Available Quality: DivX, DVD, Hi Def
Director(s): Sarah Polley
Country: Japan, Canada, Spain
IMDB Rating: 6.7
A happily married woman falls for the artist who lives across the street.
|Take This Waltz (Hi Def)||Resolution: 1280x720 px||Total Size: 773 Mb|
|Take This Waltz (DVD)||Resolution: 720x400 px||Total Size: 1556 Mb|
|2||Take This Waltz (DivX)||Resolution: 624x336 px||Total Size: 700 Mb|
|1||Take This Waltz (DivX)||Resolution: 624x336 px||Total Size: 700 Mb|
jaguiar313 (17 May 2013)
One of my favorite things about this charming indie drama was that Ireally enjoyed was just how real the relationships in the film cameacross. Writer/director Sarah Polley creates a freshness and realnessto this story of a happy young married couple Margo (Michelle Williams)and Lou (Seth Rogen) whose happy life is challenged when Margo meetsand falls for neighbor and artist, Daniel (Luke Kirby). Margo thoughtshe had what she wanted but, the free spirited Luke makes here questionwhether she is really happy with Lou or just thinks she's happy. As Loubecomes focused on writing a cookbook, Margo begins to explore what shereally wants... or is it. And that's the thing that I felt was so realabout this charming little movie. Margo's answers are never clear as inlife they sometimes aren't. Are were really happy or just convincingourselves to settle for what we have? Is it human nature to alwaysthink there is something better for us out there and thus were neverare truly content or happy? These are true life questions and questionswe ask ourselves as we watch Margo pursue a course which could cost hereverything. And, of course there is the age old question, of the grassalways appearing greener. I really enjoyed how director Polley gave thefilm a very refreshing style and really made the characters seem likereal people. They all have their little quirks and habits and they makedecisions based on emotions and are sometimes selfish and not carefulabout hurting those around them. And, they don't always know what theyreally want. The performances are strong across the board with MichelleWilliams giving another great characterization of the almost childlikeMargo, whose very likable despite her selfish pursuits. Seth Rogensurprises as Lou a man who obviously loves Margo but, has his own goalsand is a little too focused on such to notice his wife is troubled.Luke Kirby is good as the artist Daniel who, much like Margo, decidesto selfishly pursue their attraction despite knowing she is married.Round out the cast as Lou's sarcastic alcoholic sister, Geraldine is aperfectly cast Sarah Silverman. All in all this is a refreshinglyun-Hollywood indie that takes a look at real people with real emotionsmaking real and sometimes selfish and stupid decisions. Something weare all guilty of and that's why we can identify with these people andhow love or, what we think is love, can be such a confusing factor inour lives. And, most of all, is there such a thing as true happiness oris it an illusion we create ourselves?
jharrisonplease (16 May 2013)
Michelle Williams seems to phone this one in...but her phoning it in isstill twice as interesting and charming as what most actresses arecapable of. The problem with this movie is that the it doesn't feelgenuine or emotionally deep even though it's dealing with very thornyand adult concepts and themes. And the actors, all good in other films,disappoint in a big way here So the result is that the viewer feels abit taken advantage of. The story is basically an early life crisis.Michelle Williams is torn between the men in her life and must choose.ClichÃ©, yes, but let's face it...most people have gone through asimilar situation. But she floats through it with so little feelingthat its hard for us to feel either. On to the positive. The movielooks handsome, if a little bland, and has a nice hot summer feel toit. Seth Rogen proves once again that he can be a very solid dramaticactor when he needs to be. And even though the movie doesn't work, atleast it tried to do something with emotional resonance.
