Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaA graduate student (Nicholson) copes with a recent breakup by conducting interviews with various men.A graduate student (Nicholson) copes with a recent breakup by conducting interviews with various men.A graduate student (Nicholson) copes with a recent breakup by conducting interviews with various men.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Premi
- 1 candidatura in totale
- Harry
- (as Ben Gibbard)
- …
Recensioni in evidenza
This shortish film (eighty or so minutes, dependent upon the version you see) has many head-spinning nuances that warrant your attention. Personally, this was a surprising turn for Krasinski, who displays a brilliant eye for a project and impresses upon his audience an ability far outweighing his popular persona of goof or funny man. It is delightful to see a harder, more serious edge to him. I was both shocked and delighted by this film and have happily become a convert of Krasinski's work, but on a whole new level.
Having not read the Wallace book and knowing little about the film prior to watching it, I feel I have benefited from not having any pre-conceptions about the story or how Krasinski decided it should be filmed.
I am grateful for the fact that I went about my usual business and avoided the reviews that had gone before me, as most reviewers have found that they either love or loathe it. Regardless, the film cannot be ignored once seen, and opinions abound about its relevance. Such is the subject matter and wealth of passionate feelings it both incites from its audience and the messages it dares to tell us about ourselves.
The 'Hideous Men' of the title are few and far between, however, and this may be different in the book, but the majority of a clearly hand-picked multitude of talented actors come across as having opinions on women that are heard all too infrequently. You get the impression that these voices would have remained unheard had a tape recorder and a camera not been placed in front of them and the right type of questions posed from an apparently unassuming and coercive questioner.
The acting talent throughout is exemplary, with one notable exception. Our lead Julianne Nicholson came across as slightly average through an uninventive, passionless and oblique performance as Sara Quinn. This is quite possibly due to her fellow performers and who can be surprised. These hideous men we come across all deliver outstanding monologues with Krasinski, Dominic Miller, Michael Cerveris and Frankie Faison being particular examples of unmissable, gripping talent.
The story is simple enough, Quinn is interviewing men on the back of a project to understand the progress of feminism and decides that the best way to understand at least half of that would be to interview men on their feelings about women, taking a broad cross-section of subjects to get as broad a result as possible.
What we get is a warts and all (and I do mean all) story about how some of these men view women in general. How some are unmoved in their philosophy and how others, at the more cognitive end of the masculine spectrum have started to realise that maybe this isn't their world after all. While some are bitter or delighted, most are confused by their relationships with the women in their lives, but all of them are nonetheless vocal about their feelings, even if those feelings are not what Quinn would really like to hear.
With an impressive cast, who appear to be mostly right on form, a screenplay adapted by Krasinski that is at times witty, funny and above all brilliantly observed by Wallace and some impressive editing by Zene Baker and Rich Fox, Brief interviews With Hideous Men is both a lesson of our times for men and women everywhere with meaning in every line. This makes romantic comedies seem dire by comparison and I would suggest that even though this is most definitely a look at relationships as much as anything else, it would be wise to avoid it when picking a DVD for a second date, as this raises some uncomfortable questions that are thankfully not glossed over with comedy.
A real treat for fans of rational thought and superlative acting skills.
Sara Quinn (Julianne Nicholson) is a soon to be graduated student of anthropology that in the beginning is left by her boyfriend, and she wants to know what went wrong. So she has the idea of consuming her energies on a research interviewing various men for understanding better what drives men to act the way they act. More she does the interviews, more she discovers disturbing and real things about human relationships and, most important, about herself.
What stroke me for the first time I looked for this movie was the cast. I mean, look at it: Will Arnett, Bobby Cannavale, Josh Charles, Dominic Cooper, Will Forte, Timothy Hutton, John Krasinski, Christopher Meloni, Chris Messina, Joey Slotnick and Corey Stoll... where you can find such a cast with so much talent and recognazibility? Only in the recently released OPPENHEIMER, I would say. But also in this all the big name actors shine in their moments and some like Stoll and Meloni have some funny bits. Julianne Nicholson shows that she can be a competent lead and I really liked her observations after all those interviews.
If you are into indies or star-studded films, then you shouldn't miss this one if you have a chance. And it's not a movie just for women, because men can feel the lead's sensations towards the opposite sex as well.
sexdrugsmoney.com
This movie has a pretty recognizable cast. A lot of NBC actors were involved in the making of this movie. There's like four people from The Office in it. But its not a comedy. Its like an art house, weird, documentary / drama. A few highlights throughout, but not that big of a story plot, because the plot is all about telling stories. In the movie, the main character, Sara Quinn (played by Julianne Nicholson) is a grad student conducting interviews with various men of different backgrounds for a research paper. This also follows a life changing breakup with her boyfriend. She seeks to discover a reason why men doom their relationships with women by doing this case study. The movie is directed by John Krasinski (jury still out on this guy) who takes some pretty good pictures, but didn't edit right, so slow people might get lost early in. Its a crawler of a movie. The dialogue, which consists of a lot of monologue and testimony, is on point and strong. Some of the characters are endearing, but many of the men serve to reinforce stereotypes of misogynist men in the modern era, and nobody portrays that very well (bad casting-shucks NBC!). At times, it seems like feminist propaganda. But the movie is based on a book by David Foster Wallace, and unless that a masculine pen for a femme, it couldn't be feminist. Well it damn sure ain't misogynist.
Quinn unlocks the inner thoughts of the 100 or so men in the clinical interviews where they open up about relationships with women while her personal life turns into a mess (but a polite one. no Hagen-daz or bon bons and hate fests with the girls). In doing so she is hoping to understand why her boyfriend has made her feel so bad. Some like subject #17 blame the women for the failures. Some like subject #30 are happily married and in love (but only because his trophy wife stayed a trophy wife through 50). Some, like #42 and #15, are Freudian cut examples of what a man should be. A student shares a horrific story with her, stretching her notions of manhood, like an outlier on a graph, and she begins to gain insight finally. She thinks she understands it. Men are unique. Men are simple. They say they are unfaithful. They say they are sorry. They are all cowards. She thinks that men only see women as things. But when her boyfriend returns to explain the break-up, she learns the truth about the way men love.
2/4 Stars. Worth watching once. But only with your lover as a conversation piece.
—— Ryan Mega sexdrugsmoney.com
Julianne Nicholson stars as the interviewer who selects several men to talk about something from their personality, which can vary from relationships with their wives, lovers, girlfriends or anything related with their views on male power structure or its frailty. This is a college report she's preparing for a teacher (Timothy Hutton) but also a personal quest of hers in trying to understand the male psych after being dumped by her boyfriend (Krasinski, playing an almost complete opposite of his tender/likable characters). Neurotic, misogynist, misantrophes, affected, pitiful men come her way during many random interviews that reveal plenty to us in the audience but doesn't seem to affect anything on her or any indicative that she's definitely learning something with their experiences. She points her camera, gets her interviews of which we never see her questioning them neither makes some remark about what's being said and the men just blurt out some thought that comes to their minds, almost as if being analyzed by a shrink.
Anyway, the movie doesn't connect things in an accessible way and the formula gets tiring after a while as very little of the young woman's life progresses. Some of the interviewed men are part of her circle of friends, and others she just bump from place to place such as the waiters/friends (Lou Taylor Pucci and Max Minghella). Those two are quite special since they're not actually interviewed. Krasinski makes them pop time and again in different scenarios, sometimes interacting with other characters but most of the time they address to us in the audience sharing their thoughts about the differences between men and women, how they act and react towards them. I didn't read the whole Wallace book but this part in particular I followed there and it's interesting because the dynamic is different from the rest since they act alongside rather than a series of monologues as the interviews are presented.
