Genres

Visitors Review

artisticengineer 2012-05-23 19:36:29

A good movie; lost

This movie came so close to being a very good movie but fouled up atthe end-leaving one to mourn what would have been a very goodadaptation of a very good book.It is the summer of 1983. A college graduate (Art) is trying to enjoyhis last summer before he leaves Pittsburgh (his home) to become afinancial broker. We find that his dad (fantastic portrayal by NickNolte) is an organized crime chief, of the local mob, and is proud ofhis son graduating and does NOT want his son to go into organizedcrime. The son takes a job for the summer at a local bookstore and isimmediately seduced by his only slightly older female supervisor; anaffair ensues. During this same period of time Art meets a stunninglyattractive young blond (portrayed by Sienna Miller) who likes him; eventhough she already has a boyfriend (dude named Cleveland). The next dayCleveland, a tough biker type, comes to the bookstore and gives Art adeal "he cannot refuse"- which is a ride on the bike to a localabandoned factory site. At the factory site is a smokestack that stillbelches out clouds; even though the factory has been shut down forthirty years! Why? It is a mystery, a mystery of Pittsburgh. Why isdoes Cleveland turn to be actually friendly towards a potential rival?Well, that is another mystery of Pittsburgh.The movie portrays the last summer of youthful abandon and care; set insurprisingly beautiful settings of a city that is reinventing itselffrom the traditional "smokestack technology" to a more "greener"environment. Yet, the problem with the movie is its unrealisticportrayal of male and female friendships. It was a very good movie;showing Sienna Miller, for example, doing some very good driving ofgolf balls at a party. Yet, this subplot never plays out- neverexplains why she is shown doing something so atypical. Loose ends, poorconnections, double meanings that invoke something that is hard tobelieve even with the typical "suspension of disbelief" found atmovies. All of these plot error and loopholes foul up the movie beyondredemption.

