MovieChat Forums > Are You Here (2014) Discussion > TIFF screening reaction

TIFF screening reaction


I saw it this morning at TIFF and to be honest, I thought this film was a bit of a mess. The tone seemed uneven, performances too broad and it was overly long. Also, I don't believe Melissa Rauch appeared in the cut that was screened at the festival. Did anyone else who saw it feel the same?

reply

I think Rauch was the hooker Wilson tried to sleep with in the very beginning. But I totally agree on the movie. Not sure if it was just me because I kept seeing (surprisingly) positive reactions, but man, what was that? Awkward moments where you're not sure if you're supposed to laugh, dropped plotlines (Poehler wanting a baby?), random characters (Jenna Fischer?), and an overall feeling of a bad made-for-tv-movie.

Even in the Q+A after people were reaching trying to pull out metaphors and symbolism in the movie, but this was by no means Mad Men.

Amy Poehler was lovely at the screening though (seriously, the best).

reply

I will actually go as far as to say the movie was awful. The jokes didn't work at all. There were countless times where the entire crowd was sort of giggling under their breath not really knowing whether that was supposed to be funny or not. At one or two points during the movie, my girlfriend leaned over and said "this is actually getting awkward"

Tons of scenes end and I was thinking to myself "what exactly was the point of that? was it supposed to be funny? Dramatic? Advance the plot? i'm not quite sure..."

The characters are unlikable. The story is a mess. It isn't funny. I didn't care for any characters. It was just a flat out bad movie IMO.

reply

I'm glad some other people felt the same way. I overheard a guy raving about this film and calling it "really solid". He compared it to I Heart Huckabees and went as far as to say this was a better film. I was stunned...

reply

I Heart Huckabees was also really bad.

reply

I went to the Saturday screening. Flat characters that were never properly developed and an uninteresting plot that left me completely bored by end of the film. The best part about the movie was that we got a free mug as we exited the theatre. Yes, really.

reply

The best part about the movie was that we got a free mug as we exited the theatre. Yes, really.


You got a free mug?? I didn't get one! Damn :(

reply

What's the story with people always complaining that comedies are too long? Are you hooked on sitcoms? If I pay ten bucks I want my 2 hours. If its good it can go 3.

reply

Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Aniston were originally cast in the lead roles. Good thing they dropped out.

reply

[deleted]

What's the story with people always complaining that comedies are too long? Are you hooked on sitcoms? If I pay ten bucks I want my 2 hours. If its good it can go 3.


-I'd love to hear an example of a good 3 hour comedy. I can't think of any. Also your kind of thinking is why we get movies like this with 2 hours of mediocre gibberish rather than 90 mins of solid material. I'd much rather have a good 70 minute movie than a meandering 90 minute one with 20 mins of fluff added just to appease people like you who have some arbitrary number in mind every movie must hit.

I don't know why how much you paid means anything to the length needing to be longer/shorter either, that's pretty silly. Golf courses that are 18 holes cost different amounts because of the quality contained within, not how long they are.

I'm more concerned with the quality of the material than the length. Honestly anyone who's really a fan of movies should be as well. Why does getting your moneys worth in terms of time matter more than being entertained? Seems silly to me...


"You're the most highly intelligent person that no one has every achieved"- user PreciousGotFatAgain

reply

[deleted]