Marie and Bruce

Wallace Shawn, the author of "Marie and Bruce", who wrote the original play in which this film is based on, is a man whose work in the theater leaves a lot to be desired. I don't wish anyone the experience we had with a play he co-wrote with a brother and that was seen at the Mineta Lane Theater in New York about three years ago, in which the audience kept leaving the performance because it was insufferable. This same quality can be said about this adaptation of yet another one of his works for the theater.

Directed by Tom Cairns, who also translated the material for the screen, shows us a couple of misfits that have been together far too long and would have been better off dissolving their marriage some time ago. The main attraction for watching the picture was Julianne Moore and Matthew Broderick, both great actors that put in a brave appearance to be in front of the camera playing these people. One wonders why hasn't Marie left Bruce a long time before? It's easier to see why Bruce has stuck to the situation because he doesn't have much to offer anyone else in her right mind.

The film can infuriate would be viewers who would not have enough patience to sit right through it.

Shawn's 'Bruce and Marie' has that feel of a conversational play. Well, it is based on Shawn's own play and portrays a day in the life of two couples about to end their dysfunctional marriage. Now, I did find the movie somewhat enjoyable mostly because of the comedic parts and the performances. However, in a conversational movie, dialogue is of primary importance and here it just fails to have that effect on the viewer. The lines are too ordinary and appear to lack the salt that makes meat tasty and this is where 'Bruce and Marie' lags behind. It needed more punchlines. Yet, Matthew Broderick and Julianne Moore make this an entertaining banter. Many have failed to see that Moore's Marie was supposed to be annoying. It's what years of bad marriage does. It makes someone more irritable and crankier while on the other end Bruce is more relaxed and at the same time seeking comfort elsewhere. So, in a bad marriage, one is either bitter and lonely or one is lonely and seeking comfort somewhere outside. The interaction between the characters are fun to watch. The dream sequences are well shot as Shawn manages to express that dreamy feel of the scene. The director does make his point clear and the film ends beautifully.

Strange 2004 character study "Marie And Bruce" spends a day with 'quirky' NY couple Julianne Moore & Matthew Broderick - both apparently on the spectrum (or mentally ill?). They express their frustrations & resentments with each other to each other & the camera as they go about their weird ways (with friends like Bob Balaban) including at a party (with guests like Julie Haggerty) and at dinner (where Griffin Dunne's another diner). It's unclear what director Tom Cairns intended with this the second of his three movies, which he co-wrote with Wallace Shawn (on whose play it's based). While well performed & occasionally amusing, it's just plain bizarre.

I was very impressed with this movie, the acting was great,the writing was great, the sets were great. very little to say bad about this movie, which follows the end of the beginning of the end of a marriage. people say things outloud that one might say in one's head and the results are comical, insightful, and thoughtprovoking.

among the dozen or so movies i saw at sundance this year, with a complete package, i put this in my top 5.

Still can not believe I managed to see this movie without falling asleep. I think it was because it contained some traditional Portuguese music, which gives it an exotic and unusual touch. At the beginning of the movie I thought that Laurie Anderson would have anything to do with it, the music of Mark De Gli Antoni and some of the text recalls her albums! I noticed that the Art Direction is made by someone with a Portuguese name which may explain the presence of "fado" (the traditional Portuguese music). Julianne Moore and Matthew Broderick give their best in these crazy, unusual and pointless roles in a movie full of pointless and pretentious scenes and narrative solutions. I imagine the authors with a glass in their hands at any party full of New York intellectuals saying that the public is ignorant and does not understand a work of art like this... Who knows?