NOTE IMDb
5,8/10
19 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueA traveling art saleswoman tries to shake off a flaky motel manager who falls for her and won't leave her alone.A traveling art saleswoman tries to shake off a flaky motel manager who falls for her and won't leave her alone.A traveling art saleswoman tries to shake off a flaky motel manager who falls for her and won't leave her alone.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Don Burns
- Businessman
- (as Don Stewart Burns)
Mark Boone Junior
- Jack
- (as Mark Boone Jr.)
Josh Lucas
- Barry
- (as Easy Dent)
Avis à la une
This film is about a man who works in his parents' motel who falls for a beautiful lady who is a guest of the motel.
"Management" is a disappointing despite a strong cast. The story is far too dull, slow and flat to be remotely entertaining. There is no joke. The relationship between Jennifer Aniston and Steve Zahn is forced and unconvincing. Their chemistry is poor, which kills the film's remaining chance of becoming a romantic comedy. The only character that shines is Woody Harrelson, but his scenes are few and far in between to make any positive impact on the snooze factor.
In summary, even Jennifer Aniston fans is unlikely to enjoy this film.
"Management" is a disappointing despite a strong cast. The story is far too dull, slow and flat to be remotely entertaining. There is no joke. The relationship between Jennifer Aniston and Steve Zahn is forced and unconvincing. Their chemistry is poor, which kills the film's remaining chance of becoming a romantic comedy. The only character that shines is Woody Harrelson, but his scenes are few and far in between to make any positive impact on the snooze factor.
In summary, even Jennifer Aniston fans is unlikely to enjoy this film.
"Management" isn't necessarily a bad film -- I just found it entirely disengaging. Judging from some of the early feedback, I was expecting a sweet (if predictable) "indie" romantic comedy. I'm not a big fan of Jennifer Aniston, but she plays her types of roles well enough, and Steve Zahn proved with "Rescue Dawn" that he's an underrated actor.
My problem with "Management" is that it plays into the quirky subgenre clichés far too easily. I'd bet the director is a big Hal Ashby or Mike Nichols fan -- this comes off like an uneasy mix of "Harold and Maude" and "The Graduate." Its protagonist is a borderline stalker.
That's not inherently negative, but I just felt like there was no real spark between Aniston and Zahn. The whole thing felt very...calculated. It wasn't naturally offbeat -- and, as a result, I was left wondering why we're supposed to feel any type of entertainment in watching these people.
My problem with "Management" is that it plays into the quirky subgenre clichés far too easily. I'd bet the director is a big Hal Ashby or Mike Nichols fan -- this comes off like an uneasy mix of "Harold and Maude" and "The Graduate." Its protagonist is a borderline stalker.
That's not inherently negative, but I just felt like there was no real spark between Aniston and Zahn. The whole thing felt very...calculated. It wasn't naturally offbeat -- and, as a result, I was left wondering why we're supposed to feel any type of entertainment in watching these people.
Love the chemistry between Zahn and Aniston. This is such a simple story done well. The characters are so lovable and fun to watch. Definitely worth watching.
First of all, I'd like to start by saying that I'm not a frequent movie comments writer, or any other sort of writer apart from my academic essays, hence, the lack of experience or proper writing structure which, more than probably would be blatant to a knowledgeable reader. However, I'm more than passionate about cinematography and I do believe without a shadow of a reasonable doubt that I've developed a fine taste for my viewing themes.
That said, I'm more than willingly commenting on this movie is because I have read an unjust and undermining comment about it right after I've watched it. So, the reasons I'd like to point out why this movie is more than a decent flick and contradict the over demanding (perhaps) commentator are:
A. It's a comedy slash romance flick (for crying out loud). So, it's quite obvious that if you are going to see this with expectations of such grandiose productions as of, in my opinion, Citizen Kane and 12 Angry Men, or Schindler's List, then you would more than likely be quite disappointed.
B. From where I stand, the casting was ingenious. In other words, it couldn't have been better (surprisingly enough since I've never appreciated Jenny as an actress, but this was just her ideal role).
C. The story is not over exaggerated which adds to its credibility. It's simple, well digestible and, not just funny, but harmfully hilarious at some points. On top of that, it's heart warming and free of "superficial additives".
D. The whole execution was flawless, starting from acting to photography and visual/audio presentation.
And, to rap things up, compared to its own kind, this flick stands in the top 10. So, it's a must see for sure.
That said, I'm more than willingly commenting on this movie is because I have read an unjust and undermining comment about it right after I've watched it. So, the reasons I'd like to point out why this movie is more than a decent flick and contradict the over demanding (perhaps) commentator are:
A. It's a comedy slash romance flick (for crying out loud). So, it's quite obvious that if you are going to see this with expectations of such grandiose productions as of, in my opinion, Citizen Kane and 12 Angry Men, or Schindler's List, then you would more than likely be quite disappointed.
B. From where I stand, the casting was ingenious. In other words, it couldn't have been better (surprisingly enough since I've never appreciated Jenny as an actress, but this was just her ideal role).
C. The story is not over exaggerated which adds to its credibility. It's simple, well digestible and, not just funny, but harmfully hilarious at some points. On top of that, it's heart warming and free of "superficial additives".
D. The whole execution was flawless, starting from acting to photography and visual/audio presentation.
And, to rap things up, compared to its own kind, this flick stands in the top 10. So, it's a must see for sure.
In watching this film I felt the same way I did when I first saw Kevin Costner's "Fandango". This is a quirky film with quirky characters you can't help but love. Steve Zahn plays the lead with a subtle sweetness and innocence only he can pull off. He's one of those people who don't seem to have that built in stop button which prevents them from doing something extreme, yet even at his most extreme, you never seem to be intimidated by him. His lonely maintenance man working for his parents at their run-down Arizona motel, meets up with an inhibited, attractive travelling sales woman who is clearly trying to find her identity, but is too afraid of taking a chance. Jennifer Anniston proves time and time again she can handle any role to come her way, and understands this character. What I thought would be a run of the mill romantic comedy, turns out to be a thoughtful character study with it's share of tender moments.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThe screenplay for this film was featured in the 2007 Blacklist, a list of the "most liked" unmade scripts of the year.
- GaffesNear the beginning of the movie Sue (Jennifer Aniston) is sitting in her hotel room on the bed looking down at the email screen on her laptop. The left-hand side of the screen shows there are 4 unread emails but there are actually 8 unread emails. The top right-hand corner of the screen says 'Viewing messages: 1 to 8 (8 total)' but there are actually 15 messages displayed.
- Citations
Sue Claussen: I wrote you a Haiku. Do you wanna hear it?
Mike: Sure.
Sue Claussen: Mike, oh Mike, my man Keeps showing up like UPS Sue, you're such a bitch.
Mike: ...I like it!
- Crédits fousOfficial Dog-Punk Consultant: Jeremy Norton
- Versions alternativesThere are three different versions, although only two different runtimes. These are: "1h 34m (94 min), 1h 34m (94 min) (United States)" and "1h 33m (93 min) (Toronto International)".
- ConnexionsFeatured in The Rotten Tomatoes Show: Star Trek/Rudo y Cursi/Next Day Air (2009)
- Bandes originalesHangover Days
Written by Jason Collett
Performed by Jason Collett
Courtesy of Arts & Crafts Productions, Inc.
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Sites officiels
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Management
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 934 658 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 378 000 $US
- 17 mai 2009
- Montant brut mondial
- 2 566 648 $US
- Durée1 heure 34 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant