A middle-aged couple's career and marriage are overturned when a disarming young couple enters their lives.A middle-aged couple's career and marriage are overturned when a disarming young couple enters their lives.A middle-aged couple's career and marriage are overturned when a disarming young couple enters their lives.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Awards
- 1 win & 3 nominations total
Matthew Maher
- Tim
- (as Matt Maher)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
6.355.4K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Featured reviews
The Logline was (likely) a lot better than the actual film
I am imagining that the logline when this was initially pitched was something like "This is 40 with deeper, darker, insights." Or something.
And on paper that sounds really cool. The casting is also great, at least on paper. Plus, as we all know, Woody Allen has shown that these sorts of films can find an audience, and make money.
So on paper this was pure magic.
In real life? Not so much.
1. First, let's stop giving Woody Allen credit for inventing these sorts of films. He actually revived what used to a form of stage play called "comedies of Manners" and more or less built a second (spectacular) a career on that. This is a comedy of Manners. No more and no less.
2. Naomi Watts is solid, as is Seyfried. Ben Stiller, one of the most bankable stars in Hollywood, seems a little lost here, as though he can't quite find the right note for his character. Plus -- the casting director should have noticed -- he has a prematurely aged face, that is, he always looks older than he is. That does not help his character, or the audience, at all.
3.The pacing is not merely bad, it is terrible. The dialog and story in this specific comedy of Manners are not sharp enough to carry the viewer through the slow bits. Plus, it does not help that Stiller's character, who plays a "failed film-maker," loves to rhapsodize about how "boring films eventually get interesting." If that was an inside joke, it is in bad taste.
4. The only "fun" bit in the entire film? At the 1:00 minute mark precisely, Naomi Watts mimics her Russian character from Saint Vincent. I smiled. That was the only smile the movie offered.
5. In the opinion of this reviewer, the entire overlong and convoluted sub-arc about the nature of film and documentaries (what is real, what is staged? etc) must have seemed clever during the first draft, sort of a Joss Whedonesque deconstruction of the medium (like Cabin in the Woods) but, as the film plays, it simply drags down deeper a story which is already drowning in its own self-awareness and navel-gazing.
And on paper that sounds really cool. The casting is also great, at least on paper. Plus, as we all know, Woody Allen has shown that these sorts of films can find an audience, and make money.
So on paper this was pure magic.
In real life? Not so much.
1. First, let's stop giving Woody Allen credit for inventing these sorts of films. He actually revived what used to a form of stage play called "comedies of Manners" and more or less built a second (spectacular) a career on that. This is a comedy of Manners. No more and no less.
2. Naomi Watts is solid, as is Seyfried. Ben Stiller, one of the most bankable stars in Hollywood, seems a little lost here, as though he can't quite find the right note for his character. Plus -- the casting director should have noticed -- he has a prematurely aged face, that is, he always looks older than he is. That does not help his character, or the audience, at all.
3.The pacing is not merely bad, it is terrible. The dialog and story in this specific comedy of Manners are not sharp enough to carry the viewer through the slow bits. Plus, it does not help that Stiller's character, who plays a "failed film-maker," loves to rhapsodize about how "boring films eventually get interesting." If that was an inside joke, it is in bad taste.
4. The only "fun" bit in the entire film? At the 1:00 minute mark precisely, Naomi Watts mimics her Russian character from Saint Vincent. I smiled. That was the only smile the movie offered.
5. In the opinion of this reviewer, the entire overlong and convoluted sub-arc about the nature of film and documentaries (what is real, what is staged? etc) must have seemed clever during the first draft, sort of a Joss Whedonesque deconstruction of the medium (like Cabin in the Woods) but, as the film plays, it simply drags down deeper a story which is already drowning in its own self-awareness and navel-gazing.
A mixed and misfired message
This film tells the story of a documentary filmmaker who has had success but struggles to finish his new documentary. He meets a young and energetic couple who live life colourfully, and he gets infected by their unending enthusiasm.
