Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Tayyab Torres Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

SnoopyStyle A man (Aaron Eckhart) and a woman (Helena Bonham Carter) start flirting at a wedding. She's a last minute bridesmaid who hasn't been that close to the bride Susie (Brianna Brown) for a time. She's married to a cardiologist and he's the bride's brother. They may have a past. A mysterious girl (Nora Zehetner) has a relationship with a guy (Erik Eidem). There's an annoying videographer (Thomas Lennon) and a nosy bridesmaid (Olivia Wilde).I love the pairing of Carter and Eckhart. They are fun and touching. She is brilliant. If the movie is simply them together, I would recommend the heck out of it. Indie director Hans Canosa is using the split screen technique to add visual spice. It's mostly distracting and oddly very static. I want to stay closer to the actors but the split screen puts a certain distance from them. There is a wonderful relationship movie here if Hans forgets about the split screen.

tedg This is a rich mix of things, some successes and some interesting possible failures.It is surely interesting enough to recommend. Independently, it is emotionally affecting, and works on that score as well.Be aware that there is a spoiler coming.The thing that works is the writing. It is amazing. Often a writer faces the challenge of being invisible. There are advantages to this, because the more you add the eye of someone not actually in the story, the less power the dynamics of the story have. This impossible invisibility carries over to the problem of explanatory speaking. When you have a character saying something purely because you as a viewer need to know it, you blow a hole in your boat.The writing here takes that problem and turns it against itself. Usually I would remark that it is a narrative fold placed deep in the narrative. But my regular crew knows that -- it is why this was recommended.There are only two actors. They are unnamed, and credited as "man" and "woman." In a profound display of ignorance, the included DVD interviews with these two actors includes a question about why their characters were unnamed. Both said it was because the story was universal, and so on. But the viewer will see that these two people are actually many souls and many fabricated or desired versions of some of those souls. Each of these souls exists because they are part of a story being told to themselves or the other actor.The writing has us completely out of the noir loop, at least the ordinary one. We are given no background and have to figure things out over time. As the movie develops, we are teased into a single narrative. By the end, we believe we know what we are supposed to: a man meets his ex-wife at the wedding of his sister. They are still attracted to each other and cannot purge that even though they have moved to others. They work at living with this, she as confirming her separation by testing it; he by reinforcing his knots of self-doubt. But they do so by reference to other selves, both past selves from the courtship and marriage and parallel selves they maintain. Check out the rather brilliant title.(There was a child involved.)Against this spine: discovering what the story "is," the writer has created playful dialog that skips around, maintaining multiple perspectives, truths. selves. It is wonderful, and the look of the two actors (especially knowing Helena's background in such films) is wonderful.Another attraction is that the film is mostly a splitscreen experiment. The filmmaker obviously selected the technique -- one would think by watching it -- to register that at any given moment, the speaker is at least two individuals. Sometimes in fact, this is how the screen is used. At other times, it simply follows the two actors in "real" time. Other effects are added to the vocabulary.So the idea of the experiment, and that it was shot quickly and edited on a MacBook, has appeal. But the split-screen needed some more care than it got here, and watching this more than once it becomes clear that the reach of the filmmaker was less than his intuition. I applaud the attempt, but the cinema is something of a mess.The actors are earnest and Carter has that confused look as if there are many souls within confusing her. But they don't master the words at all. They simply deliver them in the by now standard established by Mamet. The rhythm is good, but the actual meaning is lost because they don't know what they are saying. The actors are as confused as the characters.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

NovemberKin "Conversations with other Women" is, if the title isn't obvious enough in that statement, a romantic comedy with a touch more to the ironic style. The film is basically about a man (Eckhart) who meets a woman (Bonham Carter)at a wedding. The couple at the beginning of the film wants us to believe that this is the first time they've ever met, the annoying part of it is that at the end of the movie we know that they actually have a rich and colourful history. But they keep playing the "we've met for the first time" through out the whole movie which makes you feel kind of cheated. It is although in many ways rich in it's character build up due to the fact that there can at times be two stories told in one shot (using Duo Vision). But the story failed to make me interested because of them constantly behaving like strangers to each other, which makes it fairly hard to get emotionally attached to the characters.What made this movie worth watching is that it was shown in so called "Duo Vision" meaning that the screen is cut in half and the left and right part are showing different things, therefore making it very interesting with the flash back scenes and you get back story at the same time as something less interesting is happening in real time.I do not recommend this movie as a love story type movie, there have been many movies, similar to this one where the movie is mostly or entirely dialog based. The ones that strike me as the most similar are Linklaters "Before Sunrise" and "Before Sunset", where you feel that these people are authentic making the camera unnoticeable and giving you at that time a feeling that your stuck in the moment with them.Using the "Duo Vision" through out the movie was an interesting concept and sometimes worked very effectively but it just doesn't work all of the time in a movie where love is the main focus of attention. But seeing and even talking about intimate stuff you want to feel unnoticeable which isn't working good here.The style that was tried to be executed was something that I like and in fact it didn't fail all over, I like the story but not how it was presented therefor I give it a 6/10

Serious_Dark I am not a fan of split screens unless they are used judiciously and sparingly. In this case it is constant and annoying, I am constantly reminded that this is only a movie. I want a movie to be a total immersion experience; as if I am there. This is a movie of conversation and little else, neither of these two are up to the task at hand. Plus it is simply a rehash of cutesy romantic comedy that's been done before...Only much better. I found myself wishing it would hurry up and end as it was painfully apparent how it would end. No surprises here. Now if this was a movie with say, Judy Dench and Anthony Hopkins, then maybe it would be a sure 7 or 8. I feel this was a good case for poor type casting and questionable directing. Some say this is a ground breaking movie of sorts ?? Why I cannot fathom, I found it boring at best.