IMDb RATING
5.6/10
1.4K
YOUR RATING
Episodic story about a yuppie couple who're going broke, and can't decide if they want to stay together - but openly sleep around and experiment with different lifestyles, or not.Episodic story about a yuppie couple who're going broke, and can't decide if they want to stay together - but openly sleep around and experiment with different lifestyles, or not.Episodic story about a yuppie couple who're going broke, and can't decide if they want to stay together - but openly sleep around and experiment with different lifestyles, or not.
- Awards
- 1 win total
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
I liked this film because it does a good job of making the viewer consider what is important in life, and why. On the other hand, it is not the most exciting movie ever made. I recommend this if you want a story to ponder that exposes modern values to criticism. I give it a 7/10.
Peter and Katherine are a typical couple of California yuppies. They want to be cool, the want to indulge themselves, they live lavishly on their credit cards, and they hold "spiritual values" above wealth and work. Unfortunately, when their careers go down the toilet during the recession in the early 1990s, they fall upon hard times. They try to start an independent business, but their easy and hedonistic lifestyle prevents them from putting in the blood, sweat, and tears that are required for success in retail. Their spiritual values are of no help when things get rough, because their "New Age" values are really just a justification for selfishness and egocentricity.
The movie is the story of their loss of innocence. To get their lives back on track, they have to work hard at jobs that simply are not cool. Their elitist attitudes must give way to sacrifice and common sense. It is not clear whether this is a triumph or a tragedy for Peter and Katherine. That is left up to the viewer in this one.
Peter and Katherine are a typical couple of California yuppies. They want to be cool, the want to indulge themselves, they live lavishly on their credit cards, and they hold "spiritual values" above wealth and work. Unfortunately, when their careers go down the toilet during the recession in the early 1990s, they fall upon hard times. They try to start an independent business, but their easy and hedonistic lifestyle prevents them from putting in the blood, sweat, and tears that are required for success in retail. Their spiritual values are of no help when things get rough, because their "New Age" values are really just a justification for selfishness and egocentricity.
The movie is the story of their loss of innocence. To get their lives back on track, they have to work hard at jobs that simply are not cool. Their elitist attitudes must give way to sacrifice and common sense. It is not clear whether this is a triumph or a tragedy for Peter and Katherine. That is left up to the viewer in this one.
Writer-director Michael Tolkin, whose 1991 film "The Rapture" was one of the best films of its year, let his talents go to waste with this absurd comedy of lost morals. A graphic designer and her Hollywood honcho husband are in big financial trouble: she has no clients and he just quit his job. Some of their survival solutions are quirky and interesting, but the characters are off-base right from the start. Tolkin is the new Sidney Lumet: everyone screams irrationally at everyone else, but it's tough discerning whether or not we're supposed to laugh at these banal verbal matches, often from opposite ends of the swimming pool! The leads present another problem: Judy Davis and Peter Weller are brilliant actors, yet they can't work up any semblance of chemistry together as this high-powered married couple on a tightrope. A few of their marital predicaments are worked out amusingly (they separate within the house, and date others), but their jealousies and insecurities are a bore. Tolkin (also the screenwriter of "The Player") pretends to know these people (he's pseudo-hip). It would be to his ultimate advantage if he broadened his horizons...maybe it's time he left L. A. and make some new friends? *1/2 from ****
This film was a complete surprise to me. It's clever, funny and very thought-provoking. Judy Davis and Peter Weller (that man is underrated) both deliver excellent performances. A warning: The ending isn't quite the usual happy salvation, but it really does hit the perfect note on one of the main themes of the film: You can't always get what you want. And pushing that very feeling to the viewer just before the credits is perhaps the cleverest thing about the whole film.
Wealthy LA couple Peter and Katherine live comfortably, spending on credit and having affairs. When Peter quits his job as a recession looms the couple find that money is tighter and the values they hold dear mean nothing. Can they get in touch with themselves to navigate through their journey of life.