ASlightlyRedDisturbance (16 May 2013)
Take This Waltz is a rather sweet, very nuanced film. Sarah Polley hassome great talent in both screen writing and directing, and her efforthere is... both a success and failure. It's a very gentle, very fragilefilm, one where all of the spoken dialogue is said with such precisionand emotional truth and one in which the characters feel unwilling toreveal themselves completely. I appreciated it's tone, optimistic, butvery melancholic. At times, it left me in a sort of trance. But it'snot great simply because I found it too self-conscious at times. It hasits great moments that ring true, but also moments in which it justfeels like an exercise to be "sweet" and "subtle". The characters arenot all as interesting as I would hope for. After the film's first act,I felt like the film had nowhere to go, and instead it kept going incircles. Still, it was involving for what it was. The performances here are what is excellent. Although the characters dobring you into the story, they also really make you think twice abouttheir flawed developments and overall writing. But the actors all giveit their best. Michelle Williams is slowly becoming one of my favoriteactresses, and while she is great in the role, I can't help but feellike it's something that she has already done in much more interestingways. I love Williams, but I do hope that she starts to branch out indifferent ways and not just go for these type of roles. Rogen shows areal gracefulness and maturity that we haven't seen from him before,and he makes the most of his character definitely. Not aground-breaking performance, but one that will make you appreciate himmore as a dramatic actor. Kirby is also mysterious but also veryappealing and seductive in his own way. I would say that this is a failure in many ways, but also a film that Icould still slightly recommend. I don't think it's anything original oreven anything special, although it has its moments where it trulysoars. I actually think that while Polley showed a different kind ofdirectorial style, this is not as good as Away From Her. For Williamsfans, check it out. She is great, but it feels like such an obviousrole for her, and her performance, her mannerisms, all feel recycled.It leaves me torn because as an exercise in acting, she does more withthe role than Polley did with her writing, but at the same time itcan't hep but feel uninspired. The last 10 minutes however, are betterthan the rest of the film, and I do greatly admire what Polley did withthis ending.
Mdln DeHond (15 May 2013)
I â¥ Rogen, â¥ Williams, but not feeling this pretentious movie.Unfortunately Williams and Rogen can't even save this film. They makean adorable on screen couple though. You can feel the voice of Polleyin the story, who I like as an actor but clearly not as a producer. Thepacing is off entirely. There is a lot of pompous dialogue -"Do youknow how much courage it takes to seduce you"- Really? Maybe in anattempt of adding poetry and depth? It just as aimless as flingingboiled spaghetti on a kitchen cabinet and it hangs there like ashriveled balloon. On the other hand it's full of clichÃ©s. You feel that this film is aiming for the film festival audience bypulling off a few run of the mill art-house tricks, making the moviefeel dishonest and artificial. Halfway you don't know if you have to beoffended or just disappointed for being underestimated like this.If I could rate this on two different scales, I'd rate the cast 8 andthe script and production 3.
Sindre Kaspersen (14 May 2013)
Canadian actress, singer, screenwriter and director Sarah Polley'ssecond feature film which she wrote and co-produced, premiered in theGala Presentations section at the 36th Toronto International FilmFestival in 2011, was screened in the Spotlight section at the 11thTribeca Film Festival in 2012 and is is a Canadian production which wasshot on location in Toronto, Ontario and Louisbourg Nova Scotia inCanada and produced by producer Susan Cavan. It tells the story aboutMargot, a freelance writer in her late twenties who lives in aresidential area in Toronto with her husband Lou who writes cookbooks.Margot and Lou has a good and stable relationship, but one day while ona trip, Margot meets an artist named Daniel who makes quite animpression on her. Finely and subtly directed by Canadian filmmaker Sarah Polley, thisquietly paced fictional tale which is narrated mostly from theprotagonist's point of view, draws an intimate and humane portrayal ofa married woman who finds herself in a dilemma after she unexpectedlyfalls in love with a man in her neighborhood. While notable for it'snaturalistic and atmospheric milieu depictions, fine production designby UK production designer Matthew Davies, cinematography bycinematographer Luc Montpellier and use of colors, thischaracter-driven and narrative-driven comedy-drama depicts an empathicstudy of character and contains a great score by composer JonathanGoldsmith. This colorful, romantic, charmingly humorous and somewhatfairytale-like story which set during a summer in a Canadian province,is impelled and reinforced by it's cogent narrative structure, subtlecharacter development and continuity, natural characters and thecompelling acting performances by American actress Michelle Williams,Canadian actor, stand-up comedian and writer Seth Rogen, Canadian actorLuke Kirby and American actress, writer, musician and comedian SarahSilverman. A minimalistic, open-minded and harmonic love-story whichgained the award for Best Actress in a Canadian Film Michelle Williamsat the 12th Vancouver Film Critics Circle Awards in 2012.
