Stream it now Brief Interviews with Hideous Men 2009

 

47/100. This movie was universally panned on just about every site on the internet. Sometimes it works, most often it doesn't. Perhaps it's the films pretentiousness. Or the flippant direction by John Krasinski. I agree with the critics on this one. Although it's not a disaster, it is an incoherent mishmash of interviews, interspersed with various dramatic and comic moments that amounts to a lot of nothing. Not once did I care about any of the characters, except perhaps Julianne Nicholson, who really is about the only ray of sunshine in this film. It's pointless and even though it is only 80 minutes long, it gets tiring after only 20 minutes.

Just like David Foster Wallace's novels aren't for everyone, this film based on his book is not for everyone. I thought it was brilliant. It really struck a cord with me the way reading a beautiful poem effects you (not to be corny). It was a very insightful look into the minds of men and why they do the things that they do from why one man would write an essay on the positives of rape to why another refuses to wear white because of his father. It was very poetic and the definition of an artsy movie. However I watched it with my roommate and her boyfriend and they had no clue what was going on. In their defense the language of the movie is very scholarly...in other words everyone uses a lot of BIG words even to have very simple conversations.

This slightly misguided attempt allows some terrific actors to strut their stuff (esp. Dominic Cooper), but the overall film suffers from the erratic structure. However, more films like this non-linear indie are wholeheartedly welcome.

A great collaboration between TV & prime time actors/actresses working together. Don't get me wrong, this movie is redundant but how can anyone honestly take a a great piece of work and turn it into a hit on the screen? Capturing the essence of words is far easier than through visual elements. Plus Cold War Kids are pretty awesome. Too much John K. in the movie for me (monolog at the end). And the Gib. Haha, what I mean by Gib is Ben Gibbard can be found in this film. I was like what????

This 'movie' is based on the writings of wunderkind, David Foster Wallace's writing, as well as a play adapted from the novel of the same name.

Wallace, for those outside academia pop culture, was a prodigy who gained an MFA and a prestigious mathematics award in the time it took me to stumble through three years of entry-level college. He was also a teenage tennis hopeful, total type-A personality. In other words: wound tighter than a wrist watch and bat-shit crazy. He committed suicide in 2008. His writing is a Julliard drop-out's wet dream. It's got all the angst of Salinger with lots of self loathing thrown in. He's been compared to DeLillo and Jonathan Franzen -- the thinking man's misogynists.

The premise is interesting: a brainiac female grad student decides to interview men in an effort to understand how feminism has shaped their lives.

Actor John Krasinski does a bang-up job directing and editing what basically amounts to two hours of monologues. There's the Lady's Man, the Lovable Geek, etc. -- all stock male characters straight from the cast of any recent romantic comedy.

But some of the more humorous characters, like Ben Shenkman's, aren't that funny. And some of the more shocking characters, aren't that shocking, like when we learn the truth behind one character's creepy student paper arguing an up-side to gang rape.

Ultimately, the story falls into the same giant hole all stories that tackle the divide between the sexes falls in to: stereotypes and over generalizations. Such as when two young waiters ponder the 'state of women today'. Gigantic generalizations spew forth: "All women really want to be swept away by passion" or "all women really want this or that."

As if anyone, male or female, could succinctly define half the population of the planet in one sentence. More's the pity the title wasn't "Brief Interviews with A Hideous Man". At least that's a number that can be fully dealt with in dramatic writing.

This film is very borderline. John Krasinki in his directorial debut tries very hard, and I appreciate his graceful attempts at capturing emotion, butting getting there is a bit rough.

The film is best on a collection of short stories, and so naturally the film takes the same tone. The way in which the many short 'interviews' plays out is interesting, and I enjoyed them quite a bit. Most of them play out like very nice monologues, and if you take them in that way, you may find some touching stuff. But as a whole, as a feature length film, it fails to keep a solid story line and suffers from largely unrelated incidents.

I am very interested in what Krasinki has to offer in his next film, as well as another dramatic performance because he is quite good in that area as well, but next time he should choose better source material that will be better suited for the screen.

Waste of my time.

