Last Summer in the Hamptons

Rating:
Summary: Last Summer in the Hamptons
Review: Director Henry Jaglom has been more or less charting his life for fifteen years now, gathering his friends in front of the camera for mutual analysis, heavy on the psychobabble. Because his friends are verbal and unselfconscious, these exercises are entertaining, in an unwound, disorganized sort of way. Last Summer In The Hamptons, for example, exists on the flimsiest premise, and yet while you're watching it you're interested-sort of. It's hard to recommend a movie like this, however, because it is so determined to be talky, amateurish and self-indulgent. Jaglom's camera style is heavy on the documentary feel as well, with pulled in close-ups on the character who is expected to show emotion at any second simply because of the staged situation.

Filmed on location in East Hampton, Long Island, "Last Summer in the Hamptons" concerns three generations of a large and brilliant theatrical family spending the last weekend of their summer together at the decades-old family retreat which economic circumstances have finally forced them to put on the market: They're artists, what do they know about keeping up payments on a mortgage?

Oona Hart (Victoria Foyt, Jaglom's wife, who also co-wrote the film with her husband) heads the cast as a new Hollywood movie star whose unexpected visit wreaks havoc on this group of family and friends - led by matriarch Helena (Viveca Lindfors) and made up of an extraordinary mixture of prominent New York actors, directors and playwrights (Andre Gregory, Roddy McDowell, Roscoe Lee Browne). In the course of a very unusual weekend, a series of comic as well as serious situations arise, and the family's secrets-of which there are many-slowly begin to unravel. When Oona arrives she is so intimidated by the family that she falls back on a method acting technique to help her with her stagefright: She thinks about the situation at hand, decides what emotional response she wants to cloak herself in and then chooses a particular animal to dissolve into. She starts out as a baby harp seal (THIS is hilarious), to underline her initial vulnerability; then, as the film progresses, becomes a leopard when she feels predatorily sexual. But she's sizing up the wrong guy: Jake (Jon Robin Baitz) is a gay playwright who is the only member of the family to call them on their incessant politics and, as he puts it, the poisonous motivations of an eel: electrify and move on. (One of the psychological casualties is Chloe (Martha Plimpton) the youngest daughter of the family, a tomboy who has stripped away any remote notion of femininity from her personality years ago to confound her father, and he is CLUELESS about her.) Someone else is after Jake, too. A hulking hunk named George whom Jake very easily seduces even though he knows he's not gay, and then berates him for feigning homosexuality later when George tries coming on to him. (Huh?) The thing is, though, that both of his seducers call the play he's just finished "brilliant" and practically throw themselves at him simply because they each realize that he's the only member of the family tenacious enough, and with enough distance from the dysfunctional parts of his family, to actually be trying to accomplish something on his own. Then there's Jake's sister, Trish, played by the visually striking Melissa Leo, who has to continually suffer the fact that any guy she's interested in, her brother swoops in and seduces immediately, distracting any prospective suitor from her. She's at wits end before the film is over, and in her moment of despair is able to subsequently draw the family together briefly, but it's not to last. The show, after all, must go on.

Helena (Viveca Lindfors) is the true emotional center of the film. I don't know what it is about aging silver screen stars, but when ravishing beauties overflowing with talent get into their later years, there is such an air of wisdom and experience about them that everyone else around them just seems foolish, vain and egocentric. Think of Jeanne Moreau or Catherine Deneuve. Viveca (dropping her 'Helena' persona briefly) reminisces about her past in film and at one point discusses the leading men she played off in the late 40s: Errol Flynn and Ronald Reagan, as she's watching tapes of her own old films (Adventures of Don Juan, where Flynn saves her, as an absolutely ravishing Queen Margaret of Spain, from a traitor's skullduggery; and Night Unto Night, about the relationship between a dying scientist and a mentally disturbed widow) on the television late at night.

There's an old stage adage about the playwright Chekhov and his plays: If a gun is introduced in the first act, it will be used in the third act-and Chekhov, along with James Joyce and Jean Renoir, are not only plundered, but apologized to in the credits to this film for what they obliviously added to this production. The old stage adage does hold true, for what turns into a punchline only if you're familiar with the adage, but at that dry point in the film an inside joke is a joke nonetheless. The timing is great because it completely throws off the momentum of Oona who has by that time turned her attention to ANOTHER prospective victim of her upwardly mobile yet horizontal bop motivated modus operandi: a producer of plays in the Midwest. They hit it off without her even having the time to think of what animal she can resort to for motivation. I swear I'm not making this up.