estebangonzalez10 (14 May 2013)
Â¨Life has a gap in it, it just does. You don't go crazy trying to fillit.Â¨ Thanks to Take this Waltz, I've found my worse film of 2012 sofar. This is a movie that looked extremely good in the trailers, butdidn't work at all for me as a film. The movie had some beautifulshots, the scenery was incredible, there were some strong performancesas well, but the story just didn't work for me and it never feltbelievable for one moment. Just because this film manages to break allthe romantic genre conventions doesn't mean that it's going to be good.I never felt the chemistry between any of the characters, andeverything just seemed forced. This is Sarah Polley's second featurefilm after her successful 2006 movie, Away From Her, which won severalawards and also received two Oscar nominations (one for Polley as ascreenwriter and another for Julie Christie's leading performance).Polley also wrote the depressive screenplay for Take this Waltz where amarried woman struggles to remain faithful to her husband after meetinga very attractive young man who just happens to live in the road acrossfrom them. Michelle William's character really had several issues and Ijust found her behavior extremely rare. Her relationship with herhusband was more of a playful friendship than anything else. I don'tknow what her neighbor found interesting in her as she behavedawkwardly all the time. I found this movie hard to follow as I couldn'tconnect, sympathize, or relate with any of the characters. The entiremovie just dragged for an entire two hours and if it wasn't for somebeautiful photography I would've hated this movie even more.Margot (Michelle Williams) is a writer who is on a trip working on herassignment when she meets an artist named Daniel (Luke Kirby). Both ofthem happen to share seats in the airplane flight back home to Torontoand sparks seem to fly between them. Coincidentally when they arriveand share a taxi together they realize that they live across the streetfrom each other. Margot tells Luke that she's married and they saytheir goodbyes. Margot enters her home and we are introduced to herhusband, Lou (Seth Rogen), who is a loving and friendly husband. He isa cook and is working on a cookbook with different chicken recipes. Louand Margot's relationship is strange however, Margot is distance attimes and acts like a teenager. Both of them are very playful, but sheseems to have some sort of psychological disorder. Margot beginsfeeling like something is missing in her life and begins spending moretime with Daniel as she feels physically attracted to him. She beginsto feel conflicted and guilty because she realizes this and doesn'twant to cheat on her husband. This pretty much summarizes a plot wherealmost nothing else happens outside of Margot's world and the tensionshe faces between choosing to stay with Lou or giving in to herfeelings towards Daniel.I was really looking forward to this film because the trailer seemedreally interesting and the critics have been praising this film, but Iwas really disappointed with the way things turned out. I did not likethe story at all, and felt Michelle Williams's character was annoying.It was painful to watch her at times. I did not feel the chemistrybetween her and Luke Kirby at all, everything felt forced. I must saySeth Rogen is probably the best in this film and it was interesting tosee him in a dramatic role. Sarah Silverman also has a supportive rolein this film, and her character is way more interesting thanMichelle's. Too bad Polley didn't decide to make the story revolvearound her instead. The only positive thing I can say about Take thisWaltz is that it has some beautiful shots, the photography was great,and the soundtrack was actually really good, but the rest of the moviefailed tremendously. This is the worst film I've seen this year andwouldn't recommend it to anyone.http://estebueno10.blogspot.com
TxMike (11 May 2013)
I have become a Sarah Polley fan, actually have been one for a while.So in a movie like this I don't so much try to 'rate' it but tounderstand what she is trying to say and appreciate it.Filmed in Polley's home country Canada, Michelle Williams is Margot,married for almost 5 years. When we see her interact with her husband Iam struck by how child-like she is. They make silly faces at eachother, say stupid things, but never really talk about anything ofsubstance. It is this immaturity which is the subject of this characterstudy.I rarely like Seth Rogen but here is is very good in what for him is aserious role. He is Margot's husband Lou, and he is in the process ofperfecting recipes to write his chicken cookbook. They seem to loveeach other very much, but at times he doesn't understand Margot'smoodiness.One day Margot is traveling back home from a trip and quite by accidentis seated in the same row as Luke Kirby, an artist and rickshawoperator, Daniel. They share a cab and find out they live virtuallyacross the street from each other. That isn't necessarily a problem butMargot finds herself attracted to Daniel.So the story combines two familiar themes, how random incidents canhave great influences on our lives, and how a person can (or not)resist strong temptation that they know they should. For most of themovie's running time we see Margot and Daniel finding ways to be at thesame place without actually conspiring to 'see' each other. Daniel wefeel is very willing, he is single and carefree, but he also respectsthat Margot has a husband. All in all a very well crafted and acted story, where not everythingmakes everyone happy at the end. SPOILERS follow: Towards the end, after Daniel actually attends a partyof sorts at their house, Margot awakens the next day to see him in atruck leaving, he is moving away. He left her a picture card of thelighthouse they were supposed to meet at on a certain date 40 years inthe future. Not knowing what to do, she walks to the shore of the lake,he finds her there, she can no longer resist her urges, she leaves Louand has a torrid romantic and sexual relationship with Daniel, as theyoccupy a new place. Lou finishes his cookbook, it is a success, and heseems to be doing fine when she shows up some time later. It appearsthat she has remorse for leaving Lou, and knows she will probably neverfind a man as good. But Lou has moved on, he tells her "Some things youdo in life, they stick". Meaning he could never see Margot the same wayhe saw her before. Margot is growing up the hard way.
