Männer, Frauen und die Wahrheit über Sex

This is basically the filmed dissatisfaction of upper-class yuppie life. These are people who have everything but seem to live in a swamp of self loathing and hateful arrogance and selfishness. Their tart, affective interplay is like watching a game of mumbletypeg, but with words. These are the kind of people you would not want to live next door to, but these are the people who usually seem to win in our society, sad as that is to ponder.

Jason Patric plays the single most evil person in movie history. His 'shower scene' is sick, twisted, but oddly humorous. You hate yourself for laughing, which is the point. In that way you understand how these people are born. They are us.

This is arrogant mall culture, the kind of American decadence the Soviets warned us about. At least they were right about that.

The film is about how creeps become dissatisfied at their own creepiness. Great dialog, the ending makes complete, yet sad, sense. Our world is mad, and we need to change it, before it eats us whole.

Jerry lives with Terri but Terri is irritated by everything he does especially the way he talks during sex and needs to analyse everything. They are friends with Barry and Mary who have sexual problems as Mary is rarely roused for sex. Jerry makes a move to meet up with Mary to have sex behind Barry's back. Meanwhile Cheri works at an art gallery and picks up people there and Jerry and Barry's friend Cary lives his sex life devoid of any care or consideration for anyone else.

I have previously seen In the Company Of Men so I was prepared for the sort of view point the director seems to take regarding the nature of men and women but even then, this is still a pretty depressing look at relationships. Our characters are barely even given names, certainly no last names, and they are rarely used when you listen. More than that the names are pretty typical – the sort of names you might make up if you were put on the spot, like John Smith. The point being that these characters are not supposed to be fictional but more `everyman' characters. However is this what everyone is like? – does everyone have major relationship issues and try to have affairs with their best friends etc? Do people really have stories of male rape as their best sexual experience? I doubt it – this is a real condensing of the whole human experience into a handful of characters.

It works quite well because it is very frank and this kept my interest. Not shocking but I did want to keep watching because the dialogue was good. Sadly I could have cared less about the actual lives before me. As a plot I didn't get involved partly because it was so fake feeling – it was obvious from day 1 that LaBute was not going to give us the luxury of even one mildly messed up relationship, no – it was obvious that everything that could fail would. The dialogue does save the film as it is well written and darkly funny, however it just wasn't enough of a story – instead it was rather smugly self aware.

The cast do well with the dialogue and the film is staged more like a play than a roaming film, with mostly static interior shots used. Stiller is good but doesn't excel himself. Eckhart shows how good an actor he is by playing a character so the opposite of his character in LaBute's previous film and playing it well. Patric steals the show but his character is the least developed. He is the funny one and is like Eckhart's character in `In the Company Of Men' in that he is selfish and cruel to women. However his character seems to be LaBute's ideal in this piece as he is the only one who seems to get what he wants – is this the moral of the film? The female characters are weaker as you'd expect. Brenneman cuts a pathetic character and simply mops around a lot. Kinski is given little to do although Keener has a stronger part to play.

Overall I enjoyed this because it was full of good dialogue that keeps you listening because of how very frank it is. However that doesn't mean that the story or film is involving and it does feel a little distant and not based in any life I've ever lived. A bit too cruel, harsh and dark but it just about gets by on those credentials – but the music of Metallica played on violin is worth watching the credits for!

"Your Friends and Neighbors" is one of those movies which sports a good cast, is well produced, and has few flaws with one HUGE exception. It sucks. Supposed to be a provocative misanthropic study of the politics of sex among three guys and three gals, the characters are obvious fabrications who are doing the director's bidding, behaving in silly and unnatural ways so as to make the flick work...more or less. Some young adults may find a modicum of entertainment in this film. However, those who have been there, done that, will likely find the flick a fraudulent dissertation and much ado about nothing.

As I watched this film, I noticed the distinct acidity in

my mouth, which I'm sure the director of "Your Friends and Neighbors" was looking for. However, I found myself feeling irritated by the "clever" devices used in the film. For example, using the "artist's assistant" scene over and over to tell us a little about each person's character, is a trite and "cute" trick, employed many times before in films- and better. Worse yet, the scenes didn't show me anything "new" about the characters that I > didn't already know. Worse yet, the Jason Patric character, while well- acted, was a far too obvious one.

I already knew what his problem was long before the "pseudo-confessional" sauna scene. I mean, what a surprise. In fact, I was stunned to hear LINES I'd heard and read years ago, in this scene. This was obviously the big set-piece, the Oscar-baiting scene every actor dreams about, but I was waiting to hear him say something original. If this was supposed to be "insightful", then give me a break. The characters I didn't understand, were Amy Brenneman and her big, lunky husband. Since (gasp) "Insight 101" was the prevailing theme of this film, what was the deal with this pair? Eternal boredom, or not enough work-outs at the gym? Were the "pregnant pauses' at the dinner table supposed to remind me of a Bergman film? These silences held only dead air- not meaning. It didn't take long before I didn't care. While I'm sure that the director/writer wanted us to know that these outwardly sharp and clever people were dysfunctional in their relationships (surprise)- I wanted something new.

And might I mention- "La Ronde" has already been made, and so very much better.

I gave this movie about 45 minutes and then left. I cannot believe Roger Ebert actually gave this movie 4 stars! It took forever to get going and was painstakingly slow. A more dramatic flair for a very promising plot. Anybody who liked this movie must be comatose!