lastliberal
Fascinating study of two very different women with the ever impressive Stockard Channing (The Matthew Shepard Story, "The West Wing") and Julia Stiles (The Bourne Trilogy, Edmond).Julie (Channing) had to scrape her way to the top, apparently coming from the wrong side of the tracks. She is so fearful that, when her boss wants to meet with her, she immediately calls a headhunter to see what's available.Paula, with her multiple tats, is a child of privilege, and just wants to have fun.Can you imagine the clash? Unfortunately, Nick (Fred Weller) gets between them and suffers as a result.It is one of those films that will have you thinking long afterwords.
Andy (film-critic)
The fearfulness of Channing's Julie Styron seemed unprecedented, and when we witnessed her with clients, the decision to take her forward was laughable. Was she as good as she seemed, or was she just playing the corporate field to better her advantage? The other question that came to mind was her coincidental neurosis dealing with the sporadic meeting with her boss. There was nothing, outside of moving the plot forward, which would have indicated these sudden laps of shame in her profession. The drop-in of Julia Styles suddenly meeting in the same business setting (having never met before), missing a plane together, and coincidentally ending up at the same bar sharing drinks and eventually inner secrets, just flabbergasted me. Why would these two ever meet up in a typical setting? While I don't want to think that this was just a film about the imagination of Channing, it did make you question and use the word "why". Typically I like this mind-boggling element in films, but in "Business of Strangers", it just didn't work. There was no "tell" in this film, and that tugged at me the wrong way in this film. The eerie patience that was demanded of the viewer left us with no moment of satisfaction. There was quite a bit of wait, but no payoff at the end. On one hand we have a very self-centered woman, career bent, but possibly not happy with her choices, and yet on the other we have a care-free young lady, experimental in nature, ready to change the world one person at a time. It seemed too forced, too stereotypical – too manipulative. I needed more similarities; I needed more shock to really bring these two strangers together. This tried to be a darker rendition of "The Odd Couple" with drinking, rape, and random revenge. Force enough onto a character (or characters), the audience begins to believe that it is a Hollywood feature, and you meaning imperatively finds itself lost in the trenches.Acting. In "Business of Strangers" it wasn't bad, but it wasn't the greatest that I have seen of Stiles or Channing. Their chemistry was decent, but it didn't compare to that of those characters in "Tape" or "Company of Men". This was obviously a stage film, meaning that it was a small play that had the unique opportunity to see the other side of a film camera. It was a boring premise, which is one reason I feel so fooled by this film, which was followed up by my second pet peeve of this film, it never tackled any real issues. Who were these two characters that we so dutifully were thrust into their lives? What makes them tick? What is their past? What is their future? Most importantly, at least with this film, what makes them connect? Unlike other films brought from the stage, "Business of Strangers" answers none of the above. Perhaps it is my male view on a very personal female film, but this was released to general audiences, so the appeal had to be broad. It was not emotional, it was not sad, nor was it victorious at the end. While I do not think rape is a minute problem in America, I do feel that I needed more with Channing and Stiles. Was she lying about the incident? Was she just trying to get Channing to release something from within? I wanted answers, I was pining inside for them, but the never arrived. Unlike "Shape of Things", there was just something missing. It was as if a big chunk of the film was misplaced. Fred Weller did a decent job, but his motive was missing.Director Stettner did his job by bringing the characters together in, albeit, random events. He set the stage with surprisingly the darkest of corners and hidden hotel rooms. There was even a moment of unneeded tension in a scene (while I felt it wasn't needed) that was done with some bit of grace, but he continued to forget the element mentioned above … motive. There was no reason to answer the question "why", when our characters were taking unmotivated photographs, when they were about to commit murder, or when they were talking to each other like they had known each other for years. There was no reason for director Stettner to get us from point A to point B, so in my opinion, he moved the action along through a series for unconnected points. Sure, the acting was meaty, but the words that they spoke merely were attached to a script which eventually had to have and ending. For a little over and hour, I watched good actors read through a bad script. Again, if there was more creativity in the motion of Stettner's work, then maybe I would have felt better by the ending, but I wasn't sitting on the edge of my seat, the characters didn't have me questioning the validity of my own life, nor was I ready to gush Niagara Falls over the body of work. By the end, I felt bland, as if I just watched a feminist remake of "In the Company of Men" or "Tape".Overall, I wish I could say that I can suggest this film, but I cannot. The acting, with enough said above, you should realize that these are two great actors working through an abominable script. The story was pieced together probably overnight without much thought going into the entire process. It was dark, but the tones were miscommunicated as we tried to grapple with the idea that these two people had never met before but spoke as if they were best friends. Coupled with dialog that would make kindergarteners chuckle, "Business of Strangers" was a film packed with missed possibilities. If you are looking for either a redemption film or a film about coping with your tough job, may I suggest anything outside of this film. Grade: ** out of *****
ddurkee
For a film that is focused on character performances, this is excellent. I have worked around many 40-something silicon valley female executives and Stockard Channing nails the part to the point of an Academy-Award level performance. I *hated* Julia Stiles character, which is what the director intended, I believe, so she did well too. It is an interesting study of people, not a perfect movie by any means, but if I were the director, or an actor, I'd be proud.Seeing Stockard Channing's icy response to her promotion to CEO - while expecting she'd get fired, was so perfect for the up and down positions in high-tech companies. Remember this was made during the dot-bomb market. Her playful time at the gym and pool (and the elevator discussion about the *black* dildo) with Julie Stiles was so typical of women (or men) trying to bridge the generational gap.
