Gordon-11 This film tells the story of a group of extended family members getting together for a reunion dinner. Things don't go as well as planned, and relationships fall apart as a result.I honestly don't know what "Days And Nights" is about. There seems to be no real plot. Characters are poorly introduced, and I don't know how they are connected with each other. The first scene is about the dinner, every person talks for a few minutes about what they want but no one is really caring about what is being said. People strangely leave the room one by one. Then in the projector scene is almost the same, as people leave one by one and not connecting - but the whole scene is just bizarre. Thirty minutes into the film, an actress announces that "it doesn't make sense", oh yes the whole film doesn't make sense, you got that right. I watched the film until the end, but it deteriorates increasingly. No one connects with another, and viewers don't care about any of the characters either. It's a family dysfunctional relationship film gone horribly wrong.

lavatch There are countless adaptations of successful stage plays into films. "Days and Nights" is an earnest attempt to update Anton Chekhov's play "The Seagull." When this play was first produced in 1896, it was considered a flop. But when it was revived by the stage director Konstantin Stanislavsky to open his new Moscow Art Theater in 1898, it was hailed as a masterpiece.The producers of this film clearly had a passion for Chekhov. Music figures prominently in Chekhov's plays, and the music in the film version was also intended to be intrinsic to the characters' lives. The screenwriter's goal was to adapt Chekhov's play to the Reagan era in America of the 1980s. Chekhov was an apolitical playwright, and it was not clear what was intended by inserting one of Reagan's speeches about the Berlin wall as a backdrop for the ennui of the characters. Another curious choice was to incorporate a subtle message about environmental issues. A bald eagle replaces Chekhov's seagull. And the housing developers are encroaching on the rural setting of the play--a detail that appears closer to Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard" than "The Seagull." ************* Spoiler Alerts ***************** The following should not be read by those who have not completed their film viewing:A major change from Chekhov's original play is the depiction of the character of Nina, who is seduced by the well-known writer, Trigorin. In the updated version, the successful filmmaker Peter (Trigorin) plots to run away with Eva (Nina), the young woman who is the love of the life of Eric, the avant-garde writer Konstantin in Chekhov's original play. But before Peter and Eva can meet to leave the lakeside retreat, Peter runs over and kills Eva in a pick-up truck! At the end of the film, there is a sad reunion at the lake three years later. Still haunted by the memories of Eva, the now successful film artist Eric also is present for the family reunion. In Chekhov's play, Nina, who has been jilted by Trigorin, has a final conversation with Konstantin, rejecting him once again. But in the updated version, Eric has a vision of the deceased Nina, then shoots himself, which is the same ending as Chekhov's original play.************* End of Spoiler Alerts ************** The hard-working cast (Allison Janney, William Hurt, Mark Rylance, and others) attempted to inhabit the lives of their characters. But the film adaptation lacked the depth, complexity, and the multi-dimensional nature of Chekhov's characters.One limitation of this film is that it is imperative that the viewers know the original play by Chekhov; it is not a successful stand-alone film. It may be fair to conclude that there was only one Anton Chekhov. No re-written version of his play will ever surpass the original in its seemingly endless insights into human nature.

tim-arnold777 I would say the finale of this film could be a spot-on summation of the average viewer's overall demeanor for being suckered into watching the film and possible self-destructive bent to paint the walls with their gray matter. After wading through the many unsympathetic, and downright tedious characters depicted in this long-winded overblown film, I can't believe I hadn't shut it down to watch something more entertaining...like a moth circling around my living room lamp. Allison Janney, William Hurt, Jean Reno...Katie Holmes (oh well can't blame her for trying anything to put more distance between herself and Psycho-entologist ex-hubby Cruise) one might think the acting talent could make this movie worth my while. Wrong. I suppose even the best of actors can't make a turd dance a foxtrot.

Richard Burbage I can't actually recall an experience like that before. I had an ache where one thinks his heart is and isn't from the opening scene. It was brilliant as to how many stories where being told...not just the obvious, but the undercurrent of painful love amongst everyone. The writing was magnificent, but the changes were brilliant...the Eagle...amazing metaphors. I was absolutely stunned by the actors and their brilliance and reality, especially Katie Holmes with her quiet desperate life and then realization when she may lose it. The painful and complicated love between every character was almost overwhelming but balanced by the humor, which is often the case in real life. The stunning set and beautiful cinematography startles one from the outset with the lake shot, and The Visconti like use of lighting and color was something I have NOT experienced since...well Visconti. The moving camera from window to window initially sets up the vignettes that the entire film revolves around and tells the story. So complicated in subject, so real in presentation. I could spend hours talking about this film and far more than writing about it. What an achievement....what a piece of art....what an accomplishment...the first real FILM I have seen in many many years. Most importantly it will impact and change peoples lives. It did mine.