Paul Haggis did it again. At least for me he did. Obviously judging by the low rating, it hasn't had the same effect on others here. I really loved the movie, the intricacies, the connections and of course the "resolution". There might be a better word for the ending, but one thing is for sure: The movie demands more than one viewing. You can watch it with different eyes your own, just a matter of speaking and see things in a new light.There's also trademark Haggis dialog, pointing in one direction, making fun of it, by almost straying away, than going full throttle on the <more>
first assumption you made. You may or may not like that, but it's what Haggis can do very good. And he has the actors to pull anything off, he gives them. It's a great movie with little hints here and there, that make sense in the end. Even if you don't get everything the first time around, it is a rewarding viewing experience
Hints and spoilers - the movie is fabulous! (by tcristiant-1)
SPOILER Quote: "But the movie has a big flaw. The link between the stories is rather weak I still have no idea how Adrien's story was linked with the rest of them, when this movie releases for all audiences someone will maybe find that link ."Hint: Adrien's son drowned in the pool, because the father Adrien took a call - telling his wife that it is a business call. Liam's son drowned in the pool, because his father Liam took a call - in fact it was a call from his mistress. By such things imaginary stories linking with the real story of <more>
Liam, who has lost a child. It is actually the contents of the book he writes, tormented by thoughts of guilt for the death of the child and how Liam wants to save his soul. Regarding the "wrong placement of objects" - Liam wrote from Paris? NO! In the final scene the wife asks "How is Rome?" ... And during the chase it's looks like the streets of an Italian city, not Paris...It is about the writer's imagination, attempt to justify, accepting the mistake, etc. Actually the film is about the soul and mind of a man tormented by the death of his child because he was on the phone with his mistress and not supervised at the pool.
Exactly Y critics are useless& unfair! Wow! (by jessie-39)
This movie is the very reason that we do not need professional critics. They can and do make or break a movie based on "One man's opinion". Paul Haggis who won Academy Award for Crash is responsible for this movie. I would bet that nearly every critic did not take the time to understand this movie. It is spectacular! Wow! I won't say anything about this movie because it would ruin your experience. I see 75 movies a year. I do not ever read a review. Critics are to biased and want to much. I want to be entertained for 2 hours that is all I ask. This is a thinking person's <more>
independent movie. Every person in this film is great and I believe they did this movie for minimum dollars because of Paul Haggis. Liam Neelson, Mila Kunis,Adrien Brody, Olivia Wilde, Maria Bello are each terrific. Even the few no name people were terrific. I consider this one of my favorite movies of the year. It is only playing in small Art Theatres. If it is available in your city don't miss it. Kudos to everyone affiliated with this movie.
Great acting, artsy film, unique and very interesting (by lboyajianpatterson)
This is not the movie for everyone, but I loved it. The acting is superb and the story is not your formula Hollywood blockbuster. It is a unique and interesting story, that will hold your interest the entire time, always unsure of the outcome. The subject matter is a bleak but the characters are true and real. Kim Basinger after hearing something that would drive most women away, asks her husband to come home. Twists, turns, but in the end, it all makes sense.Not the movie for just anyone. If you want a schlock Hollywood feel good movie, go see the delightful new Rob Reiner film 'And so <more>
it goes' but as for me, this is head and shoulders over that.Phooey to the bad reviews
The kind of artistic effort we don't see enough of. (by Rogermex)
This is an excellent human drama. Any of the negative reviews you see about it are basically coming from a "dumbing down" stance. Like . . duh WHY is this director trying to be so intellectooul?" It's a damned clever piece of work, and we don't get that much any more in this age of comic book movies.It is also VERY moving, and finely acted. Watching Olivia Wilde's character, I kept thinking, wow such a "borderline" case, then we find out precisely WHY she's such.You should go see this and bring your brain with you. Don't tell anyone else what <more>
it's about or what the spoilers are, and I'm not either."White" - the color of trust, and belief, and lies.