2012-05-23 00:57:31

Shedding A Little Light On The Mysteries

Shedding A Little Light On The Mysteries ... In the summer of 1991, on August 18th, at the SEEDS OF SOUND (Rock Mount Trashmore!) Ecology Benefit Concert held in Lowell, Massachusetts by the banks of the Merrimack River, a trio up on stage by the name of The Croutons performed three songs, all by The Grateful Dead: China Cat Sunflower, Scarlet Begonias, and Franklin's Tower. Who would have known back then that this performance would have been so prophetic? ... There are a lot of `Cloud Factory' towers in the city of Lowell, MA - home of capitalist, industrial revolution in the western hemisphere, and now an urban national park full of renovated mills with giant smokestacks sticking up into the sky along the horizon line (See the movie: The Invention of Lying!).Michael Chabon is a hugely successful and talented writer. This is a fact, as well as an undeniable certainty. The author himself, humbly, attributes his success to innate talent, disciplined hard work, and a little luck. If only all creative people with such gifted talent were as diligent as he in their artistic pursuits! The real Claire in The Mysteries of Pittsburgh once said to me that it was actually she who taught Michael Chabon how to write, being a year older than him. I find this hard to believe after having read this book and seen this movie adaptation of it. Having also seen (but not read) Wonder Boys, I am absolutely certain that Michael Chabon's gifts as writer were innate and formidable, and if anything, the real Claire (a fellow, mutable, communicative Gemini like himself) only may have had a helping hand as a literary midwife in encouraging his unique and original literary talent. If so, that was a good thing.This book has a passage in it on pages 77 and 78 that is referenced, tangentially, in the movie and which is all about alcoholics. It says: "In my innocent cynicism I didn't see that Cleveland was not trying to look tough; he just didn't care. Which is to say, he knew what he was, and was, if not content with, at least resigned to knowing that he was an alcoholic. And an alcoholic is nothing if not sensitive to the proper time and place for his next drink; his death is one of the most carefully planned and prepared for events in the world. Cleveland simply foresaw his imminent need for another beer." ... WO! ... I mean, how old was Michael Chabon when he wrote this passage, 24, 25? For a 24 or 25 year old, first time novelist to come up with such a profoundly insightful line is the work of pure genius at best, and at worst, shows incredible insight into the psyche of alcoholics. It's possible that the real Cleveland (also a friend of the real Claire) may have actually verbalized this characteristic to Michael when they were buddies together at Carnegie-Mellon, or that Michael came to this conclusion about alcoholics on his own by simply observing their habits and missteps. Who can say for sure? Nevertheless, not only is this passage one of the most profound in the book, it is one of the most profound passages I have ever read in any book - fiction or school tectbook. It shows great understanding of the psychology of alcoholism from a perspective that is unusually and keenly insightful. Even sociology and criminology (after all, suicide is technically a felony and a serious crime) text books in college do not get this deep into the behavior of substance abusers. ... Also, how prophetic in regards to the actual death of the real Cleveland, who was a serious alcoholic found dead in his bedroom in Pittsburgh, circa 2001, with an empty bottle of vodka on the floor, an empty bottle of pills on the floor, and a picture of the real Claire by his bedside. I mean, the whole thing blows the mind!Is it possible that the real Cleveland, who was heterosexual (unlike he is depicted in the movie), was influenced by what he had read in Michael Chabon's `fictitious' (Kerouacian) book about what he and all of his friends in Pittsburg had experienced while living on or near Squirrel Hill and the Polish section of the city where Andy Warhol had lived at one time? Maybe? Ya think? I wonder if Michael Chabon himself has ever given a thought to this? I mean, the prophetic nature of it all is astounding! I was one of the first people to watch this movie when it came out on DVD, having just recently read the book a week before for the first time in order to prepare myself for the movie. Also, I just recently purchased, in hardcover, Michael Chabon's latest book - his first book of non fiction - entitled, Manhood for Amateurs: The Pleasures and Regrets of a Husband, Father, and Son, and I wonder if he mentions in there anything about this and the death of the real Cleveland. The real Cleveland, obviously, is the hero and major character of this book and this movie - and rightly so. He had a larger than life personality, in a way, and from everything I've been told was quite a charming, humorous, and interesting character with a great gift for conversation. The real Cleveland did go out to the family bungalow on the lake in order to get away from it all. The real Cleveland had a father who was gay, and a mother who killed herself. The real Cleveland supplied a lot of literary fodder for Michael Chabon's first novel.As for the real Claire, she really does love Joni Mitchell and the films of Franco Zeffirelli (who is gay as well as a devout Catholic). She really does love Romeo and Juliet, Brother Sun - Sister Moon, and Jesus of Nazareth, and she really does idolize John and Yoko, The Beatles, Saint Francis and Claire (where the name comes from, obviously!), and Jesus and Mary Magdeline. That Michael Chabon makes reference to some of this in his book is quite revealing. I have seen, with my own eyes, the actual record albums he mentions in the novel! What he does not mention is that the real Art's real father took the real Claire out to one of the fancy restaurants in the movie, and told her she was to no longer have anything to do with his son, and that he was taking his son out of Carnegie-Mellon and enrolling him, instead - away from her - into the University of Pittsburgh. This was done, according to the book, because she suffered from "dementia praecox" (page 10), but according to the real Claire, she was told that it was done because she was Catholic and Michael was Jewish. It is true that all of Michael's books seem to heavily reflect themes of Jewish culture, that he married and has children with a Jewish woman (just like his father wanted him to), and he is involved in the Peace Now movement in Israel (a very good thing, indeed.) So, did the real Art in the movie and in the book break away from the influence of his father, or did he voluntarily embrace that agenda? Only Michael Chabon himself knows the answers to all thse questions.Another confusing aspect to the book as well as the movie that needs to be cleared up is the relationship between Art and Arthur Lecompte. The real Arthur Lecompte is gay, and not bisexual, and the real Arthur Lecompte was also a friend of the real Claire's and the real Cleveland's. The movie combines the characters or Arthur and Cleveland into one person. Also, the book and the movie seem to bifurcate the real character of Claire into two different people. Whether or not there is a real Phlox Lombardi and a real Jane Bellwether, I do not know. But I do know this: the two characters of Phlox and Jane are totally and respectfully representative of the two sides of the complex character of the real Claire. It's almost as if Michael Chabon, the clever writer that he is, bifurcated the realClaire into two different characters: one, the negative, suspicious, controlling, jealous, dominating, violent Phlox, and the other, the positive, trusting, fun loving, adventurous, tolerant, musical, charming Jane. I mean, it's uncanny! The fact that Art had a sexual affair with Arthur was traumatic to the real Claire.The book reads like a recent college graduate's fond memories of his college experiences with all of his friends. He pays tribute to and honors their memories. But it is more than an introspective reflection on the past. As a novel of `fiction,' it really works well as a work of literary art. The movie, on the other hand, does not work as well as the book. If you love the book, you may not love the movie. If you've never read the book, you actually might like the movie more. The cinematography is excellent, and it shows Pittsburgh in a nice light. As a screenplay, it's not the greatest. But it does entertain and expose the decadent and nihilistic eighties in a way that hits home. The ending is tragic - in the book, the movie, and as well as real life. ... "In Franklin's Tower, there hangs a bell..." - YOWZA! - George Koumantzelis / The Aeolian Kid

