NOTE IMDb
6,8/10
83 k
MA NOTE
Wallace a un coup de foudre pour son amie, Chantry, qui est en couple. Ensemble, ils vont découvrir ce que signifie être amoureux entre meilleurs amis.Wallace a un coup de foudre pour son amie, Chantry, qui est en couple. Ensemble, ils vont découvrir ce que signifie être amoureux entre meilleurs amis.Wallace a un coup de foudre pour son amie, Chantry, qui est en couple. Ensemble, ils vont découvrir ce que signifie être amoureux entre meilleurs amis.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 2 victoires et 10 nominations au total
Avis à la une
'What if' is about Wallace (Daniel Radcliffe), a heart broken medical school dropout who meets Chantry (Zoe Kazan), an animator and Wallace's love interest. The moment they meet, Wallace is in love. Unfortunately for him, Chantry is already in a serious relationship and just wants to be friends.
Like most movies of this genre, you can for the most part guess how this movie progresses. However, that didn't really matter as the movie was fun and quite enjoyable. Most of the jokes were witty and didn't feel forced. All the relationships in the movie were enjoyable to watch as well. All the actors did a great job as well.
At the end, I had a good time watching this movie. It was a good fun movie.
Like most movies of this genre, you can for the most part guess how this movie progresses. However, that didn't really matter as the movie was fun and quite enjoyable. Most of the jokes were witty and didn't feel forced. All the relationships in the movie were enjoyable to watch as well. All the actors did a great job as well.
At the end, I had a good time watching this movie. It was a good fun movie.
it clearly appears that Daniel Radcliffe has completely got out of the harry potter's net so easy , i reckon it was only a year ago when he was just recognized as Harry, he's so freaking talented i'v seen him in Horn ,, gosh ... his reactions when he's irritated in the scene is priceless .. anyhow , the movie is great with new idea in romance, the comedy is fair but still when the romance presented it heightened the whole movie to a deeper level. the plot goes complicated more and more then things just get easy to be predicted until the end which is nice if i might say. casting Radcliffe, Zoe Kazan and Adam Driver was prosperous, changing the rhythm of the scenes from funny to sad to funny to awkward to funny to romantic .. and so on was amazing directing and amazing writing . Hope to see more of these movies with a bit more comedy tho ;) especially for Mr.Radcliffe .
What a great movie to see as an escape from the mindless explosions in so many "Hollywood" movies. The characters were great. It was very funny! And it was touching. It would probably be in the "chick flick" category, but that's an unfortunate way to pigeonhole this movie. Spoiler alert!!! (I just want to be on the safe side.) I would classify this movie as an updated version of When Harry Met Sally. Daniel Radcliffe is excellent, as is the rest of the cast. We went to a sneak preview a few days ago and I was kind of shocked to read that it was made last year(2013) and "might have a Valentine 2014 release". What the heck happened? I am glad it has a release date for next month(8-2014) I am going to spread the word via Facebook and texts. Great movie.
This is a wonderfully fun rom com featuring Radcliffe and Kazan as a pair of quirky and charming friends dancing around their attractions to each other.
Really, in a lot of ways it's a run of the mill rom-com, it doesn't deviate from the standard formula all that much. What elevates it is the performances of Radcliffe and Kazan. Their chemistry and just the enjoyment of seeing them interact and talk makes this better than average to me.
Really, in a lot of ways it's a run of the mill rom-com, it doesn't deviate from the standard formula all that much. What elevates it is the performances of Radcliffe and Kazan. Their chemistry and just the enjoyment of seeing them interact and talk makes this better than average to me.
What If asks a basic question if a friendship between a boy and a girl could lead their relationship to something romantic. It isn't an idea that we haven't heard before, of course, but for some reason the movie does feel a lot fresh. It offers one thing that we don't always see in a romantic film lately: an ultimately likable on screen couple. They may not be a typical stale supermodel looking pair, the uniqueness it highlights to these characters are their personalities and their problems. It may not make their personal situations any complex, but it still is a memorable little romcom that shines through its humor and performances.
The film is best when it only settles with its two leads starting to build their connection into friendship until it gets serious. What makes this love story so genuine is their conversations as friends pouring out their honest views toward something, like love or their lives. Following its central plot would make the clichés visible, but by just looking through the world of these characters is what helps it show its own color. It also sells well when they reveal each of their issues, it sometimes takes them as one of its jokes, but whenever it gets compellingly heavy, it usually resolve those situations too easy. It's probably because it wanted to focus more on its sweetness, but it does still deserve some depth at the unthinkable fate of the "friendzone".
The depth is instead placed on the actors. There is an undeniable charm to be found in Daniel Radcliffe, even though his character is struck with a cynical side personality and Zoe Kazan brings much of the soul to the connection of every person her character jumps right into. Both of them spark a strangely admirable chemistry that makes the witty screen writing sound more lively. It just embraces the awkwardness of their desires. The direction makes it real simple, though it does pull off a little hipster-y animation when it shows their abstract feelings, but most of the time it just let it linger at the very meaningful moments.
