anyone know anything about this movie? all i know is that the main cast is: Naomi Watts, Peter Krause, Mark Ruffalo, and Laura Dern. i know it was shown at sudance, but thats about it.
any trailer link?
furthermore, i really dont like Laura Dern, except in Novocaine and she doesnt make a good Mark Ruffalo wife.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.i1.yimg.com%2Fus.yimg.com%2Fi%2Fmo%2Fpre_wedontlivehereanymore270.jpg&hash=0027b8dd7776008aaebe41c891ff8aa0f4a99ea2)
Release Date: TBA 2004 (probably limited)
Cast: Naomi Watts, Laura Dern, Peter Krause, Mark Ruffalo.
Director: John Curran (Praise)
Screenwriter: Larry Gross (Gunshy, This World, Then the Fireworks, Crime + Punishment in Suburbia; cowriter of 48 Hrs., True Crime; also has Prozac Nation and Beautiful Country coming)
Based Upon: Winner of the Waldo Salt Screenwriting Award at the 2004 Sundance Film Festival, this movie's script is based upon two stories, "Adultery" and "We Don't Live Here Anymore" (actually a novella), by Andre Dubus, who also wrote the story which was adapted to film as In the Bedroom.
Premise: Two couples (Watts and Krause, Dern and Ruffalo), who have all been close friends for a long time, find their lives changing when two of them have an affair.
oooh, this is gonna be good, nice to see Peter Krause doing movies.
Quote from: MacGuffin"We Don't Live Here Anymore" (actually a novella), by Andre Dubus, who also wrote the story which was adapted to film as In The Bedroom.
didnt he also write "House of Sand and Fog?"
Quote from: El Duderinoanyone know anything about this movie? all i know is that the main cast is: Naomi Watts, Peter Krause, Mark Ruffalo, and Laura Dern. i know it was shown at sudance, but thats about it.
any trailer link?
furthermore, i really dont like Laura Dern, except in Novocaine and she doesnt make a good Mark Ruffalo wife.
The cast seems excellent...
Have you seen
Blue Velvet or
Citizen Ruth? In the latter, especially, Dern's talent is revealed. I know she's odd, but...
Plus, I love Watts, and Ruffalo and Krause are both pin-ups for me, so I don't mind seeing all of them on the same screen even if the movie's bad.
for some reason any movie these days that plays at sundance, i dont have any interest in. like, it seems like a sign it wont be that good. sundance might've been a cool place for films a long time ago, but the types of movies that go through there now really dont interest me. other festivals are fine though. just this year and last year i really dont care about any of these movies. this has a good cast, but something about hte stigma of being a 'sundance' film makes me totally disinterested, whereas if it just opened on its own i'd be more likely to go see it.
Quote from: El Duderinooooh, this is gonna be good, nice to see Peter Krause doing movies.
Quote from: MacGuffin"We Don't Live Here Anymore" (actually a novella), by Andre Dubus, who also wrote the story which was adapted to film as In The Bedroom.
didnt he also write "House of Sand and Fog?"
I think his son did House, Andre Dubus III, if im not mistaken.
Quote from: EEz28Quote from: El Duderinooooh, this is gonna be good, nice to see Peter Krause doing movies.
Quote from: MacGuffin"We Don't Live Here Anymore" (actually a novella), by Andre Dubus, who also wrote the story which was adapted to film as In The Bedroom.
didnt he also write "House of Sand and Fog?"
I think his son did House, Andre Dubus III, if im not mistaken.
oh, that's right, thanks.
Quote from: El Duderino?
furthermore, i really dont like Laura Dern, except in Novocaine and she doesnt make a good Mark Ruffalo wife.
how dare you say such foul words about one of the lynch ladies....
she looks kind of hot in that pic .(in an alcoholic way)...
this film looks good..but i'm just basing this the on the cast..
oh yeah!!
Eez28....what were those harsh words you said about ruffalo.....i told ya baby he's gonna be star...so, you might want to take back what you said.. :wink: .
..and lastly i hate the title ...i keep wanting to say "alice" instead of "we"
Trailer Here (http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2004/STUVWXYZ/WeDontLiveHereAnymore/trailer.html)
wow i just noticed this is directed by John Curran.
"Praise" for those who don't know is like the only good movie ever made about deadbeats in my town.
Terrible poster...
http://www.impawards.com/2004/we_dont_live_here_anymore_ver2.html
A little better...
http://www.impawards.com/2004/we_dont_live_here_anymore.html
I saw it last night.
The director made some very smart choices about how to pursue it stylistically. Essentially he had to make the argument for why it made sense adapting the stories since they are not very cinematic. I actually battled with this myself mentally, wondering when it's appropriate to send stories like this to the big screen and when it's not (aka, they border on something closer to Lifetime or shit made for TV movies).
But he convinced me. The story mostly focuses on Mark Ruffalo and Laura Dern. Dern is just phenomenal here. I dont think Ive seen her flex more acting muscle than what she does here. For people who are aspiring filmmakers or actors this is a choice role to watch. She handles herself just as well with a stand-in while she's the subject of the frame as she does onscreen with another actor. Ruffalo, conversely, is best when you watch him by himself with a stand-in. On screen with another actor he loses his nuance and is more receptive to the other vibes from the actors than sticking to his own guns. But again, I have to stress Dern. I like her a lot here.