gradyharp 2012-05-22 05:47:32

Watch the Commentary Between Chabon and Thurber FIRST!

For those who find it difficult to appreciate the adaptation format offilm making from a famous novel, THE MYSTERIES OF PITTSBURGH as nowreleased on DVD should help explain the naysayers' opinions. In a veryvaluable session of conversations among Michael Chabon and RawsonMarshall Thurber (screenwriter and director) and the producer and cast,the transition of this complex novel into a very altered story iscomfortably explained and the person most happy with the result seemsto be the originator - Michael Chabon! That being said this film stands well on its own terms. June and Julyin hot Pittsburgh generate mysteries among a variety of people,especially the young college graduate Art Bechstein (Jon Foster) whowhile working in a bookstore wastes time with a fling with thesupervisor Phlox (Mena Suvari) with disinterested post grad classesdealing with becoming a broker and having monthly dinners with hismobster father Joe Bechstein (Nick Nolte), until he encounters an oddcouple: bisexual biker and thief Cleveland (Peter Sarsgaard) and hisfemale consort, the violinist Jane Bellwether (Sienna Miller). Thebizarre interactions among these characters drive Art to make manydecisions and discoveries - including his falling in love with bothCleveland and Jane. The summer winds down with Art finally discoveringhis own identity despite the clouds of mystery that have surrounded hislife. It is a piece of life as lived by disparate characters whosedirection in life seems at odds with the natural flow of findinghappiness and success. But then the question is asked - what ishappiness and what is success if not survival? For this viewer the explanation by the makers of this film wasinteresting enough to encourage a repeat watching of the movie. A goodmovie not a great movie, but it still tastes strongly of MichaelChabon's genius. It deserves more attention than the critics have givenit.....Grady Harp

2012-05-21 13:57:41

Watch the Commentary Between Chabon and Thurber FIRST

For those who find it difficult to appreciate the adaptation format of film making from a famous novel, THE MYSTERIES OF PITTSBURGH as now released on DVD should help explain the naysayers' opinions. In a very valuable session of conversations among Michael Chabon and Rawson Marshall Thurber (screenwriter and director) and the producer and cast, the transition of this complex novel into a very altered story is comfortably explained and the person most happy with the result seems to be the originator - Michael Chabon!That being said this film stands well on its own terms. June and July in hot Pittsburgh generate mysteries among a variety of people, especially the young college graduate Art Bechstein (Jon Foster) who while working in a bookstore wastes time with a fling with the supervisor Phlox (Mena Suvari) with disinterested post grad classes dealing with becoming a broker and having monthly dinners with his mobster father Joe Bechstein (Nick Nolte), until he encounters an odd couple: bisexual biker and thief Cleveland (Peter Sarsgaard) and his female consort, the violinist Jane Bellwether (Sienna Miller). The bizarre interactions among these characters drive Art to make many decisions and discoveries - including his falling in love with both Cleveland and Jane. The summer winds down with Art finally discovering his own identity despite the clouds of mystery that have surrounded his life. It is a piece of life as lived by disparate characters whose direction in life seems at odds with the natural flow of finding happiness and success. But then the question is asked - what is happiness and what is success if not survival? For this viewer the explanation by the makers of this film was interesting enough to encourage a repeat watching of the movie. A good movie not a great movie, but it still tastes strongly of Michael Chabon's genius. It deserves more attention than the critics have given it.....Grady Harp, August 09

gideonvd 2012-05-20 04:36:13

Imagine... no don't imagine. Just put your head in a blender.