This film seems to be an attack on the yuppie culture in LA, with their materialism, their spiritualism and their aimless, work-shy lives. It seems this way for the most part but towards the end seems to say that we can all be happy if we accept who we are and confront it. It doesn't quite ride with me but the film up till this point is good - it's interesting and a bit moving to see the couple's relationship rise and fall with the difficult times. However once it falls back on spiritualism and the like it loses a lot of credibility.
Peter Weller and Judy Davis are both good in the leads, managing to display the correct amount of arrogance and emotion during the story. Adam West has a small role and is not great - is it just me or does everyone else still see Batman when they look at him. Samuel L. Jackson has a small cameo as a motivational salesman (like Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glenross) and he shows off his trademark powerful performance - but he's not as good as Baldwin was (the material's fault).
Overall a good attack on materialism but the spiritual stuff doesn't work.
This film seems to be an attack on the yuppie culture in LA, with their materialism, their spiritualism and their aimless, work-shy lives. It seems this way for the most part but towards the end seems to say that we can all be happy if we accept who we are and confront it. It doesn't quite ride with me but the film up till this point is good - it's interesting and a bit moving to see the couple's relationship rise and fall with the difficult times. However once it falls back on spiritualism and the like it loses a lot of credibility.
Peter Weller and Judy Davis are both good in the leads, managing to display the correct amount of arrogance and emotion during the story. Adam West has a small role and is not great - is it just me or does everyone else still see Batman when they look at him. Samuel L. Jackson has a small cameo as a motivational salesman (like Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glenross) and he shows off his trademark powerful performance - but he's not as good as Baldwin was (the material's fault).
Overall a good attack on materialism but the spiritual stuff doesn't work.
The response to this film was a little more negative than I expected. I liked the film better than Tolkin's "The Rapture." It's one of my favorites to watch for non-serious viewing.
The film has a quirkiness, even a spookiness, that, apparently, many dislike and don't understand. I wanted to recount the plot; however, since that's not desired, I don't see why other reviewers think the plot is so implausible.
Peter Weller's and Judy Davis' characters seem to be mismatched partners, but is that so implausible? This dissonance was probably intended, but disliked by many viewers. Anyway, the main characters compromise themselves in many ways: I think Peter and Judy do well in the movie.
I also like Adam West in his small part, and the under-rated Patrick Bachau plays his part as a new-age guru with urbane spookiness. Corbin Bernsen has a small part at the beginning as the boss for Peter Weller's character (Weller's character is conveniently named "Peter.")
Finally, I like the depictions of certain new-age ceremonies and personalities--this is rare in movies.... I think the movie is thoughtful. It does not have much action, but don't most action films today flagrantly violate the law of "suspension of disbelief?"
This film will not be liked by the multitude in America with the attention span of a gnat.
The film has a quirkiness, even a spookiness, that, apparently, many dislike and don't understand. I wanted to recount the plot; however, since that's not desired, I don't see why other reviewers think the plot is so implausible.
Peter Weller's and Judy Davis' characters seem to be mismatched partners, but is that so implausible? This dissonance was probably intended, but disliked by many viewers. Anyway, the main characters compromise themselves in many ways: I think Peter and Judy do well in the movie.
I also like Adam West in his small part, and the under-rated Patrick Bachau plays his part as a new-age guru with urbane spookiness. Corbin Bernsen has a small part at the beginning as the boss for Peter Weller's character (Weller's character is conveniently named "Peter.")
Finally, I like the depictions of certain new-age ceremonies and personalities--this is rare in movies.... I think the movie is thoughtful. It does not have much action, but don't most action films today flagrantly violate the law of "suspension of disbelief?"
This film will not be liked by the multitude in America with the attention span of a gnat.
Did you know
- TriviaWas #9 on Roger Ebert's list of the Best Films of 1994.
- Quotes
Peter Witner: Did you know that in Chinese the word for "crisis" is the same as the word for "opportunity"?
- ConnectionsFeatured in Siskel & Ebert: Why Gump? Why Now? (1994)
- How long is The New Age?Powered by Alexa
Details
Box office
- Gross US & Canada
- $245,217
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $35,797
- Sep 18, 1994
- Gross worldwide
- $245,217
- Runtime
- 1h 52m(112 min)
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content