Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Kirandeep Yoder The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Josephina Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

jesi_r_77 This movie is nothing as it is described in the plot trailer... I couldn't take any more of the insanity of untruths after only 34 min I had to turn it off, it just made me aggravated

cinemajesty Film Review: "Rachel Getting Married" (2008)Director Jonathan Demme (1944-2017) gives into documentary-composed cinematography in this film about the character of Kym, portrayed in break-out fashion and chain-smoking on the plain actress Anne Hathaway, who gives in to every beat to be the black sheep in the herd of a family celebrating the older sister's wedding, title-given character of Rachel, performed by decent appearing actress Rosemarie DeWitt, which stays uneventful through a screenplay originally written by Jenny Lumet, who finds one major tension point for the audience, watching the character of Kym's distress in witnessing honor speeches in a tight stuffed of invited wedding guests before releasing her pressure through sex with a stranger, degrading her sister in public and crashing a car, which may keep the audience going up to 85 Minutes due to a demanding performance by Anne Hathaway, but not for the whole 100 minutes plus running time on this one, where the director of a motion picture classic as "The Silence Of The Lambs" (1991) and even the fairly suspenseful remake of "The Manchurian Candidate" (2004) can not hide the fact that "Rachel Getting Married" has turned out a disappointment in every cinematic sense of the way.© 2017 Felix Alexander Dausend (Cinemajesty Entertainments LLC)

gavin6942 A young woman (Anne Hathaway) who has been in and out of rehab for the past ten years, returns home for the weekend for her sister's wedding.For the life of me, I have no idea why this film was praised so much and especially the praise for Anne Hathaway. I find her performance to be just "blah" and really nothing special when it is supposed to be an incredible Oscar-worthy portrayal of a recovering addict.What made me most disappointed by the film, though, is just how much filler it has. Scenes run on far too long. Do we need multiple scenes of people dancing at the wedding? How many toasts do we need at the rehearsal? It seems like any attempt to have a plot is drowned out by conversations or events that really do not matter.

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.