A friend of mine gave me this movie. A friend of mine is now in ahospital were a team of doctors are trying to surgically remove a DVDcasing from his ***. I got quit excited by the prospects of an other Michael Chabon movie.After all his novels have brought me much entertainment and previousscreenplay adaptations were great, but boy, was I wrong.First off the people that did the casting must have been asleep whilstdoing so. I imagine the castings went something like this. "Tell me, doyou like fish?" "Yes I enjoy fish very much." "Wonder full, you'rehired. Have some money." Than there is the script. I have read Chabon, who I hope went blindbefore he could see this piece of dong, and it has absolutely nothingto do with his novel. I'm not quit sure why it annoyed me like it did,but it might have something to do with the fact that listening to aspeech impaired 90 year old drunk duck hunter with a right cranial lobedysfunction would have been a treat in comparison to the one-linersthese 2nd degree model massacre kids spat out.This is an actual line from the movie; "If you tell me something thatyou've never said out loud to anyone before, than this moment becomesunique!" Unique? Does it? Does it really? Off course not you plank.Please pass me the Imodium. I'll have a whole ****ing strip. The directing is... well. I've got nothing. Maybe Rawson MarshallThurber just got word his grandmother exploded or something. Stick todirecting comedies. No stick to directing commercials. This movie is so horrible it left me banging my head against a wall sohard it brought me back to the stone age. I give it 2 stars because Idon't wanna be the guy that watched a 1 star movie.

jotix100 2012-05-19 15:25:17

The would be stock broker

Michael Chabon's 1988 novel " The Mysteries of Pittsburgh" was a novelabout coming of age for a young man. The book is a fine account of asummer in the life of Art Bechstein, the son of a mobster who falls forJane, a young woman, who is in love with another man. There is no doubtin our minds Rawson Marshall Thurber had the best intentions when hedecided to adapt, then direct, this beloved work of many for thescreen.The problem seems to be in the way Art comes out in the movie, where healso serves as the narrator as well. The way Mr. Thurber conceived hismain character does not resonate with the viewer. It is never quiteclear what did Jane and Cleveland see in this bland person to befriendand be part of a group; they are unevenly matched, to say the least.Cleveland is the most complex character in the novel. He is a bisexualman that is in the equation for the thrills he can get out of hissituation with Jane. Art finds out soon enough what Cleveland is allabout, but in the end he too is seduced by a guy that is a manipulatorof the worse kind. It is also hard to believe, the way Cleveland ispresented in the film he is the criminal he is supposed to be. Art, onthe other hand, appears to be a closet homosexual, in spite of thesexual relationship he was having with Phlox, something that seemscontrived and phony.Any film in which Peter Sarsgaard appears is worth a look. He is themost lively character in the picture. Mena Suvari shows up as abrunette with such a different look. It is hard to recognize her atfirst. Ms. Suvari is at her best in the film. Jon Foster is too blandto get anyone's attention. Nick Nolte plays Art's father. SiennaMiller, in spite of her looks, is an enigma in the movie.One thing that plays well is Theodore Shapiro's fine musical score. Itgives the picture some class. Michael Barrett captures the spirit ofthe city, and its surrounding area in great images.

2012-05-19 03:39:57

Stars for cast and soundtrack only

I'm sure this was a good novel, and I will read it. However, whoever brought it to the screen made it quite dull and slow. It's also hard to understand why anyone would ever want to be with Peter Saarsgard's obnoxious character at all.That said, I was glad to see Jon Foster again, having enjoyed his work in The Door in the Floor. Saarsgard is as good as ever, and Sienna Miller was wonderful as the woman caught between these troubled men. Nick Nolte also makes a fine turn as the very unpleasant and controlling father.Soundtrack recommended too.

