I feel a little embarrassed disliking this movie because all of the other reviewers liked it. I will mention some of the good points. There were occasional beautiful camera shots, but an occasional beautiful camera shot does not a good movie, or in fact, a movie, make. It was delightful to see the main actors in action, they have truly wonderful careers.
However:
As someone else pointed out, most of the scenes are very claustrophobic. Or cluttered. Perhaps the director was trying to make the audience uncomfortable. Or trying to show how the husband and wife were so stressed out. But the result caused me to greatly dislike most of the movie for just this point. In my opinion, this was the work of a bad, egotistical director. "I don't care what anyone thinks or likes, I'll do it my way." Sure, buddy, do it your way. Your way stinks.
Along with cluttered scenes, most of the scenes were loud, screeching, with terrible sound. Again, trying to make the audience uncomfortable? Is this how the couple felt inside, always screeching and yelling and discomfort and pain? That's how I felt watching this movie. Even the ocean sounds were harsh. Also, the childish piano playing grated my nerves. Was this intentional? Or was this a bad sound job? The only way I could watch most of the movie was to turn the sound way low and use subtitles. It wasn't as bad as Catch 22, but bad enough.
That the kids were always talking at the same time and the mother always yelling at them was very unrealistic. This observation was from a professional social worker who has made a long career of working with dysfunctional families.
The racism and antisemitism was disturbing, with the mother's lawyer. More pie in the face to the audience. I think, with the lack of worthwhile police, prosecutors, judges and lawyers, the idea communicated was that these people didn't live in society, that they could do anything they wanted without consequence. Of course, the ultimate would be murder. Why didn't they cheese up the plot (what little of it there was) with this, then have the father say "sorry", and we're all listening to the Rolling Stones again and laughing and dancing.
The lack of police and lack of consequence for violent action was insulting to the audience. The only time a policeman showed up, toward the beginning, the policeman seemed weak and ineffectual. The police weren't called when the several violent scenes occurred. This, and many other scenes, stretches the suspension of belief that movies always require. So, the show becomes a comic book, with one meaningless random scene following another.
In another ridiculous scene, the parents are having sex at a hotel with the kids in the next room, and they don't lock the door, so one of their children walks in and sees them in bed. I suppose the kids walked in on them having sex when they were all living together? Isn't that in itself a form of child abuse? Other reviewers say that the father slowly fell apart due to the divorce, till her was nuts at the end. Sure, people go nuts, but this degeneration was too much and too silly. He essentially lost all moral sense. Was he smoking crack? Oh wait, did they have crack then?
The movie gave the message that it's OK to yell and cause a fight in a restaurant, OK to beat your daughter with a hanger, OK to break and enter, OK to kidnap, OK to do property damage, OK to beat someone to death or nearly so, and all one has to do is say "sorry", and everyone will forgive and we'll all be buddies. They even make fun of this when the daughter points this out to the father, yet she, the physically abused child, still forgives him in an oh so touching scene, (oh so nauseating scene). The movie gives the message that child abuse is OK because everyone is hunky dory afterwords. No one is willing to take responsibility, in fact, no one can take responsibility. We live in a big comic book where anyone can do anything to anyone else, and it all turns out well in the end.
We're left hanging at the end. Does the wife forgive the husband? Does he live? His yet again appeal for forgiveness and compassion after he was the total bastard was again pitiful. The children, including the beaten one, all rush to him. What does a father have to do before the children and wife say enough? Kill all of them and himself? So they don't have to listen to the terrible sound background of the movie anymore? At the end, I wondered, what was the point of having watched this movie?
The movie seemed to be a poor man's Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf. Albert Finney certainly was an imitation Richard Burton, and I think he did a good job copying Burton. Diane Keaton kept slipping into her Annie Hall persona. Fortunately, she showed us she could do more in this movie. The constant yelling and emotional violence (and physical violence in this movie) reminded me of Virginia Wolf. But in that movie, there was some sort of reconciliation and understanding of the underlying conflict. As another reviewer pointed out, there was no understanding of the roots of the conflict, just a lot of yelling at each other.
However:
As someone else pointed out, most of the scenes are very claustrophobic. Or cluttered. Perhaps the director was trying to make the audience uncomfortable. Or trying to show how the husband and wife were so stressed out. But the result caused me to greatly dislike most of the movie for just this point. In my opinion, this was the work of a bad, egotistical director. "I don't care what anyone thinks or likes, I'll do it my way." Sure, buddy, do it your way. Your way stinks.
Along with cluttered scenes, most of the scenes were loud, screeching, with terrible sound. Again, trying to make the audience uncomfortable? Is this how the couple felt inside, always screeching and yelling and discomfort and pain? That's how I felt watching this movie. Even the ocean sounds were harsh. Also, the childish piano playing grated my nerves. Was this intentional? Or was this a bad sound job? The only way I could watch most of the movie was to turn the sound way low and use subtitles. It wasn't as bad as Catch 22, but bad enough.
That the kids were always talking at the same time and the mother always yelling at them was very unrealistic. This observation was from a professional social worker who has made a long career of working with dysfunctional families.
The racism and antisemitism was disturbing, with the mother's lawyer. More pie in the face to the audience. I think, with the lack of worthwhile police, prosecutors, judges and lawyers, the idea communicated was that these people didn't live in society, that they could do anything they wanted without consequence. Of course, the ultimate would be murder. Why didn't they cheese up the plot (what little of it there was) with this, then have the father say "sorry", and we're all listening to the Rolling Stones again and laughing and dancing.
The lack of police and lack of consequence for violent action was insulting to the audience. The only time a policeman showed up, toward the beginning, the policeman seemed weak and ineffectual. The police weren't called when the several violent scenes occurred. This, and many other scenes, stretches the suspension of belief that movies always require. So, the show becomes a comic book, with one meaningless random scene following another.
In another ridiculous scene, the parents are having sex at a hotel with the kids in the next room, and they don't lock the door, so one of their children walks in and sees them in bed. I suppose the kids walked in on them having sex when they were all living together? Isn't that in itself a form of child abuse? Other reviewers say that the father slowly fell apart due to the divorce, till her was nuts at the end. Sure, people go nuts, but this degeneration was too much and too silly. He essentially lost all moral sense. Was he smoking crack? Oh wait, did they have crack then?
The movie gave the message that it's OK to yell and cause a fight in a restaurant, OK to beat your daughter with a hanger, OK to break and enter, OK to kidnap, OK to do property damage, OK to beat someone to death or nearly so, and all one has to do is say "sorry", and everyone will forgive and we'll all be buddies. They even make fun of this when the daughter points this out to the father, yet she, the physically abused child, still forgives him in an oh so touching scene, (oh so nauseating scene). The movie gives the message that child abuse is OK because everyone is hunky dory afterwords. No one is willing to take responsibility, in fact, no one can take responsibility. We live in a big comic book where anyone can do anything to anyone else, and it all turns out well in the end.
We're left hanging at the end. Does the wife forgive the husband? Does he live? His yet again appeal for forgiveness and compassion after he was the total bastard was again pitiful. The children, including the beaten one, all rush to him. What does a father have to do before the children and wife say enough? Kill all of them and himself? So they don't have to listen to the terrible sound background of the movie anymore? At the end, I wondered, what was the point of having watched this movie?
The movie seemed to be a poor man's Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf. Albert Finney certainly was an imitation Richard Burton, and I think he did a good job copying Burton. Diane Keaton kept slipping into her Annie Hall persona. Fortunately, she showed us she could do more in this movie. The constant yelling and emotional violence (and physical violence in this movie) reminded me of Virginia Wolf. But in that movie, there was some sort of reconciliation and understanding of the underlying conflict. As another reviewer pointed out, there was no understanding of the roots of the conflict, just a lot of yelling at each other.