Rating: 
Summary: Ugly personality of the year competition
Review: The movie is not boring and the acting is good, but these are about the only good things I can say about this film. All in all this is not an easy film to watch and it leaves you with an unpleasant feeling, as if you have been part of something very repulsive. I have to add that the movie is, in some peculier way, thought provoking.
This is a story of six, very self centered people, who seem to be participating in the "ugly personality of the year" competition. No relationship of any kind - be it a married couple, friendship between two men or women -. is compassionate or meaningful. It seems that every character lives in a world of his own and manipulates other people for his own needs. Even the seemingly "weak" characters are understood by the end of the movie, to have been playing a game of their own where "weakness' is only a mean to achieve their purposes.
This is a story of a couple - Aaron Eckhart playing a very needy husband, endlessly showering his wife with gifts, who seems to be living his life through the stories of his doctor friend. He himself is having sexual problems with his wife, played by Amy Brenneman, who starts out as the nicest character in the movie. The wife however has her own agenda and by the last scene of the movie her perception is totally changed. The wife is having an affair with Ben Stiller, the husband's best friend. Stiller lives with a girlfriend, Catherine Keener - but this fact, or even his affair with Amy Brenneman does not stop him from picking up any woman in the neighborhood. Ben stiller is a drama teacher and it seems he likes a bit of drama in his everyday life. Catherine Keener is a tough independent character. She does not like her boyfriend talking during sex, and on the whole is perceived by the male characters in the story as a sort of emasculating woman. She is definitely doing her best not to be nice but by the end of the movie, you might argue that the people surrounding her do deserve her attitude.The doctor, a friend of the two men (this is the one character that probably wins the ugly character competition) is obsessive about sexual power. The bed is some sort of a boxing arena for him where men and women fight to prove their power. Two memorable scenes in the movie are connected to the doctor - the first shows the doctor talking on the phone and meanwhile playing football with a fetus doll, throwing it around the room in what seems to be an accurate capture of his attitude towards the female sex (and its offsprings)- what an irony it is to see him in the last scene of the movie - about to become a father. The other memorable scene is filmed in the sauna where the doctor gives a long confession about a sickening sexual encounter he glorifies as his best sexual act. The viewer is torn between his wish to throw up and the amazing act of Jason Patric.
Nastassja Kinski is the last character. A confused needy artist assistant who falls in love with Catherine Keener. She is beautiful as ever, and her frail and different looks add to her role.
What makes this film so revolting is the lack of all human compassion, friendship, true love - all the elements of what we perceive as good qualities of human beings --- nothing here, just pure egotism and alienation between people.
Rating: 
Summary: People will love it or hate it.
Review: There are objectionable, even reprehensible qualities to human beings, urban life, modern relationships, etc. What makes this film a five-star for me is 1) how these qualities are held up to the light and observed and 2) the stellar acting job on behalf of the cast. I felt uncomfortable as if I was evesdropping on these morally ambiguous urbanites. Katherine Keener, that sweetheart of independent movies is a real cold, abrupt person in this and convincingly so. Amy Brenneman was such a believable fallen robin, I just wanted to scoop her up off the screen and nurture her. I could say a ton more, but Roger Ebert sums it up perfectly in his review. You can read it and others at the movie review query engine
Rating:
Summary: Cool to Drool...
Review: This "slice-of-life" film lacks anything resembling a plot, but luckily, there's enough good acting to carry the movie to the end. If you're looking to be uplifted, do not see this movie! The (lack of) values at play are at the core of the movie's engine. Some of the commentaries on sex are true, but as for relationships? Let's just say that it's not surprising that this film came from the country with the highest divorce rate in the world. This film is entertaining, but take care not to watch it when you're tired.
Rating: 
Summary: Serious exploration of self-centeredness
Review: This film follows the interrelations of six "friends" as they grope for self-fulfillment, usually at each other's expense. This is a grim, often ugly exploration of selfishness, featuring characters that somehow never developed the sense of empathy or generosity that enables one human being to connect with another on more than a superficial level. They equate being happy with being in a position of power over others wherein they are able to gratify their urges of the moment. When their behavior fails to make them happy, they become more jaded and sad and convinced that happiness is only a fantasy. A possible exception is the chilling sociopath played by Jason Patric, who appears to be entirely satisfied with his reprehensible conduct. In a cast of dislikable characters, he emerges as one of the most loathsome figures I have ever seen in a film. Perhaps not coincidentally, he is also the alpha among the film's male characters. Director/writer Neil LaBute's dialogue is sharp and telling. This is a serious and courageous exploration of the dark side of human nature.
Rating:
Summary: Serious exploration of self-centeredness
Review: This film follows the interrelations of six "friends" as they grope for self-fulfillment, usually at each other's expense. This is a grim, often ugly exploration of selfishness, featuring characters that somehow never developed the sense of empathy or generosity that enables one human being to connect with another on more than a superficial level. They equate being happy with being in a position of power over others wherein they are able to gratify their urges of the moment. When their behavior fails to make them happy, they become more jaded and sad and convinced that happiness is only a fantasy. A possible exception is the chilling sociopath played by Jason Patric, who appears to be entirely satisfied with his reprehensible conduct. In a cast of dislikable characters, he emerges as one of the most loathsome figures I have ever seen in a film. Perhaps not coincidentally, he is also the alpha among the film's male characters. Director/writer Neil LaBute's dialogue is sharp and telling. This is a serious and courageous exploration of the dark side of human nature.