sampotter25 2012-05-18 15:07:41

Lifeless Lead Character Drives A Pointless and Obtuse Story

I am quite a fan of novelist/screenwriter Michael Chabon. His novel"Wonder Boys" became a fantastic movie by Curtis Hanson. His masterfulnovel "The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay" won the PulitzerPrize a few years back, and he had a hand in the script of "Spider Man2", arguably the greatest comic book movie of all time.Director Rawson Marshall Thurber has also directed wonderful comedicpieces, such as the gut-busting "Dodgeball" and the genius short filmseries "Terry Tate: Office Linebacker". And with a cast including PeterSaarsgard, Sienna Miller, Nick Nolte and Mena Suvari, this seems like ano-brainer.It is. Literally.Jon Foster stars as Art Bechstein, the son of a mobster (Nolte) whorecently graduated with a degree in Economics. Jon is in a state ofarrested development: he works a minimum wage job at Book Barn, has avapid relationship with his girlfriend/boss, Phlox (Suvari), whichamounts to little more than copious amounts of sex, with no plans otherthan to chip away at a career for which he has zero passion.One night at a party, an ex-roommate introduces Jon to Jane (Miller), abeautiful, smart violinist. Later that night they go out for pie, andshe asks Jon a question that begins to shake him from his catatonicstate of existence, "I want you to tell me something that you havenever told a single soul. If you do, it will make this nightindelible." Jon then tells her a reoccurring dream of his in which hewanders about town looking at the faces of strangers passing him by,yet none of them look him in the eye. "I imagine it must be what deathfeels like," he says.The next day Jane's wild boyfriend Cleveland (Saarsgard) kidnaps Jonfrom work and takes him out to a hulking abandoned steel mill, and soonJon, Cleveland and Jane are spending every waking moment together goingto punk rock concerts, doing drugs and drinking lots of alcohol. Thisdoesn't sit well with Phlox, who pushes Jon for a more personalrelationship, namely letting her meet his new friends and his father.The film then attempts to take us on Jon's journey as he shakes off theshackles imposed on him by his father, Phlox and his dead-end job as hefinds freedom and expression through his relationships with Clevelandand Jane.There is a problem having us follow Jon throughout the film: he'scompletely uninteresting. He has no ambitions, passions or goals. Hewalks through life like the invisible wraith he described to Jane thenight they met. At the outset this isn't a problem. But he never getsany more interesting. He's a completely passive character. He simplyfollows along the bohemian Cleveland and Jane, but he never once givesus any inkling as to what he cares about or wants to to do withhimself.Consequently, the film and its supporting characters have nowhere to goand little to do other than party, have sex and get in arguments. Inother words, much ado about nothing. What we have here is the shallowskin of a good movie without anything on the inside. Sweepingcinematography, ponderous voice-over with characters staring off intothe distance, lots of sex scenes both straight and gay, big arguments,more angry sex, a chase scene and a tragic death... but it doesn't seemto matter. Ironically, at one point Jane, confused at a number of Jon'saimless actions, asks him, "What's going on, Jon? What is this allabout?" Yes, Jon, do tell. We in the audience are dying to know, too.The title "The Mysteries of Pittsburgh" must refer to the charactersthemselves, because that's what they are. They are all facades,one-dimensional stand-ins for actual people. The film never lets us in.We never know what makes any of them tick. We see them do lots ofthings, but we don't know why. And the absence of "why" is one of theworst things a movie can have.

2012-05-17 00:05:45

I love everything Pittsburgh, but this movie is a zero!

This movie was so bad, that I didn't even finish watching it. Part of the movie was filmed im my former neighborhood, which was nice to see, but between the gratuitous sex and the two lead male characters engaging in a kissing-fest, I had had enough.

revsolly 2012-05-16 21:02:02

Can someone tell me why...

