NOTE IMDb
5,4/10
14 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueA man receives help from an old friend when his parents stop supporting him, but returns the favor by falling in love with the friend's girlfriend.A man receives help from an old friend when his parents stop supporting him, but returns the favor by falling in love with the friend's girlfriend.A man receives help from an old friend when his parents stop supporting him, but returns the favor by falling in love with the friend's girlfriend.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 1 nomination au total
Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick
- Young Conrad
- (as Seamus Fitzpatrick)
Nicole Elizabeth Berger
- Young Beatrice
- (as Nicole Berger)
Ann W. Friedman
- Beatrice's Mother
- (as Ann Friedman)
Avis à la une
I've waited a long time to see a film like this. A simple story, beautifully shot with an enchanting soundtrack. Like others, I'm now completely turned off by the big budget, green screen, CGI 'blockbusters' that now seem to infest our theatres (cinemas), and was delighted to just sit back and let this quiet little story wash over me.
The neo-retro cinematography turned New York into Paris and the design had the men smart and dapper and the women beautifully Hepburnesque, I loved it all and it was only topped by the husky piano jazz soundtrack.
I won't go into the acting, depth of plot and character, who's films it resembles or whatever subliminal message was supposed to be projected, others have very kindly furnished that information. Suffice to say the leads were all impossibly good looking (of they were, they're actors) but not as good as their surroundings, New York has never looked so enticing.
So, this film won't win any awards for supreme cleverness or anything but if you're after something to romance your eyes and ears then you'll find its 80 minutes time well spent.
The neo-retro cinematography turned New York into Paris and the design had the men smart and dapper and the women beautifully Hepburnesque, I loved it all and it was only topped by the husky piano jazz soundtrack.
I won't go into the acting, depth of plot and character, who's films it resembles or whatever subliminal message was supposed to be projected, others have very kindly furnished that information. Suffice to say the leads were all impossibly good looking (of they were, they're actors) but not as good as their surroundings, New York has never looked so enticing.
So, this film won't win any awards for supreme cleverness or anything but if you're after something to romance your eyes and ears then you'll find its 80 minutes time well spent.
Without Olivia Wilde, this would be absolutely unwatchable. It wants to be Goddardian and early Woody Allenesk, but it's lack of character development and its weak dialogue not to mention it being devoid of any philosophical or social commentary take it nowhere. Perhaps if Crudup had had the lead and Batemen wasn't cast at all, the acting would have made it more compelling?
This isn't such a bad movie as it is a slow movie. Outside of that it's perfectly watchable. At movies finish my first thought was 'this is a flick for the one percent'.
This story centers around a 40 year rich playboy who finds himself essentially broke for one week. Does he suffer? No! Does he learn anything about everyday life? No! Bateman as Conrad Valmont just escapes to his well off friends and successfully hides his new status as 'broke' at least for awhile. In the mean time he still lives the privileged life because he has a name associated with wealth and others just cater to him. Plus he is constantly looking inward. In the end nothing really changed him. His only act of altruism is giving a street person a box of cigarettes and replacing cash he stole from a friend. Oh and around all this is a love story!
The photography is lush, dialog is wonderful, the acting is fine. But the plot gets very slow about 40 minutes into the movie and you'll wonder where this is going. It goes no where because the one percent are so insulated from the outside world any change in their lifestyle is a brief inconvenience. He ends up right back where he started with a book he wrote that nobody cared for.
This story centers around a 40 year rich playboy who finds himself essentially broke for one week. Does he suffer? No! Does he learn anything about everyday life? No! Bateman as Conrad Valmont just escapes to his well off friends and successfully hides his new status as 'broke' at least for awhile. In the mean time he still lives the privileged life because he has a name associated with wealth and others just cater to him. Plus he is constantly looking inward. In the end nothing really changed him. His only act of altruism is giving a street person a box of cigarettes and replacing cash he stole from a friend. Oh and around all this is a love story!
The photography is lush, dialog is wonderful, the acting is fine. But the plot gets very slow about 40 minutes into the movie and you'll wonder where this is going. It goes no where because the one percent are so insulated from the outside world any change in their lifestyle is a brief inconvenience. He ends up right back where he started with a book he wrote that nobody cared for.
The Longest Week (2014)
What a strangely almost good movie. It has lots of compelling elements, including Jason Bateman as the nice guy leading man (though here he plays a spoiled rich boy). It's a complex enough story, and a love story, and it's set in lovely Brooklyn (an almost Manhattan). It should work. And second leading man Billy Crudup is terrific—better than Bateman.
So enjoy it for what it is? Sure. But it will kludge along at times, and will get a bit obvious at other times. The women (girlfriends, mainly) are weakly cast (or weakly directed), which doesn't help. But mostly it's a matter of originality—which is missing.
In fact, the whole thing is alike a Woody Allen mashup wannabe. The voice-over will make you think too much of "Vicky Christina Barcelona" and some of the photography of "Manhattan" but in color. (They even cast Allen regular Tony Roberts in a role as, yes, a shrink.) But mostly it's "Annie Hall" redux. In fact, it's almost a remake—girl meets unlikely boy, they have a romance, it goes south, and then boy re-evaluates (with direct stealing of ideas like having the plot reappear as a play, or in this case as a novel). And even if you don't like "Annie Hall" (which I do), you have to admit it came first, and is wonderfully original.
To add insult to injury, the whole set design and shooting style is straight out of Wed Anderson, though toned down to the point of being dull. (Anderson is never dull, at least visually.)
So what is left? Lots of little moments—quaint remarks (skipping over the brazenly sexist stuff that is meant to be funny and is mostly embarrassing, like the soccer practice) and a generally nice flow of events. It's easy to watch even if you aren't enthralled.
