MovieChat Forums > Seeing Other People (2011) Discussion > Just awful

Just awful

posted 20 years ago by Alias_MFB
24 replies | jump to latest

I rented this movie from Netflix primarily because I like Lauren Graham. But SEEING OTHER PEOPLE wasn't worth it. This film wasn't funny at all.

Ed and Alice are engaged. They have been living together for 5 years. Alice (Julianne Nicholson) wants to start screwing around because she feels she has missed out on all the fun things in life. (BTW, I'm sure the name "Alice" was used after BOB & CAROL & TED & ALICE, a much funnier sex comedy from another era). Her live-in boyfriend Ed (Jay Mohr) is against the idea--at first. He can't understand why it's necessary to do things that are deliberately and knowingly destructive to their relationship. Alice says it will be "just sex" and it won't hurt their relationship--in fact, she believes, it will make their relationship better! So Alice doesn't seem very smart. And what can we say about Ed? After a lot of complaining he just goes along with the idea.

Alice finds herself drawn to a hunky landscaper and goes for it. For Ed, easy sex arrives soon enough in the form of a slender waitress. All of a sudden Ed's misgivings about infidelity disappear.

It's hard to believe that Alice, on any level, really wanted to start screwing around. She seems awfully square and we never really buy her as a slut. It might help things if Alice looked really sexy or desirable even once in the film, but she never does. Never puts on a hot skirt. Never bares her boobs. We never even see her in undies. And in a swimsuit scene she wears a conservative one-piece. Go figure. And she wants to release her inner tramp? I didn't believe it.

The film is full of loathesome characters. There's Alice's sister Claire (played by Lauren Graham). Claire is a rude, foul-mouthed bitch--the total opposite of Lorelai Gilmore. And Claire's husband Peter (played by Bryan Cranston) is no winner either. He has the hots for Alice and, in a scene we didn't need, jerks off into the bathroom sink after hearing about Alice's cheating.

Ed's friend Lou is a creep. Ed's promiscuous waitress girlfriend Sandy is a crackhead. Claire starts screwing around with Lou. Honestly, I wanted some drug dealer to suddenly arrive out of left field and massacre all these people with an automatic weapon. Anything to keep them from getting married, or, in the case of Claire and Peter, staying married! The only redeeming characters are played by Andy Richter and Helen Slater. But their little storyline is forgotten in the last third of the film.

SEEING OTHER PEOPLE was a total waste of time. There will be other sex comedies in the future, but they won't have to try very hard to produce more laughs than this one. It's no surprise that this film received limited exposure in theaters.

I hope that Lauren Graham can make the leap to A-list comedies, where her costar is Hugh Grant or Tom Hanks. Lauren is talented enough to aim that high. She just needs the right break.

[–] JoeGPM 20 years ago

It doesn't bother me that you don't like the movie, but you entirely missed the point about Alice. Of course she isn't a slut, and she wasn't meant to be portrayed that way either. She was trying to be someone that isn't really her. The reason you "don't believe it" is because you weren't meant to. If you notice she goes from one relationship with Ted to another with Donald. All she is doing is dating again. How did you miss this?

[–] HeartMonger 20 years ago

Agreed jfmarx. I could not have said it better. I loved this film!
Helen Slater sure was good, on that the first poster and I are even!

I am considering nothing less than WORLD DOMINATION!

[–] Banshee57 20 years ago

I have to disagree as well, how irrational! I would suggest watching the movie again, I for one, DID understand the redemption. How could you not find this the comedy oustanding? Helen Slater IS certainly the best!

Such a pretty world, I can't wait until its all MINE!

[–] SoundscapeMN 19 years ago

uhh..Hugh Grant=retired

and I love Lauren grahamn too, and I'm watching this movie right now, not much of a fan of Jay Mohr. Seen Nicholson in Tully, Helen Slater is always hot, Charles of course from SportsNight and Threesome, everyone knows Richter. And so far the line Lauren Graham had about $ and led Zeppelin vs Chopin ruled!

Kyle

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/midwestprog

[–] TStormJack 19 years ago

Jill Ritchie lives close to me. I want to meet her now. =D

[–] voyageur0713 18 years ago

I thought Richter could have been used much better. He came across as flat for much of the film.

Bryan Cranston was uncharacteristically weak as well. But he did make you forget about Hal (Malcolm in the Middle) which I think was the whole point for him.

Jay Mohr, was, as always the weakest link of all, but even he wasn't completely horrible for a change.

I found Alice's "everyday is a bad hairday" distracting. Someone give that woman a brush and teach her how to use it!

I only watched because I am a huge Josh Charles fan. I'm still absorbing this (just finished watching it). This was just so different than anything I've seen him in before. I never connected Josh Charles & filty as hell before.

Still with all it's problems, it wasn't a waste of 90 minutes.

I've got the movie for a couple of more weeks. I think I'll watch it again in a few days and see if my opinions change.

[–] tragickingdom-1 19 years ago

I disagree with you pal, just like the others had said in there replies. This movie was not all that bad. When it started I was under the assumption of this film at the beign was to be seeing a When Harry Met Sally type movie, but that all completely changed when Alice told her fiance that she wanted to screw around with other guys in the hopes that this would make there relationship better. I right off the bat knew that this would become breaker of ther close relationship because of such a idiotic idea. What woman in her right mind would say something completly silly as wanting infidelity in a relationship, its bound to ruion a relationship, and it practically did for this couple. But in a way this became a moral of showing you what happen when you think up such a crazy idea to try and spice into your relationship. I also thought the other characters were good as well, Alice sister Claire I too saw as gross bitch in the beginning, but after half way through the film her character toned down a bit to a more likeable person. I also thought Alice was a bitch as well, especially how she treated Donald at times the person she was cheating on with Ed. Ed's flings were completely funny, especially the college chicks that he was going with but couldn't keep up pace with them. Ironically Ed's other friend Carl had the perfect relationship, his character was a complete contrast to the others as in that he wanted to preserve relationships, and the divorced mom that hooked up with, that turned out to be the perfect family, (notice they didn't have problems like everyone else did in the movie). Overall I thought this movie wasn't so bad, and it would make a great piece to show at Interpersonal COMM course on studying relationships.

[–] mpmurr 19 years ago

I tried watching this movie and I was 40 minutes into it before I was just bored and fell asleep. I tried watching the DVD a second time and found myself wandering off making a cup of tea and doing anything but watch the film. I like the actors, Jay Mohr, Lauren Graham and Andy Richter are top shelf, but it didn't do it for me. Probably why it didn't get a general release, it was never going to make it in the RED states.

[–] artzachary-1 19 years ago

That's because people in RED states have no sense of humor.

[–] onegirlrev 17 years ago

"I tried watching this movie and I was 40 minutes into it before I was just bored and fell asleep. I tried watching the DVD a second time and found myself wandering off making a cup of tea and doing anything but watch the film."

thats hilarious.

well, after reading these detailed comments, i no longer have to purchase this film on ebay.

myspace.com/onegurrrlrevolutionfilms

[–] franticromantic 19 years ago

well, i totally agree with this. redemption or not, the characters were unremarkable and mostly unlikeable, and there was no comedy in this "sex comedy."

[–] bonjovi-1 19 years ago

i just saved this movie file from a friend's computer with no comments about it and i didn't know at all what it was about and was it meant to be comedy or something else. And all i can say - it's a very good movie!
P.s. I don't think it's a right thing to put lables like comedy, drama and so on. Just watch and enjoy. i even saw lable comedy on cassette with Pay it forward.... Very fun endeed...
And myabe someone can tell me what are RED states? (i'm europian)

[–] ragingpolack 18 years ago

FYI-Red States are the states where George W. Bush, or in general republicans, won the election.

[–] jimbenben 19 years ago

Maybe "just awful" is an overstatement. But the poster's premise is correct: the plot is way predictable (gee, a couple's relationship is tested when they decide to have meaningless sex with others right before their marriage); the leads are nice, smart characters doing nasty, dumb things; the supporting cast (except Andy Richter) are just plain crude and boorish. On the plus side, the script has its witty moments. But whenever I briefly started to enjoy the show, some totally lame, poorly-written scene would intervene (for example, the brother-in-law escaping naked out a bedroom window while his wife arrives at the front door)and remind me that this is a B-list effort at best.

[–] OldCoachCrow 18 years ago

Seeing Other People wasn't "just awful", it was awful for its own reasons.
However life must be a real disappointment for the thread originator.
Imagine Lauren Graham playing an unlikable character ... "why, she's not like on Gilmore Girls at all!" Please.
I just found the premise to be ludicrous from the start, which pretty much will kill enjoyment of a film for anyone.
If you're hosting your sister's engagement party in your home, either you or your sister would object to finding some caterer stooge getting busy in the host bedroom. You don't view it as a gateway to unexplored sexual liberation, and you probably ask for a partial refund of the catering fee.
I like many of the cast so I endured the running time. It's unlikely that Andy Richter ever envisioned himself as a love interest for Supergirl.
I'd much rather watch Highball for the seventh time than ever see this again.

