SZ has written interesting review, but the following is driving me crazy:

"Don't you ever worry about the specific problems a gay man has to face, things like the sheer amount of homophobic bullies in the world?"

the sheer number of homophobic bullies

number!

I guess I was in a sappy mood the afternoon I sat down for a preview screening of "The Family Stone". I thought it was one of the most perfect movies I'd ever seen; formulaic, yes, but so spot-on in places that the effect was devastating. Diane Keaton was flawless, maternal love oozing from every pore, and Craig T. Nelson was heartbreaking. The rest of the cast deserves an ensemble Oscar, which doesn't exist but has now been invented. By me.

I laughed, I cried, I missed my mom.

Thanks for your candor in pointing out the truly awful messages being sent in THE FAMILY STONE's depiction of a mother who desired all of her male children to be homosexual. Aside from being the most egrigious example of the Diane Keaton character's narcissism (desiring her sons to have all been homosexual so that they would never leave her!?!? And she's supposed to be the good guy in the scene for feeling that!?!?!), as you point out, it is rooted in a completely insulting steretype of homosexual males being mother-fixated. Worst of all, scenes like this tend to alienate viewers who might most benefit from more tolerant and enlightened views on homosexuality and ones which expose bigotry.

I've been scouring reviews for the past 45 mins. in hopes that SOMEone would have the guts to criticize this, and you're the only one to do so. Sadly, I imagine you'll get some reader feedback that insinuates you harbor some sort of ill-will towards persons who happen to be homosexual or that you're condoning homophobic attitudes, but stick to your guns. We need more critics like you who are upfront about labelling drivelly propaganda as such.

"Keaton has said wistfully that she once wished that all her sons would be gay -- "That way they'd never leave me."

What is the big deal here? Sure, Keaton's character was falling into a sterotype but the whole movie is a sterotype - the angry daughter, the perfect boyfriend of the gay son, the son who wants to be perfect, the loving Dad, the bitchy but loving and doomed Mom, the uptight but misunderstood woman, etc.

I saw the movie amd cried in all the appropriate places. The script may have been just okay (I don't know these things) but the acting was universally so on point that they all deserve applause.

Zacharek is usually harsh in her reviews, giving some very good films a hard time, so why is she so easy on 'The Family Stone?' I agree that these are paint-by-numbers characters, but this is so much worse than that. This is an overly idealized utopian family fantasy that is so politically correct, that it lacks any humanity at all. This film actually made me sick, with it's sugary sweet portrayal of Christmas, and though the actors tried their best with a train wreck of a script, what was there to work with? This film is condescending to gay people, deaf people, African Americans, and people with cancer. Don't fall for this phony dreck.

Unfortunately, I didn't read this review BEFORE going to see the movie. The commercials made "The Family Stone" look like a comedy -- Claire Danes falling out of the bus, Sarah Jessica Parker dropping batter all over the floor, Rachel McAdams popping off with a zinger. A friend who just lost his grandfather to cancer wanted to see it TO CHEER HIMSELF UP! Let's just say that at least his sobs at the end drowned out the drunken jerks giving a loud running commentary behind us.

I hate it when studios do that.

Otherwise, it was an entertaining movie. Anyone who has had to meet future in-laws can relate -- either to the family or the girlfriend.

I'm not really sure what's worse about his movie. That the characters are so utterly unlikeable and mean-spirited, or that we're supposed to buy into every contrived stereotype about wealthy, liberal, New England families. In fact, I'm not really sure whether Bezucha and the writers are poking fun at liberal New Englanders or not. They're depicting a outwardly open-minded family who, in actuality, is intolerent and judgemental of anyone who's different than them. If this isn't intentionally ironic, than it comes off as incredibly smug and arrogant. But we're never really sure, because shortly after a painfully awkward dinner scene we're treated to what is apparently supposed to be a touching moment dealing with Keaton's cancer. As if having a terminal illness is some excuse for being selfish, whiny, and downright cruel. I found it impossible to have any sympathy for any character in this movie and thought the whole thing to be completely implausible. Are there actually people who act this way? I was never sure whether all the hypocrisy was supposed to be played for laughs or not. If so, than maybe it's kind of funny. But you can't tell, and that just makes it bad.

so, as a gay man, me and my bf really enjoyed the movie -- as did the rest of the packed theater, who laughed loudly and got weepy at the end...

I guess that Zacharek is correct: in spite of the formulaic plot of the film, the cast gives the family such a sense of history and familiarity (many of the best moments come from gestures, not lines) and the director smartly crams all the actors into his shots (so that there's a wealth of acting details being given all at once), that we in the audience feel as though we're watching a real family, one that bickers and yet really likes each other. And that in itself is worth the ticket.