"While We're Young" starts off very strong, with Josh and Cornelia having a sort of midlife crisis. Passion dwindles from their lives, and they get locked into their comfort zone. The couple is charming and infectiously happy. I think many people could identify with Josh and Cornelia. I certainly could. I was hoping the story of unfold along these lines, but as things go wrong, it seems almost wrong for Josh and Cornelia to rediscover themselves. I think it's a misfired message, and I identify with the story less towards the end. Nonetheless, it's a good film.
"While We're Young" starts off very strong, with Josh and Cornelia having a sort of midlife crisis. Passion dwindles from their lives, and they get locked into their comfort zone. The couple is charming and infectiously happy. I think many people could identify with Josh and Cornelia. I certainly could. I was hoping the story of unfold along these lines, but as things go wrong, it seems almost wrong for Josh and Cornelia to rediscover themselves. I think it's a misfired message, and I identify with the story less towards the end. Nonetheless, it's a good film.
Disappointing
I saw the trailers for this, thought it looked funny and i like Stiller so gave it a whirl. What a mistake! This is not the comedy the trailers made it out to be, they show the best bits and when it came to watching the whole film it fell flat. This film was trying to be an intellectual dark comedy, maybe in the vein of Woody Allen but lacked the style, sophistication and plot. The mid life crisis thing, done many times before but better, the role reversal with the oldies doing the social media thing and the younger couple living like hippie bohemians felt like an attempt to be clever but just didn't feel real. The whole moral conscience thing Stiller had was muddled because of the way the plot didn't really make out that anyone had done anything very much wrong. This was deliberate but made the whole morality issue just too subtle for the audience to care. At the end i couldn't care less whether they had a baby together or not and found it all very irritating. I know it was supposed to be allegorical and therefore clever but to me at least it was just badly done and a bit pretentious.
Sort of obnoxious
So I get what the film was aiming for, but I've gotta say, I'm incredibly shocked by its critical reception. I don't think it's "bad", really, but just thoroughly mediocre and really obnoxious. I don't know why, but something about it came off so incredibly forced and fake. It has some good acting and none of it is offensive or anything, but something about it annoyed me in a way I can't really pinpoint. I love Naomi Watts, but she was part of the problem. There just wasn't any synchrony between the performers I don't think. Either that or between their performances and the tone the film was aiming for. I'm perplexed because none of it I can really put my finger on, except that there is absolutely nothing of real note or anything that will be memorable even a day after watching it (well, that's not true, since I saw it a day ago). Not worth it
Good start, but ends with mixed feelings
5/10 might not seem like a good rating, but it's a strong 5. This movie is definitely worth seeing, but only if you're okay with mild disappointments and outdated "we can't be happy without having kids" Disney-like thinking.
Movie does indeed have a good start - Ben Stiller & Naomi Watts play their roles well and make lots of good points of how we can sometimes be unhappy with our past decisions and our lives. Movie also captures well how people change when they grow up; one ends up having kids, another focuses on his/her career or other things.
Sadly "While We're Young" doesn't grasp all that there could've been. The ending leaves you kinda sad/disappointed/with mixed feelings. To put it plainly; it doesn't deliver.
Movie does indeed have a good start - Ben Stiller & Naomi Watts play their roles well and make lots of good points of how we can sometimes be unhappy with our past decisions and our lives. Movie also captures well how people change when they grow up; one ends up having kids, another focuses on his/her career or other things.
Sadly "While We're Young" doesn't grasp all that there could've been. The ending leaves you kinda sad/disappointed/with mixed feelings. To put it plainly; it doesn't deliver.
Did you know
- TriviaCharles Grodin's character, Leslie Breitbart, is portrayed as a famous documentary filmmaker. In Leslie's apartment, there are fake Criterion Collection DVDs of films "directed" by Leslie, custom-created for this film.
- How long is While We're Young?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official sites
- Language
- Also known as
- Khi Ta Còn Tre
- Filming locations
- Jackson Hole Restaurant, Manhattan, New York City, New York, USA(meal between Cornelia and Jamie with Josh arriving)
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $10,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $7,587,485
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $227,688
- Mar 29, 2015
- Gross worldwide
- $18,117,839
- Runtime
- 1h 37m(97 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content






