Married Life

In look, this film reminded me so much of those wonderful BBC shows of the 70's and 80's that I wanted to love it, but its flawed story and direction made it a disappointment. This film missed so many chances at greatness. Simple scene additions and subtractions were necessary but were overlooked due to poor story development. We went for our Chris Cooper fix and he did not disappoint, but as stated, the story and the director let him down. Certain scenes were overdone or underdone in the wrong places, such as the scene where he bought poison and kept giving so many halting, stalling, guilty looks until I just about yelled, "enough with the guilty looks, Chris, we get it." And, the "can't we all now just be friends" attitude of the denouement after all the treachery and deception and murderous intent throughout was really lame and unrealistic. A film set in the 40's made now is still a modern film for modern audiences, and the censored and prudish film-making attitudes of the 40's are long gone and forgotten, thank goodness, even if this filmmaker's attempt was to duplicate the look of those pretty sappy film years. At least he did that well. The film did have the great look of 40's films, terrific period costuming, and great camera-work and lighting. Sets were art deco wonderful too, so it shocked me that in this fine looking film the director missed so many story chances to make it a great film. Among other crucial things stated above, he sold out for the easy and typical, feel-good Hollywood ending, even when it did not fit the rest of the story at all and it would have been much better and more realistic if more serious and unfriendly, and not so "is everybody happy now with this 40's era ending?" Yuk. The most disappointing thing, other than the sappy, pat ending that really was a shame, were missing story scenes near the end that were needed to finish this story of deception and pain and thus make it into a more serious and believable tale of the damaging results of lost love due to treachery, as this director obviously has a problem with consistent and complete story development, and has no idea how to end one in the most effective manner. Patricia Clarkson was effective as Cooper's betrayed and betraying wife, as were Pierce Brosnan and Rachal McAdams in lead roles, and Cooper was his usual great presence as the star. His well lived-in, soulful face is so effective in these damaged-man roles that he almost owns the casting for them. However, I would love to have the chance to re-edit this film, adding at least two crucial scenes near the end and subtracting two very lame and disappointing scenes closer to the end.......the dinner of the two couples together where it looked like nothing hurtful ever happened to any of them, everyone was just so nice and polite with each other, and the moronic end scene where the whole gang was playing a party game and laughing. It was so stupid, vapid, sappy and out of place in this otherwise serious film that it ruined the story for me and left me thinking of yet another great chance lost.

Funny, but real married life doesn't tend to be this interesting..... Harry (excellent Chris Cooper) is a prosperous, middle-aged business man in 1949 east coast America, who appears to have a good life and a happy marriage, in that buttoned down, post war, suburban kind of way. He has a lovely house, a grandchild and a slim, attractive and intelligent wife Pat (fabulous Patricia Clarkson). But Harry seeks that elusive quality, "real" happiness in his life, someone who will love him totally for himself, not just for the sex, and he feels that he is entitled to look for it. He plans to leave Pat. "Who is she?" asks his canny best friend, man about town Richard (Pierce Brosnan), over a drink-fueled dinner in town. Because there is, of course, another woman lurking in the wings, the delicious, flawless, tragically widowed and much younger Kay (Rachel McAdams as a classic Hitchcock blonde). And Harry makes the serious and fundamental error of introducing them to one another. Harry is convinced that Pat is so devoted to him that divorce would devastate her to a degree from which she might never recover, so he resolves instead to kill her, and spare her the pain and humiliation of separation. He buys poison and experiments on the elderly family dog, then plots Pat's demise, calmly rationalising that it is the kindest thing to do, like euthanizing a slightly dotty pet. Richard meanwhile, is befriending Kay himself and becoming more and more drawn to her apparently genuine niceness. But things are not all they seem. Pat herself has some secrets, which Richard stumbles upon when he arrives early to stay at Harry and Pat's weekend cottage. It seems Pat too has a lover, rumpled local author John O'Brien (David Wenham), but Pat feels she can never leave Harry because, after all, he is devoted to her and would never recover etc The story is narrated in retrospect rather than flashback, by Richard, who is close to them both and is party to all their secrets. How can he keep Harry and Pat together so he can sneak off with Kay? This is not so much a love triangle as an irregular pentagon. It is beautifully written by Ira Sachs and Oren Moverman from a John Bingham novel, and it's skillfully acted by all concerned. The movie tries hard to stay within the conventions of 1940s Film Noir. It is perhaps too stylized but is nicely designed and is wry and darkly humorous. I'm not sure how commercially successful it will be in the USA at this time, when everyone seems to want to escape into brain dead horror flicks and big budget special effects extravaganzas. I guess it will depend on how many middle aged, cynical old codgers like me are prepared to get out to a theater? Rachel McAdams seems to be picking her roles carefully, I really liked her here, and Pierce Brosnan plays Richard so well that I am afraid he will get typecast as the consummate cad having escaped the shackles of James Bond. David Wenham seemed rather underutilized, given what a big name he is in Australia, but possibly playing alongside such acting greats as Clarkson and Cooper will raise his profile in the USA. It's certainly a long way from 300. And for those who thought Kay (McAdams is 32) was an unlikely match for Harry (Cooper is 56) there is the slight consolation that Pat (Clarkson is 48) gets to play with the younger John (Wenham is 42). American films these days mostly keep middle aged women in an entirely sex free zone, so I would imagine Clarkson must have loved this role, which allows her to be sly, sexy and enigmatic. Not a bad film. I enjoyed it. My only real complaint is that the ending is a little weak, a bit of a cop out in its intention to avoid melodrama. Everyone appears to live happily ever after which I find just a little doubtful. I'd have loved Pat to run off with Richard. Now that would have been fun!

The Summary: A friend pines for his best friend's mistress as the best friend plots to off his wife rather than make her suffer the pain of divorce. The Good: Often funny, with mostly spot-on performances, especially Pierce Brosnan and Chris Cooper. Brosnan's narration is inspired writing! Beautiful cinematography and set design as well. Good sense of place and time. The Not So Good: The character relationships felt forced (they didn't feel like they knew one another) and something was lacking in the sense of urgency. I feel the twists weren't quite twisty enough. The best audience experiences are ones where I guess the ending, but end up not only being wrong, but even more pleased with the ending the filmmakers came up with. This, you can guess early on. As for the climax, it's a repeat of an earlier scene with the same end result so the "oomph factor" is gone. And as a Rachel McAdams fan, I was sad to see her so underutilized. She really only has about 10 minutes of screen time. If this is the girl worth betraying your best friend and killing your wife for, we need to see more of her to see why. Pretty just doesn't cut it.

Ira Sachs's dark comedy 'Married Life' is an intriguing little film set in the 40s/50s. Dealing with complex relations, it somewhat portrays the men as selfish and the female as hungry for love...but there are layers and it's not all so black and white. What's also interesting is the unusual cast that includes Pierce Brosnan, Patricia Clarkson, Chris Cooper and a refreshing Rachel McAdams. Though the pairing between McAdams and Brosnan is awkward, the chemistry works better between her and Cooper. Brosnan seems miscast but not to the extent that it ruins the film experience. McAdams is beautiful and pulls off her part quite well but it is Clarkson and Cooper who give the best performances. I'm also surprised that people have taken this film too seriously (to the point that they missed the humour which I thought was creatively done and hilarious). The element of drama is there but how could one miss the comedy? Sach's writing is superb and the direction is solid. I liked how the events unfold and Coopers's character's attempts to get what he wants and his surprise reaction towards the unexpected results. I find the title a little misleading. Yes, the film is about a 'dying' marriage and its complexities but the title is a little too vague and the film focuses on much more than marriage. The score gracefully brings the feel of the 40s. Overall, Sachs has made a clever unconventional black comedy in a period piece.

This movie is astonishing. All i repeated as i came back from the movie was damn, that was great. And i repeated parts of the film that were either very funny or i thought were really greatly written. Pierce Brosnan, which some of you may know from his role as James Bond in Goldeneye, The World Is Not Enough, Die Another Day and many more. He is spectacular in this film, and i don't know how he could have topped off Matador...seems like he found it out. There are some actors I'm not really familiar with, but with their performances in this film, i could safely say this will lead them to way better movies and even a Oscar. This film has its strong points,like writing, directing, acting and the whole concept. The only weak point was the film was slow in some parts. And the best writing in the whole movie, at least in my opinion....was the Marital Counselor talking to the man and his wife about their problems.

