EssenceStory Well Deserved Praise

Tetrady not as good as all the hype

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Luecarou What begins as a feel-good-human-interest story turns into a mystery, then a tragedy, and ultimately an outrage.

Paul Allaer "Days and Nights" (2013 release; 91 min.) brings the story of an extended family's happenings over one weekend. As the movie opens, we see a couple meeting up at Grand Central in New York, to take the train out to the family's countryside compound. Along the way we learn that we are into the 1984 Memorial Day weekend. Upon arriving at the countryside, we get to know more members of the extended family and friends. To tell you more would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see it for yourself how it all plays out.Couple of comments: this is the directing debut of actor Christian Camargo, who also wrote the script (loosely based on/inspired by The Seagull by Anton Chekhov), and stars as Peter, the boyfriend of Elizabeth (the couple we see at Grand Central). The voice-over at the beginning of the movie mentions something about "days and nights in the grip of a memory", and I thought, hmmm, this might be interesting. Alas, I couldn't have been further from the truth. As the various scenes unfold, you start to get that uneasy feeling that what you are watching makes little sense, and whatever sense it does make, doesn't matter as you cannot make an emotional connection to any of these characters. This is very much an ensemble cast, actually an ensemble all-star cast. What a huge waste of talent! Here is William Hurt, in the role of Elizabeth's older brother Herb, and frankly Hurt is just creepy in this performance. There is English actress Juliet Rylance as Eva (Mrs. Camargo in real life). And biggest waste of all, we have Allison Janney (as Elizabeth), who looks clueless as to what she needs to do, desperately waiting for some direction. There is a scene pretty early on, where Eva and Elizabeth's son Eric (played by Ben Whishaw) put on an after-dinner multi-media live performance of some sort that is as wacky as it is mystifying. I knew from that moment on that this movie was in serious trouble. I lasted until over just an hour, and simply had had enough. An hour of my life I'll never get back.I picked up this movie while browsing at my local library for something good to watch. I see a lot of movies, and when I saw this, and saw all the acting talent assembled on the DVD's front jacket, I thought to myself "This is interesting. How come I've not heard of this movie before?". Well, now I know. I cannot recommend this movie in good consciousness to anyone, sorry.

Gordon-11 This film tells the story of a group of extended family members getting together for a reunion dinner. Things don't go as well as planned, and relationships fall apart as a result.I honestly don't know what "Days And Nights" is about. There seems to be no real plot. Characters are poorly introduced, and I don't know how they are connected with each other. The first scene is about the dinner, every person talks for a few minutes about what they want but no one is really caring about what is being said. People strangely leave the room one by one. Then in the projector scene is almost the same, as people leave one by one and not connecting - but the whole scene is just bizarre. Thirty minutes into the film, an actress announces that "it doesn't make sense", oh yes the whole film doesn't make sense, you got that right. I watched the film until the end, but it deteriorates increasingly. No one connects with another, and viewers don't care about any of the characters either. It's a family dysfunctional relationship film gone horribly wrong.

lavatch There are countless adaptations of successful stage plays into films. "Days and Nights" is an earnest attempt to update Anton Chekhov's play "The Seagull." When this play was first produced in 1896, it was considered a flop. But when it was revived by the stage director Konstantin Stanislavsky to open his new Moscow Art Theater in 1898, it was hailed as a masterpiece.The producers of this film clearly had a passion for Chekhov. Music figures prominently in Chekhov's plays, and the music in the film version was also intended to be intrinsic to the characters' lives. The screenwriter's goal was to adapt Chekhov's play to the Reagan era in America of the 1980s. Chekhov was an apolitical playwright, and it was not clear what was intended by inserting one of Reagan's speeches about the Berlin wall as a backdrop for the ennui of the characters. Another curious choice was to incorporate a subtle message about environmental issues. A bald eagle replaces Chekhov's seagull. And the housing developers are encroaching on the rural setting of the play--a detail that appears closer to Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard" than "The Seagull." ************* Spoiler Alerts ***************** The following should not be read by those who have not completed their film viewing:A major change from Chekhov's original play is the depiction of the character of Nina, who is seduced by the well-known writer, Trigorin. In the updated version, the successful filmmaker Peter (Trigorin) plots to run away with Eva (Nina), the young woman who is the love of the life of Eric, the avant-garde writer Konstantin in Chekhov's original play. But before Peter and Eva can meet to leave the lakeside retreat, Peter runs over and kills Eva in a pick-up truck! At the end of the film, there is a sad reunion at the lake three years later. Still haunted by the memories of Eva, the now successful film artist Eric also is present for the family reunion. In Chekhov's play, Nina, who has been jilted by Trigorin, has a final conversation with Konstantin, rejecting him once again. But in the updated version, Eric has a vision of the deceased Nina, then shoots himself, which is the same ending as Chekhov's original play.************* End of Spoiler Alerts ************** The hard-working cast (Allison Janney, William Hurt, Mark Rylance, and others) attempted to inhabit the lives of their characters. But the film adaptation lacked the depth, complexity, and the multi-dimensional nature of Chekhov's characters.One limitation of this film is that it is imperative that the viewers know the original play by Chekhov; it is not a successful stand-alone film. It may be fair to conclude that there was only one Anton Chekhov. No re-written version of his play will ever surpass the original in its seemingly endless insights into human nature.

tim-arnold777 I would say the finale of this film could be a spot-on summation of the average viewer's overall demeanor for being suckered into watching the film and possible self-destructive bent to paint the walls with their gray matter. After wading through the many unsympathetic, and downright tedious characters depicted in this long-winded overblown film, I can't believe I hadn't shut it down to watch something more entertaining...like a moth circling around my living room lamp. Allison Janney, William Hurt, Jean Reno...Katie Holmes (oh well can't blame her for trying anything to put more distance between herself and Psycho-entologist ex-hubby Cruise) one might think the acting talent could make this movie worth my while. Wrong. I suppose even the best of actors can't make a turd dance a foxtrot.