Stoutor It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

mraculeated The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Cheryl A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

iamcostas i believe it was stupid story when the wife pretend she is the spirit of a dead gay man in a gay chat room. how did she got all the information from? this is not a fantasy movie , it supposed to be a drama. and how did she left all the stolen information on the top of the desk so everybody can see? At the end i didn't like the end. the writer try to kill himself and then changed his mind and poison the wife and accidentally her two kids by poison plant. in the beginning his character was a nice guy who turned to a vicious murderer. a psycho writer? generally it could be a good movie but i think the story is unrealistic.sorry for my English . i hope you understand what i am trying to say

marcslope Based on an off-Broadway play I saw and remember nothing about, this modern-day cyber-noir has a clever screenplay (Craig Lucas) undercut by inept direction (Craig Lucas). Its three protagonists -- a cheating bisexual film producer, his taken-for-granted wife, and a promising gay screenwriter -- are all upstaged by the spectacular Malibu-ish beach house where much of the action takes place. But the camera angles and cutting are stodgy, the staging awkward, the composition too artsy (no conference room was ever that color orange), the use of close-ups excessive, Steve Reich's score predictably repetitive and pseudo-chic, the mini-flashbacks confusing, and the long sequences of characters reading their cyber-chat to the camera distinctively uncinematic. Add to that certain plot details that just don't ring true: Would a neophyte gay screenwriter with an uncommercial script really land a million-dollar contract? How would the wife learn all the intimate details about his life that she later uses to destroy him? And would he really be so impressionable as to fall for her scheme? All three actors are excellent (Peter Sarsgaard does mince more than necessary), and Campbell Scott and Sarsgaard have a couple of scenes startling in their intimacy and honesty. But beyond the gaps of credibility in the plotting, these are three unpleasant, inconsistent people who use one another in annoying, unconvincing ways.

Cha cha Heel the one thing I did enjoy about this film was how the tiresome victim queen Buddhist cub who is constantly spouting new age-isms finally makes what is typically the most heartfelt use of them, as new agers will, as tools of aggression, when confronted by the wife he's been cuckolding. unable to say "I'm sorry" or anything so retro, speechlessly shrugging helplessly at first, until wife's tone changes, becoming accusatory, at which point he zealously spits out that old saw "You are responsible for everything that happens to you!!" meaning that her übercreepy gay husband has been talking' dirty to him, hum-pin' his thigh when he's all weepy, etc etc (ad nauseous...). That's enlightenment, if not entertainment! Ah, but wait, there's more! when wife fesses up that it is she who has messed with his head by going on AOL and pretending to be that sacred being "the lover who died of AIDS" (let's all cross ourselves now), well the next thing you know, she's responsible for cub's poisoning her with his gardening savvy, causing the death of not only her but her two kids!!!!!!! Hey, you reap what you sow (in the garden, as Chauncey would say). What goes around comes around! It's all good bro! The writer is so disinterested in what he is actually saying/meaning/how his film might in any way reflect the real world inhabited by humans/how it might make a mockery of his philosophy, I'm supposing, from what kinda crap makes up the rest of the film, that it's my guess that the irony here is lost on him. He probably himself is terribly "new age" and felt great about keep-in the faith in this film, but couldn't resist the, you know, "drama" to be had from taking all these loose in the incontinence sense plot threads and weaving together something as lurid as he possibly could, no matter whether any of it actually makes sense in any logical/emotional way. The whole film reminds me of that silly house they live in. Yeah wouldn't it just be lovely to have to walk down this huge flight of stairs when you arrive home after a long day. or to trudge up them on the way to work, how cool!!! Just so stupid and senseless really and calling attention to it's compositional hand. blah. The "Hollywood references" were another of the films biggest, well, howlers. The movie is clearly meant to be the wet dream of every screen writing queen so it's "who would you like to direct?" "Gus van Sandy" and the lovers of this film would no doubt agree "one of our finest gay directors!" "well, he's read it and he's interested!" as if homophobic Gus van Sandy would ever be interested in a film about a little cub and his "lover who died of aids"!!! well, maybe he would be if as the big bad studio wants, the film is made for str8s. Then his mile high misogynistic streak could really go to town killing this woman with KS and everything else for stealing away all the hot men! (in an interview he said once "I don't like to hang out with gay guys, I like to hang out with straight guys, sometimes I score." Yeah sometimes you are pack-in lots of coke and use your clout as a movie director, sing it bitch, loud and proud you fool. Gus van Sandy is an amazing filmmaker but a total ass who would probably grovel for the dick of the first Chelsea boy or we-ho queen to offer it to him and likely does frequently just like every other Hollywood monster out there). either Gus van Sandy or truffaut? OK whatever.and when the guy says he might kill his wife as in "crimes in misdemeanors" you'd think the producer had never seen the film. unless wife is in a position to blackmail him, but if she is we don't know anything about it.and we do get a sense of the auteur's disdain for violent video games, while he comes out with this garbage. well, it's all part of that old school queen Terrence Macaulay "lisbon traviata" self loathing killing each other queens kinda thing. . . . starts to make the pseudo tough guy Gus van Sandy Wm Burroughs kinda thing look almost appealing. blah.what's so great about Patricia Carlson anyway? casting her reminds me of Liberace's raising his piano bench to play Chopin, to give the audience to understand that "this is a high class number". She's a ham and I hate that blissed out expression she always has she's tired!And PS is cute but the way people on here are drooling about him since Kinsey (blah) you'd think he was James dean and Jeff striker rolled into one! he's just an OK looking gay guy actor. it's pretty funny to check out the discussions on here, people bending over backwards to preserve Robert's status as a (blah) "sympathetic character" ("maybe she didn't eat the salad maybe she crashed the car so the two men could be to getter!")the gay audience deserves this kind of insult, that' all,. that's the sad fact. no surprise this film is like closing night at half the gay festivals. blah

harvey1005 I found this movie to be indulgent, pretentious and full of plot holes. While I appreciate the protagonist's problems, the entire beginning seems to be set up solely so that Jeffrey (Campbell Scott) -- who is supposedly a heterosexual family man and movie producer -- can shock the audience by propositioning aspiring screenwriter, Robert (Peter Sarsgaard) without the knowledge of Jeffrey's wife Elaine (Patricia Clarkson), who also seems entranced by Robert. I have some experience of writing and pitching spec screenplays and this whole incident was unconvincingly contrived. Again, even though the acting was excellent, the movie sagged because of hole in the plot large enough for a Buick to pass through. There is a point when Elaine (after discovering that Robert and her husband are lovers), poses as a man on a gay chat site and lures Robert into revealing things about himself. Then -- as punishment for her husband's transgressions -- she pretends to be the spirit of Robert's ex-lover and reveals secrets to Robert of how he "assisted" in the death of his lover and intimate details of his love-making with her husband. Normally, this would be chilling and an inspired turn of events, but it is spoiled by the fact that there is no set-up for where Elaine gathers the evidence. We never see her break into Robert's therapist's home nor do we see her bug Robert's apartment. Basically it is lazy film-making, which I find offensive.It's ironic that a story of compromise, betrayal and revenge is itself compromised and betrayed by lack of attention and pretension.