Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Three interlocking love stories involving three couples in three cities: Rome, Paris, and New York. Third Person stars Liam Neeson, Olivia Wilde, Adrien Brody, James Franco, Mila Kunis and Maria Bello. Suprisingly this movie worked great with all 3 stories since all of them were very interesting, heartwarming but also even a bit dramatic to say the least plus i was suprised by how good both Franco and Kunis were in this film. Overall if you're into drama and romance and a mix of different people threw different countries? You'll like it...

Disappointing film from a director who has done much work, including his famous "Crash". "Third Person" attempts to build on that legacy, but is much weaker in concept and execution. I am surprised how many reviews here absolutely miss the real story here -- it is about a famous fiction writer, "Michael" (Liam Neeson), who is holed up in a fancy suite in Paris. The three story "threads" are actually fiction he is MAKING UP while writing a book -- a book we know from his editor is not well received, as his editor tells him "his new work is not as strong or shocking" as his first novel.So he is attempting to "juice up" some intense stories to get published, and part of how he is doing this to exploit people -- first to exploit his mistress, who has shared with him the dark secret story of her incestuous relationship with her father. The other two stories are purely fictional and are ways that Michael is working out the tragedy of his son's drowning death -- which occurred when he was too wrapped up in a phone call from his lover (the incestuous one, played by Olivia Wilde) to pay attention to a toddler in a swimming pool. The death has broken up his marriage to Kim Basinger.Story One has Adrien Brody, as a dishonest fashion designer who steals others designs, but who gets involved with a Roma Gypsy woman -- who needs help ransoming her kidnapped daughter, but who in fact is likely just running a scam on a wealthy American. Brody's character also has lost a daughter in an identical swimming pool accident (and his wife, Maria Bello, looks hauntingly similar to Kim Basinger).Story Two has Mila Kunis, as an ex-actress forced to clean hotel rooms and desperately trying to get back visitation rights to her little boy...after she lost custody for (presumably) putting plastic bags on the boy's head (!!!) to teach him a lesson about playing with dry cleaning bags. (This is very confusing and not well-explained). As a result, her ex-husband very logically does not want her to have unsupervised visitation with the boy.It took a me while into the film to piece this together -- duh on me -- because looking back, it is very obvious, with 3 of stories having to do with a child who is put in danger or killed because of parental neglect and the guilt that ensues. If that were not enough -- DUH! -- the title of the film is THIRD PERSON, i.e., a story told in the third person -- FICTION.Most of the story with the mistress may be fiction as well -- she disappears at the end -- though the true part is that Michael knows she had a incestuous affair with her father, and cruelly exploits that to have a "shocking story" for his new book.The other tip off is the 3 stories are set in different places -- the hotel room in Paris where Michael is writing his novel -- the hotel in NYC where Mila Kunis is a maid -- and Italy, where Adrien Brody meets the gypsy woman. Yet, we see Mila cleaning Michael's hotel room -- or leaving an critical note in his room -- or smashing flowers in his girlfriend's suite -- when this should be impossible as she should be in NYC. But of course...she does not exist at all, except in Michael's imagination, so he moves her in and out of HIS reality.This sounds cleverer than it really is. In fact, it is exhausting and tiring to watch. It also feels like the deaths of two children (and near death of another child) are simply used for exploitation -- so the characters can "feel sad". Even worse is the unconvincing incest, used for shock value (EW!). In the end, nothing comes of any of it -- except perhaps his book is published --the editor loves the new shocking material even though he KNOWS Michael is horribly exploiting and hurting his girlfriend, as readers will know who she is in real life. (How readers would know who he is having affairs with in real life, I have no idea. It is far more plausible that readers would know he lost a child to drowning, as that would be a public police matter and therefore, be hurtful to his wife & family, exploiting THEIR privacy.)So it's about the "creative" process and how writers (and one presumes, filmmakers) exploit everything in their lives, in order to get published or produced. Making one wonder how much the director is exploiting HIS loved ones here.All in all, too hard to follow -- inconsistent and illogical in places -- not as clever as the director thinks -- and exploitative.

Three stories occur simultaneously, telling different stories but with a core similarity. In each one, the main plot revolves around the loss of a child, whether it is permanent or one which involves big and impenetrable barriers. A writer who lost his child in a pool has an affair far away from his wife, a man steals a gypsy's money only to help her later get her child back and a struggling maid who cannot earn the right to see her child after she almost killed him by accident.I have to tell that these stories, besides the fact that they are so different, are as implausible and weary as they are stupid. The characters have a tendency to take radical and inexplicable actions that makes you wonder what was the writer of this movie thinking of? I mean, how can you tell me that a man decides to help a difficult person he barely met to the point that he gives her 100 grand just like that? Or that a mother who loves her child and apparently is willing to do anything to see him isn't able to get to a very important appointment on time not a single time? These opinions are strictly personal so you may have different views regarding them. Disregarding the above, I must add that this movie, through its badly drawn characters, doesn't manage to transmit any feeling, anything that may "inspire" you to start caring even for a second for their fate. They are so dull and lifeless, with their radical personalities and their questionable decisions, that any emotion is out of the question. Don't get me wrong, all the actors played their roles in a great manner, but the plot was simply too uninteresting, boring and soulless for them to raise the bar with their performances.I was about to fall asleep multiple times because of the lack of action and the plot that I simply cannot say that it was worth the time I spent seeing the whole film. I understood that all stories were fiction created by a single mind but they are too distant from each other, their presence together being hard to explain. Each one as a different movie may have had sense but all together create a bad blend. It is a bad and most of all boring film in my opinion, recommending it to anyone being pointless.

I just finished watching this film for the first time. It was on-demand on my cable service and I, initially, chose it as background noise and set my TV timer, hoping to fall back to sleep since I had, for no particular reason, awoken abruptly after having slept only 3 hours.It turned out to be a poor choice for that purpose since I quickly became too engrossed to return to my slumber.I will start by saying that, throughout the majority of the movie, you are witnessing personal dramas unfold in three different spheres of relation. These stories, though slow at times, are told well and will hold most people's interest.There is more to the film than that, including some suspense and twists and outcomes that are surprisingly tricky to call. That is one way that this movie manages to separate itself from the typical.I have intended to create a spoiler-free review so I must keep the rest to myself.I encourage those interested in a cerebral and emotional drama to watch it for themselves. Chances are that many will appreciate it as I did.I can see how this film could be difficult for many to interpret. I believe Mr. Haggis was overshooting the mark a bit to believe that the majority of his audience would "get" it. That is typically what you want when making a film, even if you intend to challenge your audience. If they don't "get" it, they walk away confused and angry. That's not good for business.I'm also sure that is why he included the thanks to his father in the end credits for teaching him to take chances.He definitely took a chance on this film. I though it was ultimately pretty brilliant but not destined for widespread acceptance and success.Finally, I will also say that I found it to be rather depressing so this is in no way a "feel good" drama.