What bothered me the most was in seeing Julianne's character. The main issue is to find out if she actually learn or grows with those interviews. Does she evolve in any way, shape or form? A simple pay-off should've come in the movie because the film format demands it since it's not a novel; a change could have happened, or at least her teacher saying about her grade or going into a deep discussion about anything she collected through her work. Instead, we are left empty and judgemental, highly critical about men's role in society, the toxic masculinity that only serves to affect women without those guys realize the internal damage they can also cause on themselves.
But the movie isn't all wronged. There are sheer moments of brilliancy through the monologues delivered by Frankie Faison sharing a past reflection of his father as poor hotel worker who's invisible to the eyes of the wealthy clients yet necessary enough to handle towels and carry bags; Dominic Cooper's dual moment where he presents a dramatic story about a man who hurt a women in his life (his segment is somewhat crazed since he keeps changing the facts from his story, and this also has to do with the fact he's writing a reactionary work of which Julianne has to evaluate and she doesn't want to); and Krasinski giving himself the greatest monologue of the piece. Let's face it: he gave himself the best role in the movie and weird as it may sound: he plays a jerk but one with intense reasoning that you almost feel sorry for the guy.
And it isn't a total waste of Krasinski's efforts in trying to create a good script or a good adaptation. He makes interesting and acceptable choices since he doesn't follow the book idea (which could have resulted in a good movie although boring in a trapped format where actors address themselves to the camera). Instead, he presents some interviews, the waiters make a connection with the audiences, and a couple of others make the interactions along with the leading woman such as her teacher who has a frank talk with her relating to his pregnant wife which almost gave him a panic attack in wondering if he could love her again after her body growth. The dialogue is perfectly captured and verbatim from the book.
Here's a slightly ambitious project with a stellar cast that sadly never satisfies, never fully pleases its audiences. The material is good but its translation just hit some bits but mostly it's a miss. If the ultimate reaction must come from us rather than the student and her project what can we say that we learned from those men? Well, that they are pathetic waste of spaces, some are just fine but overall they're far away from redemption or worthy of sympathy. As for our master and commander, he evolved to become a talented director, "The Hollars" is an amazing dramatic comedy that needs to be seen. 5/10.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizDirectorial debut of John Krasinski.
- Citazioni
Ryan: I'm aware of how all this sounds and can well imagine the judgments you're forming, but if I'm really to explain this to you then I have no choice but to be... candid.
[sighs]
Ryan: Yes, it was a pickup. Plain and simple. And she was what one might call a granola cruncher. A hippy. And she was straight out of Central casting: the sandals, flamboyantly long hair, financial support from parents she reviled, and some professed membership in an apostrophe-heavy Eastern religion that I defy anyone to pronounce correctly. Look, I'll just bite the political bullet and confess that I classified her as a strictly one-night objective. And that my interest in her was due almost entirely to the fact that yes, she was pretty. She was sexually attractive. She was sexy. And it was really nothing more complicated or noble than that. And having had some prior dealings with the cruncher genus, I think the one-night proviso was due to the grim unimaginability of having to talk with her for more than one night. Whether or not you approve, I think we can assume you understand. And there's something-I mean, near contempt in the way that you can casually saunter over to her blanket and create the sense of connection that will allow you to pick her up. And you almost resent the fact that it's so goddamn easy. I mean, how exploited you feel that it is so easy to get this type to regard you as a kindred soul. You almost know what's going to be said before she even opens her mouth.