BrianLlywd (11 May 2013)
Last year we finished TIFF with "Last Night" a poorly done,anti-romance about betrayal and infidelity. This year we started with"Take This Waltz", apparently Sarah Polley's tribute to last year's"Last Night". Both are insults to philandery. Sarah Polley has developed a bit of reputation for being an upstart andedgy; this picture, think upchuck and edging on ridiculous. A boringhusband (Seth Rogan), an innocent child-like wife and an irresistiblerickshaw driver, cum cad & stalker who can afford an apartment andregular trips to Cape Breton (at Air Canada rates only affordable bygovernment bureaucrats).Please. Sarah Silverman offered promise on the big screen but sadly, hercharacterization of a recovering alcoholic was so shallow that, at theend, she couldn't even play a drunk. But it's not her fault. There are two reasons why this film fails so badly. One is story; thereis almost none. The second is direction; there's no evidence of thecast being driven to play their roles well. I have to think that Polley is the beneficiary of a desire by theCanadian film industry to build a star system in behind the camera. Idoubt that this film would have been financed, made and screened atTIFF without a little insider trading of sorts. WARNING - there are several explicit sex scenes near the end thatappear out of nowhere and are no better acted or more interesting thanthe rest of the picture.
lui-samantha (07 May 2013)
Take This Waltz is about a woman contemplating the fate of hermarriage. But being from Toronto, I couldn't help but enjoy the filmfor its gorgeous portrayal of the city during the summer.Directed by Sarah Polley, the film's focus is Margot (MichelleWilliams), a freelance writer struggling to draw the line betweenloyalty and desire after a chance meeting with a rickshaw driver namedDaniel (Luke Kirby) during a business trip to Nova Scotia. It's obviousfrom the start that the chemistry between them is immediate. But beinga happily married woman to Lou (Seth Rogen), Margot tries to push awayher feelings.But upon learning that Daniel lives across the street from her and herhusband, Margot soon begins to question the certainty of her marriage.As her and Daniel deliberately try to find ways to run into each other,the two share moments full of sexual tension through drinking martinis,rides at the amusement park and even a romantic swim at night in thelocal pool.Oddly enough, Lou, a cookbook writer, is completely unsuspecting of hiswife's adventures. As Margot tries to find a deeper connection to herhusband, their painfully childish relationship is reduced to makingfunny faces and shooting odd terms of endearments at each other like,"I love you so much I'm gonna put your spleen through a meat grinder."Just under two hours, Take This Waltz lingersÂ just like Margot'sfeelings. It overstays its visit, constantly providing the audiencewith the burning question of "Will she cheat? Or will she not?"Thankfully enough, the answer is revealed during the movie's finalchapter.Visually, the film is absolutely stunning. Capturing areas of Torontosuch as Kensington Market, Centre Island, Kew Beach and TrinityBellwoods Park, Polley succeeds in making the city look colourful andappealing like a bowl of fruit on a hot summer's day.Acting wise, Williams remains a director's dream, perfectly capturingthe insecure, needy and self-absorbed Margot. However, it's Rogen andSarah Silverman who really impress as they prove they can be seriousactors as well. With Rogen's Lou gaining sympathy for being theinnocent bystander in his wife's love triangle, Silverman also handlesherself well as Lou's alcoholic sister trying to stay sober.Overall, Take This Waltz lingered a bit too long to keep me patient.But considering that I am a born and bred Torontonian, seeing Polley'sbeautiful homage of the city through its sight, sounds and attractionswas like watching a video postcard of Toronto.
