Excellent film, IMO! I like how Field made this movie feel like a cultural anthropology/sociology class documentary with the funny and biting omniscient narration (it works!) and cinematography. Patrick Wilson and Kate Winslet have great chemistry but the supporting characters (the mom/son duo of Phyllis Sommerville and Jackie Earle Haley plus Noah Emmerich as the frustrated ex-cop with a secret and a GREAT short role by Jane Adams) really shined. Surprisingly faithful to the book (with minor tweaks -particularly the much shocking ending this time).

Yep, great movie. Very faithful to the book.

Kate Winslet and Patrick Wilson are both wonderful, with Winslet especially shining (Sarah was less likeable in the book, and I think that's entirely due to Winslet's performance here). Jennifer Connelly is solid but underused as Kathy, just like the book.

Supporting performances from Jackie Earle Haley, Phyllis Sommerville, and Noah Emmerich are stupendous. These characters feel entirely fleshed out and three-dimensional despite their somewhat limited screen time. And yes, as Christian mentioned, the underrated character actress Jane Adams delivers a rather heartbreaking cameo.

I noticed they cut out Sarah's husband Richard's almost entire storyline with the Slutty Kay thing out of the movie, which I think probably hurt the film a bit, because it leaves Richard as almost the only character with no depth.

A-

^

Right! I particularly liked the Slutty Kay subplot in the book (and its resolution). I liked how they introduced Richard and his story... but sadly, they didn't explore it further.

Also not in the movie, Mary Ann (the bitch/Sara's nemesis) and her problem with her husband. Though her story doesn't really appear until the final chapter in the book so I guess it would have looked tacked on in the movie.

And yes, Jane Adams probably gave the best cameo performance in recent times.

If this movie remains on its current path, it receives my vote for "most criminally unnoticed movie in years."

I thank the theatres that have stuck with this film and the moviegoers that have given this movie minimal drops despite no promotion at all. Possibly the quietest almost-2 million grosser so far.


Has anyone else in the forum seen this? lol

It finally hit Portland so I plan on seeing it as soon as I can find someone willing to go to a movie that's this hard to describe in 10 seconds. Seriously, what two or three sentences should I say to make people wnat to check it out?

I saw this about a month ago and to be honest, aside from the BRILLIANT performance from Kate Winslet I was disappointed.

7/10 (B-)

Which one was Jane Adams? Anyways, I totally agree with Christian; it bravely explores suburban culture, digging into themes of loneliness, hatred, and longing while building an incredibly nerve wracking sense of dread. All five of the performances Libs listed were great, with only the distant husband/wife of Sara/Brad being underdeveloped. The direction was flawless, very much recalling Stanley Kubrick. I'm not sure how much I liked the ending, but it was a nice repreive from how melancholy the proceedings were. A One of the five best films I've seen in 2006.

I just finished the book last night, quite an interesting read, can't wait to check this out next week.

Jane Adams plays the lady that Ronnie went out on a blind date with.

Oh yeah she really was great... Do you think that she was supposed to resemble Kate Winslet, or was that just me?

Hm... I didn't see any resemblance. Heh.

I loved it, it's my favorite of the year so far. I agree that the characterization of all the supporting characters were all fantastic, especially Ronnie's. Kate's performance definatly deserves some recognition.

BEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR!

Redeemed my 2006 year. Why isn't this film getting more Oscar love?

An absolutely pathetic release by New Line Cinema.

YES!!

Well that's a film I won't be watching again anytime soon.

I respect it for the quality acting and directing, I thought it was superbly written and tackled a many topical subjects with aplomb. I especially loved the song that played over the end credits.

But it was single-handedly the most depressing film I've seen all year.

Solid B+

It's been 35 minutes and I'm still in a funk... Stupid fucking Little Children. I've decided to lower my grade to B-. No-no, wait - C+.

Wonderful.

With all his critics awards (I believe he has the most in the category), it would be a crime if Jackie Earle Haley misses out on an Oscar nom (stupid Golden Globe star-fuckers).

I thought it was a masterpiece. The only thing that keeps it from unseating United 93 or Children of Men on a top 10 list is that it didn't have the emotional weight to me that those films did.

The film is an organic ensemble piece that adds like legos to each scene before it. We aren't introduced to characters before we need to, and the film has restrait enough to pull them out and trust that we'll remember them down the line.

There are a couple of moments where it nearly came off the rails, I was hoping against the Child Molester/Exposer Guy (sorry... me and names...) stabbing Kate Winslett/Her Daughter/Patrick Wilson at the end of the film as some sort of moral lesson about cheating, but no, the film didn't go there.

The characters all seemed to escape, in different directions, but they all escaped somehow.

The script is brilliant.

The acting is marvelous.

The score is magnificent.

The cinematography is gorgeous.

The editing is supurb.

It's layered, non-judgemental of it's characters, it's kind and cruel to them.

It's just a wonderful, wonderful film.

(and it's even funny).

The master stroke however, is the narration by Will Lyman.

I had no idea going into this film what it was about, I knew of course that people loved it and that it got some nominations and that I would probably like it, but I was absolutely floored.

See... i thought the film was almost happy.

Kudos to Kate Winslet who looked like shit the entire movie.

Errrr... possibly because it got like a micro release in places like my town -- I blnked and I missed it, damnit!

Can someone expand on this? I'm probably not ever going to read the book, but I'm curious.

I thought Richard's absense didn't bother me in the end, at least in the universe of the film, he seemed to be a busy, high-paid, slightly perverted but otherwise normal extrovert-in-hiding. His absense from the film reflected his absense from Sarah's life and helped justify her feelings without coming out and having big confrontations with Richard.

This movie wasn't really about big confrontations, which kind of made it unique.

I dunno, just thinkin' aloud.

I'm really glad people are liking this movie. It's such a complex, multilayered, thought-provoking and expertly made movie. It is quite unfortunate that it's not getting more attention because it deserves it. The cast is amazing: Kate Winslet is fascinating, Jackie Earle Haley is terrifyingly good, Phyllis Somerville's performance feels so natural, Patrick Wilson is equally fantastic. Jennifer Connelly, while underwritten, is very good in her part as well and so is Jane Adams in a small cameo role. Todd Field has to be one of the most underrated directors out there. He deserves an Oscar for his work. He didn't even get nominated in 2001 for In the Bedroom and he most likely won't be nominated this year either. I really want to write out a big review on this but I just don't have much time. I give it a very solid A.