Wonderful bits and pieces of dialogue that resonate deep.
Thank you John Krasinski!

John Krasinski's directorial debut is a disappointing mishmash which meets its downfall because of the terrible editing and annoying, consistently elevated diction employed by every character in the film. It comes across as pretentious and cloying, and the fact that every character has limited screentime (which is broken up by the awful editing) makes it even more aggravating. It basically seems like high-strung nonsense. When Krasinski comes onscreen to share the hippy girl's anecdote, however, the film comes extremely close to genuine, and it becomes thought-provoking. For the male perspective on love, I'll stick with (500) Days of Summer.

Actor John Krasinski's (The Office) directorial debut, this brilliant adaptation of David Foster Wallace's best-selling book is an insightful look at gender in a modern, post-feminist society. It is both humorous and heartbreaking; a poignant portrait of the struggle to deconstruct our relationships with one another. A female grad student is conducting a psychological study by interviewing different men on their thoughts on women, life, and what manhood is. With each interview we get a distinct effort at mapping out both the male and female psyche. Everyone is looking for answers, and everyone has his own take on what they might be.

What I was surprised to find out is that the original book by the recently-deceased Wallace is simply a collection of short stories. Adapting a book of short stories for the screen is a task often mishandled by filmmakers (I, Robot, for example, ditched the stories, made a new and more ridiculous one, and kept the title). However, Krasinski keeps both the spirit and content of the stories intact and then takes them beyond. The original stories are only the words of the interviewees; there is no interviewer mentioned and the questions asked by the interviewer are left out of the text. In adapting the book, Krasinski has made the interviewer his main character. In doing so, he creates a common thread, a story behind the stories that bings them all, and adds a whole other level to the story. The more we see of her reactions to these interviews, the more we realize that it is perhaps she who is looking for the answers.

The interviewer, Sara, played by Julianne Nicholson, is the classic embodiment of a free and independent woman. She is a woman with a curious mind, a strong will, short hair, and living in the heart of New York City. She is reminiscent of a Woody Allen female lead or Mia Farrow in Rosemary's Baby. She is a throwback to the original liberated feminist. However, the film breaks down the notion that anyone can be truly liberated and independent. In this way she is broken down, and we come to learn that she is not comfortable in her position. We see a flashback of a long-haired, giggling Sara at a party, where she meets a young man, played by Krasinski himself. She has such flashbacks when she is alone in her apartment, after a day of interviews. It is after these interviews, where men tell her of their own struggle to find the answers, that she realizes she does not have all the answers she thought she did.

The other major characters are the male interviewees, often each getting no more than three minutes or so of screen time. However, they too go through the same search for answers and psychological development as a main character would throughout the course of a movie. During the interviews, as in the book, Sara is left unseen and unheard; men's stories are told only in their actions and their words. They are simply sitting and talking, delivering powerful modern-day soliloquies. Some men are interviewed not in the formal sense at the table in the bare white room, but are overheard in coffee shops and debated with over a paper she graded in the psychology class Sara TA's. The characters are brilliantly acted by an ensemble cast that includes both dramatic and comedic actors. Even the comedic actors deliver the most dramatic monologues, and even the dramatic actors deliver theirs with subtle comedic flair.

The story is told non-linearly and has a deliberately jittery feel. While this technique can end up leaving viewers confused, this film renders the viewer a sponge; trying to absorb everything that is said and done in the movie. The film definitely merits a second viewing, as there are many things that cannot be completely absorbed in just one.

This film is most definitely an actor's film. However, immense credit must also be given to those behind the amazing visuals and amazing plot of the film. Essentially, immense credit must be given to Krasinski. By making an actor's film that is brilliantly directed by a first-time film director, brilliantly written by an amazing first-time screenwriter, and brilliantly acted in by a veteran of the trade, he is reminiscent of Orson Welles who did all this with Citizen Kane. However, in this post-modern era where it's all been done before, the effort comes off as "artsy" rather than revolutionary. However, I believe this is a merit of the film rather than a negative aspect. Experimental in the way that it was a successful experiment and at only 80 minutes run time, the film feels like a film student's final thesis; one that should undoubtedly get an A.