Haggis can write interesting material. If he took a little longer to edit his work, he could make great movies. "Third Person" happens to be one of those films that sound great in paper, are hard to explain and understand, and one just feels if only he had taken a little longer... I couldn't stop raving about it and could watch it over and over and over."Third Person" is not the easiest film to go over. There are several stories going on, apparently at the same time. The main one appears to have a writer who is having an affair with a beautiful and complex woman. They <more>
play all kinds of games, some of which only people in the literary business would get. He calls his wife. She seems to be avoiding contact with another man, but one wonders for how long before she gives in to temptation herself. Eventually, the game gets a little too much for all the parties involved, with a revelation that is bound to shock a few in the audience.The second story takes place in Italy, and it's so convoluted and full of holes is at best cheesy, but it also has Adrien Brody and a very interesting actress. Moran Atias. Both of which give their best to the roles of a hustler and a too trusting foreigner. We know from the beginning there is going to be some type of tragic end to this mess, but it's their interplay and these enthusiastic actors which makes this bit fun. He goes into a bar, meets an exotic woman, and he's so smitten that he's willing to follow her just about everywhere she goes. How much can he trust her? You decide.Then, we have the darkest of the stories, with Kunis playing a woman who can't seem to get a handle on how to get her son back. She made a serious mistake, tries to get her husband through legal means with the help of Maria Bello's assertive and caring attorney to give her some custody back. Unfortunately she has the worst luck in the world, and she is not really emotionally stable. It's a devastating segment, and James Franco shows a dark dramatic side in his acting resume, as the very insensitive and non-caring parent. He's repulsive, yet magnetic.We, in the audience, keep wondering when the stories will come together, and we guess and guess if they share anything in common. If you pay attention, it becomes obvious what the stories are, and where they come from. The ending might look a bit forced, and that's part of the problem here. Had the film been scrutinized a bit more and carefully edited, it would have a fascinating offering, pretty much in a twisted kind of way.
Don't read unless you've seen the movie - huge SPOILER! (by nikubo)
++++++++++++++++Spoiler Alert+++++++++++++++++ Half the other reviewers just didn't get it - this is a very good movie with a trick ending that ties all story lines together wonderfully. Most of the negative reviews were written by people that missed the entire point of the movie. Without going into great detail on the three really four story lines this is the hook: all the story lines are simply imagined by the author character Liam as he composes his novel. A prize-winning author is in Paris working on a novel, having just suffered through the death of his young son in a swimming <more>
pool accident. The movie starts and ends with him at his desk in a hotel room - the opening scene fades out with a faint "watch me" heard imagined by the author. The movie ends with the same scene, but now we know the "watch me" was uttered by his son just before he died in the swimming pool. We even meet his son at the end, the little boy sitting on the fountain. Everything from the opening scene to the ending scene all took place in the author's head as he sat in the hotel writing his novel. The story lines and their characters are simply the author rationalizing away his guilt for the death of his son. As he realizes that all his characters are manifestations, twisted sometimes, of his own psyche, he alters them, going so far as to entirely remove them from his novel. Thus we have the lawyer finally diving into the pool and disappearing, as he removes her from the narrative and slowly all the other characters just disappear, as he removes them from the book. Even his publisher is a figment of his imagination, a character created when he realized that his writing was becoming jaded, and far too close to his own life. That's it. The key to understanding this movie is to realize that everything between the opening and closing scenes all took place in the author's head as he worked on his novel. As he came to terms with his son's death, the characters he drummed up disappeared, each created and played out as he worked to soothe his inner guilt. My two cents!
