Genres

Visitors Review

Steve Leadbetter 2012-05-25 18:14:50

Intelligent Storytelling with Great Performances

Although you're unlikely to see it if you live the UK, with only afourth quarter 09 release for 'Brief Interviews' in the States, andcuriously Greece, at the Athens Film Festival, John Krasinski'sadaptation of American maverick David Foster Wallace's book of the samename is something that you really shouldn't allow to go under yourradar.This shortish film (eighty or so minutes, dependent upon the versionyou see) has many head-spinning nuances that warrant your attention.Personally, this was a surprising turn for Krasinski, who displays abrilliant eye for a project and impresses upon his audience an abilityfar outweighing his popular persona of goof or funny man. It isdelightful to see a harder, more serious edge to him. I was bothshocked and delighted by this film and have happily become a convert ofKrasinski's work, but on a whole new level.Having not read the Wallace book and knowing little about the filmprior to watching it, I feel I have benefited from not having anypre-conceptions about the story or how Krasinski decided it should befilmed.I am grateful for the fact that I went about my usual business andavoided the reviews that had gone before me, as most reviewers havefound that they either love or loathe it. Regardless, the film cannotbe ignored once seen, and opinions abound about its relevance. Such isthe subject matter and wealth of passionate feelings it both incitesfrom its audience and the messages it dares to tell us about ourselves.The 'Hideous Men' of the title are few and far between, however, andthis may be different in the book, but the majority of a clearlyhand-picked multitude of talented actors come across as having opinionson women that are heard all too infrequently. You get the impressionthat these voices would have remained unheard had a tape recorder and acamera not been placed in front of them and the right type of questionsposed from an apparently unassuming and coercive questioner.The acting talent throughout is exemplary, with one notable exception.Our lead Julianne Nicholson came across as slightly average through anuninventive, passionless and oblique performance as Sara Quinn. This isquite possibly due to her fellow performers and who can be surprised.These hideous men we come across all deliver outstanding monologueswith Krasinski, Dominic Miller, Michael Cerveris and Frankie Faisonbeing particular examples of unmissable, gripping talent.The story is simple enough, Quinn is interviewing men on the back of aproject to understand the progress of feminism and decides that thebest way to understand at least half of that would be to interview menon their feelings about women, taking a broad cross-section of subjectsto get as broad a result as possible.What we get is a warts and all (and I do mean all) story about how someof these men view women in general. How some are unmoved in theirphilosophy and how others, at the more cognitive end of the masculinespectrum have started to realise that maybe this isn't their worldafter all. While some are bitter or delighted, most are confused bytheir relationships with the women in their lives, but all of them arenonetheless vocal about their feelings, even if those feelings are notwhat Quinn would really like to hear.With an impressive cast, who appear to be mostly right on form, ascreenplay adapted by Krasinski that is at times witty, funny and aboveall brilliantly observed by Wallace and some impressive editing by ZeneBaker and Rich Fox, Brief interviews With Hideous Men is both a lessonof our times for men and women everywhere with meaning in every line.This makes romantic comedies seem dire by comparison and I wouldsuggest that even though this is most definitely a look atrelationships as much as anything else, it would be wise to avoid itwhen picking a DVD for a second date, as this raises some uncomfortablequestions that are thankfully not glossed over with comedy.A real treat for fans of rational thought and superlative actingskills.

dsaroff 2012-05-25 05:31:04

Sterile, pedantic, contrived, too artsy, self important

Couldn't finish watching this film. It used the contrivance of menbeing interviewed to create an exposition on male / female relations.I found it choppy (quick cuts between scenes and interviews and evenwithin interviews). It pontificated and had the stilted quality of astage play. The interviews were uninteresting and stereotypicalmonologues and the men were mostly caricatures. While it tried to bedeep, it was deep in the way an undergraduate is deep (meta criticismwithin the film itself) - a fist full of knowledge, poorly digested andportentously revealed.The lead actress was a passive doll throughout most of what I saw withwhom I neither empathized or cared. I didn't care about any of thecharacters, and the construct of people talking to the camera outsidethe interviews was too self conscious.It was a film school, self-conscious mess with no heart and too muchhead, uninterestingly directed.

michael dye 2012-05-24 21:50:19

terribly boring

This is an incredibly boring film.The pretentiousness is unparalleled, as other reviewers have said.There isn't anything insightful here, it's just a mismatch ofoverly-dramatic monologues that don't make a coherent point eitherindividually or in the aggregate.Before I judge Krasinski (the director) for the writing, I shouldconsult the book from which the film was sourced. But such would be tootiresome. Whatever the original text offered this film discards. Italso wore me out on Krasinski. I recommend skipping this one andavoiding his other work in the future. He's just not content with thetrite, but funny, Jim from The Office. This is one actor / director whowants to reach deeper and will sacrifice coherence to pretend it.

