Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.
Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.
Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.
Staci Frederick Blistering performances.
Thomas Engels 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.
Twins65 I must 1st it I've not read the book, which apparently is way better than this film adaptation according to the general consensus here at IMDb. I was warned to stay far away from this movie.But I FINALLY saw it anyway, almost 7 full years after Sienna Miller made entertainment headlines trashing Pittsburgh in an interview while filming there on location. The film wasn't easy to track down, as I found a DVD through an interlibrary loan. I'm glad I watched it, but can't really recommend it.As indie movies go, I thought it had decent production values, including respected actors (Nolte, Sarsgaard, Suvari & Miller). I was unfamiliar with the work of Jon Foster (but his brother Ben can really bring it at times), and thought he was just OK as the lead. Perhaps a more dynamic young actor would have brought more to the production, but he's not the reason I'm giving this a below-average rating.The story was decent enough, but it just never really felt like I was watching a movie set in '83. Outside of Sienna's beat up VW Beetle and Sarsgaard's convertible, there was nothing to peg this as "early 80's"! I realize Pittsburgh has had roughly the same look for years, but couldn't they at least have thrown in some more "visuals" or music from that era to bring home it was 1983? The producers could have used more early 80's indie rock during the movie if they couldn't afford the rights for major label material from that era. And that punk club scene looked more like something you'd see in a retro themed inner-city dive in Chicago these days than a packed bar in Pitt. 30 years ago. I'm giving this 1 extra star (4 instead of 3) for having the punk band play a cover of The Replacements' God Damn Job off their '82 EP "Stink". I never, ever thought I'd hear that cut in movie! This movie is worth a look only if it pops up on IFC or Sundance at some point, but I've never seen it playing there.
jlongstreth-1 I loved the novel Mysteries of Pittsburgh. It took place in familiar surroundings, places I hung out, in a town I loved. It questioned mysteries that I'd questioned myself.It's not certain if the age of time or the changes wrought in adaptation brought about my dislike for this movie. After all, I first read the book some 25 years ago. But the film lacks so much in comparison with the book. It has none of the humor, none of the introspection, none of the sense of resolution or at least readiness at the end.The acting does not help the situation, especially Sienna Miller, who as Jane, is basically a flat line. Art is nearly a flat line, strangely enough; as the lead he is not supposed to be. Sarsgaard's Cleveland attempts to compensate for the affectless performance of his screen-mates by wildly over-emoting. It's a valiant effort that almost works. And Mena Suvari is just pitiful as a sad stereotype that no woman with a shred of self-respect should ever have to play on screen or stage.I'm sure it doesn't help my assessment that Chabon is one of my favorite writers and Pittsburgh is my beloved home city. But if I were you, I'd give this one a miss. The four stars are for cinematography Nick Nolte, and music, which were decent.
died dead red Based on the novel by Michael Chabon, The Mysteries of Pittsburgh is about the young son of a notorious gangster who spends his last teenage summer roaming around with two friends. The year is 1983, and young Art Bechstein (Jon Foster) is at a crossroads. Completely opposed to his father's lifestyle, Art plans to become a stockbroker. Visually contrived with painful attempts to create beautiful hip indie cinematography, the whole film feels like the director - whose previous effort Dodgeball was funny if outright commercial - is desperately seeking indie credibility by cobbling together aspects of other indie films but sprinkling it with stars like Mena Suvari, Sienna Miller and Nick Nolte. Like so many of the star-laden premieres at Sundance this year it felt like this was a secrety studio-sponsored vanity project to help the director earn some indie credibility points - it failed in that respect and as a film in its own right.
