The Invisible Circus

To suggest, as a previous reviewer has done, that women are the only ones who will be able to sit through this movie is not only sexist but also false. I am a woman, and hated this film. The bottom line, whether you are male or female, is that this movie is terrible in many ways. The failure of this film can be blamed largely on Jordana Brewster. Her Phoebe is by turns annoying, cruel, selfish, ridiculous... you name it -- Brewster is almost unwatchable in her portrayal of a difficult character. I imagine an actress with more emotional sensitivity could have pulled it off and made the character a bit sympathetic, but Brewster fails entirely. From what I understand, she is studying at Yale... let's hope she's majoring in something other than drama. Cameron Diaz fares better -- unlike Brewster, she's actually acting. But her character Faith is cursed by writer/director Adam Brooks, who robs us visually and verbally of Faith's real struggle. He has the other characters inform us that Faith is upset, rather than give Diaz the chance to really portray the conflict onscreen. And so when we finally reach the point where we learn what really happened to her character, it feels like an anticlimax. Diaz tries her best, but she can't save Faith. I'm a fan of both Christopher Eccleston and Blythe Danner, and why either of them chose to appear in this movie is a mystery to me. Eccleston, like Diaz, is given little to work with -- he's reduced to a series of broody stares at Brewster and a very bad hippie wig that makes him look older, not younger. Danner, as Phoebe and Faith's mother, is limited largely by poorly written dialogue and by the fact that all of her scenes are with Brewster. Given the dramatic potential of the story, I think it could have been a better film in the hands of another writer/director, and with someone other than Brewster as the central character. As it is, Brooks has given us Brewster in an uneven, poorly-written and emotionally lacking display of moviemaking. The Invisible Circus is a waste of time.

This is a case where the script plays with the audience in a manner that serves only in extending this story to 90 minutes. Story starts out in 1969 where a young girl named Faith (Cameron Diaz) travels to Europe with her boyfriend Wolf (Christopher Eccleston) but she dies under mysterious circumstances. Then in 1976 Faith's sister Phoebe (Jordana Brewster) decides to travel to Europe as well and try and find out what happened to her sister. In France she looks up Wolf who has stayed there and she wants him to help her retrace the steps her sister took and answer some questions. He is reluctant but decides to travel with her. Along the way he fills in the gaps of the occurrences and tells Phoebe that Faith had joined up with the Red Army who are an extremist group that is involved in terrorism. Phoebe and Wolf engage in a romance and this complicates the trip to Portugal where Faith died. Their is several things wrong with this film and it all has to do with the script. First, the romance between Wolf and Phoebe is all wrong and does nothing for the story. It rings completely false and comes across as forced. It seems weird that Wolf would engage in a romance with his dead girlfriends sister. Secondly, Wolf knows completely what happened to Faith but only lets out little chunks of information every 15 minutes or so. Wolf will look at Phoebe every 15 minutes and say, "There is something I didn't tell you"! Gee, thanks a lot Wolf! If Wolf had come clean the first time he talked to Phoebe then the film would have been over in about 30 minutes. Another thing that bothered me was that I don't think this film recreated the 1960's at all. Diaz wears hippie clothes but the time period just didn't ring true. I did enjoy a few things like the authentic locations where the film was shot. It is a very good looking film and the scenery is beautiful. The performances are all good especially by Brewster and Diaz. Besides "The Fast and the Furious" I had never really seen Brewster in anything. But after watching her performance in this film I came away very impressed. She's very good here and I hope better roles come her way. The script is told in a very contrived way and the film never comes across as believable.

Looking at the different reviews of the movie i'm shocked to find that anyone liked the movie. I'm a college age female and I hated that movie. Hate is a strong word and I barely ever use it, but it's very much appropriate for the way I feel about this movie. It was a great idea for a movie but it but it dragged and the ending was really dull. The only reason I watched the whole thing was because I had hopes for a good ending. Didn't happen.

In the early 1960's, two sisters are growing up. Faith is the elder of the two and is the apple of her father's eye – listening to all his talk of art and freedom, while younger Phoebe is given less attention. When their father dies, Faith takes it the hardest – near comatose at first but then getting into any revolution or cause that the period allows her to support. Heading off to Europe with her boyfriend, it is only a few months before her death brings even more pain to the family. Older now, Phoebe decides to use her sister's daily postcards as a guide and follow her footsteps around Europe to try and work out what happened to her.

With a quite famous cast, I decided to give this film a look but found that despite the professional sheen on it, this isn't that good a film. The plot is too unlikely, unconvincing and delivered in a phased manner that doesn't really work. Phoebe's journey is pretty unnecessary and her reasons for it didn't make a great deal of sense; it relied too much on some form of mysticism that it never earned (or kept consistent). The truth behind Faith's death unfolds but it does it in a lazy way – Wolf just keeps revealing a bit more every here and there, why he suddenly feels he has to tell things that he had secret two minutes ago is not clear but the film uses it to keep things moving. Meanwhile, in flashback, Faith's story is unconvincing – she is naïve, stupid and her political journey comes across as nothing more than the rebellion of any teenager.

It didn't help to have Diaz playing the role because she can't go beyond the character's surface and just ends up with a very basic performance that never got close to the sort of emotional turmoil that would have been needed to make a convincing Faith. Brewster is much better although it would have been a nice touch to cast two actresses that look like they could have at least come from the same family. Brewster has plenty of clunky lines to deliver but does reasonably well and she is allowed to nail Faith's character bang on the money at the end. She also has a good chemistry with Eccleston, which helps to cover up for the fact that the romance between them is a bad idea that didn't work that well. He is interesting enough though and shows he is a good actor by making more of the material than was on the page. The direction makes the most of nice European locations but it totally fails to capture a sense of time – apart from some haircuts and costumes there is very little to tell you when the film is happening and, even if you know, it never feels like the period it wants to be of.

Overall it feels interesting enough and has emotional moments and nice touches in it but generally it doesn't work because the writing is poor and cannot make the story work; like another reviewer has said, it comes across rather contrived. The performances from Brewster and Eccleston are both better than the material but Diaz is too weak considering the weight she is asked to carry.

Those disappointed in the film "The Invisible Circus" would make a better investment by purchasing the novel by Jennifer Egan. Written from the perspective of eighteen-year-old Pheobe, the novel is an enchanting coming-of-age story with the added intrigue of her lost "hippie" sister.

Most of the narrative focuses on Pheobe's inner thoughts; which no doubt made translating it to the screen a difficult task. Debates on whether it is a "chick flick" are warranted; both the film and the novel center heavily on the female viewpoint.

In response to the first posted review, the paintings by Pheobe's father, Gene, are *supposed* to be awful. Part of the narrative focuses on Pheobe's realization that her father was not a sainted, thwarted artist, but an ordinary man.