Eadaoin Lynch 2012-05-24 16:54:22

I loved it

This film has, as the director John Krasinski put himself, strong indieinfluences. The non-chronological time-line, the frequent cuts betweenscenes, the overlapping of events...I think this is perhaps some of thereason why it receives such conflicting reviews. Every person has asubjective experience of every film and mine was, bluntly, that I wasblown away. As I just pointed out, the chronology of events iscompletely out of whack, and while reviews of the film point it out asa weakness, I think it's a strength. It makes you focus on what's goingon and to really pay attention to it, and it's rewarding when you do.There is so much depth in this story, or rather series of stories, thattheir sparsity and seeming lack of coherence is a statement in itself.Pretentious sounding statement followed by pseudo-profound insight. Iknow. But I think it's true. There are four distinct episodes in thefilm that are in my mind the strongest, and are my four favourite - sowatch out for them! They are as follows: 1. The episode featuringChristopher Meloni and Denis O'Toole. Meloni tells a story about a girlhe met in an airport, and the end of the scene is superbly acted out asfar as I'm concerned. 2. Subject #42 and his father. It's an emotionalthing to watch, the generation gap between these two men, and yet howfiercely they love each other, though they don't say it. I know it'skitsch and an overused plot line, but I think it's acted out sorealistically that it ceases to be cheesy but instead very moving. 3.The storyline concerning Dominic Cooper's character, Daniel, who wrotehis paper on how sexual assaults can sometimes be character building -making clear that of course the assault is awful at the time, butafterwards, the person can become stronger and use that experience tobuild up their strength and sense of self. The scenes which follow arean almost schizophrenic stream of consciousness as we see Daniel infour different places - Sara's office, the function room, the café,steps on the college campus - but having one monologue which remainsuninterrupted except for the change of scene. The monologue gets moreand more frenzied as the plot begins to unravel and the climax isheart-breaking. Concomitant with all of this is one or two clips ofpreviously seen footage and all the while there is some kind of rockmusic playing which, when I first watched the film, seemed completelyout of sync, but now I think perhaps that was the point. It makesDaniel's monologue even more uncomfortable and heart-wrenching. 4. Themonologue that is the ultimate climax of the film, spoken by Ryan, thecharacter played by John Krasinski.You should watch this film and see what I'm talking about. It's wellworth it.

rswtb 2012-05-16 10:02:18

I wish they had put more time into the Screenplay.

I have read Infinite Jest, and am a fan of David Foster Wallace's work.Rather than making the obvious Book>Movie comment, I would like tocomment on where it worked and where it didn't. DFW, for me, brings tomind the haunting descriptions of melancholy missing from themovie(Though John Krasinski does a decent job in his monologue,surprisingly.) The editing, though true to the style in the book to acertain extent, could have been better on screen.DFW's linguistic talents and extensive vocabulary are retainedthroughout the movie, which makes it seem unreal(DFW does a great jobof separating his voice from that of his characters, I feel). Thisleads to a strange sequence with the man speaking of his father whichis strange to watch.The movie suffers from trying to be a bit too true to the book, but notreally knowing how to. There are a few intense scenes reminiscent ofDFW's style, but can't really hold the whole movie together.All in all, I wouldn't call the movie a waste of time, but I'drecommend DFW's books anyway.

