Best movie ever!

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

I love quiet, thoughtful movies. This is a quiet thoughtful movies and I couldn't connect with to it. Dark, slow, repugnant characters, flat, static acting, annoying music, there is nothing to like about this movie. I even snoozed through some of it.Mary Tyler Moore is usually a shining light but even her ugly character is nothing but morose and deadpan.Maybe it is the topic of the movie. Depression and lost love can be a dark hole to go down with nowhere to escape.That is how this movie felt to me. I only had a twinge of sadness in the last couple of minutes to think of the hopelessness of it all and the lost time watching this movie.

i watched this movie start to finish - as i do with 99.9% of all movies i choose to see. this movie has a lot going for it and a lot going to ruin it.the characters - paul, katie, and jeff come across as spoiled trust fund kids that have nothing to do but "deal with their emotions"! paul is totally unbelievable as the grief stricken widower (or whatever he is). paul is just shallow and myopic and completely unconvincing from start to finish. katie adds nothing to the story. and jeff comes across as the only level headed character but drops that element mid story. pathetic! but the cinematography along the hudson river is beautiful and spellbinding. if the 'actors' could be deleted this movie it would be a 10 star flick.if you want to see some beautiful scenes of the hudson river valley this is a great choice. and the soundtrack is wonderful. but all spoiled by a pointless story and bad acting and numb dialog.

Shame they got 3 mil to get this film made. No wonder this is the director's first film. I have no idea what the other reviewers are on! "Warm" "Authentic"? So many other films 5 times as good could have been made for that kind of money. Totally boring "woo-hoo, watch me I'm witty, indie, and I have actor friends in high places"! I couldn't watch this at all. Full of lengthy pretentious "so-called-smart/witty/ funny" dialog interspersed with the prerequisite Sundance indie feel piano track and indie alt-rock band interludes while I'm watching Joe Fiennes swim in the water. Exhilarating entertainment! NOT! Turned it off half-way through screaming in pain!

Attended a Q&A screening of Against The Current at Sundance, and I must say, the film left me in a bad mood.Yes, I enjoyed the cinematography of the Hudson River Valley, and the water photography was impressive. However, the subject matter and dialogue were contrived and predictable. Joseph Fiennes and Elizabeth Reaser's performances were a disappointment, and I felt Mary Tyler-Moore's cameo was unnecessary and distracting. Poor Justin Kirk; I've loved him in every project, but his talent was wasted here. His "funny guy" lines were so terrible, but his attempt to make them palatable is to be commended. I've come to expect more from Sundance, so I had to shake my head when the lights came up. Granted, writer/director Peter Callahan made a valiant effort with Against The Current, but I would have rather seen a more substantial, creative, forward-thinking film from him. Recommended as a rental, if at all.