Do you think Evening failed?

What holes? I didn't see the holes.

In the bonus material on the DVD, basically they got the people they wanted to be in it, basically first try with Danes, Streep, Redgrave and Close. Seems they were doing it because they liked the material. Redgrave was great. I loved watching her face. I agree with you that the writing isn't exactly chock full of wit or memorable lines. This one is about everyday people, not memorable geniuses. Streep's character alludes to that in the end, in describing what happened to Harris, that he did his work and then became an old man, end of story. It's not what most of us aspire to in our wildest dreams, but as is implied by Ann's career, not everyone comes out on top with fame and fortune.

Did it fail? No. It's about everyday people, though, and the actual sorts of dramas, thoughts and feelings of same. It felt very real to me in many ways.

It certainly failed with both the critics and at the box office.

I agree with you. The movie failed miserably on so many levels. You point to Michael Cunningham (author of The Hours, and co-writer of the screenplay for Evening) as a possible problem. Thing is, Susan Minot, who wrote the novel, was also a co-writer on the screenplay. This is surprising and disappointing. She's a fine writer, and they gave her control of her own screenplay and this is what happened. Sad. I wish more writers of novels wrote their own screenplays; but this one makes a case against it. Evening was contrived to the point of being unwatchable--and the subject matter is potentially so graceful. I was saddened to see it fail on all levels: acting; writing; directing; cinematography (looked like the movie had been colorized)--everything.

I must say I'm surprised to be on the other side of this argument for once. I'm usually the first one to tear apart acclaimed movies that my friends love (Mystic River, Crash, Little Children) for over-writing or overacting, but here I honestly thought everyone involved did a wonderful job with a premise that seemed so likely to end in melodrama and self-righteousness. I honestly thought that the writing was perfectly understated, leaving all the right things implicit (though i havent read the book, so i can't address it as an adaptation). I especially loved the acting here, and i think that with the wrong cast, this film would have been unwatchable. I especially loved Meryl Streep's performance. She was given some lines that could have been so awful, but she handled them wonderfully in my opinion.

One of the posters has said that Cunningham disregarded the point of Minot's novel, and I'm interested in what that was. I certainly came away with a good idea of this film's "message." I think it's very rare to find a film with a "message" that doesnt come off as preachy (Crash!) or horribly trite (Little Children), but here I thought it was subtle and tasteful. Perhaps it's just a matter of the mood you're in, who knows!

we all know that art is not truth.
art is a lie that makes us realize the truth

I just finished watching the DVD and almost finished off a box of kleenex. This movie moved me and touched me greatly. I identified with almost everyone in the movie at one time or another and thought the scenery and music were beautiful.It conveyed beautiful sentiments to me and I will always remember that Ebert gave only 2 stars to both Sense and Sensibility and Gladiator. (rambling, I know.)

It's interesting to hear everyone's comments about this movie.

Personally, I liked it, though I thought it was slow at times. I especially liked Vanessa Redgrave and her 'daughters' - that part of it. I thought Ms. Redgrave pulled off a dying woman beautifully and I was totally captured by her acting.

I also really liked Toni Collette in her role. I thought she handled the younger daughter dealing with her non-committal, angst driven issues with ease and I felt that she was really believable.

I felt that Clare Danes was overacting and I found her annoying at times. I didn't find her believable in many scenes.

Hugh Dancy was brilliant. The part where Ann confronted him after he kissed her (and Harris) was done so well. I felt that he was really suffering there, especially after he suggested that he and Ann get together. He played a great drunk. He is a very good actor IMHO.

OMG, Glenn Close. Even though she was in the movie for such a short time, she is the one who drove me to tears with her portrayal of a mother whose son just died. Just freaking out, uncontrollable and Inconsolable. Brilliant.

I would recommend this movie to others, but just those who like a good cry and who don't mind the chick flick mentality. Those who like lots of action need not rent it.

Two minutes in Heaven is better than one minute in...Heaven

I have to agree that Evening was a snore fest.

1. I will never be able to understand the re-hashing of the age-old sibling rivalry issues, and the I-have-a-nice-boyfriend-but-am-I-grown-up-enough-to-commit problem.

2. I will never be able to understand how one person's choice (Vanessa Redgrave's character) to moon after one man for her entire life (thus wasting its true potential by not being present) is supposed to be interesting or something that inspires sympathy, empathy or, even, envy. Nothing was more pathetic than seeing her on her deathbed and discussing her "fling" with Meryl Streep--on who had clearly moved on.

3. I will never understand how conservative "period" pieces such as these always struggle with the ordinary-for-their-genre issues expected from them: Claire Danes (somewhat nicely type-casted here--and in The Family Stone--by her real-life escapades as a man-stealer) in a peasant blouse and espadrilles makes her "radical" (like Julia Roberts in Mona Lisa Smile), "nice" girls always marry the "right" guy, but always lust after another just before the wedding, and that gay men of the era always are always the sacrificially tragic and creative lamb on the brink of suicide. The creep that is Clare Danes/ Vanessa Redgrave is spared, but the spurned gay man is lost.

It suffered from the "too much love" syndrome... not the romantic type but in the production I mean...

I think everyone involved loved the original material so much that they kept it as it was and the movie ends up being a demonstration that not everything that works on the page can work on the screen.

They should have cut a lot, refleshed the characters a bit through added dialogs and scenes... and that my friends is called 'adaptation'... if you don't do that, it's just a filmed book and not even the best book with the best actors can survive that.

It's a shame, really... this movie has one of the best cast in YEARS and the book is really good... total failure in my opinion.

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco