A film that might have worked better as a play, or perhaps with another actor cats opposite Helena Bonham-Carter (who was excellent in this). She covers a range of vulnerability and strength, of weariness and excitement, that felt fitting to this kind of moment where past and present collide.And all collisions at a wedding are likely awkward enough, hers all the moreso.The film is shot in a split screen mode, to provide the differing viewpoints of the man and woman involved (per the director on the bonus section) but it doesn't often achieve that, and also opts to insert flash-backs perhaps to break up the stage-y nature of the script. Those could be seen as recollections by the characters, but they felt more like a magician's sleight of hand distraction.While I dig a dialog-driven movie, there were enough clunky moments to tear me away from the honest emotions trying to be captured. And the split screen, being so persistent and often kind of meaningless, added to the feeling of artifice.Which might be fine for a film from the Czech New Wave, but maybe not for a modern drama? The role of cellphones was interesting aside from an asinine scene for Aasron Eckhart's character.Ultimately all of the flaws (it feels like a student film, and I was rooting for it early on) could have been surpassed I think, if Eckhart and Bonham-Carter had more on-screen chemistry. At least that's my take, their chatter on the bonus had a little more natural warmth, and it could be that in the script Eckhart was not given enough redeeming moments, and so unless you just swoon at the sight of him (ladies, your mileage may vary?) then it's hard to not just want Bonham to opt for bonbons and a bad movie alone in her room.

Unusual but provocative, this movie draws us into the lives of two people who appear to meet casually but go on to bare their innermost lives and feelings. The repartee is fun and the interactions with other characters, though limited, are amusing. The main actors are Helena Bonham Carter and Aaron Eckhart, two independent people who, despite their mutual attraction, are mature enough to hesitate getting involved in a evening together that they might regret. The dialogue between them reveals their private memories and regrets from a past that overlaps to some extent, as we will find out. The initial impression is of eavesdropping on an ongoing exchange between two strangers who are meeting for a one-night stand. But then, they freely unload themselves of their private feelings about the wedding and then delve into their pasts. The technique of showing past and present on a split screen or cutaways to one or the other draws the audience more fully into the encounter. A movie with great acting and some unpredictable situations, this is a movie that is worth seeing and left me wanting to see again.

Ever seen an entire movie in split-screen? First it's pretty cool and a little disorienting, then it seems a little unnecessary and gimmicky, and finally you get used to it. Was the movie better for it's rather unique approach? Maybe a little bit. It certainly wasn't worse. I appreciate what the filmmakers were trying to do, at the very least.As for the movie itself, it's an interesting take on the romantic genre.  A man meets a woman at a wedding reception, and it's slowly revealed that they have a history together. A history that isn't quite finished, despite the years that have passed since they've seen each other. You learn about their past and their present concurrently, thanks to the previously mentioned split-screen wizardry.Check it out if you're interested in an adult relationship story, with a bit of an experimental indie spin. I enjoyed it. I may have only decided to see it because of Olivia Wilde's small part, but it ended up being one of the more memorable and honest movies of this type that I've seen.

"Conversations with other Women" is, if the title isn't obvious enough in that statement, a romantic comedy with a touch more to the ironic style. The film is basically about a man (Eckhart) who meets a woman (Bonham Carter)at a wedding. The couple at the beginning of the film wants us to believe that this is the first time they've ever met, the annoying part of it is that at the end of the movie we know that they actually have a rich and colourful history. But they keep playing the "we've met for the first time" through out the whole movie which makes you feel kind of cheated. It is although in many ways rich in it's character build up due to the fact that there can at times be two stories told in one shot (using Duo Vision). But the story failed to make me interested because of them constantly behaving like strangers to each other, which makes it fairly hard to get emotionally attached to the characters.What made this movie worth watching is that it was shown in so called "Duo Vision" meaning that the screen is cut in half and the left and right part are showing different things, therefore making it very interesting with the flash back scenes and you get back story at the same time as something less interesting is happening in real time.I do not recommend this movie as a love story type movie, there have been many movies, similar to this one where the movie is mostly or entirely dialog based. The ones that strike me as the most similar are Linklaters "Before Sunrise" and "Before Sunset", where you feel that these people are authentic making the camera unnoticeable and giving you at that time a feeling that your stuck in the moment with them.Using the "Duo Vision" through out the movie was an interesting concept and sometimes worked very effectively but it just doesn't work all of the time in a movie where love is the main focus of attention. But seeing and even talking about intimate stuff you want to feel unnoticeable which isn't working good here.The style that was tried to be executed was something that I like and in fact it didn't fail all over, I like the story but not how it was presented therefor I give it a 6/10