Some years ago I picked up a copy of a literary magazine and found a story by Ethan Canin. It was excellent. As time went by I read two collections of his short stories and novellas and one novel. They ranged from good to great.Two movies were made of his short stories. Both were good, and faithful to the stories so I was looking forward to seeing The Year Of Getting to Know Us. What a disappointment. I read both stories again upon which the movie was based, and wondered if either the director or the actors had read them.I realize a director can't always capture the story as written in a play or movie but - The story occurred in California not Florida. There's nothing to indicate in either short story that the mother was a flake. There's no indication the father was a car salesman, only that he was successful in business. The father had multiple affairs not multiple marriages. The woman the father was having sex with in his convertible, wasn't the neighbors wife. The son was married to his significant other. The woman wasn't just his girlfriend. He was an English teacher, not a writer. His wife was a journalist not a lawyer. They lived in Boston not New York. There's a comic element to the father in the movie, not in the story. The emphasis in the story is the relationship of the son to his father, the relationship between the son and his wife is minor, and so on.The next time this director makes a movie, I hope he writes his own story or picks a second class author. I hate it when directors mess up perfectly good literature.

I saw this movie at Sundance and thought it was totally compelling (particularly Sharon Stone as the unhinged mom) and found many scenes profoundly reminded me of my own dysfunctional family. I caught myself laughing out loud a number of times, especially at Tony Hale - you know, buster from Arrested Development. I did find, however, the film seemed a little long and somehow unfinished - like a couple of other movies I saw at the festival which, I assume, is quite common. Imagine my surprise, when I recently heard from a friend that the movie had been shortened by the director and he was having a small screening of the new version. Wow - I thought this movie was good the first time I saw it, so I couldn't believe how much better it was the second time. Jimmy Fallon and Lucy Liu are fantastic together and the whole movie is smart, funny, moving and totally satisfying. I hope I can see it for a third time in theaters. You should see it too! LM

I saw this at Sundance earlier in the year. I didn't know anything about it going into the festival and it blew me away. Sharon Stone was terrific. I'm not a huge fan of hers, but the scenes of her and her son when he was a boy were terrific. Tom Arnold was also great as her car sales/womanizing husband. Jimmy Fallon was oddly serious throughout the film. I was hoping he'd crack a jock every once in a while, but he was supposed to play is straight and he was good. Lucy Liu was also good as his girlfriend. The movie was a thoughtful/funny meditation on the father/son/family dynamic...of loss, love and regrets. Surprisingly good film.

I saw the world premiere of this film at Sundance and it is seriously one of the five worst films I have seen in my lifetime. During the Q&A (in which the director and entire cast were present), no one in the audience had anything worth saying because the film was so awful. It was a pretty awkward moment.Considering all of the 10s this film has received, it seems to me that people connected with the film are clearly the ones giving it a rating without considering the quality of the final product. If you honestly think this is a good film, you have no taste when it comes to film-making.Jimmy Fallon is painfully one dimensional. Lucy Liu is good, but her role has no meat-- it's sad that these are the only parts she is given. Tom Arnold is not an actor and never has been. Sharon Stone is caricaturish. Illeana Douglas and Tony Hale give the best performances, but in minor roles. What most people don't know about this film is that the director cuts back and forth between the present and the past at least twenty times-- an overused technique that not even the most mundane film students resort to these days. This forces Arnold and Stone, who play Fallon's parents, to carry a major portion of the film in the flashbacks.There is rarely a truthful moment in the film. The script is contrived. The cliché ending can be seen in any below-average Hollywood romantic comedy. I hope this director grows in maturity before he writes or directs another film. He had the budget and resources at his fingertips, but blew his opportunity because he wasn't properly equipped.Which Sundance programmer allowed this film to be shown? They should be ashamed of themselves. The work speaks for itself and it clearly falls short. I'd hate to think that the programmer was being wooed by the producer's rep or other people behind the film without considering the ramifications of screening something of this quality at Sundance. Is this what Redford's vision has come to?