I saw this movie last night and was really looking forward to it. I had the expectation based on the preview that it was going to be a clever dark comedy with interesting plot twists to keep me on my toes. I tell you this, so that you know my perspective. I was very disappointed, because although there were a few laughs here and there, this movie is actually very dull. If the expectation is that you are seeing a somber period piece that boils down to a quiet meditation on a flawed marriage, and that this meditation is rather superficial, perhaps you will like it better than I did. Forgive me for saying this, but at the Q&A after the screening I got the feeling that Chris Cooper and Patricia Clarkson saw this one as a job. They were intrigued by the material, but soon found themselves doing very little on screen. Patricia Clarkson has one scene with three to four lines of interesting dialog, and after that, her character devolves into a stereotype. Chris Cooper gets to play a good range of emotion now and then, but in the end he was forced to play a stereotype as well. I cannot help but say that all of the actors involved came to this period piece and submitted to the vision of the director, only to find that he really didn't have one. This movie truly suffers for this reason. The plot is very linear with few twists or surprises. The characters are very superficial and behave inconsistently at times, coming across as simple stereotypes. And the film is rarely engaging as a drama and occasionally clever as a comedy. It is a shame to see a cast this strong stand around and wonder why they are bored. But if you happen to see it and know what to expect, perhaps it can be enjoyed for what it is; a simple tale about a marriage that could have been a short film.

Great cast, a very good recreation of "the times" (1940s) in almost every way (hey, I was "there"). Costumes/cars authentic and I loved watching all of the "smoking" (e.g. in nice restaurants, etc.) scenes.Though I'm a non-smoker and HATED those who puffed while I dined, for some reason those scenes made me a bit nostalgic (probably because I did not have to actually breathe-in that poison). When the movie ended I wanted more however (and it is tantalizing/frustrating to read in another Thread that there is a much longer version of this film that was deemed not the right fit for current theatrical release). Enjoyable and fun film. Cooper/Clarkson perfect (as always) and I feel Pierce is very underrated as someone who is way more than a "pretty face".

I was at the premiere of Married Life tonight, and I must say, it's a winner! Some of the scenes in the movie rival the best Hitchcockian comedy of manners. Sachs is always leading us through the story on two levels. With one eye we are immersed and involved in the story, while the other floats at a distance and examines the four brilliantly portrayed characters as representations of the human condition. Married Life surfs a fine line between the comic and the tragic that is uncomfortable to acknowledge. But humor definitely wins out in the end, leaving us with an ironic but optimistic view of the flaws that increasingly populate our public and private lives as we grow older. Cooper and Brosnan achieve a fascinatingly contradictory friendship between two men that is unlike any other I've seen on screen in a long time.

Great actors doing great acting, great period-correct wardrobe, great period-correct cars. Every detail perfect. Sadly, that is just not enough to make a movie. There is no "punch" to this flick. You keep waiting for a surprise, any surprise. But no. Nada. Zilch. The story is so predictable it is as though they use "Microsoft Script Wizard" to write it for them. Also: Pierce Brosnan is miscast in this picture. It's not his fault, but he just doesn't belong here. Doesn't fit, isn't believable. Plus: his haircut is contemporary, not 1949. Nice duds though. Wardrobe did a great job all through this movie. Do yourself a favor: skip this movie. Rent any old DVD of "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" instead.

If you go to this movie expecting an Adam Sandler kind of comedy, or a straight out drams, you WILL be disappointed. Melodrama is not for everyone. It is a genre that, in my opinion, requires excellent acting and writing to keep you in the story and vested in the characters. "Married Life" most certainly had those two qualities; and. the overall look of the film and the excellent attention to period detail exuded a kind of innocence that we jaded 21st century folks are not used to. The acting by all four leads was superb, and Chris Cooper demonstrated that his talent is among the best of his generation. Patricia Clarkson is always excellent in every film, and here, she shone in every scene. Rachel McAdams is another rising star, and she played this genre perfectly, reminding me of some of Lana Turner's melodramatic roles. Pierce Brosnan surprised me with his suave, yet sensitive demeanor, and his somewhat ironic narrative. The slow pace and lack of action will be a turn off for the "typical" movie goer. For me it was heaven.