poetcomic1 Those who were Brooklynites in the 80's will enjoy the scenery enough to make this a must-see for the backgrounds alone! Jeff Daniels portrait of a spiritually empty narcissist of an intellectual writer is merciless and spot on. I really KNOW this guy from real life. The older son imitates his father's arrogance and immaturity, slavishly echoing dad's opinions on Dickens and 'philistines' and then finally hurting and alienating the sweet girl who wants to care about him. The 'indie film' gives itself the freedom to show us a lot of pain but not a lot of pat answers. I know many viewers can't stand that. The mother, well played by Laura Linney is seen through everyone else's eyes but we never get to see her through her own eyes - she has no 'therapeutic' moment of revelation. I needed one more scene with her and perhaps with her older son. That is why I didn't give this a 9. I need to know mom just a little more - it bugged me.

dissident320 There is quite a personal feel to this movie that captures a couple that is divorcing and how that affects their children. I enjoy the interesting rhythm to the dialogue in Noah Baumbach movies and this one was no exception. The family is portrayed as overly honest and perhaps inappropriate conversations with their children. Overall it's an interesting slice of life type of movie. There's a bit of a story as everyone adjusts to the divorce but it's really not about payoff. The running time is under 90 minutes so it's short and sweet and doesn't outstay its welcome.

Irie212 So we have the Berkman family falling apart in Brooklyn in 1986-- they're affluent white folks who live in a spacious brownstone in Park Slope. The father (Jeff Daniels, superb as always) is an acclaimed novelist whose fame is on the wane, so he also teaches. The mother (Laura Linney) is a budding writer, which causes marital tension because her stories are also so acclaimed that they make it into the most notoriously difficult magazine to crack, The New Yorker.I waited for the author of this fiction, Noah Baumbach, to scale back toward reality, but no. It got worse, and hit bottom with the scene at the high school talent show. That is when their teen-aged son, Walt (Jesse Eisenberg), performed an original song on guitar, to great acclaim (of course). He wins the competition. And no wonder. His song is quite a memorable tune. It's "Hey You," by Pink Floyd. Time for a reality check. Pink Floyd's album, The Wall, which includes "Hey You," was issued in 1979, topped the Billboard charts for 15 weeks, and was eventually certified 23x platinum. So we can assume that it would be familiar to at least a few of the parents and teachers, not to mention students besides Walt, in a New York City high school. I mean, no community is that hopelessly square, right? But, to my amazement (and disbelief), the only person who notices the plagiarism is the local tennis instructor, played as a smiling buffoon by William Baldwin, who says words to this effect: "Hey, Walt, I really like that song you wrote by Pink Floyd."This gets Walt an appointment with the school psychiatrist. His 12- year-old brother, Frank, really should have his head looked at too. He's guzzling beer at home and leaving semen stains all over school.There are is no emotional build here, no fresh insights, or even freshly packaged ones. The characters might as well be in any of the various Hollywood movies that insult suburbia as a soul-dead, all- cracker culture (Reservation Road, The Ice Storm, Pleasantville, American Beauty), because setting it in tribal Brooklyn wasted the multi- ethnic, hyper-urban essence of that vibrant borough. It is only the performances-- and really only Jeff Daniels, who brings an unnerving calm to the arrogant, selfish, and pompous man he plays-- that made me stay with the film. I cannot imagine why it was received with the kind of acclaim that implausibly follows its characters.

sharky_55 Bernard Berkman is somewhat of an intellectual, to put it lightly. He will conjure references and allusions to the most obscure of artists in ordinary conversation, and is a former highly successful writer himself. In fact his last, breathless (heh) words to his ex-wife as he is taken away on an ambulance is something about a vague memory of them watching Godard but only he enjoying it. This seems, well, pretentious as some viewers might call it, but I think what it really says about Bernard is that he is the kind of intellectual snob that gets off on this sort of stuff - it rules him, and his own self-image. Then there is conflict and divorce, partly because Joan has found success with her own writing, but this is never really touched on. This too seems like another extension of Bernard - he feels threatened by her fame and ability, whilst for Joan it is not even close to being something of an ego-booster. In reality the film is predominately about the elder son Walt. If there's one major criticism it is that this focus takes away from the younger son's storyline; it's filled with strange, bizarre ideas about sexual awakenings and nascent adolescence but these are merely footnotes compared to the deeper, richer story of Walt. Frank provides an opposition for Walt's initial misgivings - they both take one parent's side, as divorce plots mandates they should, and Walt has been indoctrinated into blaming her mother for overshadowing Bernard's spotlight and sleeping around, causing the fracturing of the marriage. Eisenberg has a specific sort of acting persona. It is less pronounced and easily identified here in his early career, but here it is nevertheless effective, manifesting in his cold, snobbish front that is no doubt a response to his father's lack of attention and presence in his early years. He puts on an appearances of being well-read as a way to gain his approval, although we don't need to read his report on Gatsby to know how impossibly pretentious his views are. His desire to have sex is off-put by his fear and inexperience of it, hence pushing away Sophie, pretending it is a non-issue and overcompensating by chasing Lili. This bubble isn't broken until he stumbles upon Bernard basically trying to rape her - in that moment Walt's high-minded regard takes a blow, staggers and begins to re-consider, especially after his continually lambasting of his mother's active sexual lifestyle. Opposing this is a rather awkward, forced moment where Joan bumbles down to a surprised Frank, having obviously been in the middle of sex. If anything by applying the blowtorch to Bernard's indiscretions the film lets off Joan a little lightly. The most simple way to see the effect of Bernard on his sons is actually in sports. He has convinced himself and others that he is half decent at tennis and table tennis (and yet continually berates Ivan and those wishing to take up a career in professional sports), and passed that enthusiasm onto Frank and Walt. But what he has also passed along is the ugly, brutish form of his strokes, and the inevitable explosion of anger upon losing a point. This sort of inheritance is touched on in another interesting titbit. Sophie, upon finding out Walt is breaking up with her, tearfully goes to the old 'mother and father were right about you'. Apparently a simple handshake can be extrapolated to a weak will and decision making process. The whole thing is little more than a wink to the audience; after all Sophie is less a fully formed character and more an amalgamation of attributes and traits that Walt is supposed to be too blind to appreciate. And yet it does feel like a genuine line - a concrete impact of parenting that rubs off on the willing children. She too bears those scars, but perhaps they aren't as deep as those in the Berkman family.