sashaovek First, the technical problems with this stinker: The sound is so poor that you can't understand the actors half the time. The colorist decided to turn the saturation up to 11 so that the entire film looks like it was put through a Photoshop filter from 1999. Finally the story is about children trapped in adult bodies who do the equivalent of fart jokes as their only means of communication. I guess they are transchildren.The Canadian content is stuffed down every opening of the human head non-stop. First we get tourism, then we get the Beaches in Toronto, then we get a bunch of Toronto only Canadian bands throughout, Leonard Cohen is thrown in to class up the joint, and in the final alcoholic crisis scene we are forced to listen to Burton Cummings on the car radio.The threadbare story is a woman that is bored with her life and latches on to the first good looking sarcastic pauper she finds. Only this pauper (a rickshaw driver) has oodles of money and lives in Toronto's toniest areas and can afford about $15,000 a month in rent.It is so boring that you'll probably decide to mop the floor or clean the toilet while its playing. But your patience will be rewarded. At the end there is one of the most unintentionally hilarious sex scenes to ever hit the silver screen. Our amoral heroine who emotes constantly from every pore finally bags her Adonis (with her cuck of a husband's permission) and as the camera whirls around their lovemaking it gets funnier and funnier. At first its the Kama Sutra 101 then with each circle more people join in, threesomes with girls, threesomes with guys.... I fully expected a goat and some chickens to join in the fun. This is a chick film that was left in the nuclear reactor and came out mangled and unable to walk or talk.The author's message is clear. Men should just get out of the way while women explore their sexual fantasies while they laugh and cry A lot.This is truly Mystery Science Theatre 3000 material.

sol- Romanced by a stranger overseas who, as it turns out, resides her neighbourhood, a happily married woman contemplates an affair in this Canadian drama starring Michelle Williams. Torn between reliving the sparks of courtship and keeping her marriage to her loving husband intact, Williams provides a remarkably sympathetic turn. Seth Rogen is also good in a rare dramatic turn as her kindhearted husband, blissfully unaware of what she is up to in her spare time. The fact that Rogen is not unloving and not neglectful makes the situation all the more interesting as Williams has put a perfectly good marriage at risk to pursue to passion of young lovers that her heart desires. The film lacks the subtlety required to really resonate though. It telegraphs its agenda far in advance with Williams told early on that "new things get old" by an older woman in her swimming class, yet it takes her almost the entire film to realise how this applies to her life. The sketchiness of the romance between Williams and Luke Kirby (as the neighbour) seems like a misstep too, though one thing the film absolutely nails is the incorporation of "Video Killed the Radio Star" by the Buggles. Apparently, writer-director Sarah Polley only used the song because her brother likes it, but the message of the pop tune is eerily telling here in this tale of something new and exciting that threatens to overtake something else working perfectly fine as it is. Marriage is like radio and an affair is like video, and with this analogy in mind, can one really blame Williams for wanting it both ways?

Miss-Meggo I love cutesy indie films and quirky romance as much as the next millennial. But I really hated this film. In simple terms, Margot, played by Michelle Williams, is selfish and childish, and she throws away a marriage because it's boring. That in and of itself would be a good topic for a film: it is normal for relationships to get boring and individuals to question if they are happy. However, none of Margot's actions are mature, she goes through very little personal growth, and ultimately the film ends with her having a pity-party for herself instead of growing as an adult. The film starts with the married Margot on a business trip. She meets Luke, a handsome stranger that she instantly has chemistry with, on the flight home. They do pointless quirky things and have conversations that are so forcefully quirky that they actually become banal. When they land, she learns that Luke is her new neighbor. Margot begins to wonder if she's truly happy in her five year old marriage to Lou, played by Seth Rogen, while also toying with the idea of a relationship with Luke. Eventually, she leaves Lou for Luke, they have a grand old time, but eventually that relationship also becomes boring and Margot has a self-pity party and the movie ends. Now, for the reasons why this movie is terrible. First off, the quirky rom-com job that Luke has is rickshaw driver. But he's also an artist. Err... wait, not an artist. He's just a painter because, and this is his actual explanation, "I paint for myself and I pay my rent by driving a rickshaw through town like a modern day hobo." He's too much of a coward to show other people his art, so he can't be an artist. This revelation comes right after a pointless exposition about how he understands Margot better than she understands herself and sees that "part of her is not living up to her full potential." Please note that this is a woman he has known for the length of a plane ride and coffee shop visit, but I guess we're supposed to read his spot on intuition about Margot as romantic. This is also just one of many examples of exposition in this film: it seems to be largely incapable of "showing" things and instead just chooses to have characters explicitly outline them.Meanwhile Lou and Margot's relationship continues to be uneventful. Except they too have such eye-rolling levels of "quirky" banter that you quickly lose any investment you might have in their relationship and just hope it ends so you don't have to hear them cutely describe, and again this is true, the ways they want to mangle each other to death. Not a word of dialogue between them feels authentic or sincere. It's as if the script writer had a friend say "Me and an ex used to threaten each other but in a romantic way. You should try that!" The writer was hell bent on coming up with cutesy yet unique dialogue, but the result is not interesting and does nothing to set up a believable relationship between the characters. Margot tries to cheat on Lou multiple times, but at no point over the course of the movie do they actually have a conversation about the state of their relationship, which at most is boring. Lou is not abusive, unemployed, lazy, uncaring, or uninteresting. The reason Margot is unhappy is because she is needy and the relationship has reached the stage where things naturally mellow out and the mundanity of life is the primary part of the relationship. This was the main reason I watched this movie: the idea of dealing with a relationship that has lost it's spark is realistic but also is rarely portrayed successfully in film. I had high hopes for a film that took on such a relatable aspect of life.Instead though, we get a selfish woman who callously leaves her husband only to woefully realize later that this new relationship will also become boring. She regrets leaving her husband, but not because she's experienced any kind of personal growth; it's more of a self-pity where she cries over what she lost and not what she did or the personal flaws that led to her making such a mistake. And, like the intuition that Luke has about Margot, this is all told to the audience via expose instead of shown through emotions and actions. Basically, Lou's alcoholic sister crashes her car and tells Margot that despite the fact that she (the alcoholic) is a screw-up, that Margot is the one who made a mistake she should regret. This film is really bad at showing, not telling which makes it a waste of the medium. In the end, Margot's personal growth moment comes when she decides to go to the fair by herself and has some realization about relying on herself, but ultimately she never grows up beyond "woman-child who doesn't know how to deal with no one paying attention to her." The realistic difficulties of being in a relationship are given nothing more than lip service in this film and ultimately we just watch a woman throw away a relationship because she's too petulant to have an adult conversation with her husband about what she wants and instead chooses to run off with a creepy prince charming bullshit character. It's like this movie was written by a high schooler who really thought that Summer was the bad guy in 500 Days of Summer.

chaiknees5 Okay, so maybe a 1 seems a little harsh, but I don't even f--king care because of how much this movie just annoyed the s--t out of me. I can't even really place where the hate I feel for this film comes from. I can't get over how the title had NOTHING to do with the movie, besides the fact she used the song by the same name in the actual movie, which bothered me terribly because the SONG had nothing to do with what happened ever. Uh, alright then? Take This Waltz by Leonard Cohen is a masterpiece of a song that had no business being in this film. I thought the movie was going to be about dancing, for Christ's sake. I wish someone else would actually use the song in a beautiful way, the way it deserves, and in a way that is relevant and makes sense. What a pointless film, seriously.