Rating:
Summary: Serious exploration of self-centeredness
Review: This film follows the interrelations of six "friends" as they grope for self-fulfillment, usually at each other's expense. This is a grim, often ugly exploration of selfishness, featuring characters that somehow never developed the sense of empathy or generosity that enables one human being to connect with another on more than a superficial level. They equate being happy with being in a position of power over others wherein they are able to gratify their urges of the moment. When their behavior fails to make them happy, they become more jaded and sad and convinced that happiness is only a fantasy. A possible exception is the chilling sociopath played by Jason Patric, who appears to be entirely satisfied with his reprehensible conduct. In a cast of dislikable characters, he emerges as one of the most loathsome figures I have ever seen in a film. Perhaps not coincidentally, he is also the alpha among the film's male characters. Director/writer Neil LaBute's dialogue is sharp and telling. This is a serious and courageous exploration of the dark side of human nature.
Rating:
Summary: Terrific!
Review: This film is depressing and disturbing, yet at the same time intoxicating and brilliant. It is a very astute look at the cultural rot in which we live today. There is nothing redeeming about the characters in the film. If you are looking for an uplifting film, this is definitely NOT it. However, if you wish to examine a statement about the cesspool that is society today, see this film!
Rating: 
Summary: Bad film
Review: This film just did not do anything for me. The dialogue tried to be witty but fell well short. The plot was pathetic and slow to come about. The ending was non-climatic. Just a horrible film. I had to fight off falling asleep just to see the end. I wish I had fallen asleep.
Rating:
Summary: Awful
Review: This is another naively written screenplay by some twenty-something male who knows nothing about life, love, or women. The dialogue is inane, and the acting is horrible. Skip this one, but if you must see it, borrow it!
Rating:
Summary: In the Company of Men and Women¿ such as they are
Review: This is Neil LaBute's more lavish but no less vitriolic follow-up to "In the Company of Men". Whereas that film had a documentary sense of realism to it, this one feels very much like a play. Although nothing mystical happens, there's a sense of surreality that coats this film. From the opening music, an oddly appealing version of Metallica's "Enter Sandman" played on four cellos by a quartet called Apocalyptica, to the main titles, which are superimposed over a sedate Alex Katz print called "The Cocktail Party", we enter a world of wealth and culture. Only under the glossy surface beats a soulless heart. Witness an early dinner scene. Two couples meet at one's swanky townhouse, exchange pleasantries and share glasses of wine. The women are smartly dressed. The men are too (one of them laments a spill on his new doeskin jacket). But they never connect in a tangible way. Until, that is, an offer of infidelity is confidentially proffered. The movie uses this moment to jump off into a world where everyone (but one) appears stable but all are ineffectual and socially retarded. This point is further driven home by a series of scenes set in an art gallery, where each character uses the same verbatim small talk with an artist's assistant to expose significant aspects of their character. They're artificial moments, but delicately set up the tone of the film. The cast is uniformly excellent, if not overly mannered, which further helps create the feeling that you're watching a play rather than a film. Ben Stiller's character represents this the best, not just because he's a drama professor. He is erudite and articulate when "performing", such as when lecturing his students, or giving a tour of a museum. But when he gets into social situations, Stiller fails to complete a single one of his thoughts. Most of his sentences trail off, ending with the question "You know?" or just a resigned sigh. It's an evocative (if a touch shallow) character trait, but damn if it doesn't get annoying by film's end. I had this intense desire to slap Ben good. Aaron Eckhart sports a $2 haircut, a cheesy moustache, and a bulging gut. He's playing a character exactly opposite to his toxic Chad from "In the Company of Men", and it's amazing that one man can pull off both roles. Eckhart has proven himself to be a marvelous chameleon-like actor, easily filling out the pathetic and needy sap LaBute has written for him here. Jason Patric gets the toxic role this time, playing a misogynistic obstetrician (he's prone to playing football with a model of a fetus). His stories of extreme behaviour "amuse" his friends. One involves sending a retributive note to an ex-girlfriend on doctor's stationary, informing her that she may be HIV-positive. Another, in the scene that the film will be forever known for, involves high school hijinks in the gym shower with a bullied boy named Timmy. Patric wrings every bit of wickedness from this story, told in one incredibly long close-up take. It's a powerful little moment that leaves the audience (not to mention the other characters in the scene) exclaiming, "What the heck was that?" Catherine Keener, so energetic in "Being John Malkovich", is much more subdued here. But you can feel her frustration bubbling up beneath the service (she's Stiller's girlfriend, and is as fed up with him as the audience is). Keener is a very self-aware actress, knowing when to go full throttle and when to pull back. Hers is not the showiest role in the film, but it ranks right up there with the most memorable. Nastassja Kinski is used the least of the six main actors (author's note: Come to think of it, there are only six speaking parts in the whole movie, making the theatrical nature of the piece even more profound). And it's probably for the best. She is fetching, but doesn't bring much more to the role than quiet neediness. Amy Brenneman plays Eckhart's wife, and has an affair with Stiller. She stays nervous and reticent throughout the movie, never giving in to her boredom or frustration even when the moment calls for a little blow-up. In the beginning she passes for the innocent moral centre of the film, but by the end she is the one most corrupted. Brenneman does well playing both sides of this coin. Writer/Director LaBute appears to have learned much since "Men". He's more confident using close-ups to get in his characters' faces. And the film looks luscious bathed in warm autumnal hues. The story, such as it is, is told through a series of vignettes, each tellingly juxtaposed with the next to subtly portray the differences between men and women. A scene of three women talking about sex over lunch is followed by one of three men in a steam room pondering the same subject, in a cruder manner. And though there is no real narrative thrust, the individual scenes themselves are propulsive enough to keep the viewer interested.
|
