User reviews

The plot is one that has occured to all fighting couples - how do you prove who is right after the fact? The problem for the film is this involves going over the same dialogue many times leading to fatigue and a suspension of disbelief that anyones friends would put up with this. A game try and some good scenes - would make a good short film rather than a feature length one.

Greetings again from the darkness. Couples argue. Some more often and more boisterous than others. Things get ugly when friends and other outsiders are drawn into the arguments, which is exactly what we witness (in exaggerated form) with this film from director Robert Schwartzman and writer Zac Stanford (THE CHUMSCRUBBER, 2005). Schwartzman is also a musician and composer, and is the son of ROCKY actress Talia Shire, and the younger brother of actor Jason Schwartzman (MOONRISE KINGDOM, 2012).

Lisa (Emma Bell, A QUIET PASSION, 2016) has just finished her first acting gig (other than a cameo in her husband's film) in a stage production of Mozart. Her husband Jack (Dan Fogler, FANTASTIC BEASTS AND WHERE TO FIND THEM) is simultaneously happy for her and insecure. His insecurity stems from his lack of success as a writer, and his suspicion, bordering on jealousy, of Lisa and her co-star Paul (Tyler James Williams, "Everybody Hates Chris"). The film picks up at the intimate after-party at Lisa and Jack's home. It's here where we meet Paul and his friend Trina (Cleopatra Coleman, "The Last Man on Earth"), and married couple Brett (Danny Pudi, "Community") and Sarah (Maggie Q, "Nikita"). Brett is Jack's literary agent, and he's about as successful as an agent as Jack is as a writer. Sarah is an Entertainment Lawyer, who is as bored with the party as she was with Lisa's play ... she just wants to go home and sleep.

The party ends abruptly when Jack and Lisa get into a fierce argument. Alone in the house, neither accepts the blame, so of course, it escalates. The unconventional solution reached is to recreate the sequence of events with the same people saying and doing the same things they said and did that first night. Then they do it again. And again. A montage of do-overs causes us to lose track of just how many times these poor people re-live a forgettable and unpleasant evening.

A tonal shift occurs when Jack "casts" the party with actors, while still inviting the same friends to watch. Rather than exaggerated relationship issues, we get an exaggerated look at actors finding their characters ... characters who happen to be sitting in the same room! This jolt of fresh faces transforms the film from quirky to slapstick, and it's quite likely you'll enjoy one segment more than the others. The "new" actors bring their own comedic style to the roles: an amped up Mark Ryder ("Borgia") as Jack, actor-within-an-actor Nathan Stewart-Jarrett ("Misfits") as Paul, a subdued Karan Brar (DIARY OF A WIMPY KID) as Brett, a willing Charlotte McKinney (FANTASY ISLAND) as Lisa, and Marielle Scott (LADY BIRD) as Trina.

The do-overs are a creative approach in attempting to solve the argument, but this movie is at its best, not in deep psychological analysis of relationships, but rather in the simple comedy elements on display. Relax and take it for what it is ... a way to laugh at the problems of others without feeling an ounce of guilt. Just please don't throw the pie.

A couple have an argument & basically force their friends ( more Like work Acquaintances) to relive the night that lead up to the Argument over & over (Groundhog Day ish) but less unfolding

It's a perfect set up for a play & indie Film because it only requires one or two locations an Interesting wacky premise. Great cast all fun people to watch and very well put together Hollywood quality ,some awkwardly funny bits.

You do have to suspend your belief quite a bit though Because for a group of friends let alone (Acquaintances) to willingly relive a horrible & awkward night even once just feels highly unlikely.

When they reenact the night the 1st time there's only one voice of reason Early on and it takes a bit long for the friends to realise something's up .I think if they had shortened that bit and and made the characters a little more aware/ responsive to the game being played quicker & cut out 10-15 mins overall and Get to the scene when the actors came in quicker. It would have been pretty perfect.

Still an enjoyable and entertaining enough movie if you know what you're going into.

This movie has a lot of likeable things, but still collapses on itself. The writing is really inconsistent and has a lot of ups and downs throughout the runtime. The movie starts off good, but then some scenes become too dragged and humour becomes pretty forced at times. Instead of quirky, somehow in the middle, the writing shifts to being absurd and then gradually moves to quirky again. Fogler, Pudi, Coleman have done good, but it's Maggi Q who really stands out. This movie had some potential, but crashed.