It is part of Jaglom's approach that faces and conversation are more important than locations and atmosphere, and you will not see much of East Hampton in this movie except over the actors' shoulders. Life in the Jaglom orbit seems to be like one continuous salon. Friends drop in, sing a song at the piano, tell a joke, share a fear, contribute an insight and drift away. If you know and love theater, you'll find this an entertaining couple of hours. If you can't tell your Ibsen from your Williams, this may all just seem like someone else's home movie.

Rating:
Summary: Blah!
Review: I like to read movie reviews in the newspaper, in magazines, and on the internet to find out about movies that I otherwise might never find out about. Over the years, this has led to many wonderful films that I otherwise never would have known about. So, when this movie was releaed, I read several reviews from critics, and I noticed that this movie had gotten quite a few very positive reviews. So I went to the theater and I saw it. Boy was I ever disappointed! This movie is nothing more than a bunch of people siting around talking. Now, if the characters and their conversations are interesting, then that can make for a fine movie. For example, I loved the movie "Smoke" with Harvey Keitel. That movie had lots of interesting characters with plenty of interesting things to say. But "Last Summer in the Hamptons" lacks those good things. The characters in this movie are boring, their conversations are boring, and their lives are boring. And what makes it even worse is that the characters are not aware of the fact that they are boring. Instead, they all think that they are just oh so important. Simply put, this movie is the very definiton of the phrase "artsy fartsy." I think that there must be some kind of a clause in movie critics' employment contracts that requires them to give this movie a positive review and a high rating. Or, perhaps the critics are just trying to pretend that they can see something that the ordinary "common man" cannot see. Well, whatever the reason, the critics are wrong about this one. This movie is boring and dull and the characters are pretentious and boring and dull. And the movie is bad and I didn't like it.

Rating:
Summary: but it is a great movie!
Review: I rarely take the time to sit and write movie or book reviews, but having seen all these negative reviews for "Last Summer in the Hamptons" I feel compelled to speak my piece.

What is so powerful here is not the dysfunctionality of the family portrayed within, but what is at the core of this dysfunctionality: it is the inability of its members to walk away from its greatness, its fame within the highest circles of the artistic world. This movie is, in a way, a modern "Buddenbrooks", but it delves much more deeply into the reasons for the family's implosion. From the teenager who is pathologically rebellious because, as she explains to her cousins, it is the only way she can find to establish her independence from this great theatrical institution which is her family; to the brilliant director who, in order to create, has renounced, monk-like fashion, all sexual contact; to the most deeply studied pair of characters: the brother and sister pair who are so caught up in the web of their family, that their own sexual passions are trapped within the family, self-directed in an incestuous relationship.

This is the saga of a family which is admired, coveted, and idolized from outside, yet whose members are suffocating under the weight and tremendous magnet of its fame. It is a family which is the embodiment of Blake's sick rose.

This is a great movie, or a great play; it is a very powerful piece which will stay with you for a long time.

Rating:
Summary: but it is a great movie!
Review: I rarely take the time to sit and write movie or book reviews, but having seen all these negative reviews for "Last Summer in the Hamptons" I feel compelled to speak my piece.

What is so powerful here is not the dysfunctionality of the family portrayed within, but what is at the core of this dysfunctionality: it is the inability of its members to walk away from its greatness, its fame within the highest circles of the artistic world. This movie is, in a way, a modern "Buddenbrooks", but it delves much more deeply into the reasons for the family's implosion. From the teenager who is pathologically rebellious because, as she explains to her cousins, it is the only way she can find to establish her independence from this great theatrical institution which is her family; to the brilliant director who, in order to create, has renounced, monk-like fashion, all sexual contact; to the most deeply studied pair of characters: the brother and sister pair who are so caught up in the web of their family, that their own sexual passions are trapped within the family, self-directed in an incestuous relationship.

This is the saga of a family which is admired, coveted, and idolized from outside, yet whose members are suffocating under the weight and tremendous magnet of its fame. It is a family which is the embodiment of Blake's sick rose.

This is a great movie, or a great play; it is a very powerful piece which will stay with you for a long time.

Rating:
Summary: This is a movie for theatre people!!!
Review: I understand that most people wouldn't understand or like this movie becuase you have to be a true theatre person to be able to relate to this dysfuntional family dynamic. The love that is spurned from creating art together is something that can cause a lot of the dysfuntion explored in this film, but that love is also strong enough to withstand the hardships. I think theatre people relate to this movie the same way they relate and understand Waiting for Guffman.