...they bothered making this movie? Anyone? I didn't think so.If you are looking for a coming-of-age movie, go rent Summer of '42.This is no Summer of '42.When your big stars are Nolte & Sarsgaard, & Sarsgaard gets more screentime, that is your first warning sign And, of course, for such an"artsy" movie, there is plenty of cursing & skin flung around, just tomake it look "artsy".Sarsgaard did his usual uninteresting, cardboard character, punctuatedby moments that were supposed to be intense. The intensity is that ofsomeone with bi-polar disorder.Miller is most famous for her looks & what she had to say about thecity of Pittsburgh after this movie. Pittsburgh SHOULD hold a grudgeagainst her. She misrepresented an actual Pittsburgh native.Foster gave Sarsgaard a run for his money in the cardboard actingstyle. Wow! Was this his first role after high school graduation?So, we have this weird triangle. Foster has a crush on Miller, but iswith his boss/girlfriend. He can't take Miller to bed, & won't take hisboss to bed. So, he hangs with Sarsgaard & Miller, & watches them getit on.Then, after one of Sarsgaard's pseudo-intense moments, Foster & Millerget it on, a scene that we are "treated" to in every sloppy, moaningdetail. Finally, just to round it all out, Foster & Sarsgaard get iton, with Foster in the Miller role. Now I know how 2 guys get it on (asif that was ever anything I needed to know).After all that, all that's left is the tragic ending for one character& the retrospective views of the remaining 2. It gets me right in thepit of my stomach. Oh, wait! That was the pepperoni pizza I just had.I'd like back the time this movie took out of my life, please.

dbborroughs 2012-05-15 17:24:19

The cast and the occasional moment make this worth seeing

Young man with a gangster for a father is studying for the exams tobecome a stock broker. He doesn't really want to go in that directionbut that's the direction that his father has picked out for him (he'sarranged a job for him once he finishes). Desperate to have his ownlife he has taken a dead end job at a local book supermarket just tohave time for himself before his life stops being his own. After almostbeing run over by his college roommate he ends up at a party where heends up meeting a beautiful blonde, who along with her boyfriend endsup changing his life.This is a well acted, except by Nick Nolte, story based on a book byMichael Chabon. Its much better than its soiled reputation wouldindicate. The film is infamous for being the film Sienna Miller tooksimply to get away from the paparazzi, she got into even more troubleby bashing Pittsburgh in several off handed comments. It was thenbarely released to theaters before being dumped on to DVD. This is agood little film. I liked it. My only real complaint outside of NickNolte's performance (it just doesn't work here) is that the film istrying way too hard to be quirky. Its not bad, but there are thesesmall turns and asides (Joe Namath's picture during a sex scene) thatdidn't really need to be there. I'm sure they were in the novel, but atthe same time in the real world of the film they come across as out ofplace. Worth a look, probably on cable.

chatfieldbatham 2012-05-15 03:20:27

Beautiful but confusing film

This was a beautiful but ultimately confusing film.There is an impressive cast of photogenic and talented actors, but theediting seems to have left parts of the story, which would explain itsprogression, out.As a result, the story of the 'last' summer for the character played byFoster, it is only partly believable, and the poignancy that one cansense was aimed at, is missed.There is good acting by the main actors, but the lines provided and theediting leave a lot to be desired.It is worth seeing, but ultimately leads to a mix of emotions at theend, and not ones intended by the director.

2012-05-12 02:16:13

A great Mystery?

This review is from: The Mysteries of Pittsburgh (DVD) The protagonist is easy to follow in this film. You're instantly on his side, with is unlikeable father and the touchy situation he's put himself in. Forget all the sexual hangups, why aren't more people like him? Good acting and script make it an enjoyable film. No need in spoiling the ending for you. See it.

BenAordure 2012-05-11 12:55:32

Mysteries

Comments are so tough with the film that I feel alone in the camp ofthe "positives".OK this film is far from being a perfection and I think I will neverunderstand the very purpose of it. I even hesitate to say what was thetopic. I assume it was about the coming-out of the main character, buteven that I am not sure.Plus, I can't say Jon Foster, the main actor, is captivating. So whydid I like ?I think the main thing I appreciated in that film is the atmosphere ofmysteries. As the title suggests it, all along the film provides animperceptible mystery. Because it plays with suggestions and switches. The storyline helps for sure to plunge into this atmosphere as thestoryline is a mystery in itself ! But there are other causes. Thephotography for example, which clearly remains in my mind. AlthoughPittsburg is not a beauty on its own, the director manages to capturesome good photos of it. Also the director did well regarding thechanging weathers and lights. Switching between sun and rain, lights,twillights and darkness.The soundtrack follows the mysterious atmosphere well too.Saarsgard plays an interesting character as he acts an ambivalent toughbut sensitive bi-sexual. There is also the constant hesitations of themain character. Obey his father or not ? The dark haired girl or theblond one ? The girlfriend or the boyfriend ? We can also capture thequestionings of all the others characters.All this provides a sentiment of interrogations.So this atmosphere the director manages to render leads us not to besurprised when the main character admits at the end he is confused,because this is the feeling we have too.Mysteries. This is what I appreciated in this film I guess.

