The Longest Week


Action / Comedy / Drama


Uploaded By: OTTO
Downloaded 115,289 times
October 21, 2014 at 12:05 AM



Olivia Wilde as Beatrice Fairbanks
Jason Bateman as Conrad Valmont
Billy Crudup as Dylan Tate
Jenny Slate as Jocelyn #1
720p 1080p
695.57 MB
23.976 fps
1hr 26 min
P/S 3 / 26
1.23 GB
23.976 fps
1hr 26 min
P/S 2 / 14

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by shawneofthedead 4 / 10

Oddly shallow and ineffective, whether as satire or romance.

There's nothing wrong, per se, with focusing one's camera and script firmly on the woes and heartaches of the filthy-rich. Indeed, some of the world's most revered film-makers have done so with remarkable success - Woody Allen and Wes Anderson have crafted charming, quirky and emotional films revolving firmly around characters with far too much money and not enough good sense. But creating empathy for hyper-privileged characters is a delicate affair, one that writer-director Peter Glanz - making the move from commercials to movies - more or less fluffs up in The Longest Week. The final film, evidently influenced by Allen, Anderson and copious amounts of offbeat French cinema, struggles to free itself from the quirky artifice that should disguise - and not constitute - the depth of his story and characters.

Conrad Valmont (Jason Bateman) lives a life of leisure and laziness within the comfortable surroundings of a Manhattan hotel belonging to his parents. As a job, he professes to be writing, although he is unlikely to ever complete, his great American novel. His splendid life is rudely disrupted when his parents decide to divorce - and neither father nor mother is willing to keep paying for Conrad's profligate lifestyle. Suddenly, he finds himself out on the street: a situation he temporarily addresses by moving into the swanky apartment belonging to his best friend, Dylan (Billy Crudup). Conrad also winds up making a move on Beatrice (Olivia Wilde), the smart, kooky model who has enjoyed a courtly, mutual flirtation with Dylan for quite some time.

Plot-wise, that's pretty much it. Newly-poor boy meets pretty girl, boy pretends to still be rich, girl falls for it, boy exploits friends (from Dylan to his long-serving, long-suffering butler) to continue his ruse, repeat ad nauseum. It's a narrative that requires considerable skill and sensitivity to pull off, because it could so easily come off as a vapid film glorifying the silly, fickle whims of the rich and fancy. There's no doubt some satire at work here (the title gives a hint as to the length of Conrad's suffering), but it's so blunt that it winds up getting lost in the rest of the film's excesses. In fact, Glanz frequently trades it in for a lot of indie/art-house accoutrements: take, for instance, the way in which it's impossible to quite set a date or time to the film's romanticised version of Manhattan, the almost deliberately French scene in which Conrad and Beatrice dance in a bar in New York, or the Andersonian title cards introducing different segments of the film.

The odd thing is how Glanz both benefits from and wastes his very good cast. On paper, Bateman is perfect for the part of Conrad: he's played a disinherited heir before on TV's Arrested Development, and has bucketloads of personal charm as an actor that could help make Conrad more palatable to audiences. To some extent, that's what Bateman does in practice. The writing keeps him from making Conrad truly sympathetic, but he gets the audience to care a little more when his character meanders into some truly dark places. Even so, it's hard to shake the feeling that - under Glanz's direction - Bateman is miscast. Wilde is charming as the Austen-obsessed Beatrice, but her character really represents little more than a reward for the two men of the story. Crudup, meanwhile, is at his most personable in the film, but Dylan, too, is more an afterthought than a fully-fledged character - both to Conrad and his own creator.

To be perfectly fair, The Longest Week never promises anything like depth. In fact, Glanz makes several pointed comments within the film about Conrad's immutably shallow nature. But, if a film really wants us to accept that its entire plot will do so little to affect its main character (and Conrad does change, albeit in very small ways), the journey has to be worth it. That's where the film falls short. It spends too much time enamoured of its own design and concept. In effect, Glanz transports his characters into a meticulously-crafted, quaintly ageless version of New York, but fails to really make them come to life in a meaningful way.

Reviewed by Alex Vojacek 3 / 10

Wes Anderson Meets Woody Allen

I give this movie only a 3 not because it's cinematography, which is quite good, or it's actors, which are very good, but because the concept just kills the movie...