chuck-526 2012-05-15 17:27:00

deep and subtle story; stellar editing

This film "Brief Interviews with Hideous Men" is adapted from acollection of short stories of the same title by the deceased DavidFoster Wallace. The short story form remains paramount. Several themesare investigated: what is love? what bonds a couple together? how doprivate life events affect public research agendas? what b.s. isstereotypically common? You might assemble ideas in a novel way; youmight have an epiphany ...but you might not. The story doesn't muchcare. What's more important is the dramatic arc of the story itself.I didn't notice the running length of the film (although several othershave commented on its relative shortness). To me the length was "right"for the story. Figuring out the time sequence of the events might betricky, and might steal your attention more than it should; keep thesynopsis "a graduate student copes with a recent breakup by conductinginterviews with various men" in mind at all times.There's lots of variety in the ways the mens' stories are told.Initially I imagined a list of unbroken formal interviews back to back- various "talking heads" sitting on the same chair in front of thesame wall. But the reality of the film isn't like that at all. Each ofthe threads makes use of different devices: flashbacks, flashforwards,flashsideways; intermixing formal interviews with informal contacts;overheard conversations; jumping between internal narration andexternal events; casual conversations at house parties and academicdepartment parties and bars; imagination played out realistically rightin front of your eyes; characters morphing into others; asides withrelated characters; and so forth. And almost all of the threads arebroken into segments that are intermixed with other threads; themes aremuch more of an organizing principle than time. Even the formalinterview segments are broken up by cuts --or faux cuts-- so there'snever a dull visual moment.Some of the cut techniques are new to me. In every case the sound isseamlessly continuous - a spoken sentence remains a spoken sentencewithout any gaps or shifts. But the words are sometimes split betweenthe same character at different times saying the same thing. Or they'resplit between different characters speaking a very similar --or eventhe exact same-- thing. Or they might (and this is what I've termed"faux cuts") have a hitch in the image as though a few frames had beenspliced out - nothing as big as a change of camera angle, but a visualdiscontinuity nevertheless. (Are these faux cuts the next "Ken Burnseffect"?) To my mind considerable audio and visual editing skills--well beyond what's typical of most new director's efforts-- aredemonstrated here; the conventional words are "production values arehigh".If you listen very closely there are a few internal jokes. For exampleusually the interviewer pokes the tape recorder and says "do you mindif I turn this on?" But once she says "do you mind if I turn this off?"The words make no sense and aren't consistent with the action, and areeasily overlooked.I liked the adaptation of the short story form, and I hope it blazes apath for other future films. To my mind the weak link though is theacting. Much of the material is extremely subtle and challenging, andwould overwhelm even many A-list stage actors. But the film's actorsare neither veterans nor geniuses. I found a couple of the castingdecisions just plain jarring: one of the waiters seemed awfully wooden,and failed to convey some intended humor; and the imagined fatherfigure bathroom attendant looked younger than his son! Apart fromthese, the acting varies from workmanlike up to quite good ...butnobody "burns up the screen" even when the material cries out for it.The well-known TV persona and skills of the director (which admittedlyI'm not at all familiar with:-) don't seem to be any sort of guide tosomething as completely different as this. Like a typical "art house"film, this is not for everybody. At the small screening room where Isaw it, one person noisily fell asleep and another walked out. Butwhile this film asks for an open mind and some investment ofmind-share, you'll be richly rewarded.POSTSCRIPT: I've become aware from some others' comments and from aninterview with John Krasinski that some of my impressions and even someof my "facts" may be so far off the mark they're just plainback-assward. I seem to have missed some of the comedy, misidentifiedsome of the characters, misjudged some actors' experience levels, andwho knows what else. Now I'm doubting myself, wondering if I really sawthe same movie or if I paid sufficient attention the first time.Ambiguity and multiple interpretations are part of the point, but notso much as to account for all the distance between my views and someothers. I'm now resolved to watch this film a second time. In themeantime please put what I've opined under advisement -- and go see foryourself.POST-POSTSCRIPT after second viewing next day: I couldn't find anyevidence of "the hitchhiker" character, either in the film itself or inthe credits. My hypothesis is after Lucy Gordon's unfortunate death butbefore final release, the film was re-cut to remove all the scenes thatincluded her. My guess is there were originally a lot of flashbacks inwhat's now John Krasinski's monologue. That's where the hitchhiker'sstory appears to fit best, lots of cuts there too would have made thatsegment much more stylistically similar to the rest of the film, andthe film would have had a more typical length. Also, I've softened myview on the acting – many of the performances are really very good. Mybottom line is unchanged though: in the end the extraordinary materialoverpowers the acting. We're talking King Lear here, but we're notquite talking Laurence Olivier.