[sighs]
Ryan: Okay, so now there we are in my apartment, and she begins going on about her religious views. Her obscure denomination's views on energy fields and connections between souls via what she kept calling "focus." And in response to some sort of prompt or association, she begins to relate this anecdote. And in the anecdote, there she is: hitchhiking. Well she said she knew she made a mistake the moment she got in the car. Her explanation was that she didn't actually feel any energy field until she shut the car door and they were moving... at which point it was too late. And she wasn't melodramatic about it, but she described herself as literally paralyzed with terror. It was something about his eyes. She said she knew instantly in the depths of her soul that this man's intentions were to brutally rape, torture, and kill her. And that by the time the psychotic had exited into a secluded area and actually said what his true intentions were, she wasn't the least bit surprised because she knew that she was going to be just another grisly discovery for some amateur botanist or scout troupe a few days later-unless she could focus her way into a soul connection that would prevent this man from murdering her. I mean to focus intently on this psychotic as an ensouled and beautiful-albeit tormented-person in his own right, rather than merely as a threat to her. And I'm well aware that what she is about to describe is nothing more than a variant of the stale, old love-will-conquer-all... but for the moment, just bracket your contempt and try to see what she actually has the courage and conviction to really attempt here. Because imagine what it must have felt like for her. For anyone. Contemplate just how little-kid-level scared you would be and that this psychotic could bring you to this point simply by wishing it. And now here she is in the car, and she's realizing that she's in for the biggest struggle of her spiritual life. She stares directly into the psychopath's right eye and wills herself to keep her gaze on him directly at all times. And the effects of her focus... she says that when she was able to hold her focus, this psychopath behind the wheel would gradually stop ranting and become tensely silent. And she wills herself not to weep or plead, but merely to use focus as an opportunity to empathize. And this was my first hint of sadness in listening to the anecdote as I found myself admiring certain qualities in her story that were the same qualities I had been contemptuous of when I first picked her up in the park! And then he asked her to get out of the car and lie prone on the ground. And she doesn't hesitate or beg. She was experiencing a whole new depth of focus so that she could hear the tick of the cooling car, bees, birds. Imagine the temptation to despair in the sound of carefree birds only yards from where you lay breathing in the weeds. And in this heightened state, she said she could feel the psychotic realizing the truth of the situation at the same time she did. And when he came over to her and turned her over, he was crying. And she claimed it took no effort of will to hold him as he wept... as he raped her. She just stared into his eyes lovingly the entire time. She stayed where he left her all day in the gravel, weeping, and giving thanks to her religious principles. She wept out of gratitude she says. Well I don't mind telling you, I had begun to cry at this story's climax. Not loudly, but I did. She had learned more about love that day with the sex offender than any other stage of her spiritual journey. And I realized in that moment that I had never loved anyone before. She had addressed the psychotic's core weakness. The terror of a soul-exposing connection with another human being. Nor is any of this all that different than a man sizing up an attractive girl at a concert and pushing all the right buttons to induce her to come home with him. And lighting her cigarettes and engaging in an hour of post-coital chitchat. Seemingly very intent and close. But what he really wants to do is give her a special disconnected telephone number and never contact her again. And that the reason for this cold and victimizing behavior is that the very connection he had worked so hard to make her feel terrifies him.
[pauses]
Ryan: Do you see how open I'm being with you here? Well I know I'm not telling you anything you haven't already decided you know. I can see you forming judgments with that chilly smile. You're not the only one who can read people you know. And you know what? It's because of her influence that I am more sad for you than pissed off. Because the impact of this story was profound and I'm not even going to begin to describe it to you. Can you imagine how any of this felt? To look at her sandals across the room on the floor and remember what I had thought of them only hours before. And I'd say her name and she'd say "What?" and I'd say her name again. Well I'm not embarrassed-I don't care how this sounds to you now. I mean, can you see how I could not just let her go after this? I just-I grabbed onto her skirt and I begged her not to leave. And then I watched her gently close the door and walk off barefoot down the hall. And never seeing her again. But it didn't matter that she was fluffy or not terribly bright! Nothing else mattered! She had all of my attention-I had fallen in love with her! I believed that she could save me. Well I'm aware of how all this sounds, I can see that look on your face. I know you. And I know what you're thinking. So ask it. Ask it now, this is your chance. "I believed she could save me" I said. Ask it now. Say something! I stand here naked before you. Judge me, you bitch. You happy now? You all worn out? Well be happy because I don't care. I knew she could and I knew I loved. End of story.
I più visti
- How long is Brief Interviews with Hideous Men?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Sito ufficiale
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Entrevistas breves con hombres repulsivos
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 33.745 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 18.510 USD
- 27 set 2009
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 33.745 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 20 minuti
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
