Greenes Please don't spend money on this.

Manthast Absolutely amazing

SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Brennan Camacho Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

cmkdakota-65369 I cannot fathom how this movie scored as low as it did. I sought on a movie channel and have been seeking and again ever since, so I will probably buy the DVD. It is full of heart, funny moments and serious moments, but the message it conveys about commitment is delivered well.

egajd I loved this film! It has a great heart and great bones. I stumbled onto it by chance and I had no recollection, not even an inkling, of this movie from promos or reviews or word of mouth.   I remember reading, many years ago, a journalist who commented on the value of watching movies without having them contaminated by the pre-judgement of reviews or the false shill of the promos.  And this seems to be the single most common source of the critics' negative reaction to the film:  it failed to meet expectations of it being a comedy, or a slice of life, or character driven.  I had no expectation about the film, and so it was comedic - but I only laughed once or twice - without being a comedy; it was about a person, but so eccentric that it wasn't slice of life; it was about a character, but the character was so intelligently optimistic and trusting of her instinct to life, that it wasn't the angst-driven sentimental melodrama so typical of American 'serious' film - as I wrote that I realized that writer/director Lisa Krueger managed to poke fun at this schlock American sentimentality in the husband!  And very cleverly too! And Kreuger was able to keep the cloyingly sentimental ending from the screen, when the wayward, not prodigal, husband returned with his tail shrunk between his legs. Bravo, Ms. Krueger, bravo!  (Now I will be watching this film again, as it is getting better and better as I reflect on it.)   Graham's performance as Joline is brilliant. I loved how subtly but completely she was able to portray and convey intelligent awareness of her committable commitment to honouring her words and actions - she knew that in keeping her word with a band, or friends, or husband that she was setting herself up to ridicule and/or disappointment in a world that was unable to honour commitment as she was able to do. But even with that strength, she was fully connected to humanity, and embraced with a fully committed heart their frailty and failures. The character of Joline was amazingly well acted, and I left the film surprised that I had no recollection of awards nominations for it. Okay, not that surprised, as American awards tend to go to women in 'serious' roles, filled with angst and the proper amount of nudity, which this film did not have. What it has was far better, which was heart in this woman's discovery of herself with the assistance of new friends and a self-deprecating shaman.I admit to being a bit of a soft touch for eccentric characters who manage their peculiarities while remaining honest and true to themselves as they move through the minefield of what comprises 'proper' societal behaviour and 'acceptable' interpersonal discourse. So, if people must conform to normality in your world, then this film will not be to your liking.  And that was, it seems, one of the common threads in the critiques.And I am always a sucker for a good play on words when it raises questions of human behaviour and ethical/philosophical values. Until this movie I hadn't made the emotional connection between being committed (to a cause or honesty or something) and being committed (to an insane asylum). At what point does one's commitment to a personal sense of truth and action in life become a one way ticket to insanity? This sounds like a simple question, or one that is easily dismissed as being rhetorical. But is it? And yet few of the critics - I think maybe two, commented on this aspect of the film either directly or indirectly.A lovely film. 8/10.

ell_wu This movie has a lot of heart. It really tried. You can tell this movie is really trying to develop their characters more thoroughly and more dramatically. It tries to send a nice message about what it means to really try and believe in something. But there are some elements that kind of detract from it. Pros: a) despite her somewhat odd temper, I really like Heather Graham's character. Graham's acting aside, Jo by virtue of being the lead, has received the most development and change throughout the movie. And you know what, she's actually kind of likable, if a little hard to empathize with at times. Might be me, but I always found innocence in characters to be a fresh breath of air in our current day society where everybody is as cynical and sarcastic as I am.b) scene framing was fantastic. The scenes were visually very well done. Maybe it's the lens or something, I don't know. I'm no expert in this sort of thing. but the cinematography in the desert area yielded itself to a sort of surreal semi-dream sequence quality to it, which I felt was very appropriate for this movie. The camera work in the NY set pieces felt rather insular though. Maybe that is what the director was trying to get across, I'm not sure.Cons:a) there are too many subplots We have things like the whole incestuous love subplot which to me made no sense what so ever and served no purpose in the story. The same kind of went with Visnjic. So what if he's interested in her? Where is this going? Does he provide something that Luke Wilson's character does not? What about the lesbian couple that Affleck was sleeping with? Frankly, I felt that a lot of the characters could have been better fleshed out, or cut out entirely to devote more time to the main characters.b) some of the character feels rather artificial and forced This is particularly true of Luke Wilson's character. I mean, why the hell were they even married in the first place? The guy is clearly this wishy-washy, passive-aggressive, indecisive, self-centered man who quite frankly doesn't seem all that emotionally invested in ANY of his relationships in this movie until it is convenient for him. I don't care how much people change, there is only so much suspension of disbelief I can handle before my mind just thinks "bad caricature". The same goes for Visnjic. He's persistent, has a foreign accent, is rugged-looking, has a sensual touch, etc, etc, etc. He's basically your trash-romance novel fantasy stereotype, except REALLY REALLY creepy. What's even weirder is that Graham's character actually ENJOYS this. c) some of characterizations are actually kind of a turn off. Again, this has to do with how the movie presents their characters. Carl feels basically sub-human in his characterization and has no redeemable qualities. (Which, once again, begs the question why the hell did she marry him in the first place.) Visnjic has got creepy written all over him that it's almost comedic. (it's like Fabio with stalker tendencies) Carmen's reaction towards all the crap that has gone wrong in her life is... very understated too. Oh yeah, and I'm still not sure what purpose does Ruffalo's character serve towards the narrative other than play up the redneck stereotype. (which, depending upon how you look at it, can be pretty offensive)So, in summing, not bad, not great. If you can ignore some of the more egregious issues, it's not too bad. But you kind of have to keep up your suspension of disbelief a little.

davideo-2 STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All CostsThe indeed very beautiful Heather Graham is the only thing this totally misguided flick has going for it.The comedy scenes don't work and the story has no focused structure.But Heather gives an engaging performance that just manages to hold your attention throughout.**