The third biggest role comes from Naomi Watts, who does little to convey...anything. She's just a dirty diva here. Wants dick and that's about it. Krause takes a side role here, which was the most dissapointing thing to me about the film, because by the end he feels like a character that the writer just managed to forget and bring back at the end with an odd and not entirely convincing reason.
The movie plays with ideas. I didnt read the Andre Dubus stories, but I imagine theyre the central themes. One of the most perplexing is the idea Krause's character presents, which is a mix of fatalism and apathy that relates directly to how an affair can be legitimate in its own twistedly logical way.
I read a critique of the film which said it took the social family values of the time Dubus wrote and used them here to try and make it a "timeless" story but instead just gave it an awkward, unconvincing portrayal of several family characters. Dont get hinged on this reading going into the film. That reviewer got hung up on that one thing, and seemed to ignore the rest of the movie.
Id see this film. Its not perfect, but it does a few interesting things before taking a big spill towards the end.
i saw this last night and i thought it was really really good. i reccomend it to all.
Saw this at the LA Film Fest and enjoyed it quite a bit. I'm a bit biased; they took four of my absolute favorite actors and put them in a movie where they basically take turns grandstanding, which is okay by me. Also, Andre Dubus is one of my absolute favorite authors. Can definitely see how some people may not care for it though...
i'm trying not to be a perv, but this line really stuck out:
"The third biggest role comes from Naomi Watts, who does little to convey...anything. She's just a dirty diva here. Wants dick and that's about it." :shock:
it's true
I saw this with Laura Dern in the audience. There was a Q&A afterwards. She talked a little about her experience of growing up on movie sets. She talked about Hitchcock, who she saw work. She said he would sit high in a chair above the rest of the cast and instead of 'action' he'd say 'entertain me.'
Quote from: themodernage02for some reason any movie these days that plays at sundance, i dont have any interest in. like, it seems like a sign it wont be that good. sundance might've been a cool place for films a long time ago, but the types of movies that go through there now really dont interest me. other festivals are fine though. just this year and last year i really dont care about any of these movies. this has a good cast, but something about hte stigma of being a 'sundance' film makes me totally disinterested, whereas if it just opened on its own i'd be more likely to go see it.
ha, thats funny i wrote this in this thread because i rented it today and thats exactly how i still feel. its not bad, its pretty good actually and the performances are good, but its just nothing i really feel strongly about.
I saw this film a few weeks ago, and it kind of washed over me. The thing is, I keep thinking about it. I'm not going to lie, Watts & Ruffalo received Xixax noms from me.
This movie just didn't wash over me. I felt like it was just the same kind of adultery movie we've seen so many times before. I thought the pay-off was kind of weak and the characters didn't have many redeeming values. But I did like the performances from the talented cast.
Yeah. It seems like somewhat respected actors feel the obligation to do these little "character studies" once in their career. Too bad this one was laughably bad.
MILD SPOILERS
Laura Dern's sex scene with Mark Ruffalo when she says "look at me" grossed me out. Like totally.
ha ha
Quote from: PwaybloeYeah. It seems like somewhat respected actors feel the obligation to do these little "character studies" once in their career. Too bad this one was laughably bad.
MILD SPOILERS
Laura Dern's sex scene with Mark Ruffalo when she says "look at me" grossed me out. Like totally.
Laura Dern grossed me out.
It appears as if I may be the first to really sing much praise about this film. Most have seemed to like it, but not love it: the performances were great, but everything else was okay.
To me, this is a very interesting movie. While I do feel that this subject has been looked at on numerous occasions, Curran's look felt fresh. Part of it is the actors, who are all outstanding, but there's something more here than great character acting.
[MILD SPOILERS]
The way that screenplay is written and the way that actors deliver their lines and sink into their roles is so subtle and nuanced that it could easily escape one on the first viewing. This is almost one long game of poker between Terry and Jack. Each has things they want to get out of the other one but won't come out and say it. Instead, they opt for these psychological games to try and bring about their respective ends. We can't always tell completely what each wants, which is part of the beauty of it. Another beautiful thing is the way that the story is told. There is no giant revelation...each character basically knows what the other is holding but wants to hear the confession from their own mouth.
There are so many scenes which are so real and poignant that it is hard to escape the emotional magnitude of it. Perhaps I'm struck this way partially because I'm married, but I would hope that this movie could effect most people who wacth it, simply in the way the story is told. The scene when Jack's in the bathroom getting dressed to go out and "take the car in" after which he and Edith have planned to meet, his wife is standing right outside the door trying to get him to spend time with her (to "get lobsters" together); he looks in the mirror and we hear his thoughts: "Just make love to your wife and have a fucking lobster." It's an interesting scene because we know he won't do it, he knows he won't do it, but we know and he knows he could do it and be just as happy (or perhaps happier?...who knows?). It is this little hint of remorse in what he does that makes this story fascinating to watch. The scenes like this not only question the morality of what is taking place but also question the characters' intentions and motives. We see that part of it is simply inertia. They each seek a kind of justification for their actions by pointing at the sin of the other. I think the end works well also, because they all knew that their "season of lust" was not going to turn into anything truly substantial. It would eventually fade away and they would be forced to reconcile what had been broken when they thought they didn't care. Or try and forget it and move on.