M. George Stevenson 2012-05-11 01:14:49

Can't believe what I just read...

According to the above synopsis, this "indie" pic derived from one ofthe most vivid and persuasive first novels of the last 25 years or sohas changed the main characters essential dilemma, which was notchoosing between two girls while the romantically self-destructiveCleveland hovered on the edges before bringing things to a head, butfiguring out if his close friendship with Cleveland's gay friend Arthur(Art/Arthur, get it?) was sexual attraction or merely bromance. "JaneBellwether"! Why not call her "Schwing Bothways" or "Girlgirl Akshun"--they're much more evocative names. What were Peter Sarsgaard and MenaSuvari thinking?

jlongstreth-1 2012-05-10 07:14:32

Many mysteries, none of them profound.

I loved the novel Mysteries of Pittsburgh. It took place in familiarsurroundings, places I hung out, in a town I loved. It questionedmysteries that I'd questioned myself.It's not certain if the passage of time or the changes wrought inadaptation brought about my dislike for this movie. After all, I firstread the book some 25 years ago. But the film lacks so much incomparison with the book. It has none of the humor, none of theintrospection, none of the sense of resolution or at least readiness atthe end.The acting does not help the situation, especially Sienna Miller, whoas Jane, is basically a flat line. Art is nearly a flat line, strangelyenough; as the lead he is not supposed to be. Sarsgaard's Clevelandattempts to compensate for the affectless performance of hisscreen-mates by wildly over-emoting. It's a valiant effort that almostworks. And Mena Suvari is just pitiful as a sad stereotype that nowoman with a shred of self-respect should ever have to play on screenor stage.I'm sure it doesn't help my assessment that Chabon is one of myfavorite writers and Pittsburgh is my beloved home city. But if I wereyou, I'd give this one a miss. The four stars are for cinematographyNick Nolte, and music, which were decent.

silly_elliott 2012-05-02 17:01:43

Trying to be an indie cool movie - and failing

Based on the novel by Michael Chabon, The Mysteries of Pittsburgh isabout the young son of a notorious gangster who spends his last teenagesummer roaming around with two friends. The year is 1983, and young ArtBechstein (Jon Foster) is at a crossroads. Completely opposed to hisfather's lifestyle, Art plans to become a stockbroker. Visuallycontrived with painful attempts to create beautiful hip indiecinematography, the whole film feels like the director - whose previouseffort Dodgeball was funny if outright commercial - is desperatelyseeking indie credibility by cobbling together aspects of other indiefilms but sprinkling it with stars like Mena Suvari, Sienna Miller andNick Nolte. Like so many of the star-laden premieres at Sundance thisyear it felt like this was a secrety studio-sponsored vanity project tohelp the director earn some indie credibility points - it failed inthat respect and as a film in its own right.

DaMarco-2 2012-05-02 08:26:16

Beloved novel is drained of its wit in film

Michael Chabon is one of our generation's greatest writers, havingearned the acclaim of awards and prizes that he deserves. "Wonder Boys"was made into a very good if uneventful film, and one has high hopesfor "Kavalier & Klay." "The Mysteries of Pittsburgh" is about ArtBechstein, the young son of a gangster who does not want him to followin his footsteps. Art has majored in business but has no taste for it.It is the summer after his graduation and he is supposedly studying fora test that will license him to work in high finance, though he spendshis time enjoying the summer as the last of his youth.Art works at a bookstore and meets Phlox, an attractive young woman. Healso makes friends with a gay man named Arthur Lecomte, who introduceshim to Cleveland Arning. Art meets Cleveland's girlfriend Jane who isstriking and mysterious to him. Art spends his summer in relationshipswith these people and learning more about himself.The tone of the book is one of the great accomplishments of Chabon'swriting. It is wry and witty, and ever so slightly tongue in cheek. Myfavorite line in the book is the last, in which Art tells us that thissummer that was a turning point for him, or maybe he just made it allup. Art is a cousin to Holden Caufield, with his attitudes, but hetakes himself far less seriously.This film is not the trainwreck that many would have you to believe,including devotees of the novel. While some criticize the glossycinematography, I would argue that it is one of the few things thatwork in this film. Pittsburgh has a fascinating aesthetic that deservesto be filmed well, and the cinematographer accomplished that.The overall problem with the film is that it never comes even remotelyclose to capturing the tone of the novel. The wit and humor are gonecompletely. The tone of this movie is so deathly serious that none ofthe events that were shocking in the novel are the least bit surprisingin the film. It is the equivalent of sitting in the parlor of a funeralhome.Jon Foster is an exercise in bad casting. He looks like what oneimagines Art to look like--mildly handsome, lanky, a non-showyintelligence--but never once plays the character properly. There is noslyness, no humor, no wit or warmth in this performance, and that isabout 60% of what's wrong with the whole film. Foster does not evencome remotely close to the character we followed in the novel. A toneddown Topher Grace is what the part called for, but all we get is anactor who is so bland and dull that we couldn't care less about thecharacter he is playing.Peter Sarsgaard was perfect casting as Cleveland, and has a resume ofsimilar successful roles in his past. However, Sarsgaard playsCleveland with all the seriousness of a war veteran who's lost hislegs. The unpredictability and wildness that makes up the book'scharacter is not in the film.Sienna Miller's Jane is an overinflated part, about a character who wasonly meant to be an enigma in passing, sort of like Suzanne Somer's"Girl in the White T-Bird" in "American Graffiti." Her mere beauty issupposed to mean more to us than it ever does.Only Mena Survari as Phlox and Nick Nolte as Art's gangster fathermanage to properly convey what we knew about the characters.Unfortunately the likable Phlox is reduced to being a clingynymphomaniac, as opposed to the sweet, likable free spirit in thenovel. Still Survari made the part work despite limited screen time.Art's sexual awakening is glossed over and Cleveland's bisexuality istreated more as pansexuality. The film has the nerve to show the men inembrace, but cuts to the morning after in chaste fade away.Even the Cloud Factory is given a short shrift. A prominent fixture inthe film, it is also a big player in the movie, but as with thecharacters, it is also played as a serious location rather than ahumorous one. The actual plant in the novel is a working facility atCarnegie Mellon University. In the film, it is an abandoned facilityoutside of town about which Cleveland says no one knows why smoke stillcomes out of the stack. Well, actually, smoke can only come from astack if it is fed coal or some other energy source, which someone mustpurchase. So if no one is buying coal for it then such a thing is noteven possible. Smoke doesn't just appear! And that sums up the problemwith this film. Smoke appears out of nowhere and for no reason, as dothe human emotions. We don't see any motivation or reasoning, and wenever understand why any of these boring people want anything to dowith each other.Pittsburgh is a fascinating city with a rich history, Chabon's novel isa great book with rich characters. Both got the short shrift in thisplodding and pointless film. The only way to enjoy it is to put it onTV at a party and turn down the sound while playing a music CD. Thevisuals make for great music video and replace the characters who nevermuster any personality in the atmosphere of the film.

2012-05-02 03:43:20

berkley bee ess

Caution: Contains SpoilersNever before have I seen such a desparate production of absurdity painted as hopefully possible. In a nutshell: An average mildly conservative college boy entering his last summer before college graduation, give him a gangster dad, a minimum wage job where his more-mature boss sexually harasses him, then introduce a beautiful young couple that both seduce him to spend his last summer with them, partying, vacationing, home invasion, robbery, riding her, getting ridden by him, and of course choosing to continue getting ridden by him, since that's so much better than Sienna Miller (duh!) ... what a gem of a storyI'll give it 3 stars; the acting, directing, and cinematography were all top notch; the story itself is totally absurd. If it were more honest, it would have painted the protagonist as more gay to begin with.. because average college guys dont take it in the can.

2012-05-01 20:45:47

An interesting turn

This review is from: The Mysteries of Pittsburgh [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray) When i first saw this movie the begging was somewhat slow for me but after getting into the middle it started unfolding and was pretty surprised. Thought this was a decently made film with kind of a sad ending.If you're looking for a good film to watch with some turns in it then take this one out for a spin.