The Mysteries of Pittsburgh

source: The Mysteries of Pittsburgh

This movie came so close to being a very good movie but fouled up at the end-leaving one to mourn what would have been a very good adaptation of a very good book. It is the summer of 1983. A college graduate (Art) is trying to enjoy his last summer before he leaves Pittsburgh (his home) to become a financial broker. We find that his dad (fantastic portrayal by Nick Nolte) is an organized crime chief, of the local mob, and is proud of his son graduating and does NOT want his son to go into organized crime. The son takes a job for the summer at a local bookstore and is immediately seduced by his only slightly older female supervisor; an affair ensues. During this same period of time Art meets a stunningly attractive young blond (portrayed by Sienna Miller) who likes him; even though she already has a boyfriend (dude named Cleveland). The next day Cleveland, a tough biker type, comes to the bookstore and gives Art a deal "he cannot refuse"- which is a ride on the bike to a local abandoned factory site. At the factory site is a smokestack that still belches out clouds; even though the factory has been shut down for thirty years! Why? It is a mystery, a mystery of Pittsburgh. Why is does Cleveland turn to be actually friendly towards a potential rival? Well, that is another mystery of Pittsburgh. The movie portrays the last summer of youthful abandon and care; set in surprisingly beautiful settings of a city that is reinventing itself from the traditional "smokestack technology" to a more "greener" environment. Yet, the problem with the movie is its unrealistic portrayal of male and female friendships. It was a very good movie; showing Sienna Miller, for example, doing some very good driving of golf balls at a party. Yet, this subplot never plays out- never explains why she is shown doing something so atypical. Loose ends, poor connections, double meanings that invoke something that is hard to believe even with the typical "suspension of disbelief" found at movies. All of these plot error and loopholes foul up the movie beyond redemption.

...they bothered making this movie? Anyone? I didn't think so. If you are looking for a coming-of-age movie, go rent Summer of '42. This is no Summer of '42. When your big stars are Nolte & Sarsgaard, & Sarsgaard gets more screen time, that is your first warning sign And, of course, for such an "artsy" movie, there is plenty of cursing & skin flung around, just to make it look "artsy". Sarsgaard did his usual uninteresting, cardboard character, punctuated by moments that were supposed to be intense. The intensity is that of someone with bi-polar disorder. Miller is most famous for her looks & what she had to say about the city of Pittsburgh after this movie. Pittsburgh SHOULD hold a grudge against her. She misrepresented an actual Pittsburgh native. Foster gave Sarsgaard a run for his money in the cardboard acting style. Wow! Was this his first role after high school graduation? So, we have this weird triangle. Foster has a crush on Miller, but is with his boss/girlfriend. He can't take Miller to bed, & won't take his boss to bed. So, he hangs with Sarsgaard & Miller, & watches them get it on. Then, after one of Sarsgaard's pseudo-intense moments, Foster & Miller get it on, a scene that we are "treated" to in every sloppy, moaning detail. Finally, just to round it all out, Foster & Sarsgaard get it on, with Foster in the Miller role. Now I know how 2 guys get it on (as if that was ever anything I needed to know). After all that, all that's left is the tragic ending for one character & the retrospective views of the remaining 2. It gets me right in the pit of my stomach. Oh, wait! That was the pepperoni pizza I just had. I'd like back the time this movie took out of my life, please.

A friend of mine gave me this movie. A friend of mine is now in a hospital were a team of doctors are trying to surgically remove a DVD casing from his ***. I got quit excited by the prospects of an other Michael Chabon movie. After all his novels have brought me much entertainment and previous screenplay adaptations were great, but boy, was I wrong. First off the people that did the casting must have been asleep whilst doing so. I imagine the castings went something like this. "Tell me, do you like fish?" "Yes I enjoy fish very much." "Wonder full, you're hired. Have some money." Than there is the script. I have read Chabon, who I hope went blind before he could see this piece of dong, and it has absolutely nothing to do with his novel. I'm not quit sure why it annoyed me like it did, but it might have something to do with the fact that listening to a speech impaired 90 year old drunk duck hunter with a right cranial lobe dysfunction would have been a treat in comparison to the one-liners these 2nd degree model massacre kids spat out. This is an actual line from the movie; "If you tell me something that you've never said out loud to anyone before, than this moment becomes unique!" Unique? Does it? Does it really? Off course not you plank. Please pass me the Imodium. I'll have a whole ****ing strip. The directing is... well. I've got nothing. Maybe Rawson Marshall Thurber just got word his grandmother exploded or something. Stick to directing comedies. No stick to directing commercials. This movie is so horrible it left me banging my head against a wall so hard it brought me back to the stone age. I give it 2 stars because I don't wanna be the guy that watched a 1 star movie.

I don't know if you ever saw Threesome, a humorous story about an atypical triangle relationship. It's certainly not a masterpiece, but it does what it does with panache. It's fun to watch the confusion and somehow it's believable that two boys and a girl all have a thing for each other. The Mysteries of Pittsburgh also touches on the dilemma of bisexuality and sharing the same lover. However, here the setup is so bland that it seems to (involuntarily, of course) echo the clichés of people who have issues with homosexuality, namely, gays are confused/immoral and have too much libido for their own good. The film lacks clarity. Especially the beginning is a messy collage that fails to properly introduce the main character. The confusion becomes greater when more side characters show up. Nobody seems to know what he or she is doing in this story. The actors caught on to this, because their performances are colourless. Considering the 18 karat cast, the director is to blame. I add Mysteries to the long list of movies that failed because the people who made it thought that going off the beaten track would be enough to make a good movie.

