Claire in Motion

Greetings again from the darkness. A math professor and an art professor are apt to view the world discordantly, but it doesn't mean they aren't capable of a strong personal relationship together. After planting a morning kiss on the cheek of his wife, Paul sets off on a one-man survival hike through the hills and forest. When he doesn't return, the mystery begins. Only it's not really a mystery, and it's certainly not the thriller it seems to be disguised as. Rather, it's a character study of how a rational mind works to make sense of a world that can't always be explained logically.

Lisa Robinson and Annie J Howell have co-written and co-directed this story that gives Betsy Brandt a chance to really spread her dramatic acting wings after her time on "Breaking Bad". Here she plays Claire, a math professor, wife, and mother to Connor (Zev Haworth). Being of sound mind and structured thought, Claire immediately starts trying to find the logical reason for the disappearance of her husband. What she discovers is her husband often secretly veered from the structured life she so valued. This leads Claire to an awkward meeting with Allison (Anna Margaret Hollyman), one of his grad students. It turns out Allison and Paul had a pretty close connection over an upcoming art project.

By now, you are probably sure you have this movie figured out. Fortunately, the filmmakers ensure it's not as predictable as you might think. It's not a thriller like Gone Girl or Deceived. We watch Claire re-trace Paul's steps on a path unfamiliar to her, and this evolves into a self-realization that she had been sleep-walking through life: doing her job, raising her kid, going home each day. There's a key moment when she's watching an old video of herself and Paul, and he says "look at me". It's at this point she begins to understand – and it's enhanced by a chance meeting in a bar with a former student. Maybe Paul isn't the only missing person.

Son Connor probably doesn't get the screen time his character deserves. Like his father, Connor has some secrets of his own. His friends don't know he enjoys knitting, and he intends to keep it that way. It's one more indicator that no matter how close we are to someone, we don't know or share all. Finding and discovering one's self can be a torturous process before it ever reaches enlightenment, and though the story short-changes the process of grief, we do understand not to mindlessly nod when someone says "you know me".

First off, the reason so many people hate this movie isn't because it doesn't end with a neat little bow, whatever that means.

It's because nobody in this movie acts like a real person.

Claire, the main character leaves her middle school or late-elementary school aged son by himself 80% of the time after her husband, his father has disappeared. Did she ever once think that he might just run away? I mean, that'd be pretty emotionally distressing, right? But thank God the script dictates that he doesn't run away, so it's fine.

The girl who can laughingly be called the antagonist is a complete cliché. I can't tell you how many times I've seen the young mistress type in a movie or television show. They always have one distinguishing characteristic, but she's got two - and both are stupid. One is that she's an art student. Her "art" is literally light fixtures that look like they were bought at Pottery Barn, and piles of sticks. Her other distinguishing characteristic is that she thinks she knows what's best for Claire and her husband - yet another motivational cliché typical of awful writing.

I saw "Rings" the other day, and I have to say, the only thing "Claire in Motion" has over "Rings" is that its lead actress gives a slightly better performance. Slightly.

When you're worse than "Rings," you're one of the worst films ever made. I think that's my new bar. There's "Rings," and then there's "Claire in Motion," and then... I'm not sure how you can get worse than that. Maybe "After Last Season" is technically worse, but not by much.

The premise of the film was viable. The filming, directing, and the acting were well below average. Yet another production, touted as a mystery, with no resolution. Apparently, for many people, this passes for art.

If you are watching this movie hoping it is a mystery about what happened to the missing husband, you will be disappointed.

But you must shift your perspective. The missing husband is merely a catalyst. The movie is, in fact, about a mathematician who is forced to confront the inexplicable. She is forced to operate within a life equation for which there is no solution. She is also forced to confront emotions which she struggles to keep in careful control. What happens to her when she can't fit everything into a careful box? What happens when she realizes she was missing a lot of information about her carefully constructed world? How does she respond?

If you watch THAT story, there is a very complete arc with a very satisfying ending.

This movie starts slow, ends slow and never picks up in between. The story is shallow and there is not one question answered. I would have turned it off but I had to see what happened. I still don't know what happened. What a waste of my time. I can't believe anyone wasted money on this.