Clever, surprising, and underrated drama (by noobshotpro)
When I received an invite to go to the screening of Third Person, I was a bit uncertain whether this would be a decent flick or not. I hadn't seen any trailers or read articles about it so I did not know what to expect.Third person is a film from Paul Haggis the director of the Oscar- winning "Crash" involving intertwining stories featuring Liam Neeson, Olivia Wilde, Adrien Brody, Mila Kunis, James Franco, Maria Bello, Moran Atlas and Kim Basinger.Having not seen Crash, I hadn't raised my expectations to spectacular levels. Maybe this is why Third Person is getting a <more>
mediocre score, people simply compare it with Crash and not as an individual movie.Let me begin by stating that the atmospheric feel of the movie is top notch. Whether it is the chic, extravagant life-style in Paris, the beautiful and not-so beautiful side of Rome or the busy streets in New York, every city is portrayed in a beautiful way. The soundtrack is okay and fits with the mood of the scenes.The acting is , how could it not be with this cast, top-notch ! Especially Mila Kunis surprised me with her emotionally depth, a side of her that we don't see a lot in her movies.Of course, with different intertwining stories, people will argue which one is the best of the bundle. Let me make this clear : Each story is very intriguing and has plot twists that I did not see coming. You could feel everyone staring with great surprise at the screen when major twists came. For me, the best story was the part with Adrien Brody and Moran Atlas. They had the best chemistry in the movie, with a very interesting dilemma. It had the funniest and most-thrilling moments according to me of course, the others are very well made as well, this is truly a matter of personal taste .But the movie has a big flaw. The link between the stories is rather weak I still have no idea how Adrien's story was linked with the rest of them, when this movie releases for all audiences someone will maybe find that link . The wrap-around at the end was very, very confusing and didn't make a lot of sense. It was surprising , yes, but really no- one understood what the ending meant for the story. But I think that if this movie gets analyzed and someone clearly explains it's ending, my appreciation for this movie would certainly be of the roof.I'm not the type of guy who volunteers to watch a romantic drama, I even dread the thought of watching another chick-flick/tear-buster with the girlfriend. But this drama pulled me into it's story with fantastic performances from an awesome cast, good writing/directing for each storyline and a fine balance between drama, romance and humor.And for that great achievement, this movie deserves : 7,5 /10
Third Person: A Different Take (by emilyelizabeth1283)
Liam Neeson plays Michael, a writer. His eyes are curiously and deceptively filled with feeling and warmth even as his character plays out as a "sociopath" who has trouble feeling anything genuine toward other people. Yet, he is obsessed with the creation of emotion, as if the suspension of love in mid-air between two people is his home and friend. His mind is similarly disembodied. He feels need for love, especially when he is deprived of his lover's presence, but the actual presence of that body works to quickly diffuse the passion that is powerful in theory but thrives on <more>
it's staying in that theoretical strata. Michael has found a way, through his writing, to cope with this absurd existence. He finds the answer to his addiction in the creation of fiction using people in real life. He lets life naturally play out around him, provoking into being both the subtle and blatant forms of passion, romanticism, divine emotion and drama, then filters these experiences onto paper, choosing only the best parts, and throwing away the rest. Including any irrelevant parts of himself. In this way, he chooses to live his own life in a half-existence, desperately clinging to the divinity of love while denying the bitter absence of his ability to express it genuinely. 'Genuinely' is the key word here. Surely delivering hundreds of white roses to the bedroom of his lover Anna, played by Olivia Wilde , is beyond romantic. But for Michael it is an act of intellect, not passion. It is a tool used to evoke the necessary catalyst, letting life display action, and funneling the magic into his own words.Anna is a woman and entity that is completely unique in relation to anyone else in the movie and expresses a shade of mentality that I've never seen in a film so clearly. Within the life spans of each character prior to the timeline of the film is a catastrophic event involving either children or themselves as children. This is a line of storytelling that is evenly and thoroughly paved, on which it is typically easy to carry an audience. Because of such and such event in one's childhood, this character turned out to be this and this. The audience willingly nods to almost any such explanation that follows this logic; the more messed up, the more believable. Anna's case certainly gives her some degree of excusability in this story, though that concept is for another time and another debate. Incredibly, this event, though strong and controversial, does not outshine the vivid expression of her mentality through her actions prior to the unveiling of this childhood/adulthood disaster. She is blunt, cold and incredibly sadistic when it comes to attacking Michael. She is spontaneous, child-like and in considerable anguish. She is excited by the same game that Michael is, and this is what holds them together through the poisonous collisions with the sterility of every-day life. There game is fun, sexy. The fact that in their spontaneous role-play they are acutely aware of the other's true mentality builds a mutual sexual excitement; they can't wait to see how the story will turn out this time, whether it leaves Anna naked in the hallway of a hotel, or hundreds of flowers left in her empty room. The plain of existence could go on exponentially from here in satisfaction for Michael, but for Anna there is a step further down that makes her existence with Michael inhospitable. She is aware and ashamed of her acidic behavior towards Michael, and she has settled into a resolution of consistent punishment for those actions; at least she is trying very hard to. Michael makes this wish impossible in his equally consistent forgiveness for the sake of not losing his muse. As a result, Anna is catapulted into despair as she does not receive the intake of pain and rebuke she expects, resolute that she in no way deserves forgiveness or love; both of which she has long since destroyed within herself. Confronted with a room full of roses, she is helpless to respond in any way other than crawling, slowly and humbly, back to her indestructible lover...http://funkyforestfirstcontact.wordpress.com/