Conversations with Other Women (2006)

Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

Blistering performances.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

A man (Aaron Eckhart) and a woman (Helena Bonham Carter) start flirting at a wedding. She's a last minute bridesmaid who hasn't been that close to the bride Susie (Brianna Brown) for a time. She's married to a cardiologist and he's the bride's brother. They may have a past. A mysterious girl (Nora Zehetner) has a relationship with a guy (Erik Eidem). There's an annoying videographer (Thomas Lennon) and a nosy bridesmaid (Olivia Wilde).I love the pairing of Carter and Eckhart. They are fun and touching. She is brilliant. If the movie is simply them together, I would recommend the heck out of it. Indie director Hans Canosa is using the split screen technique to add visual spice. It's mostly distracting and oddly very static. I want to stay closer to the actors but the split screen puts a certain distance from them. There is a wonderful relationship movie here if Hans forgets about the split screen.

Directed by Hans Canosa, "Conversations With Other Women" stars Aaron Eckhart and Helena Bonham Carter as a former couple who meet at a Manhattan wedding. Utilizing split-screens, the film mixes pasts, presents and subjective recollections."Time can't move in two directions," characters say. And later: "The illusion of effortlessness requires a great deal of effort." It's Canosa winking at his own filmic technique, but this aesthetic is, for the most, distracting rather than enlightening. Still, Eckhard and Carter do good work. Our duo shoot dialogue like javelins, their little speeches sketching a relationship in which perceptions, feelings and private delusions shift, reverse and dark back and forth. Man's a fickle things. Happiness too.7/10 – Worth one viewing.

Ever seen an entire movie in split-screen? First it's pretty cool and a little disorienting, then it seems a little unnecessary and gimmicky, and finally you get used to it. Was the movie better for it's rather unique approach? Maybe a little bit. It certainly wasn't worse. I appreciate what the filmmakers were trying to do, at the very least.As for the movie itself, it's an interesting take on the romantic genre.  A man meets a woman at a wedding reception, and it's slowly revealed that they have a history together. A history that isn't quite finished, despite the years that have passed since they've seen each other. You learn about their past and their present concurrently, thanks to the previously mentioned split-screen wizardry.Check it out if you're interested in an adult relationship story, with a bit of an experimental indie spin. I enjoyed it. I may have only decided to see it because of Olivia Wilde's small part, but it ended up being one of the more memorable and honest movies of this type that I've seen.

In this sex film I was expecting to glimpse again Helena B-Carter's spectacularly hirsute nether region, which she showed us during the bed scene as Lucy Honeychurch in A Room with a View. Large, black and bulging, it had a powerful and unforgettable screen presence far greater than that of its distinguished owner, who is descended from a long line of top bankers and Tory party bosses. Here is another untrained actress (like Liz Taylor), dwarfish in stature, who appears on the screen before us purely through advantages of social status, wealth and hairiness. Because Ms Bonham-Carter was playing an adulterous wife who conducts a one-night sex-romp with her divorced husband, one might have expected to glimpse a little of her anatomy, but alas! we are now in the Age of Morality, in which any kind of violence and mayhem is permissible, but birthday suits are verboten. Real actors, and a real director, would have conducted much of this silly little film in the nude, just as it would have taken place in life. The whole film consists of dialogue between the pair, but NEVER while having sexual intercourse together. Talking during sex on screen is now as forbidden as showing any actress anywhere near a bed used to be in the 1950s.It is regrettable that in a film wholly concerned with sexual promiscuity, no sex is shown, nor any crucial part of the human anatomy, but that is trivial compared to the extraordinary methodology employed here. The entire picture --- yes, the whole duration --- is filmed with two cameras and presented in split-screen format. After viewing it, we felt like rushing to the optometrist for medical treatment. If you enjoy seeing films about sex that include no sex and no nudity, and are willing to risk an attack of schizophrenia induced by double-filming, do rush to see this one. Otherwise, avoid like HIV.