SnoopyStyle College student Sara Quinn (Julianne Nicholson) conducts a study by interviewing men with stories of disturbing behavior. She also starts observing men in the outside world. She has dates with Ryan (John Krasinski).Nicholson is playing it very passively. The interviews are visually extremely static. There are so many men as subjects that none of them are compelling enough to care about. I suspect that the source material is difficult to adapt. John Krasinski may not be equipped to do so much of the heavy lifting. In the end, he did not find a way to translate this into a watchable movie.

rswtb I have read Infinite Jest, and am a fan of David Foster Wallace's work. Rather than making the obvious Book>Movie comment, I would like to comment on where it worked and where it didn't. DFW, for me, brings to mind the haunting descriptions of melancholy missing from the movie(Though John Krasinski does a decent job in his monologue, surprisingly.) The editing, though true to the style in the book to a certain extent, could have been better on screen.DFW's linguistic talents and extensive vocabulary are retained throughout the movie, which makes it seem unreal(DFW does a great job of separating his voice from that of his characters, I feel). This leads to a strange sequence with the man speaking of his father which is strange to watch.The movie suffers from trying to be a bit too true to the book, but not really knowing how to. There are a few intense scenes reminiscent of DFW's style, but can't really hold the whole movie together.All in all, I wouldn't call the movie a waste of time, but I'd recommend DFW's books anyway.

Warhol_Superstar_no_5 Most of the critical resistance to this 2009 film demonstrate a reluctance to engage with the material, and I feel I don't exaggerate when I say that this doesn't reflect the sad state of film criticism as much as it does a numbness towards the human condition; We spent the bulk of our lives not challenging the perceived gender roles that color our relationships, both sexual and platonic, why would we want to confront their internal dissonances within a movie? As one might expect from an adaptation of a David Foster Wallace book, this isn't a film about a single subject or theme. It is, like its construct, multi-layered, with multiple points of thematic entry. Yet, it coheres from every angle, as long as the viewer is sensitive to what it truly accomplishes best: a tightrope walk between satirical and the emphatic. To quote one of the characters: "Pay attention to the documentarian, not the documentary." This is not to say that the film is centered solely on the interviewee/protagonist - Sara - alone, though her personal life plays a big part in establishing a major theme: The gaze - the sense of being watched by the subject that objectifies you, and its effects on both men AND women. The gaze is allegorized when Sara's ex, Ryan, delivers a heartbreaking monologue about a girl confronting her rapist, in a scene so powerful it actually gives life to the concept without seeming forced or trivial. As he tells his story, in a fit of hostility, Ryan himself breaks down in front of Sara's gaze, unable to confront the undecipherable desire of the other. Another important scene that stands out in relation to this theme is the monologue about one of the subjects' father, a black washroom attendant who never makes eye contact with the men whom he serves.As I said, this is not a film about a protagonist, nor is it about the men being interviewed. It a confrontation of an unspoken, irreducible barrier between people, the trauma at every point in which one recognizes the real in the other, unfiltered through preconceived notions of gender (or, as the washroom scene demonstrates - class/ racial) performativity. Brief Interviews is structured as a series of monologues interwoven to a point of exhaustion, leaving a space of meaning, a gestalt impression of woman's desire, unknown to men, unknown to the women themselves - how could they know? As the film implies, the fairer sex only comes into existence within the male gaze, and when men bring themselves to reflect on her essence they only confront the abyss of their own desire.Together, Wallace's dialogue, the film's relentlessly non-linear yet considered editing, and documentary-like verisimilitude evoke a polished, faux-Brechtian quality, which works to its advantage: the more attention drawn on the artifice of the relationships depicted and less on the diegetic, the more we are prompted to step outside the personal dramas that shape our own perception of what it means to be a male or female viewer, and watch the film on its own terms - or at the very least, consider our own male or female subjectivity on its own terms. Brief Interviews With Hideous Men is a character study of an elusive post-feminist subject that remains elusive by the end of the study. It is not all an exercise in futility, however, as one leaves with a sense that it may have been staring us right in the eye all along.

Heckyess2010 I was skeptical about watching this movie at first because I had heard such harsh criticism about it. However, after watching it I would highly recommend it! I'm a huge fan of John Krasinski and I wasn't sure if he could direct or even act in a film like this. Normally he acts as "the funny guy" and I'm glad to see that there is a serious side to him. The only problem I really had with this movie was subject number 15 (Michael Cerveris). I wish the scene with him talking about his father had been at the beginning so we could've been introduced to him before the ending. Other than that I have no complaints. This is a movie that you should share with the people around you! :)