I am a big Peter Sarsgaard fan. Ever since The Dying Gaul I have been looking and watching for every film he's in. Kinsey was another tour de force - proving as I suspected that Sarsgaard is the next big male star on the horizon. He's not handsome in the matinée idol way but there's a quality about him that is true star - he lights up the screen when he's on and you just cannot take your eyes off him - and contrary to the beautiful people he has a depth that grabs you and makes you wonder what he's going to do next - he's totally unpredictable - in Mysteries of Pittsburg he shines brightly especially in scenes with Jon Foster who at the moment is starring with Jenna Elfman in the CBS sit-com Accidentally on Purpose which is based on a book by a local journalist here in Northern California. Jon Foster is another fast rising young actor whose future seems bright and the sparks really fly between him and Sarsgaard. Their scenes shake the earth in terms of eroticism, unlike anything I've ever seen on the screen. They're so totally into women - both of them - that when they're into each other - it's not only a shock because it's so unexpected but it really does make one rethink things as I had to do since I've never understood how men can do the nasty - but here it seems perfectly natural, so natural in fact that I really had to think I was ignorant on the subject. The film moves at break-neck speed but the ending is a solid thud - a major disappointment in fact it's so trite and predictable.

Young man with a gangster for a father is studying for the exams to become a stock broker. He doesn't really want to go in that direction but that's the direction that his father has picked out for him (he's arranged a job for him once he finishes). Desperate to have his own life he has taken a dead end job at a local book supermarket just to have time for himself before his life stops being his own. After almost being run over by his college roommate he ends up at a party where he ends up meeting a beautiful blonde, who along with her boyfriend ends up changing his life. This is a well acted, except by Nick Nolte, story based on a book by Michael Chabon. Its much better than its soiled reputation would indicate. The film is infamous for being the film Sienna Miller took simply to get away from the paparazzi, she got into even more trouble by bashing Pittsburgh in several off handed comments. It was then barely released to theaters before being dumped on to DVD. This is a good little film. I liked it. My only real complaint outside of Nick Nolte's performance (it just doesn't work here) is that the film is trying way too hard to be quirky. Its not bad, but there are these small turns and asides (Joe Namath's picture during a sex scene) that didn't really need to be there. I'm sure they were in the novel, but at the same time in the real world of the film they come across as out of place. Worth a look, probably on cable.

This was a beautiful but ultimately confusing film. There is an impressive cast of photogenic and talented actors, but the editing seems to have left parts of the story, which would explain its progression, out. As a result, the story of the 'last' summer for the character played by Foster, it is only partly believable, and the poignancy that one can sense was aimed at, is missed. There is good acting by the main actors, but the lines provided and the editing leave a lot to be desired. It is worth seeing, but ultimately leads to a mix of emotions at the end, and not ones intended by the director.

For those who find it difficult to appreciate the adaptation format of film making from a famous novel, THE MYSTERIES OF PITTSBURGH as now released on DVD should help explain the naysayers' opinions. In a very valuable session of conversations among Michael Chabon and Rawson Marshall Thurber (screenwriter and director) and the producer and cast, the transition of this complex novel into a very altered story is comfortably explained and the person most happy with the result seems to be the originator - Michael Chabon! That being said this film stands well on its own terms. June and July in hot Pittsburgh generate mysteries among a variety of people, especially the young college graduate Art Bechstein (Jon Foster) who while working in a bookstore wastes time with a fling with the supervisor Phlox (Mena Suvari) with disinterested post grad classes dealing with becoming a broker and having monthly dinners with his mobster father Joe Bechstein (Nick Nolte), until he encounters an odd couple: bisexual biker and thief Cleveland (Peter Sarsgaard) and his female consort, the violinist Jane Bellwether (Sienna Miller). The bizarre interactions among these characters drive Art to make many decisions and discoveries - including his falling in love with both Cleveland and Jane. The summer winds down with Art finally discovering his own identity despite the clouds of mystery that have surrounded his life. It is a piece of life as lived by disparate characters whose direction in life seems at odds with the natural flow of finding happiness and success. But then the question is asked - what is happiness and what is success if not survival? For this viewer the explanation by the makers of this film was interesting enough to encourage a repeat watching of the movie. A good movie not a great movie, but it still tastes strongly of Michael Chabon's genius. It deserves more attention than the critics have given it.....Grady Harp

Comments are so tough with the film that I feel alone in the camp of the "positives". OK this film is far from being a perfection and I think I will never understand the very purpose of it. I even hesitate to say what was the topic. I assume it was about the coming-out of the main character, but even that I am not sure. Plus, I can't say Jon Foster, the main actor, is captivating. So why did I like ? I think the main thing I appreciated in that film is the atmosphere of mysteries. As the title suggests it, all along the film provides an imperceptible mystery. Because it plays with suggestions and switches. The storyline helps for sure to plunge into this atmosphere as the storyline is a mystery in itself ! But there are other causes. The photography for example, which clearly remains in my mind. Although Pittsburg is not a beauty on its own, the director manages to capture some good photos of it. Also the director did well regarding the changing weathers and lights. Switching between sun and rain, lights, twillights and darkness. The soundtrack follows the mysterious atmosphere well too. Saarsgard plays an interesting character as he acts an ambivalent tough but sensitive bi-sexual. There is also the constant hesitations of the main character. Obey his father or not ? The dark haired girl or the blond one ? The girlfriend or the boyfriend ? We can also capture the questionings of all the others characters. All this provides a sentiment of interrogations. So this atmosphere the director manages to render leads us not to be surprised when the main character admits at the end he is confused, because this is the feeling we have too. Mysteries. This is what I appreciated in this film I guess.