[–] Alias_MFB 18 years ago

Seeing Other People wasn't "just awful", it was awful for its own reasons.

A difference that makes no difference.

However life must be a real disappointment for the thread originator.

Bad guess! If you enrolled in the Psychic Powers workshop at the Learning Annex then you should demand a refund.

Imagine Lauren Graham playing an unlikable character ... "why, she's not like on Gilmore Girls at all!" Please.

My point, which you can't seem to grasp, isn't that Graham should refrain from playing against type. If her film career is ever going to gain momentum then she should tackle as many different types of characters as possible. Regardless, her fans may still be very surprised to behold her as the unlikeable Claire in this film. Graham put on a good performance, but I still cannot recommend the movie to anyone. I gave it a very generous ** out of a possible ***** at Netflix.

And to the poster who advised me that Hugh Grant has "retired"--I figure Grant will change his mind in the near future. He's too young to call it quits.

[–] OldCoachCrow 18 years ago

We can at least agree that Seeing Other People lacks quality.
You claim you Netflixed it because of Lauren Graham, and I guess that's where my confusion emerges.
These are your own words:

"If her film career is ever going to gain momentum then she should tackle as many different types of characters as possible. Regardless, her fans may still be very surprised to behold her as the unlikeable Claire in this film. Graham put on a good performance, but I still cannot recommend the movie to anyone."

You know what? Her film career is never going to gain momentum -- not until Gilmore Girls ceases to dominate her schedule, which may not happen for a few more years.

I like Lauren Graham a lot, don't get me wrong. She was great in a small role in Dill Scallion, I enjoyed her work on a Law and Order arc set in Hollywood, she's a delightful talkshow guest, and of course no one can forget her telling Bad Santa what she, uh, wants for Christmas in a hottub.

Appearing in drivel like The Pacifier won't allow Lauren Graham's "film career to gain momentum". Did you know she's only actually 14 years older than Alexis Bledel? I think her success as a television mom places more of a restriction on her career momentum than playing Claire in Seeing Other People.

Which she did marvelously, I felt.

[–] Alias_MFB 18 years ago

I can't disagree with anything you've said in your most recent post. And I don't think I've really contradicted myself either.

I am well aware that Lauren Graham's TV show consumes a great deal of her time, maybe 9 months out of every year. Nevertheless I cling to the hope that, during her hiatus, she will win a key lead or supporting role in a good major motion picture that will earn her all kinds of accolades. I'd love to see her gain a foothold in bigger films, as opposed to (seemingly) straight-to-video projects such as Seeing Other People.

Yes, The Pacifier may have been poorly received by critics. But it was a success at the box office and that didn't hurt Lauren.

Indeed, she's only 14 years older than Alexis Bledel. But it's really Alexis who has been playing it "younger." No big deal.

[–] OldCoachCrow 18 years ago

Otherwise we don't seem to have a lot in common.
We can't get her a better agent.
It's not up to us.
Bad Santa. Good film.
Pacifier. Bad film.
Seeing Other People. Bad film.
For which did she get paid most?
I'm guessing Pacifier.

[–] pcleary99 18 years ago

mfburk, you nailed it. Don't hold back. This movie stunk. It was impossible to buy into the character line. Even for some prurient entertainment it was awful. Julianne Nicholson was not believable at all. This movie was thrown together without much thought as to what would believably motivate the characters to behave the way they did. Alice decides she wants to start screwing around after seeing a girl at a party hop in the sack with a stranger and being with Ed for five years. On what planet does a woman do that.

[–] ashley0139 18 years ago

I just saw this movie. And while I didn't like it at all, I have to disagree with the original poster on one thing (and I haven't read every single reply so I apoligize if this has already been stated). OF COURSE Lauren Graham's role isn't like Lorelai Gilmore. The point of being an actress is to play all sorts of characters. I personally think that Lauren was brilliant in this movie. I totally believed her as a cold-hearted bitch, and I didn't see any of Lorelai in there, which is kind of the point. It just goes to show that Lauren has amazing acting chops and is a brilliant actress. Otherwise, I really didn't like the movie. I thought the ending was very ambiguous (though I think that was the point) and I didn't like it. Also, there was no closure to the characters of Claire, Peter, Penelope, Lou, and... the other guy (I can't remember his name). I thought the story was bad and not believable. Just my two cents.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]