When I see a movie like this I need to think, "SOMEbody besides the writer thought this was worth raising money for." Doesn't work as comedy, satire, irony - you name it. Most of the actors are trying SO hard but this should not earn a spot on their demo reel. I seem to have a policy of watching movies all the way through no matter what, but "The Argument" may make me revisit this decision.

This is a pretty awful attempt, largely because it's written by a full-time colorist new to writing, ugh, and the director is new to directing, coming from soundtracks, so this is why we're all disappointed. Anyone raving with 8/9/10 ratings are studio shills. You'll be leaning on the FF button alot during this self-indulgent time-trap. Avoid if you value your time.

The premise of the story is pretty crazy. I can't get into the story at all. Even though the ending justifies all the preceding footage, I can't get into the story at all.

I had a boring day and i watched this through. It was like a Woody Allen movie in that it had a weird and different premise. But no one in this movie was able pull it off. Cleopatra Coleman was the only actor that was making anything work in it. Also later when the actors came it became slightly entertaining. Really was a waist of time to bother with this. I don't understand where it got the good reviews. Know what go ahead spend some money and watch..go for it.

I am not really sure this works as a film. It really is a stage play, an old fashioned farce. The ending reinforces this.

The film is about a couple who have a few friends (possibly nearer to work colleagues) round for a mini party and have a minor argument. To decide who is right and wrong they decide to replay the evening over again. Then again and again and again.... Eventually they hire actors to recreate the evening so they can witness it from a distance.

It sounds like a great set up but I just didn't think it really was successfully carried out. It does genuinely get funny when they get the actors involved and worth watching alone for that section of the film.

Overall though it just felt quite a strange film to watch and that I should be sitting in a theatre watching. I felt it really lost something as a film but can't put my finger on it. It was well acted just not quite right.

From the 1970s there was a stage show called Abigail's Party which is along the same lines and was turned into a one off tv show that it reminded me off for not feeling right.

Overall I would give it a go and stick with it as once the actors get involved it is genuinely funny.

When other people started playing the main characters, that was funny. Thats what it should have been - Maggie Q plays the Australian, who plays the actress, who plays Maggie Q etc. Exaggerating each other. Cause the 1st half was boring

It starts of solid, nothing immanently great but better than the regular drab, although it often does feel a bit obvious and trying to hard. However, as the second half of the movie arrives, drastic and unexpected changes occur that really elevate the movie by several good notches. Starts off only ok, but becomes really good by the end. Worth the watch 100%.

This is one of the worst movies I have ever tried watchin. I said "tried" as I was not able to watch it until the end. Horrible would be a compliment.

Sometimes someone gets a smart idea and decides to make a movie out of it, but then lacks the substance to fill out the whole picture.

Pseudo-smarts would say, "No, it is a smart take." "Not everyone's cup of tea."

I'll tell you what it is- BORING. Patting urself on the back about how smart the movie is, yes we can see through the flexing.

Update: They've deleted several Google reviews including mine who didn't like the movie.

It starts a bit slow setting the premise of the argument, one a bit nasty, but around the 30 minute mark, the laughs get going with the psychodramatic re-enactments. Later, before the 1 hour mark, it gets demented crazy hilarious. Wait for it. Sarah the Sock deserves an award. The dead doth trot on our common humanity!

Smart & funny, great ensemble cast. Disagree with those who say it starts too slow. It paces as it should, starting reasonably normal and accelerating into zaniness, with a nice minor twist near the end. Enjoyed it enough to watch it again, a rarity!

Well crafted film, original & and absurd, fun & creative, challenging to pull off a feature in one location like this but I forgot I hadn't left the house!!

Well acted, all around great work. A must see if you like comedy's that are straight down the middle. Act 3 is on another level. Looks really nice too!!

RH88

Loved this movie. Great cast, really hilarious premise, super fun.

Lighthearted with many laughs - just what we needed! We've watched it several times & gleaned quite a few one-liners to use as our inside jokes. Witty, excellent dialogue