Rating:
Summary: This is a film for theatre people!!!
Review: In the same way that Waiting for Guffman is truly appreciated by theatre people by the simple fact that we've known and worked with people in our lives like the characters in the movie.

This film also exemplifies how the love that is spurned from creating art with people is strong enough to withstand life's trials. A truly inspiring film. This film is also very similar to "Peter's Friends" starring a cast of amazing British acotrs including Kenneth Branaugh (sp?) and Emma Thompson.

Rating:
Summary: An amusing, slice of life film to watch when raining.
Review: In this film about a family of histrionic folk, a successful but rather dim Hollywood star comes in search of work. She encounters people who believe in the theatre as art while meeting those who have felt manipulated into acting when they would rather be doing otherwise. "Hamptons" is a worthwhile character study. It reminds me of international films which commit more to character development than plot. I thought often of Woody Allen's work (Hannah and Her Sisters) and while this film insists on dialogue to flesh out its cast, I never found this technique distracting. Jaglom also works in typical 90's characters such as the playwright who happens to be gay. He appears to be the male protagonist of the film and the various ambitious actors around him eagerly await his new work, largely for their own selfish purposes. I struggle to recommend this film to all. Instead, I would say, if one finds intelligent, insightful talk interesting, if one finds complex characters worthwhile, if one likes eccentric humor, then this film might possess the merit for a rental.

Rating:
Summary: This movie is just plain bad.
Review: Thinking it was an updated Big Chill-type flick with a spectacular cast, I looked hi and low for this movie so my wife & I could enjoy it. All I can say is what a complete waste of time and money - and nothing like the Big Chill! If this movie was one of the year's 10 best (LA Times), a recipient of 4 stars (NY Post, LA Times), brilliant, enchanting & exquisite (60 Second Preview), & finally Two Thumbs Up, than I must have no idea what a good movie is. This was one of most ridiculous films we've ever seen.

I don't live in a big market city and I do realize that some think I lead a sheltered life, but give me a break! What kind of characters are in this flop? Well, there was a gay guy that somehow was able to seduce a guy who wasn't gay. If fact, this confused guy had just slept with the gay guy's sister and she revealed how jealous she was of him because he always winds up taking her boyfriends. HUH? Then come to find out the sister of the gay guy had sexual feelings for him and even acted on those feelings.

There was an actress that had to 'act' as a baby seal at one point and a perform as a leopard to 'deal' with issues in her life.

The only thing the reviewers and I could agree upon is this sentence: 'Perhaps the world's most dysfunctional family.' And how.

If Henry Jaglom is 'the definitive Hollywood filmmaker,' and this film was 'his best yet,' I think we'll heed that advice and never watch another of his films. I'd rather be locked in a room and be subjected to 'Dumb & Dumber' for 108 straight hours than watch this 108 minutes again.

Rating:
Summary: This movie is just plain bad.
Review: Thinking it was an updated Big Chill-type flick with a spectacular cast, I looked hi and low for this movie so my wife & I could enjoy it. All I can say is what a complete waste of time and money - and nothing like the Big Chill! If this movie was one of the year's 10 best (LA Times), a recipient of 4 stars (NY Post, LA Times), brilliant, enchanting & exquisite (60 Second Preview), & finally Two Thumbs Up, than I must have no idea what a good movie is. This was one of most ridiculous films we've ever seen.

I don't live in a big market city and I do realize that some think I lead a sheltered life, but give me a break! What kind of characters are in this flop? Well, there was a gay guy that somehow was able to seduce a guy who wasn't gay. If fact, this confused guy had just slept with the gay guy's sister and she revealed how jealous she was of him because he always winds up taking her boyfriends. HUH? Then come to find out the sister of the gay guy had sexual feelings for him and even acted on those feelings.

There was an actress that had to 'act' as a baby seal at one point and a perform as a leopard to 'deal' with issues in her life.

The only thing the reviewers and I could agree upon is this sentence: 'Perhaps the world's most dysfunctional family.' And how.

If Henry Jaglom is 'the definitive Hollywood filmmaker,' and this film was 'his best yet,' I think we'll heed that advice and never watch another of his films. I'd rather be locked in a room and be subjected to 'Dumb & Dumber' for 108 straight hours than watch this 108 minutes again.