I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

It is a performances centric movie

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

The Sisterhood is portrayed in "now and then". The casting of the older sisterhood was Ellen Burstyn as Vivi, Fionnula Flanagan as Teensey, Shirley Knight as Necie and Maggie Smith as Caro, all brilliant. The problem was the casting of the four actresses who portrayed the sisterhood when they were younger. Ashley Judd does not resemble Ellen Burstyn as a younger woman and neither do the other three actresses portraying Teensey, Necie and Maggie, respectively. This made the film very confusing to watch. The film often reverted back and forth, from present day to the past. As the writers did not use the sisterhood names enough in the script, the viewer could not readily identify who they were.EXAMPLE (SPOILER ALERT): Ashley Judd is riding a bike with a friend (never identified, is it Carol or Necie or somebody else?) over a bridge. They are stopped by a young man. Who is he? (I had to look up his face on IMDb to find he is listed as Vivi's brother, Pete!) The young man says, "Vivi, we have to go to Teensey's house." He was sad. They leave to go to Teensey's house. I still do not know who is the other girl on the bike. If the writers had added to Pete's dialogue, "Caro (or Necie?), come with us" then it would have helped the viewer know who she is. When the three arrive at Teensey's house, you slowly realize that Teensey's brother is Jack, Vivi's fiancé, who was killed in the war. And the viewer was to know they were related, how? This happened so often in the film that I kept rewinding scenes to "get" the film.The film is a disturbing look at Vivi's life. She never recovered from Jack's death, married Shep (James Garner) on the rebound, had 4 children, and was completely unhappy, almost to the point of hating everyone around her. She heads on a downward spiral, ending up an alcoholic.(SPOILER ALERT) When Siddalee (excellently portrayed by Sandra Bullock, as Vivi's eldest daughter) was a young girl, Vivi had a total nervous breakdown. Vivi then disappeared, in Siddalee's eyes. Siddalee and her siblings thought their mother went away because they were bad. Siddalee remembers it wrongly because Vivi made Shep swear never to tell the children she had been committed. Because this tragic secret had never been revealed to Siddalee, she had been in and out of therapy her entire life.I am honestly not an Ashley Judd fan. Most of the film rested on her shoulders. We realize that Vivi is emotionally scarred due to a jealous, mentally unstable mother. I could've felt sorry for Vivi, but Judd did not make the character likable. In many scene, Judd either underacts or overacts. Later in the film, the modern-day Necie says to Siddalee, "I wish you could've known your mother when she was younger. She was so likable." And I said out loud, "no, she not."

Better than I had expected, but still a problem.I found a lot of this to be dreamy romantic. There was an exception which jarred, though. How Sandra's mum's belief system disorder was shown to be central. The comments by the priest.If one has been in that sort of situation, then one knows that the portrayal has a truth, while also being misleading to outsiders. The priest is made to show something that, in reality, comes from all sorts of directions in that culture, or its equivalents. Those outside of that culture gradually carry out that priest role, too.A fairly small point within the context of the story, but in this tit for tat world with its foundations rooted in intolerance this seems to me to be an important point to make.The solution, for me, was to note that in this story, and such as Sacred Hearts 1995, there are several Catholics involved, most not showing these sorts of symptoms. They are just mangled to the extent that normal people are. Ouch. There are stories where all the players are mangled, but this is not one.Apart from that, better than expected.

Hello everybody,I saw the film yesterday, it's a moving story anyway.I live in in Central Europe and I was wondering why Vivi, who was extremely well-off (large detached house with many rooms, 2 bathrooms, she had an own car and didn't have to work as a wife & mother), was not able to appreciate, to treasure all (including people) she had? Where I live, average people live in small apartments (mortgage loan) with 2 or 3 rooms in a tenement house, mothers have to work full time (or overtime...) even if they'd rather stay st home with the children, a lot of families don't even have a car cause they can't afford it. But rich people here aren't that rich like Vivi's family and her social environment!Elderly women can't afford hairdresser, cosmetics, beautiful clothes, etc. regularly either. And alcoholics (drug abusers) are usually underclass here 'cause drinking costs a lot of money, too. :P So they lose their jobs, apartments, cars, health and family members (divorce, isolation) and have a high risk to be homeless.By the way, Vivi didn't have to fight for anything! To make a little effort... That was one of her problem, one of the reasons, I think!Even love came easily to her. (But it flew away...) Though I know - or I suppose - her unhappiness came from the lack of real love (in a sexual meaning) to her husband. She only liked him but not loved. Big difference! That's why she couldn't find the way tho their children's hearts either: they were not the fruits of a relationship based on true love, their faces were no mirrors of the beloved man. So I think that you can be any rich or any poor, you might live in a developed country or in the second (third) world, doesn't really matter. Only love, honesty and harmony in the family counts.Other conclusion: Don't go for the second best! Don't lie love to any man - and to yourself!

I gave this movie 3 stars because I appreciate the portrayal of sassy old ladies who drink and curse and smoke; if not for that I would have given it a 1 or 2.I read the book last summer while I was in Louisiana, adored it, and read the two others in the series. I know that movies generally don't do justice to the books they're based on. I heard unenthusiastic reviews. I still rented this movie with the expectation--even determination--to enjoy it. Then I discovered Sandra Bullock was in it. Puke. Her southern accent is a travesty. I want to rant on a bit about how disgusting it is that her performance was allowed to taint the Ya-ya name but it's probably not her fault. Her persona is just completely wrong for this story. Whoever cast her should be taken behind the barn and shot. Ditto for the director.Like I said, I really, really wanted to like this movie in spite of potential supposed mediocrities... But it really, undeniably sucked.I BEG anyone who has seen or is considering seeing this movie to just go out and read the book instead. If you judge the thing based on the cinematic adaptation it will appear to be pure drivel, and you will have missed quite a bit of important and beautiful stuff from the writing.