I didn't expect much from this DVD picked up in a remainder bin. I was in for a delightful surprise.Based on a stage play by David Grieg, the story draws together the main theme of Leo Waters, played with nuance and emotional subtlety by Anthony Paglia, the architect and his design of a building project several years ago and his subsequent disconnection from it, reflected in the disconnection from his wife, Julia (Isabella Rosellini) who is completely underused, and his children.The film begins with Leo's son, Martin, dropping out from college. Martin is troubled, furtive and secretive.Viola Davis is the activist in the projects, eager to tear down the buildings and get the area cleaned up who butts heads with Leo.Hayden Panatierre plays the teenage daughter just coming into her own sexuality and experimenting in bars and stranger hookups unbeknownst to her parents. An excellent performance.How all these threads come together, and in some cases come apart, is the heart of the movie. The audience is expected to think and draw their own conclusions and the ending is very satisfying, an emotional confrontation between a father and son.The cast are flawless as is the script and the quick incisive simultaneous snapshots of different scenes move the story arc forward.8 out of 10. Not to be missed.

When I read the synopsis and saw that it was made from a play I wondered "How will they work into a story about a project the requisite themes of repressed women, depressed women, teenage angst, and a guy struggling w/ homosexuality but then giving in?" They do that, and so much more. Here's how: A white male architect built a project some years earlier. It's falling apart (maybe) and is dangerous.A black woman lives there with her unwed-mother daughter. Her other daughter is an honor student and lives elsewhere. The woman heads up a group to destroy the project. Her 5-year-old son was depressed and stepped off a building to his death years earlier. The honor student comes to visit; mom gives her some homemade cake; the daughter throws it away later.The architect's son comes home from college, makes some comments about his sisters sn*tch (his word) and his dad's lechery; then he goes to the project where he meets a gay black kid. They flirt; the son is repelled; but he gets some beer and comes back; they walk around the project at night through gang members selling drugs. The gang members don't taunt them. After much dialogue about gay things, they have (explicit) sex on a rooftop.The 15-year-old daughter is beautiful, has a nice body, seems stable. But she's depressed because she has to go to the mall with her parents. Maybe she also has too many clothes or shoes. Or her breasts are too big.She lies that she's in college, goes to a bar, gets picked up, gets scared, is saved by a ~35-year-old delivery guy; they ride around all night in the delivery truck, she comes on to him, he says no and takes her home.The architect's wife is depressed - her BMW is too new, her custom house too clean and neat, her maid too careful, she has too much money - it's hard to tell. She starts breaking flower pots in the back yard at night and stares into space. The architect puts cigarette ashes on a saucer; she breaks the saucer; he gives her a neck rub; she asks for a divorce.The black kid steps off the roof - perhaps he didn't realize that being gay meant being gay? The son goes out to the project. The architect goes out for a different reason. None of the gang members bother them, even though they've been threatening others. They meet on the rooftop.

Apart from seeing his Blue Velvet starlet in a perfect role for her age group, the movie makes you ask questions. This movie really makes people look at cause and effect. It doesn't place blame, rather shows implications of well intentioned, ignorant motivations. As a viewer, you may have to do some soul searching in order to fully enjoy the movie. The meaning of each scene as it is broken up, is a definite plus. At first I was put off by the back and forth breakup of the shots but soon began to conform to the format. I liked the performances of all the actors. It was nice to see Rosselini in her usual subdued role and equally effective. To see the lead actor in a spectacular role I might suggest Lantana!

In this film each unhappy family is, to a greater or lesser extent, the architect of its own demise.Many people have criticised the film for not saying much, or for being overloaded with story lines; for not following through or following through too explicitly. All in all it clearly confuses and divides people. I think there is a problem and it is not the movie that has the problem but the audience.This story touches on some of the last taboos in cinema namely the actual visualisation of homosexual sex, and even worse in the eyes of the beholders it addresses incest. The cross cultures/cross races thing seems to me to be a side issue to the main problem illustrated here which is that each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way to quote Tolstoy (apt here as Shawn the black homosexual is reading "Anna Karenina" at one point in the action, and like Anna unable to come to terms with himself and the world in which he lives, eventually commits suicide.)The film comes originally from a stage play set in Glasgow. Some of the dialogue has been lifted straight from the play and so can sound a little stilted, but in my opinion this device helps to maintain the necessary distance between the action and the audience. This plainly is an allegorical piece, each actor fulfils a function rather than a character but the story is none the worse for that; many art house movies do likewise. It is the subject matter here that is so difficult. As for the actual movie, it looks good, in fact is amazing considering it was shot in 20 days in New York masquerading as Chicago (I assume to keep the costs down). The acting by the whole ensemble is excellent. And I think one has to give Anthony LaPaglia especial praise as the Architect in question clearly in the grip of an incestuous passion. This cannot be an easy kind of role for any actor to play, but, as one has come to expect of Mr LaPaglia, he carries it off to perfection which may go a long way to explain the uncomfortableness felt by some moviegoers. Within his oeuvre this film seems almost like a companion piece to the more hopeful "Winter Solstice". My advice to anyone wishing to see "The Architect" would be to go along with an open mind, expect to be challenged and perhaps you'll come away with the same feelings as me, that this is a good film, a thought-provoking film but not one to watch just for the pure fun of it, go and see Mr LaPaglia's other current film "Happy Feet" if you want that!