This is a movie so full of it that pretends to tell a story about a rich man, Conrad Valmont, going from pleasure of life, money and fame to loose it all and get the girl of his dreams and pretends to do it introducing the concept of love, possessions, friendship, drama and comedy all at the same time, failing in all aspects at once.

The concept is there, the movie is literally filled with style all over the place, carefully constructed with the tones, the scenery and each line, but in the end, it is incredible shallow, because it tries so hard for us to like Conrad Valmont and the way he is growing up in the story, yet it does it with detached images of himself and a voice-over.

THe most important parts of his life are done with pictures and a voice- over telling us WHAT we should be looking at in that moment.. what we should be feeling...

I have an advice for the director, don't consider your public just dumb and don't fill the movie with pretentious dialog like we can't distinguish an analogy from a concept, just give us the scene and let us use our imagination.

By telling us what to feel and what to think about our main character the movie does itself a great dis-service, it detach it's audience of participation on this characters.

By the time the movie is on the first half, i lost all interest, this is more an exercises in a filming technique with complex words and a cumbersome script that pretends to be intelligent than a movie about any real topic whatsoever.

The movie is not about love, nor growing up or friendship, it's everything and nothing. Tries to give a message and fails miserably, tries to makes us laugh and fails, elaborates complex dialog and a narrative voice-over that ends up generating discomfort to the viewer.

It's funny because Conrad discover he is just a prick and an egotistical person and when I finish watching the movie I think the same about the production team.. They just did a movie using a concept and some specific style just because it's nice and they totally forget about doing a movie with some heart in it.

The result is a movie full of itself with tons of dialog that accounts for nothing and about the worst selection of music I ever listened in a long time.

Go watch any other romantic comedy but this and you should be fine.. AVOID it unless you want to punish yourself and your girl.

Reviewed by painless308 9 / 10

Courageous, refreshingly exceptional film

This film is captivating. The plot was a hackneyed one, granted, but the director needs credit for what he did with it. It is like the diver choosing a simple dive so the high scoring will be in the execution. Casting was faultless. Jason Bateman is one of only a handful of actors who could have succeeded with this, including Greg Kinnear, possibly Ricky Gervais and in older days, Cary Grant maybe. Billy Crudup played an extraordinary role in that his character Dylan was not pushed beyond that fine line of reality. Olivia Wilde again was the ideal choice for the same reasons - she was able to stay within the bounds of the film without stretching the comedy into Hangover-ish nonsense. If this was as a result of good writing and direction then it was very well done.

So, would the average viewer have expected this film to eventually jump the shark and resolve with a Matthew McConaugheyesque love scene involving microphones or CCTV? Of course. Did it happen? No. Courageous direction. The film was therefore a pleasure to watch, to absorb and not to get too upset about. Like watching and appreciating a great game of football with absolutely no interest in either team or the result. No emotional connection. Brilliantly done. No "what?" moments, no "you're kidding me?" reactions. The director also addressed the dilemma of what happens after the period in question. We know it's easy to leave the viewer with a couple desperately in love /reconciled /whatevered, and it's cheap and effortless to imagine it will last. It doesn't. And this film avoids all that trite nonsense at the risk that most viewers will think that because there is no grand finale love scene, nothing has happened. Wrong. Plenty happened and it was very strong direction and writing to use this approach. I hope it is the start for more to emulate.

It showcased the beauty of New York. It is a wonderful city. It made the viewer think what period it was set in without going to a plastic Gatsby recreation of a 1960-70's city. Just put the modern day cars a bit out of focus and get on with the story. Thankyou. We don't need to transformed into a different world - just do what live plays have done for ages - encourage the viewer to imagine. No wasting time or effort in recreation which would invite the inevitable 'they got that one wrong' nonsense. But that was only evident in several parts of the film. The rest was pure sailing. So almost full marks to all concerned for producing such a refreshing piece of work and for not submitting to the grand finale, for not allowing it to be a banal addition to the ranks of so many other comedies of this era. In some ways it is in the style of Coen films such a Inside Llewyn Davis, sans violence. Comedy without slapstick. comedy for the discerning viewer. Bring on more of this.

Read more IMDb reviews


Be the first to leave a comment