2012-05-14 08:33:34

Interesting But Feels Lacking

The topics the film brings up are very thought-provoking, especially the idea of how people treat other people as objects in everyday life. The story wasn't very cohesive. After I finished viewing it, there was just this feeling of "Really? That's it?"I don't know.

2012-05-13 19:16:01

how shallow

This review is from: Brief Interviews With Hideous Men (DVD) i love david foster wallace... this film is shallow... i recommend you to read his books...

2012-05-09 22:08:03

Quite effective and powerful

(I have not read David Foster Wallace's story collection "Brief Interviews with Hideous Men." As of yet, I have only seen John Krasinski's film of the same name and subject.)This movie is viewed best as an overview of a certain mindset rather than of all men. It is comprised mainly of a series of interviews performed by a female interviewer (Julianne Nicholson). Male subjects include both strangers and close acquaintances. Nicholson is excellent, especially considering she is mostly silent. All women characters lack a voice here. This clearly symbolic reinforcement of women as objects and victims is interesting but also an easy evasion of creating the rare three-dimensional female characters.The inconclusive interviews are, at times, frustrating. In fact, several cut off when the subject is about to confess his most important theory about himself or women. Perhaps the point here isn't so much what these men believe; it's that they believe they are right. Many stones are left unturned, as there really is only one general theme in a variety of guises, that of objectification. Here, male insecurities and self-hatred lead to misogyny. Men ruminate on the female mystique. One man describes objectification related more to race than gender. The pieces range from humorous, inoffensive, and light, to powerful and truly sickening; some are both.'Brief Interviews with Hideous Men' has received mainly negative reviews. In spite of its flaws, the movie is funny, disturbing, and, ultimately, intense.

bababear 2012-05-09 12:14:50

Intelligent, Touching, Compassionate

I watched this on cable initially because of my admiration for DavidFoster Wallace's work. The movie just plain blew me away. If I'd seenit in a theater I'd probably have been crying at the end of it.This is a loosely connected series of monologues by men- young, mature,White, Black- who are bound only by the issues of being men in theconfusing world we live in. A graduate student is videotaping thesemen, working on her thesis project about how men navigate thepost-feminist world.The best realized segment is about a man whose father worked six days aweek as a men's room attendant. Having a modern consciousness aboutbeing a Black man, subject # 42 can't understand how his fatherdegraded himself that way; his father tells us that it is what he coulddo to keep food on the table and a roof over his family's heads. Worseyet, the man has not seen his father (presumably still alive and in thesame job) since 1978.There's so much unresolved loneliness on view here. This is a finemovie that seems to have gotten just about no release, and that hurts.Watch this. Learn. Grow.

Heckyess2010 2012-05-06 07:07:06

Great performance by John Krasinski!

I was skeptical about watching this movie at first because I had heardsuch harsh criticism about it. However, after watching it I wouldhighly recommend it! I'm a huge fan of John Krasinski and I wasn't sureif he could direct or even act in a film like this. Normally he acts as"the funny guy" and I'm glad to see that there is a serious side tohim. The only problem I really had with this movie was subject number15 (Michael Cerveris). I wish the scene with him talking about hisfather had been at the beginning so we could've been introduced to himbefore the ending. Other than that I have no complaints. This is amovie that you should share with the people around you! :)

2012-05-05 23:29:45

Hahahahah! Loved it! Slimy, self-pitying, self-serving, self-absorbed,power-mongering men...nails 'em.

JK is a fantastic writer, producer and directory. Loved every minute of this clever, quirky, well-excecuted, actually brilliant film. My favorite two parts: First,the scene with the African American son and his father, a wash-room attendant in a tony men's club. It's a play within a play, a poignant, exquisite poem. My husband and I were speechless when it was over. I would own the DVD just for this alone. Second, I loved how John completely trashed our image of him as an adorable, woman-loving charmer on "The Office," the perfect boyfriend, husband, etc. I'll never look at him the same again. What a hoot - fabulous soliloquy and great way to end the film. I'm recommending this to all my girlfriends and the men who can handle it.

