It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

The movie runs out of plot and jokes well before the end of a two-hour running time, long for a light comedy.

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

The Disppearance Of Eleanor Rigby (nothing to do with the Beatles song except a brief reference by a character) is a thoughtful, exceptionally well made film about a couple dealing with an immense tragedy that has put a weight on their relationship, forcing them to take some time apart. James Macavoy, an actor who continues to impress, and Jessica Chastain, always amazing, play the two with diligent feeling and palpable hurt. Now, there's three different edits of the film. His, which is mostly his side of events following the breakup, where Macavoy takes center stage and we see his life. Hers, which shows us where Chastain ends up, and how she is coping. The third version, Theirs, is a truncated version of both stories, leaving out a lot of key scenes and important beats. His and Hers together come out to about four hours of movie watching, but if you're going to invest yourself in their story, you owe it to you self to watch them both, starting with His. Because there is four hours of their story, they are allowed to develop and interact in a fashion that feels far more genuine and lifelike than a rushed two and a half hour movie. Macavoy is an aspiring cook who runs a small café with his friend and sous chef (Bill Hader, fiercely funny) and yearns for Chastain, angry at life for throwing them the curveball it did. He moves in with his father (Ciaran Hinds gives phenomenal work), a successful restauranteer. Chastain moves in with her folks as well, played by Isabelle Huppert and William Hurt. Hurt, who hasn't been around that much lately, makes up for that by anchoring a key scene with Chastain. It's interesting that he gets to play her father in a film, because they both share a measured, baleful, hypnotic grace in their work, and seeing them interacting was a treat for me, being an immense fan of both their work. Now, the film is more than the sum of its parts, but I mean that in a good way, since the parts themselves are so brilliantly done as well. It's what we expect from the romantic drama Avenue, but because we see an extended fluidity to the work, a narrative free from the fractured conventions of usual editing styles, we feel right there with our two protagonists, every step of the way. More films should break the mold and try to be more than just segmented movies, and use immersion techniques like this to draw us in. Coupled with that unique method of delivery comes a sincere commitment from actors and director alike, to explore an aspect of life and relationships that many see as unpleasant or upsetting, yet can still make for beautiful work. Well worth a watch.

The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby…Him (2013)This is part of a two segment movie about a couple recovering from tragedy (losing a young child) told from the point of view of the mother and father separately. Like "Her," this one is mostly about the protagonist, with some key elements from the relationship unravelling. And like "Her" there is very little about the grieving or the actual tragedy. We are supposed to be dropped into their lives long enough later to be in their individual recoveries.The father here is James McAvoy, and he's good, but he doesn't have the intensity and range of Jessica Chastain, who carries the "Her" movie so well. The supporting cast is thinner here, too—Viola Davis makes only a tangential appearance, and there is little of Isabelle Hupert and none of William Hurt, who both make "Her" rather special. So here we have the somewhat clichéd "friends at a bar" as McAvoy's clan, and it's nothing much.It's tough to judge all of this because I saw "Her" first and so the plot itself was new to me then, and here it is simply the retelling of the same story. So what was most interesting of all was the re-telling of the overlapping sections, seeing the events from different eyes. This wasn't pushed hard, which is fine (this is no "Rashoman"), and so it just makes the pair of movies gel.Beware of the third movie, however—which has the suffix: "Them." I haven't see it (and won't), but it is apparently a mash of the first two, a shortened single version that apparently lacks the potentially probing aspects of the two halves seen singley or together. The two separate movies are sometimes shown or released as a marathon version that is not the same as the shortened, combined Them. So see one of the two single versions and go from there.Advice: "Him" alone is not as satisfying as "Her," for commons reasons like the depth of acting as well as the range of characters. Chastain's version is better by far, but if you do see "Her" first, I think "Him" adds another layer that is satisfying, and not redundant except in just the right moments.

. . . doesn't make much sense, neither do any of the three versions of THE DISAPPEARANCE OF ELEANOR RIGBY (namely, THEM, HER, and this HIM). The third time is NOT always the charm (but HIM rates the best score, as it's much shorter than THEM or HER). If quantity equaled quality, there would be three versions of HEAVEN'S GATE, ISHTAR, and PLUTO NASH, making them hallowed screen classics. The final credits for each of this pretentious RIGBY trio of features list the standard functionaries of "film editor," "script supervisor," and "writer\director." Therefore, what excuse can there be for daring each audience member to slog through five and a half hours (or 325 minutes, to be exact!) of RIGBY raw footage to stitch together an individually unique 75 minutes worth of semi-passable material in the mind's eye? (It's no easier to make a silk purse from three sows' ears--or 325--than it would be to pull off the miracle from just one!) Though it may seem like it from this hash of things, the Rigby cast ain't exactly chopped liver. Finally, while there may be just "50 ways to leave your lover," there's probably more than 100 theories as to how and why Cody died. While Pre-natal Twizzler poisoning and John Lennon's Curse sound tempting to me, my money's on a case of terminal boredom (from being around Conor and Eleanor two whole months, after learning myself what 325 minutes with them does to a person!).

This review is for both the HIM and HER versions of the movie. please note this is just one guy's opinion.. My friend who I watched the movie with loved it.. unfortunately, I did not have the same experience.THE GOOD: 1. The acting, except for Jessica Chastain's performance, is good and all of the actors did their jobs well considering the script. Jess Weixler as the sister did exceptionally well for such a small part. She carried all the scenes in which she appears. 2. Sound and editing. I could hear and understand all of the dialog spoken. The transitions between scenes and the flow of the storytelling felt very natural. THE BAD: 1. The story & dialog felt very contrived & pretentious. A couple deals with the death of their infant son and their relationship breaks down afterward. This is the root of the story but the way these characters deal with such a tragedy is what I found to be so contrived.For example: James McAvoy's Character Conor has a pet goldfish "Ralph" and it dies when his Dad accidentally overfeeds or feeds it the wrong food. The two men have a "heart to heart" talk during a walk to the river to dispose of Ralph's corpse, which is in a little cardboard box, by throwing it in the river. seriously, who would do that? would you do that?another example is a scene where the two main characters are sitting on the sidewalk having a normal discussion about their relationship troubles which is only very odd considering the circumstances that one of them just got hit by a car and The Rescue personal which is clearly there for the whole discussion appear to be just standing around off screen waiting for them to finish the conversation before they load him into the ambulance.There are many more moments like these and it may seem trivia and unimportant to some but for me it is this lack of attention to details that break the story. 2. The cinema photography is too dark in quite a few scenes and the soft blue color correction tint used is an interesting choice and will probably not be a problem for most people but i found it distracting. It took me out of the movie viewing experience just by the fact that I noticed it. 3. Jessica Chastain.. Her acting or her character in this movie rubbed me the wrong way.. i found it wooden. She was unable to emote in a believable manner.. I did not like or sympathize with her character at all but i am not sure whether it is her performance or the way her character is written.. maybe we are not suppose to like her and the fact that her character has difficulty expressing emotion could be intentional.. if so mission accomplished.4.The relationship between the two main characters is strange from the beginning and why in the world the main guy would want to stay with a such a flaky, cold and emotional distant person is beyond me.I watched both movies back to back. The HIM version first and then HER. I liked HIM better than HER but overall hated THEM both. Mediocrity at its best and a complete waste of time unless you are a film maker or screenwriter looking to learn from someone else's mistakes.side note: watch THE ACCIDENTAL TOURIST instead which also stars William Hurt and contains the very same subject matter of a couple that deals with the loss of their son and the break-up of their marriage.