i watched the movie yesterday, the story was okay, but i really didn't understand why the father had kissed his son's girl friend, it sounded crazy, sick, and unhealthy, in some point. being drunk was just an excuse? so when the father was drunk again and dancing with the girl friend, it was a kind of reunion and everything bad seemed to be passing away from the memories. but when the son was trying to cut in, his father was a kind of crazy AGAIN, therefore the son got really mad and pushed off his father and made him fall down to the floor. although the father did some ridiculous things, he had never explained that, for example, he could say sorry, and i got really drunk blah, blah, but no, nothing. it was sad part of the movie. and the son was totally right, the father would probably do something crazy again this time, and before all the eyes. so he left the day after with his girl friend, the father called "warren" and then hid behind the curtain, his son, heard him and turned back reluctantly [?], anyway, that was the end of the movie, it was something that the director did not make clear to me.

Spoilers herein.I am usually able to avoid getting wrapped up in celebrity gossip and such. Sometimes, the widely known reality of who a person is becomes part of the cinematic presence, and in that case I don't feel guilty exploring an off-screen persona. Christina Ricci is the someone like this for me.But there is another reason to worry about the external life: when it affects the art of a treasure. Julianne Moore is one of our most frighteningly intelligent actresses. I especially appreciate her `folded' acting, which presents several character-related dialogs at once. She - and a very few of her colleagues - lift film to a level that advances the whole society.In nearly every project she does something interesting, even when the filmmaker is oblivious to the more nuanced spaces available. But not here.This project is a mess. Yet another `character-driven' group encounter. There are dozens and dozens of these, the first respite of a theatrical mind thinking they know something about cinema. They CAN work, but we need something more than simply walking through damaged lives. This project is somewhere between `Affliction' and `Big Chill,' but where they open lives, this views them remotely. We do have the requisite precious tinkly music. We do have some very stylized exterior shots (very nice) to emphasize opening of issues compared to the claustrophobia of the house.The template requires a play-with-the-play. In `Chill' it was the video; `On Golden Pond' had the fishing drama. Here is the Rabbit book. Could have been more clumsy, but not by much.Moore's character had lots of opportunity for the kind of folded projection she's famous for. In another project she would have gone ahead and filled these multiple channels between her presence and us - like say in her Altman projects where he just leaves ALL of that up to the actor. But here, she sticks to what the director intends, and that is depressingly one-dimensional. Community theater stuff.Why should I care? Well because this thick talent is now her husband. Will it matter? I don't know. I have a database of projects where the director and actor are lovers. Sometimes an intelligent director can lift a mundane actress: as in the Robbins/Sarandon; Welles/Hayworth; Mamet/Pidgeon; Figgis/Burrows; De Palma/Allen; Fellini/Masini; Wenders/Kreuzer; Allen/Keaton-Farrow; Coen/McDormand; Branagh/Thompson; Cameron/Hamilton; Godard/Karina-Wiazemsky; Besson/Jovovich; Burton/Marie; Harlin/Davis pairings. Sometimes it doesn't matter, each just does their own thing (Newman/Woodward and lots of others). A few other effects, but the result is a small number of well-defined outcomes among several dozen such couplings. But there are also cases where the director/lover ruins the actress (Minelli/Garland; Beatty/Christie; Hallstrom/Olin).What family drama will transpire in Julianne's life? Will it be like this film, in both character (she is a gallery receptionist and a failed artist) and form? Will we lose our champion?Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 4: Has some interesting elements.

If ORDINARY PEOPLE is just too pulse-pounding for you, here's the movie for you. Great, great cast tries to breathe life into this turgid story and characters who have tiny, tiny problems magnified by their incredible narcassism. If you want to see all of the movies in the "upper-middle class navel-gazers who self-psycho-analyses every detail of their life" genre, then see this movie but only after you've seen ORDINARY PEOPLE, AMERICAN BEAUTY, ICE STORM and a couple dozen others. Well-intentioned but sleep-inducing boring.

This movie is a dark account on a family with some very dysfunctional members coming together for Thanksgiving. I don't know if you can label this as comedy or socio-drama as it has elements of both. Trouble is the the story plods along so slowly that all your patience is exhausted by the time you reach half of it. Yes, you either love it or hate it. If you're expecting something more lively or engaging you can forget it. The movie simmers so agonisingly slow it never gets to boil. Strong characterization fails to save an otherwise lackluster plot. Even accomplished performances by Roy Scheider as the mentally-disturbed father and Julianne Moore, in one of her more fascinating portrayals as the caustic and moody elder sister in the family, fails to save the movie. Mediocre.