Warhol_Superstar_no_5 2012-05-04 19:57:41

An Important Film on many levels, a convincing mixture of satire and empathy

Most of the critical resistance to this 2009 film demonstrate areluctance to engage with the material, and I feel I don't exaggeratewhen I say that this doesn't reflect the sad state of film criticism asmuch as it does a numbness towards the human condition; We spent thebulk of our lives not challenging the perceived gender roles that colorour relationships, both sexual and platonic, why would we want toconfront their internal dissonances within a movie? As one might expectfrom an adaptation of a David Foster Wallace book, this isn't a filmabout a single subject or theme. It is, like its construct,multi-layered, with multiple points of thematic entry. Yet, it coheresfrom every angle, as long as the viewer is sensitive to what it trulyaccomplishes best: a tightrope walk between satirical and the emphatic.To quote one of the characters: "Pay attention to the documentarian,not the documentary." This is not to say that the film is centeredsolely on the interviewee/protagonist - Sara - alone, though herpersonal life plays a big part in establishing a major theme: The gaze- the sense of being watched by the subject that objectifies you, andits effects on both men AND women. The gaze is allegorized when Sara'sex, Ryan, delivers a heartbreaking monologue about a girl confrontingher rapist, in a scene so powerful it actually gives life to theconcept without seeming forced or trivial. As he tells his story, in afit of hostility, Ryan himself breaks down in front of Sara's gaze,unable to confront the undecipherable desire of the other. Anotherimportant scene that stands out in relation to this theme is themonologue about one of the subjects' father, a black washroom attendantwho never makes eye contact with the men whom he serves.As I said, this is not a film about a protagonist, nor is it about themen being interviewed. It a confrontation of an unspoken, irreduciblebarrier between people, the trauma at every point in which onerecognizes the real in the other, unfiltered through preconceivednotions of gender (or, as the washroom scene demonstrates - class/racial) performativity. Brief Interviews is structured as a series ofmonologues interwoven to a point of exhaustion, leaving a space ofmeaning, a gestalt impression of woman's desire, unknown to men,unknown to the women themselves - how could they know? As the filmimplies, the fairer sex only comes into existence within the male gaze,and when men bring themselves to reflect on her essence they onlyconfront the abyss of their own desire.Together, Wallace's dialogue, the film's relentlessly non-linear yetconsidered editing, and documentary-like verisimilitude evoke apolished, faux-Brechtian quality, which works to its advantage: themore attention drawn on the artifice of the relationships depicted andless on the diegetic, the more we are prompted to step outside thepersonal dramas that shape our own perception of what it means to be amale or female viewer, and watch the film on its own terms - or at thevery least, consider our own male or female subjectivity on its ownterms. Brief Interviews With Hideous Men is a character study of anelusive post-feminist subject that remains elusive by the end of thestudy. It is not all an exercise in futility, however, as one leaveswith a sense that it may have been staring us right in the eye allalong.

exitmusic7 2012-05-04 11:10:40

Peculiar adaption of a contemporary character study

Walking into the cinema, I didn't know what to expect. I'd read DavidFoster Wallace's book years ago and I enjoy The Office (ParticularlyKrasinski's performance) but I was doubtful the two would be able tocross over successfully. While I certainly will say that I was wrong,there are quite a few flaws that the movie has. First off, certainaspects of the film felt undeveloped. From the book, I realized thatshe'd asked a question before each interview that we weren't able tohear, but in this for the uninitiated you were expected to rely onvarious lines scattered across the movie to solve it all. Secondly,Julianne Nicholson, while an interesting character felt undeveloped(Which I understand was the purpose of the movie, for her to bedisconnected) but other than her, there weren't any other charactersfor the audience to grasp onto and truly connect with (One of the keyrules of all movies: That you should allow the audience to quickly gainan emotional connection with the character from their back story andnot simply rely on it from the point that they're the main character)Other than those minor viewpoints though, I must say that I wasimpressed with Krasinski's debut and with such a difficult sourcematerial he did a fine job and I have certainly gained respect for him.I would advise this movie perhaps for watching and re-watching in anattempt to understand the movie entirely and all of its littlesubtleties.

rivergirl301 2012-05-02 04:06:02

Agree with "snooze alert"

I appreciate what this movie was trying to accomplish, but that is theproblem. It tried and did not succeed. With the men who were beinginterviewed being cut off mid-sentence just as they were about to cometo the crux of their story, with the plot stopping and starting andintertwining with the interviews, I kept waiting for the climax of thismovie, and it didn't arrive. The lead actress was wasted. Most of thetime she purposely stood aside like a mannequin and faded into thebackground.It was obvious this movie was an adaptation from a play, and the playwas an adaptation from a book. Something was lost in the translation.I really did not like the ongoing theme that men are pigs who callwomen derogatory names, and even when men seem to be caring, it is justbecause they are after "more pussy than a toilet." I have seen thismovie described as a "quirky comedy," and I didn't laugh once. I don'tknow what it was about. A man getting gang raped? A woman getting rapedby a serial killer? A black man who resented his father for working asa men's room attendant? A woman whose boyfriend cheated on her? Whoknows? Who cares?

james higgins 2012-05-01 09:54:22

Snooze alert....

This movie was universally panned on just about every site on theinternet. Sometimes it works, most often it doesn't. Perhaps it's thefilms pretentiousness. Or the flippant direction by John Krasinski. Iagree with the critics on this one. Although it's not a disaster, it isan incoherent mishmash of interviews, interspersed with variousdramatic and comic moments that amounts to a lot of nothing. Not oncedid I care about any of the characters, except perhaps JulianneNicholson, who really is about the only ray of sunshine in this film.It's pointless and even though it is only 80 minutes long, it getstiring after only 20 minutes.

Rizel Oliver Jimenez 2012-04-29 19:48:51

Interesting, Incoherent, Infuriating...

I could give it a much lower score had it not been for some greatperformances and dialogue by the African Americans in the movie:subject 42(Frankie Faison) and his father(Malcolm Goodwin) and thefunny interview of subject that talks about the types of "fella". Butas a whole, this movie was just all over the place...it was very much achore to make things fit and make sense and the last monologue by JohnKrasinski didn't make sense, i mean, if he was the one who cheated, whywould he be the one that's mad and overflowing with anger in the scene?although the story he was telling was very interesting... and the leadcharacter lacks so much character that its very difficult to empathizewith her..and the editing...oh my, it didn't help to make this storyless convoluted didn't it? So, i did like the film, i thought therewere very powerful scenes in it, around 5 to 6 scenes that were veryredeeming..but for the most part, the film was boring or would easilyget you to lose taste in it because of the editing (timeline? whattimeline?--No, not Memento-jumbled-time-interesting type ofinteresting, just plain jumbled mess). Would i recommend it? yes, ifonly for the few scenes that i really liked...

dbborroughs 2012-04-29 08:59:37

not that good

(I saw this as part of IFC's In Theaters pay service)Adaptation of the David Foster Wallace about a grad student whointerviews men as part of her thesis or what ever and comes to learnabout men and her self. Its a great cast, with witty lines but its alsoawfully mannered in the way that so many independent films are. Its nota film of life but an artificial construction that clearly meanssomething to its cast and crew, but for the rest of us is just sort ofthere. Its not bad, and I made it to the end but my one thought whilewatching it was "why am I watching this when the Jets game was on". Nota ringing endorsement I know, especially when you consider how bad theJet offense was during the first half of the game. Anyway I digress.Let me sum up by saying that if you like the stereotypical independentfilm sort of independent films give it a try. Everyone else shouldprobably watch a sporting event.

2012-04-25 02:52:30

Fantastic

This review is from: Brief Interviews With Hideous Men (DVD) A fantastic film - I can't wait to re-watch it because I just know it'll hold up. The DVD came on time and in perfect condition which means I'll be re-watching it for years to come!

brakky63 2012-04-24 12:30:47

Short for such a broad topic...

Although it's short and "arty," it does make me curious about the book.This movie also reminds me a lot of Norah Vincent's book, Self-MadeMan. Men seem to balk at the premise IMMEDIATELY, but if they'recourageous (curious?) enough to start reading, they end up reallyliking it. And they should. It accomplishes what the Men's Movementhasn't done too well: made men's issues real and accessible to men ANDwomen. I think "Hideous Men" takes a good stab at it (and I did likesome of the artful ways time and chronology were handled). But I'mPOSITIVE having read Vincent's book allowed me to enjoy it more than Imight have otherwise.