The most important thing What If needs is gumption at portraying how doomed the both are from ending up with each other, but it still is a worth a watch for its often delightful environment. Its strongest appeal is just the two stars tagging you along in their world of an uncertain luck. Not sure what kind of people would leave the theater having sudden thoughts of word magnets and art-driven animation, or nachos and Fool's Gold Loaf, but to be sure this film has its distinction as a romantic comedy. Overall, it's all pretty nice.
The film is best when it only settles with its two leads starting to build their connection into friendship until it gets serious. What makes this love story so genuine is their conversations as friends pouring out their honest views toward something, like love or their lives. Following its central plot would make the clichés visible, but by just looking through the world of these characters is what helps it show its own color. It also sells well when they reveal each of their issues, it sometimes takes them as one of its jokes, but whenever it gets compellingly heavy, it usually resolve those situations too easy. It's probably because it wanted to focus more on its sweetness, but it does still deserve some depth at the unthinkable fate of the "friendzone".
The depth is instead placed on the actors. There is an undeniable charm to be found in Daniel Radcliffe, even though his character is struck with a cynical side personality and Zoe Kazan brings much of the soul to the connection of every person her character jumps right into. Both of them spark a strangely admirable chemistry that makes the witty screen writing sound more lively. It just embraces the awkwardness of their desires. The direction makes it real simple, though it does pull off a little hipster-y animation when it shows their abstract feelings, but most of the time it just let it linger at the very meaningful moments.
The most important thing What If needs is gumption at portraying how doomed the both are from ending up with each other, but it still is a worth a watch for its often delightful environment. Its strongest appeal is just the two stars tagging you along in their world of an uncertain luck. Not sure what kind of people would leave the theater having sudden thoughts of word magnets and art-driven animation, or nachos and Fool's Gold Loaf, but to be sure this film has its distinction as a romantic comedy. Overall, it's all pretty nice.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesDaniel Radcliffe said in an interview that his role as Wallace is the first contemporary character he's ever played, having previously starred in mostly fantasy and historical projects. He said, "There was something lovely about just stepping up on set and talking."
- GaffesWhen Ben is in the ambulance his neck-brace isn't placed correctly. It should be under his chin.
- Crédits fousThe beginning of the closing credits are done with Chantry's animations telling some of the story of the movie as well as some of the back story.
- Versions alternativesOriginal/TIFF cut is appx 101 minutes, US cut is appx 98 minutes, and TIFF cut (PAL DVD) is appx 97 minutes (obviously due to PAL speedup differences). Comparing Australian PAL DVD (original/TIFF cut) to US Bluray (US cut), changes begin from AU version at appx 65:00, equivalent to US version at appx 65:13 :
- "Lawn Bowls" reordered scene: AU @ 65:00-66:26 --> US @ 67:48
- "Tearing list" scene: AU @ 66:54-67:00 --> deleted from US
- "Chantry wandering around Dublin" scene: AU @ 67:04-67:15 --> deleted from US
- "We're Just Friends" scene: AU @ 67:28-68:13 --> deleted from US (found as an extra on the retail disc)
- "3 points" scene: US @ 69:33-69:38 --> deleted from AU
- "Where is Chantry" reordered scene: AU @ 68:13-69:45 --> US @ 69:38-71:08
- "Wallace going to Dublin" scene: AU @ 69:45-69:56 --> deleted from US
- "Wallace landing in Dublin" reordered scene: AU @ 72:10-72:13 --> US @ 71:08-71:10
- "Wallace waking up in Dublin on plane" scene: AU @ 72:13-72:24 --> deleted from US
- "Wallace found unconscious" scene: AU @ 73:06-73:32 --> deleted from US
- "Chantry's voicemail message to Wallace" alternate/reordered scene (shorter on US): US @ 72:00-72:10 --> uses AU @ 7427-7440 footage
- "Chantry's voicemail message to Wallace" alternate & Wallace's voicemail message to Chantry" scenes: AU @ 73:32-74:08--> deleted from US
- "Wallace leaving Ben's" same scene: AU @ 74:08-74:18 --> US @ 72:10-72:18
- "Wallace departing Dublin" scenes: AU @ 74:15-74:27 and 74:40-75:00 --> deleted from US
- "Landing at Toronto" same scene: AU @ 75:00-75:04 --> US @ 72:18-72:22
- "Rushing to restaurant" scene: AU @ 75:04-75:15 --> deleted from US
- "Outside restaurant" scene: AU @ 75:15 extended by appx 1 second
- "New US ending" scene: US @ 87:05-90:40 --> not on AU (found as an extra on the retail disc). Scene is out of narrative order when compared to animated end credits, and should have been placed after animated credits.
- Animated end credits are also somewhat different, and run at different speeds (outside PAL speedup): AU @ 90:00-94:37 --> US @ 90:40-93:19
- ConnexionsFeatured in Projector: What If? (2014)
- Bandes originales(Walking Through the) Sleeping City
Performed by The Parting Gifts
Written by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards
Courtesy of In The Red Records
By arrangement with Third Side Music
Published by ABKO Music, Inc
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is What If?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Sites officiels
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- ¿Sólo amigos?
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 11 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 3 493 000 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 133 898 $US
- 10 août 2014
- Montant brut mondial
- 8 526 288 $US
- Durée1 heure 38 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
What was the official certification given to Et (beaucoup) plus si affinités (2013) in India?
Répondre