pc95 (07 May 2013)
Sarah Polly's "Take This Waltz" runs a long-feeling 115 min, anddoesn't have much to show for it. It was tiresome watching littleflirty scenes between Michelle Williams and Seth Rogan, or evenMichelle Williams and Luke Kirby. They weren't cute but tedious. Theremust have been 30 min of stupid flirting scenes during the movie doingnothing for the aloof story and characters. Thrown in for good measureare some out-of-the-blue and ridiculous sexual and nudity scenes thatare like icy-water in your face compared to much of the other mundanedialog. Also a little reprehensible was the "do what you feel like orwhat feels right" message that had Williams character acting on herattractions toward Kirby's character Daniel instead of heeding loyaltyof her marriage. Thats right, it's always harder to work and repair amarriage than start a fling. By the of the movie things have come fullcircle, and it's definitely a feeling of "wtf" was all that for. NotRecommended.
kenjha (06 May 2013)
A seemingly happily married woman has an affair with a neighbor. It isgenerally entertaining because the romance between Williams and Kirbyworks. Williams has an easy charm about her. Kirby, a Canadian who hasshades of Montgomery Clift about him, is appealing as a rickshawdriver. The scenes between Williams and Rogen don't work because thelatter is terribly miscast as the sensitive husband. Rogen tries to goagainst type, but he does not have the acting chops to pull it off.Silverman is surprisingly effective. Although this is only her secondfeature film as writer-director, young Polley shows a lot of promise.The film would have been more effective if the credits had rolled a fewminutes before the pretentious, contrived ending.
anniewest0 (06 May 2013)
As a fan of Michelle Williams and Seth Rogen (who I think could one daybe a great serious actor) I really really wanted to like this film,which is why I fought to get a ticket at TIFF. Sadly the movie is flat,ugly to look at, and there are very few moments which feel real. To befrank, it all felt like a precious acting exercise. Luke Kirby'scharacter, a sexy rickshaw driver (!?!), felt as false and fake asanything Michael Bay would come up with. And the writing was awful,full of groan-worthy lines and moments which strive to be poetic butcome up way short. I think Sarah Polley could be a good director oneday but maybe she needs the crutch of an Alice Munro story to help herget over her own plot weaknesses...because this movie just doesn't workon almost any level. I will say that I liked (didn't love) MichelleWilliams, and even though this is one of her less exciting performancesshe remains one of the most watchable, subtle, and cool actresses ofher generation. What Sarah Polley could have been if she had the gutsto stretch herself out of her"just-stare-at-the-camera-and-blink-meaningfully" performance-rut she'sbeen in over the last decade. Bonus star for Sarah Silverman. Gottalove her. Hope to see her star in something one day.
lorirees (30 April 2013)
The Good: Michelle Williams lights up the screen. She can act and sheis beautiful. The cinematography and scenery is gorgeous. The setdesign is appealing, although unrealistic and very hipster-ish. The Bad: I don't know why this movie is listed as a comedy on Netflix.This movie is not a comedy, although it contains two comedian actors(Sarah Silverstein and Seth Rogen). I never expected this movie to be acomedy but I'm wondering if the filmmaker intended this movie to befunny. Because it isn't. I like a long, dialogue driven indie-film asmuch as the next person but this film is way too long, drawn out, andpretentious. Most of the dialogue is cringe-inducing. We get thatMichelle Williams' character is discontented. There are glimpses intothe marriage and the dialogue flat-out tells us that she is restlessand afraid. Rogen's character (the husband) is likable but lacks depthor seriousness. We don't fully understand why Michelle Williams'character is so restless and bored, or why she married Seth Rogen'scharacter in the first place. She keeps telling her husband that sheloves him, as to convince herself. She wants to do the right thing butcannot.The Ugly: Pretentious to the core. Clumsy, weird dialogue that islaughable. Dialogue on the airplane, in the neighbor's apartment, andmartini scene is so lame. Sex scenes: I'm no prude but these scenes donot fit with the rest of the movie. The beautiful set design of thehouse did not match the characters. The decor leads you to believe thatthis is where interesting characters live. The anniversary dinner scenewas not believable. In this scene we are supposed to believe thatRogen's goofy character is unable or unwilling to converse, even ifit's silly smalltalk.
gradyharp (30 April 2013)
Sarah Polley wrote, directed and produced this little Canadian IndieTAKE THIS WALTZ and it seems t be a very personal project. Polleydefinitely has some insights into contemporary relationships, family,commitment, and values and she manages to transmit those ideas withsuccess in this rather strange but in the end satisfying film. The castis small and tight an dwell interrelated (except for a ratherinappropriate shower scene at the ladies swimming pool when the showeris filled with naked unattractive older obese women) and the threeprimary actors who form this fragile love triangle are exceptional asare the other two main characters whose purpose seems to be anexamination of alcoholism and its effects on a family.We meet Margot (Michelle Williams) nervously coping with her fear ofairports at the end of a writing assignment for a travel company. Hereyes engage a handsome young artist Daniel (Luke Kirby) and as fatewould have it they are assigned adjoining seats on the airplane home.After an uncomfortably awkward conversation we can see that there is amutual attraction, and on arriving home they share a taxi and discoverthat they live across the street form each other. Sensing herattraction and being the faithful wife that she is, Margot informsDaniel that she is married and they part ways. Margot's husband Lou(Seth Rogen) is a stay at home guy who loves cooking and is writing abook on various chicken recipes. Though Margot and Lou repeatedly telleach other how much they love each other, their marriage of five yearsseems more of a silly childish game than a mature marriagerelationship. There is a moment when their tiresome silly word games isinterrupted by a possible physical liaison but the idea of sharing loveand the concept of a child is touched upon and we never find out whythat is or who is trying to have or not have a family.It becomes more obvious that Margot wants to be more exposed to Danielsand they play-act in strange situations, never consummating whatobviously is a mutual attraction: Margot is fanatically faithful to Louwhom she repeated says she loves. The closest they come to intimacy isDaniel's responding to Margot's question 'What do you want to do tome?' - and the monologue seems to reveal hidden needs in Margot.Daniel's sister Geraldine (Sarah Silverman) is a recovering alcoholicand her child with her husband James (Graham Abbey) is beloved byMargot. The two confide in each other and words such as Â¨Life has a gapin it, it just does. You don't go crazy trying to fill itÂ¨ rathersummarize the tow character's inquires. Eventually Margot decides shemust explore the newly awakened feelings she has for Daniel and theremainder of the film is how that resolves: the ending is pretty muchleft up to the viewer.Michelle Williams continues to grow as an actress, able to say morewith her eyes and her body language than she is with the script oflines. She is truly remarkable. But she is very well supported by bothLuke Kirby and Seth Rogen in roles that are not easy to make credible.The cinematography by Luc Montpellier adds a sense of surreal romanceto the film and the musical score by Jonathan Goldsmith incorporatespop tunes such as 'Video killed the radio star' have superb secondarymeanings. Parts of the film are flimsy and irritating and unresolved,but Sarah Polley proves that she is rich with ideas that makes us lookat ourselves and those we love in a different light. Grady Harp
writers_reign (30 April 2013)
I was enjoying this movie anyway when around reel #10 - in a year inwhich a group of International pseuds saw fit to vote Welles'masterpiece Citizen Kane into second place behind (of all things)Hitchcock's vastly overrated and pretentious pap Vertigo - writer-director Sarah Polley paid tribute to 'Kane' by offering a spin (punintended) on the breakfast scene from 'Kane', some seventy years afterWelles unveiled his innovation. Apart from that this is a fine film anyway you look at it and I for one would rather not look at it withoutMichelle Williams who really gets inside the character that Polley hasdevised. Of course there are flaws, not least the artist manque who canclearly make enough pulling a rickshaw through the streets of Torontoto fund a flat in a high-rent district, to say nothing of being able tospring for air fares. There are those who have questioned the career ofSeth Rogan (Williams' husband), finding an obvious metaphor in a manwho writes cookbooks exclusively about chicken dishes, i.e. chicken isone of the blandest of all dishes, Rogan devotes his life to ways ofmaking it interesting in a recipe yet fails to make himself interestingto his wife. With her previous movie, Away From Her, and now Take ThisWaltz Ms. Polley has shown herself to be a fine filmmaker, not perhapsas fine as Welles - but then who is - but certainly light years betterthan Hitchcock.
EephusPitch (30 April 2013)
I have developed something which I have dubbed my "Sarah PolleyComplex". Consider: As a pre-teen, she appeared in one of my all-time,top-10 movies ever, Terry Gilliam's THE ADVENTURES OF BARON MUNCHAUSEN;She featured in my two favorite Atom Egoyan movies, EXOTICA and THESWEET HEREAFTER; One of the films which got me into MichaelWinterbottom, THE CLAIM, also was graced by her; She directed JulieChristie in AWAY FROM HER; And she starred in series three of "Slingsand Arrows", which, until I discovered "Deadwood", I might haveconsidered as my favorite television series.And yet...I'm not sure whether (SWEET HEREAFTER aside) I have everthought of her as being able to act her way out of a paper bag, andafter this film, I'm not sure how I feel about her as either a writeror a director.I have to commend this movie for being honest enough to show itscharacters, all of whom are generally very likable people, asoccasionally insufferable. It is a treat to watch Michelle Williams,and let me say that I am in no doubt of her abilities as an actor. It'snice that Seth Rogan has been given a chance to show off some chops ina more or less serious role, although it's a little disconcerting todiscover that, slimmed down, he looks a bit too much like Ben Affleckfor my comfort. And I have to say that Sarah Silverman gave a veryplausible performance as an alcoholic. The problems for me are in someof the directorly touches; the pointless montage as our heroine andhero are deplaning, the nauseating use of steady-cam as they sit overtheir untouched martinis being the two glaring examples. I guess themessage of this film is that some people need to fill the hole thatappear in their lives whenever the momentum lessens; some choosealcohol, some new relationships, and some being spun around anamusement park to the tune of "Video Killed the Radio Star", which maybe the most benign palliative. Also, it's probably not a good idea toallow your relationship to reach the stage of casual urination in frontof your significant other.When this comes out on DVD, it will lend itself to a neat drinkinggame: down a shot whenever you spot a cast member from "Slings andArrows". I made it to a round half dozen, on first viewing in thetheater.
Danusha_Goska Save Send Delete (29 April 2013)
Spoiler alert! This review will reveal the end of "Take This Waltz." "Take This Waltz" tells the story of Margot, a chronically depressedwoman who is in a nice, stable marriage to Lou, a nice, stable guy.Margot meets, by chance, Daniel, a man who is slimmer, poorer, moreartistic, and more conventionally handsome than her nice, stablehusband. Don promises Margot hot experiences in bed. Margot leaves Loufor Dan. In a montage sequence, Margot is shown having hot encounters with Dan,including three ways. Then Margot is shown being, again, chronicallydepressed. Margot implies that she regrets leaving Lou. And that's it. That's the whole movie. It's not funny; it's not smart;it's not wonderful to look at. The direction, sets, costumes, dialogue,are all very not-special. The one powerful thing in the film isMichelle Williams' performance as Margot. Williams is a one woman stormfront. Williams flutters and pouts and tears up and mopes with greatgusto. Her performance totally overpowers anything else in the film,and it just starts feeling odd that someone is acting so hard inresponse to such a flimsy script in a film that isn't going anywhere. Lou and Margot aren't believable as a stable, settled couple. MichelleWilliams is too young and too attractive. You think Â he married herfor her looks; she married him because she was looking for a rock.Their marriage is awkward. They aren't shown supporting or enjoyingeach other. They are shown not connecting and letting each other down.You don't get the sense that Margot is sacrificing one good thing Âintimacy and security Â for another good thing Â dangerous butthrilling encounters with the unknown. You get the sense that someonewithout much life experience or depth wrote this script very quicklyand without input or rewrites. The film throws in attempts to be artistic. Margot meets Dan at an openair museum where historical re-enactors whip a man accused of adultery.Margot is lectured by naked older women in a public shower: even newthings get old. Lou is a cookbook author who writes only about chicken.The joke is, of course, that even exotic meats like snake are said to"taste like chicken." Exotic Dan will eventually bore Margot just asdomestic Lou did. These attempts to be artistic just make the filmdesperate and pretentious, not deep. The problem with the film is the problem with Margot. She is depressed;that is the central fact of her life. A dramatically arresting filmabout Margot would address her depression. She'd do what depressedpeople do Â go to a shrink, try various medications, contemplatesuicide, talk it out with friends. The film tries to be about theentropy of nice, stable relationships versus the appeal of the hotBohemian stranger who promises an erotic candy shop of delights. Thatvery interesting dilemma is not honored by the film. You don't look atMargot and think, "Appreciate what you have," or even, "Go for it!" Youlook at Margot and think "Prozac. Please. Or talk therapy or something.Or else this film is going to kill me with boredom."
Russ-79 (28 April 2013)
This is a very good movie. Kudos to the director/writer for an adultlook at desire within a comfortable marriage that's gone a littlestale. My comments are not on the quality of the picture but on thetechnicals.As someone whose vision is not as good as it once was, I appreciateseeing the details within the frame of a picture. In this day and ageof high definition photography where grain is added and focus is issoftened and placed out of focus. I long for films that have neither. Iam so tired of having half the frame out of focus, having light oversaturate a large part of the picture. I am tired of the directors ofphotography purposely using lenses that have such a slim depth of fieldthat while a part of a person's face is somewhat in focus, the rest ofit is blurry. This may sound like an extreme example but too often I'veseen the end of a nose go OUT of focus while an actor's eyes are INfocus.There is no excuse for this. What are film colleges teaching thesedays? Doesn't the audience deserve more? I wish people would stand upfor what they want to see and force change. I've only heard a fewdesperate voices in the wilderness berate the infernal jerkiness ofhand-held photography. I wish the developers of digital cameras wouldoffer focus pullers auto-focus photography. Couldn't a focus pullerkeep his cursor on the spot where he wishes maximum focus and thecamera adjust to keep that spot in perfect focus as the camera movesthrough a scene? Put the focus puller on remote duty at a video screen;think how much easier that would be for the crew.While Sarah Polley did an excellent job writing an intelligent script Idenounce her choice to over saturate images and change natural colorsto a bizarre extent. These actors are beautiful people standing inbeautiful settings; can't we see them in normal color and IN-focus? Ihope other viewers who feel as I do voice their opinions on thetechnical issues of today's films. The movie reviewers on this websitecould and should be a powerful voice for improvement within our filmindustry. Let's stand up and make changes happen guys.Russ^
buzzbruin (28 April 2013)
Thank heaven the wife and I watched this at home. After a great stringof great Indies like Security not Guaranteed Blue moon rising themarigold hotel, this was easily the worst film I have seen in a longtime. I have never cared less about the leads. Seth Rogan is still ameatball and he looked unhappy at not showing his rear end or droppingthe F bomb every 10 seconds. His career as a serious actor has a beenlaid to rest with beyond awful sulking man-child worthless dialogue anda lack of attraction beyond reality. If Michelle Williams a an actressthen I am a rickshaw driver. That a handsome movie actor would earnincome by doing this beyond any measure of reality. The writing wasabout as bad as it gets. His paintings and the chicken cooker wereawful. Any 4 year old could draw better. I was hoping they would drownat the lake, fall out of the lighthouse or choke to death on a chickenbone. I don know who sara polley is but she should be ashamed ofherself!! God awful dreck.
Fludlerk (27 April 2013)
I watched this film at it's premiere last night and found it quiteentertaining and insightful. This was a film about the path thatMargot's (Michelle Williams) emotions take as she struggles with thequestion of fulfilling the parts of her marriage that are missingthrough infidelity. Michelle gives a very inspiring performance as hercharacter progresses....completely letting the audience in on everyfacet of her internal struggle and the toll it takes on her. There aretimes when you empathize and root for her, and times when you shakeyour head and wonder why she can't see what the audience sees.Seth Rogen is surprisingly effective in his role as the geeky, butloving husband. I found myself constantly rooting for him. He did agreat job of making his character imperfect but likable, but mostimportantly, believable.Sarah Silverman delivered nicely in her role, especially near the endof the film. If there was a weak link, it was Luke Kirby, who neverseemed to show much emotion at all, in a role where there was suchpotential for it.Sarah Polley's writing and directing was excellent, although the pacingwas at times a bit erratic. She managed to really capture what life isreally like at times, without going over the top. By celebrating thelittle joys in life, she garnered sympathy for the main characters andthe situations that developed, without forcing it. She also showedToronto off very nicely, which was a bonus.In all, if you're into character driven films, this is a very good one.The best part of it all, though, is Michelle Williams performance.
Review total: 20, showing from 1 to 20