I fucking hated this movie.
SPOILERS:
I thought this film was complete shit. I could not stand any of it. The dialogue was so horrible (note to self: never use man-made sound effects during an argument: dog's barking, buzzers sounding, babies crying. they did this three times and it was stupid). I felt like it was horribly paced and really didn't say anything about relationships.
I thought Peter Krause's character was the only interesting person. His tendency to flirt with students was creepy and I wish they would've explored that more. Laura Dern was TERRIBLE. I love her, but this was awful. She was just disgusting. Like it's been said, that sex scene was just ugly.
It just wasn't saying anything new or observant, and whatever it was saying, it wasn't saying it very well. Anyhow, for me, it just did not work at all. Ebert was right when he said this film meanders (he used a bigger word though).
Spoilers.
I really enjoyed this movie for what it was. I'm always fond of movies that dissect relationships in this manner. Very few take it beyond that, and while this one is no exception, it is fairly notable.
Laura Dern plays a delicious beast. Mark Ruffalo plays a boy in a man's body. He rides a bike everywhere, but seems the most grown up of the lot of them ... right up until the moment where he seems to contemplate killing his kids. Peter Krause (missed him since his Sports Night days -- never did catch him on Six Feet Under) plays the tortured artist with a twist. Naomi Watts is at her typical best. No words needed.
Good scenes abound. Hank is a struggling novelist who gets his a poem published.
HANK: "It's a poem, Terry, it's really not that important."
If they only knew.
I agree with Gamblour, it would have been interesting to see Hank's student fetish explored more deeply. Perhaps some of that was cut.
This is almost Shakespearian. When Jack tells Edith their spouses are fucking each other, she says to come over. They fuck while Edith's husband sleeps. Jack covers Edith's mouth with his left hand. Wedding ring intact. They come, she shakes, runs her hands through his hair, her wedding ring visible.
Later:
TERRY: "What is it in you that lets you allow me to do that?"
JACK: "I love Edith."
TERRY: "NO."
Now she breaks. She's thought she has the edge up on Jack, and her world crumbles.
I really admired the scene where Jack's kids come in and ask him if he's leaving.
GIRL: "Mom said you screwed Edith and you love her."
JACK: "You know what screwed means?"
She nods.
JACK: "You do?"
Beat.
Perfect. Innocence captured.
And, a parting shot:
HANK: "All that's over, Edith. Why leave now?"
Beat.
EDITH: "Because I can."
Final shot, Jack rides away on his bike. Yeah, everyone is hurt, but he seems unfazed in some surreal way.
Yep, that's about the size of it. The essence of the movie is the boredom and sadness that comes with each relationship. The difficulty of maintaining what it was that first drew people together. The idea of quantifying and qualifying what makes people stray, or betray the one they love in the first place. A change of heart, a change of priorities, or, yeah, boredom. The sad thing is, these four people loved each other in their own way, though the husbands and wives stopped feeling the love that first drew them together so long ago.
I didn't bother reading Ebert yet, but like I said, a very enjoyable flick. I wonder if it will wash over me or stick. I'm thinking right now the latter because I'm interested, and while there's nothing really revolutionary about the technique, the substance is there at least in part. Well worth a look if the subject matter interests you. Closer wishes it had as much to say as this flick does. These people have the humanity the drones in Closer lacked.
Ono, could you not see how manufactured this movie was? Could you not smell it in the air? Pollution stinks.
Those examples of dialogue are horribly funny. Especially this one:
TERRY: "What is it in you that lets you allow me to do that?"
JACK: "I love Edith."
TERRY: "NO."
I crack up just remembering that exchange. Awful and pointless. And the sex. Terry is a talker, and not in a good way. And amazingly Edith can violently cum in 30 seconds. Not even porn films can do this.
Like I said before, actors feel the obligation to do these character studies. Some are good and some are bad. "Closer" is another example in this genre. While I think that one was a little better than WDLHA (mostly due to the scene with Clive Owen and Natalie Portman in the strip club), it still felt manufactured as well.
Quote from: PwaybloeLike I said before, actors feel the obligation to do these character studies. Some are good and some are bad. "Closer" is another example in this genre. While I think that one was a little better than WDLHA (mostly due to the scene with Clive Owen and Natalie Portman in the strip club), it still felt manufactured as well.
Agreed. The acting was very good but I feel like we've seen this story so many times before and this adds nothing new. The characters in "Closer" are just as bad (if not worse) than these people but the theme was handled much better I think.
Quote from: PwaybloeOno, could you not see how manufactured this movie was? Could you not smell it in the air? Pollution stinks.
Those examples of dialogue are horribly funny. Especially this one:
TERRY: "What is it in you that lets you allow me to do that?"
JACK: "I love Edith."
TERRY: "NO."
I didn't find that funny, but sad. That's why it was memorable. Showed Terry's desperation.