What a waste of my time!!!

best movie i've ever seen.

How wonderful it is to see this fine actress carry a film and carry it so beautifully.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

It's like they couldn't d code whether to rip off woody Allen or Wes Anderson. The bits don't work either.

Conrad Valmont (Jason Bateman) is a rich man almost 40 "easing into adulthood." He wants a relationship but has trouble with them. Then out of the blue, his parents while away, opt to get divorced and he is cut off because...he is. He rooms with a friend (Billy Crudup) and steals his prospective girlfriend Beatrice (Olivia Wilde). He tells neither of them of his financial situation, letting them think he is still rich. He has no trouble lying, stealing, borrowing, and being a general A-hole.The movie has a monologue to fill in plot points and some theme ideas. It has some minor comedy such as when Beatrice claims she is a vegetarian not because she loves animals, but hates vegetables. The dialogue appears to be the film's strong point, although it was overly pretentious, as was the film. The film is critical of people being pretentious and those who say they are pretentious, perhaps done as a way to be critical of the great Romantic novelists or those who inherit their wealth or all those critics who are going to say this was a pretentious film.There are scenes that are similar to what you might see in a Woody Allen film, but are second rate.The film was boring. I couldn't relate to any of the shallow characters. Valmont was the only real developed character and he was stiff. Worse than "Arthur 2".No F-bombs or nudity. Implied sex.

And Whit Stillman. And Wes Anderson. No question here who first time director Peter Glanz looks up to and idolizes! He has even copied the whole idea of setting a film in the 60s....but I assume (from the "making of" featurette on the DVD) that he is far, far too young to have even been a small child in the 60s. This isn't nostalgia or history...it is just homage to directors who are 30 years older than himself.If you are going to go to the expense and trouble of setting a film in a specific historical setting, you'd think you would have a POINT to it...it has some link to history of that era....or it references something in your personal life, or that of a relative. Or it's based on a novel or incident from the past. Otherwise, it feels pointless. The director clearly has no real feeling or nostalgia for the past, except for "mod fashions of the 60s". Or maybe it has something to do with the success of "Mad Men", which has done more to make the 60s have a comeback than anything else I know. But "Mad Men" is making a point about how the history of the 60s, is the underpinnings of so many things we think and do today...part of our evolution as a culture. "The Longest Week" has no point. It is utterly trivial.The story is about a useless trust fund brat (Jason Bateman) who is 40ish and suddenly his absent parents cut him off (for no real reason). He has to crash with his best friend, a successful pop artist (Billy Crudup). He meets a beautiful model (Olivia Wilde, a little long in the tooth for a fashion model of the era -- Twiggy was SIXTEEN) and they have a week-long affair while he is displaced from his lavish lifestyle in his parent's luxe hotel suite.That's IT. He "suffers" (stealing money from his friends) for ONE WEEK. This week is so transformative, he grows up (sort of).I don't know a thing about the director, but it made me wonder if he was this same sort of trust fund brat. In the post 2008 economic climate, it is REALLY hard to work up sympathy for some billionaire's spoiled man-child.No surprise this film was shelved for over 2 years before going direct to video, based I am sure solely on the star names. In that time, bit part player Jenny Slate (she plays a blind date of the hero) rose to prominence in the (much better) indie film "Obvious Child"; as a result, she is given TOP BILLING. But she only has a couple of brief scenes.I enjoy 60s nostalgia as much as anyone (I was actually around then!) but this feels as fake and sterile as a display in department store window.It did occur to me watching this...it is clearly set in about 1966 (from the clothes model Beatrice wears). If Conrad Valmont (Bateman) is 40....today, in 2016, he would be...90. That shook me up a bit. It's worth thinking about. Clearly it never crossed the director's mind (i.e., what happened through the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, to these vapid characters).(I would have been interested to see the original B&W short that the director showed at Sundance. Too bad, it is not included on the DVD extras and I can't even find a link to it on Vimeo or anywhere on IMDb.)

First of all I enjoyed the acting of Bateman and Olivia Wilde. They are both a joy to watch. The story is having it's ups and downs, and the narration is something that I personally like in movies. But the main reason why I would recommend someone to watch this film is the cinematography. Great photographic scenes, depth of field, rule of thirds, low key, minimalist. Fantastic use of all the techniques. If you are a photographer you'll realize what I mean. Although even if you don't have any photography background you'll simply enjoy the view. Hats off to cinematographer Ben Kutchins, great work! Of course it doesn't hurt that Olivia Wild is damn gorgeous...