Director and writer Peter Glanz is fairly new to the scene, and this movie is a seven day expansion of an earlier indie success, "A Relationship in Four Days." No wonder this one feels about three days too long. See it? Maybe, if you already know you like the cast or the genre. Or maybe just give the Allen films a second try. Worlds apart.
What a strangely almost good movie. It has lots of compelling elements, including Jason Bateman as the nice guy leading man (though here he plays a spoiled rich boy). It's a complex enough story, and a love story, and it's set in lovely Brooklyn (an almost Manhattan). It should work. And second leading man Billy Crudup is terrific—better than Bateman.
So enjoy it for what it is? Sure. But it will kludge along at times, and will get a bit obvious at other times. The women (girlfriends, mainly) are weakly cast (or weakly directed), which doesn't help. But mostly it's a matter of originality—which is missing.
In fact, the whole thing is alike a Woody Allen mashup wannabe. The voice-over will make you think too much of "Vicky Christina Barcelona" and some of the photography of "Manhattan" but in color. (They even cast Allen regular Tony Roberts in a role as, yes, a shrink.) But mostly it's "Annie Hall" redux. In fact, it's almost a remake—girl meets unlikely boy, they have a romance, it goes south, and then boy re-evaluates (with direct stealing of ideas like having the plot reappear as a play, or in this case as a novel). And even if you don't like "Annie Hall" (which I do), you have to admit it came first, and is wonderfully original.
To add insult to injury, the whole set design and shooting style is straight out of Wed Anderson, though toned down to the point of being dull. (Anderson is never dull, at least visually.)
So what is left? Lots of little moments—quaint remarks (skipping over the brazenly sexist stuff that is meant to be funny and is mostly embarrassing, like the soccer practice) and a generally nice flow of events. It's easy to watch even if you aren't enthralled.
Director and writer Peter Glanz is fairly new to the scene, and this movie is a seven day expansion of an earlier indie success, "A Relationship in Four Days." No wonder this one feels about three days too long. See it? Maybe, if you already know you like the cast or the genre. Or maybe just give the Allen films a second try. Worlds apart.
Don't get me wrong. This isn't a terrible movie. It's beautifully filmed and well acted, but it's just ultimately unsatisfying. I didn't mind passing an evening watching on Amazon Prime, but I wouldn't have been happy if I'd spent money for it in a theater.
The movie starts out with Bateman, as Conrad, laying out his privileged upper class problems to his therapist - played by Tony Roberts! And if that wasn't enough, the soundtrack launches into some New Orleans Jazz to remove any doubt who they're playing homage to here.
Of course, Jason Bateman's handsome and well spoken character would certainly be the *villain* in any Manhattan-era Woody Allen films, but that's just one of this movie's many problems.
Stylistically, the movie is unabashedly influenced by Wes Anderson. Roberts becomes the narrator, and the movie is divided into storybook style chapters, with occasional amusing cutaways.
On the other hand, the plot is lifted from another movie; namely, "A New Leaf" (1971), written and directed by Elaine May, and starring Walter Mathau. Mathau plays a spoiled rich playboy who has burned through his entire inheritance, and now must find a way to.get through life broke, which is basically the same plot as this movie. May's version is a classic. This, not so much.
Both Allen and Anderson have a real genius for portraying deeply flawed characters in a sympathetic way, and that's where this movie falls short. Jason Bateman is inherently likable, but at some point, you realize you're giving him credit for other characters he's played. As Conrad, he's shallow, self-centered, whiny, and just basically annoying.
Without giving away any spoilers, if you're expecting any great self-realization or epiphany, you'll be disappointed. The movie just meanders its way to one of the absolute laziest endings I've ever scene. Indeed, a critical plot point comes and goes so quickly that I initially missed it, and had to go back because I was totally confused.
The movie starts out with Bateman, as Conrad, laying out his privileged upper class problems to his therapist - played by Tony Roberts! And if that wasn't enough, the soundtrack launches into some New Orleans Jazz to remove any doubt who they're playing homage to here.
Of course, Jason Bateman's handsome and well spoken character would certainly be the *villain* in any Manhattan-era Woody Allen films, but that's just one of this movie's many problems.
Stylistically, the movie is unabashedly influenced by Wes Anderson. Roberts becomes the narrator, and the movie is divided into storybook style chapters, with occasional amusing cutaways.
On the other hand, the plot is lifted from another movie; namely, "A New Leaf" (1971), written and directed by Elaine May, and starring Walter Mathau. Mathau plays a spoiled rich playboy who has burned through his entire inheritance, and now must find a way to.get through life broke, which is basically the same plot as this movie. May's version is a classic. This, not so much.
Both Allen and Anderson have a real genius for portraying deeply flawed characters in a sympathetic way, and that's where this movie falls short. Jason Bateman is inherently likable, but at some point, you realize you're giving him credit for other characters he's played. As Conrad, he's shallow, self-centered, whiny, and just basically annoying.
Without giving away any spoilers, if you're expecting any great self-realization or epiphany, you'll be disappointed. The movie just meanders its way to one of the absolute laziest endings I've ever scene. Indeed, a critical plot point comes and goes so quickly that I initially missed it, and had to go back because I was totally confused.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesCompleted in 2012, not released until two years later.
- GaffesWhen Conrad presses the recording button on his tape deck and speaks in the microphone, the tape is not rolling. The needles for the volume level don't move either.
- ConnexionsFeatured in Projector: The Longest Week (2014)
- Bandes originalesAir on the G string
Taken from 3rd orchestral suite in D major, BWV 1068
Composed by Johann Sebastian Bach
Performed by Jonathan Carney, Royal Philharmonic Orchestra
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is The Longest Week?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- The Longest Week
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Montant brut mondial
- 46 460 $US
- Durée
- 1h 26min(86 min)
- Couleur
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant