Bad Manners

This should not be the question. The writer's intention was to characterize four different types of people and the opinions they have about each other. Who believes whom? Who trusts whom? And who is lying? And why? The German title of the movie means „Little Lies Among Friends` in English, which hits the nail on the head: This story is a small, even a little sadistic view on interhuman relationships and how they are easily destroyed by secrets, lies and misunderstandings.

I really enjoyed the movie, although it's easy to see that it was a play originally; the constellation of characters reminds very much of Albee's „Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?` and many dialogues are longer than usual in movies. Of course, „Bad Manners` lacks Albee's brilliance of language and his mental brutality, but it's a creative approach. Especially David Strathairn's character is very interesting because it's the most unpredictable one.

This is a very funny, very sad, verbally intoxicating challenge for four gifted screen actors who take you along through a domestic crisis caused by an untimely visit by a wife's college boyfriend and his current infatuation. It could have been called "The Fifty Dollar Misunderstanding". Only in the last few minutes of screen-time are the stage origins too obvious. I loved this movie.

Great actors, good filming, a potentially interesting plot, and what should have been good dialog. Nothing else is good about this movie. Perhaps the writer or director thought they could make a thought provoking film out of annoying characters who are as deep as a cup of coffee.

Within 10 minutes I disliked the portrayal of Kim by Caroleen Feeney so much that it became a distraction. While Kim is supposed to be an unsympathetic character, I am not sure I was supposed to want to commit acts of physical violence upon her. The first (of many) bizarre things that happen is that Wes (David Strathairn) goes from "I am missing $50.00" to "She stole 50$" in about 3 seconds. It was quite implausible, since she (Kim) never had access to his wallet nor was she a master pickpocket-- there simply was no rational reason to suspect her. Most people have lost/misplaced money and assume just that... we LOST it. Same goes for Kim later. All very unrealistic behavior in what is supposed to be (I think) a look at real people. The character of Kim was, at minimum, suffering from a BiPolar disorder. Wes had huge inadequacy issues, Nancy was just boring, and Matt was delusional (particularly about music). I actually turned this off about 2/3 of the way through. However, to write a valid comment, I forced myself to turn it back on hoping that something would come together in this movie. No, sorry, it was still bad. Make it a point to miss this one.

An ageing couple of academics are stuck in a stale marriage. Her old boyfriend comes to stay for a few days with his (much younger) girlfriend. Things are tense from the beginning. And then $50 goes missing.

This is an extraordinary film. I started watching it while working on my computer - so the movie was just on in the background - but gradually it pulled me in and I couldn't take my eyes off it.

The scenario it sets up could have gone in a number of different directions. At one point early on I had a horrible feeling it was going to be a standard sex flick about middle-aged adultery. Or, after the money goes missing, it might have moved too fast and forced us to watch a bunch of repressed characters suddenly turning to screaming and violence. But no - it's classier than that. What we get instead is a slow-burning exploration of character and relationships. And it isn't at all clear where it is going to go.

I won't over-praise it. The film drags at times, and as others have said its origins as a stage play are very obvious (there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, except that it does show a slightly limited imagination). The acting is good, rather than top-notch, and personally I always find Saul Rubineck is one of those actors who plays the same character every time.

So it is not perfect. But if you're in the mood for something a little 'off the beat,' it's worth watching. Just don't expect to get any work done while it's on!

This film works on a number of levels. First it is a nice satire on academic life. As others have noted, it is a companion piece to Whose Afraid of Viginia Woolf. It does a nice job of satirizing the competitiveness and egotism of academic life. It also raises two important issues: how can/does non-scientific spirituality interact with a scientifically-minded academic community and misfortune can lead to misunderstanding and ruined relationships. The movie allows us to think about these two problems without forcing any really heavy conclusions on us.

The acting is excellent and the direction terrific. May wife and I (both teachers) were laughing in just about every scene. I think teachers and other intellectuals will really appreciate the movie. Others may have a tougher time with it.