The Invisible Circus

About a quarter of the way into "Invisible Circus," I and those sitting around me found ourselves far more amused by the person snoring loudly than by anything happening on the screen. That, in and of itself, is a partial indictment of the film. But then, there are some really excellent movies that also induce sleep.

The movie traces the obsession of an 18-year-old over her older sister's suicide, and her attempt to follow in the footsteps of her sister's last months. This film falls into that large category of movies that seem to have an interesting set of ingredients, but somehow didn't get cooked right. That's not to say that it is terrible--you need to go to see Anti-Trust for that--it just doesn't fit together too neatly. In trying to be a love story-thriller-mystery-coming of age genre-bender, you end up with a movie that does none of them well. As a mystery it is far too predictable, as a thriller I was unmoved, the love story is monochromatic, the actors rarely move beyond wooden.

Which is all really too bad. This is a movie that could have worked. The cinematography captures some really stunning location shots, and the story itself is interesting. The execution, however, falls flat.

Wait and rent it. Or go rent "The English Patient" instead.

Those disappointed in the film "The Invisible Circus" would make a better investment by purchasing the novel by Jennifer Egan. Written from the perspective of eighteen-year-old Pheobe, the novel is an enchanting coming-of-age story with the added intrigue of her lost "hippie" sister.

Most of the narrative focuses on Pheobe's inner thoughts; which no doubt made translating it to the screen a difficult task. Debates on whether it is a "chick flick" are warranted; both the film and the novel center heavily on the female viewpoint.

In response to the first posted review, the paintings by Pheobe's father, Gene, are *supposed* to be awful. Part of the narrative focuses on Pheobe's realization that her father was not a sainted, thwarted artist, but an ordinary man.

This is a wonderfully told tale of Phoebe, an 18-year-old girl determined to find out what happened to her older, beloved sister Faith (Cameron Diaz). In 1969, Faith and her English boyfriend "Wolf" (Christopher Eccelston) set off from Faith's home in San Francisco to see Europe. Faith never returned -- she committed suicide in Portugal and the circumstances surrounding her death were, given the distance and time, cloudy. Phoebe, now an adult in 1976, uses Faith's daily postcards as her guide, and retraces the couple's travels, but not before she meets up with a now older and more mature Wolf, at his Paris home.

Camilla Bell (younger Phoebe) and Jordana Brewster (older Phoebe) could not be more beautiful and lovely.

The love affair that develops between Phoebe and Wolf is so credible and powerful, it completely entrances the viewer.

Egan's story combines cultural touchstones, political ideology, family ties and passion in this wonderful story.

'Just watched this film last night. With a cast like Danner, Ecceleston and Diaz I'd expected something better. It is mainly the direction and lack of story development that stand out like a bruise. There are wonderful location shots of both America and Europe but what use is all this if the film itself is weak? With the story idea it could have been much more engaging. The whole love angle between Brewster and Ecceleston's character was irrelevant. The two actors hardly have any chemistry. The scene where Brewster hallucinates her sister behind the door just create unnecessary deviation. Alright, her character sniffed some coke but how did that fit in with the rest?

Talking of performances, Cameron Diaz stands out. One wonders why she doesn't concentrate more on such roles rather than starring in non-funny toilet-humoured comedies. The actress proves that she can take on a serious role and is wonderful. Her scenes are worth watching and she's the only character we can sympathize with. Ecceleston, though a very good actor, his role seems to lack something. However, he and Diaz do share a good chemistry. Brewster isn't convincing at all. Blythe Danner does well in a small role. So what do we get from this film? Nice shots of Portugal, Holland, France etc, a great performance by Diaz and...that's it.

To suggest, as a previous reviewer has done, that women are the only ones who will be able to sit through this movie is not only sexist but also false. I am a woman, and hated this film. The bottom line, whether you are male or female, is that this movie is terrible in many ways. The failure of this film can be blamed largely on Jordana Brewster. Her Phoebe is by turns annoying, cruel, selfish, ridiculous... you name it -- Brewster is almost unwatchable in her portrayal of a difficult character. I imagine an actress with more emotional sensitivity could have pulled it off and made the character a bit sympathetic, but Brewster fails entirely. From what I understand, she is studying at Yale... let's hope she's majoring in something other than drama. Cameron Diaz fares better -- unlike Brewster, she's actually acting. But her character Faith is cursed by writer/director Adam Brooks, who robs us visually and verbally of Faith's real struggle. He has the other characters inform us that Faith is upset, rather than give Diaz the chance to really portray the conflict onscreen. And so when we finally reach the point where we learn what really happened to her character, it feels like an anticlimax. Diaz tries her best, but she can't save Faith. I'm a fan of both Christopher Eccleston and Blythe Danner, and why either of them chose to appear in this movie is a mystery to me. Eccleston, like Diaz, is given little to work with -- he's reduced to a series of broody stares at Brewster and a very bad hippie wig that makes him look older, not younger. Danner, as Phoebe and Faith's mother, is limited largely by poorly written dialogue and by the fact that all of her scenes are with Brewster. Given the dramatic potential of the story, I think it could have been a better film in the hands of another writer/director, and with someone other than Brewster as the central character. As it is, Brooks has given us Brewster in an uneven, poorly-written and emotionally lacking display of moviemaking. The Invisible Circus is a waste of time.