I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

After a long hideous week at the office, I went to my friend's house for dinner on a Friday night, looking forward to a relaxing night of good friends and good food. She told me she'd rented a couple movies. I'd seen the other one, so we decided to watch Flannel Pajamas. Two hours later, we had to deal with the sad fact that we'd just wasted those 2 precious hours of our lives. This film is badly acted, even more badly written, and badly directed. The movie opens awkwardly--Stuart and Nicole are set up on a double date and fall in love "instantly." Stuart's dialog in this scene is incredibly corny and unrealistic. I turned to my friend and said, "If a guy said this stuff to me on our first date, I'd start looking around for the candid camera." But Nicole seems to lap it up. Later on, as their relationship is just starting to form, she accepts $15,000 from him to pay off her student loans after he offered it in the smarmiest and most condescending way possible. It was just utterly unbelievable, and the acting and writing of the romantic/sex scenes is so awkward that it makes for truly bizarre viewing experience.The sex scenes are almost comical in their gratuitous explicitness (is that a word? you know what I mean.) It was definitely nudity for nudity's sake, and the two leads have no chemistry, so the scenes were completely, completely unerotic. After a while, it got to be so much that my friends and I started playing a drinking game -- a shot of tequila for every body part. The sex scenes abruptly stop when they get married (you know, because when you get married, you just stop having sex and life turns into an episode of thirty-something), which was lucky for us, or else I might have been very hung over this morning.Horrible movie. I felt sorry for all involved. And yet, they have only themselves to blame. If you're looking for a romantic comedy to cozy up to on a quiet night, almost anything else would be better than this, I'm sorry to say.

A remarkable movie. This very New York "scenes from a marriage" traces the trajectory of a relationship from horny, starry-eyed romance to abandonment and desolation. It's funny, clever, romantic, sexually frank, emotionally raw, and painfully believable in ways that we forget movies can be (because we so seldom see movies that are). The dialogue is fast, slick, surprising, literate, and delivered with awesome skill by all the actors. Scripts like this must be what actors live for. Every performance is a gem, and the secondary characters are delineated as memorably as the leads (special kudos to Jamie Harold as the charismatic nut-case brother, and Chelsea Altman as the heroine's poisonous best friend). Scene after scene left me grinning with admiration for the writer and the performers, but if I had to pick one highlight it just might be the sparring match between the young husband Stuart (Justin Kirk), and his mother-in-law Elizabeth (Rebecca Schull) in the hospital cafeteria, about three quarters into the movie. Watch for it. If you let these characters under your skin, the movie will leave you aching in the end. The last few shots are more wrenching than any I've seen in a long while. Not to be missed, especially if you love sharp writing and great ensemble acting. I hadn't even heard of this movie until recently, and few recent movies to spin through my disk player have surprised, delighted, and moved me like this one. The movie is an extra special treat if you know NY City.

I was first introduced to this movie by seeing the trailer every time we went to see a movie at The Angelika in the past month or two. That trailer captured my attention for two reasons: the intensity and honesty I saw on the faces of the actors, and the over-modulation of the musical score which rang to the point of distortion. Regardless, it seemed clear this was a movie we were going to go see when it came out. A talky movie following a failed relationship? Sounded like my life (a few times over)! I suppose how much you enjoy this movie depends on what you expect to get out of it. There is no great resolution, no massive personal growth or moment of sudden clarity. Like any relationship which ends, it all depends on how you look at it. You can continue to expand the picture until it all loses focus, or you can narrow in on single moments. There is no right and wrong.The film follows the relationship of Stuart and Nicole (Justin Kirk and Julianne Nicholson) from meeting on a blind date to dating to marriage and ultimately to separation. Stuart basically sets the stage for the relationship when he declares at the first date that neither he nor Nicole are "evil" (a term he uses to describe Nicole's best friend). He's right - they aren't, they are two kind people who love each other (in some ways) and who want to build a life with each other. Yet throughout the film it becomes clear that love alone is not enough to sustain a relationship. Much like real life, the film is a collection of scenes where people do what they feel is right at the time, even what the think will be right in the future...but good intentions can't erase the facts that often we develop relationships with people who simply aren't suited for us. A successful relationship requires love, commitment, hard work, understanding, and more than anything similar direction and similar priorities.Maybe Stuart and Nicole and both a bit too selfish - they both seem to act out of pure self-interest, Nicole using "I want" frequently and Stuart setting down his own rules and agendas and expecting Nicole to follow them. Perhaps they each carry too much baggage. They both give in to each other without really meaning it, the kind of actions which result in built-up resentment. More than anything, I noticed that the characters refuse to cry in front of each other. To me, that was enough to doom the relationship.In a Q&A session after the film, writer/director Jeff Lipsky explained that they deleted more than 50 scenes in an effort to keep both characters on a rather even playing field. His greatest reward is that people leave the theater arguing over who is more to blame for the failure of the relationship. And those arguments are not split by gender. In the end, there is more than enough blame to go around. The story is about 50% quasi-autobiographical, but the most powerful scenes are fictional (such as the conversation between mother-in-law and son-in-law in the cafeteria).The performances are all strong, and particular attention is paid to Stuart's brother Jordan (Jamie Harrold), who is mentally unstable and quite flamboyant, often overshadowing his sibling. I'm a bit too much like that character though, and with a nice collection of funny lines he is the hardest to dislike. Personally I preferred the performances of Nicholson and of her mother (played by Rebecca Schull).Overall the film is quite good, certainly successful in its own way, and it stays with you...some people might not appreciate that, but I do. As Mr. Lipsky says, he wanted to give you "something to chew on". He accomplishes that, and more.Oh, and as the credits ran, there was the same haunting song from the trailer...and the damn thing was STILL over-modulated to the point of semi-distortion.

Just saw this at Cinema Arts in Huntington NY and I wonder why the negative comments are so nasty. This film is exactly what it claims to be - an independent film, made with limited resources by hardworking actors who give it their all. While all the characters may not be appealing, they are all interesting and have something to say. The younger brother (Jordan), for example, was fascinating. The two leads were excellent and had chemistry that is hard to find in so called major movies. Nicole may have had one or two too many nude scenes, but that's OK. Justin Kirk really caught his character and his dialogue and delivery was excellent. The film could be 20 minutes shorter with tighter editing and might be more enjoyable and have fewer head-scratching scenes. What was the conversation between the mother and the husband in the hospital cafeteria all about and where did it lead to? All in all a six or seven and worth seeing, in my opinion.