folkloric/world music.
The characters had no depth and no logic. Sorry, I could not emphasise with any member of the liberal family. Meet the Fockers without jokes. Surprisingly, they did not drove a Prius.
Pathetic.

Report as inappropriate
Joe said...

Posted on Feb 02 2009 19:07 Saw this film yesterday and, clearly, it is not going to appeal to everyone. I found the story and style interesting; if you have the patience to sit through the film you might find it to be both powerful and moving. Deals with unsettling themes and the script and directing style are actually very original. Some of the other reviews are funny, some people will walk out on this film, but if you go with an open mind you will probably think it's a very good film.

Report as inappropriate
debbie chapman said...

Posted on Jan 30 2009 19:15 This is the worst film I've seen for a while -I forced myself to watch an hour-tried to fall asleep, but had to leave as the story was so boring and disjointed. I agree with all the reviews here who all seem to agree it's one to avoid. Anne Hathaway hasn't had a good time lately this dive bombed and Bride Wars was cheesy and awful too.

Report as inappropriate
steveo said...

Posted on Jan 27 2009 12:00 This movie has put me off going to the movies for life. Thank god I saw The Wrestler last week. It's everything this phoney pompous piece of crap isn't. Talk about your overacting. Very rarely comment on movies but had to warn everyone out there. AVOID!

Report as inappropriate
Iain Hammer said...

Posted on Jan 26 2009 08:54 Can't someone, anyone, put a stop to Tom Huddleston? Bara Evans's review neatly sums up why he he's so relentlessly irritating; other readers, with regard to other movies and/or actors, have made similar complaints about the adolescent, indolent pretensions of his "style". And to think Time Out once published Chris Petit and David Pirie and Tony Rayns.

Report as inappropriate
Bara Evans said...

Posted on Jan 25 2009 19:34 Do not waste a second or a penny on this film. My normal rule is that if Time Out praises something, steer clear (Winnipeg, Che). I broke the rule this time because the rating on the movie was so high (above Frost/Nixon and a host of other really good films). A mistake. The tell-tale sign should have been when the reviewer referred pretentiously to the director as a "young indie turk" (aka in Time Out lingo an "auteur". It is dire - like a home movie of a wedding with a clunking script. Memo to reviewer: just because it's about a dysfunctional family doesn't mean it's "unflinching", as you put it. It might just be crap.

Report as inappropriate
Claire said...

Posted on Jan 23 2009 11:45 Interesting and important portrayal of tragedy, drug addiction, guilt and forgiveness. Tryingly slow during times of necessary background depiction, however. Persevere through this, and you will be rewarded with an unusually powerful and thoughtful expression of feelings and emotion. I liked it.

Report as inappropriate