I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

A different way of telling a story

It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Honestly I had no idea what was happening throughout... Well, the entire film. And normally, I love obscure character driven stories like this appeared to be set up as. I also had high hopes because of the stellar cast, but that was little help. Ben Whishaw was literally the ONLY actor who managed to hold my full attention or make me feel any emotion, and I found myself becoming irritated during the parts of the film that didn't involve his character. **** spoiler alert here ****And I didn't even know what the hell his character was doing. I haven't read the play that this movie was based on, so when things were implied, I never got them. The whole thing is so disjoint, and then randomly Christian Camargo's character leaves, and then hits something with his car, which is implied to be Eva from her shoe, but this isn't ever made explicit, then it fast forwards to three years later. Then, this ending confused me so much that I just HAD to look it up. Both Camargo and Whishaw leave the table, distraught, and then you never see Camargo's character again, but Whishaw runs down and Eva shows up again - so the car crash didn't kill her, I assumed, wrongly. So she congratulates him and then runs away, we see Whishaw go after her unsuccessfully, and the scene goes back to the dinner table. You hear a gunshot, and it's clear someone has killed them self, but you're not told who. The way the ending is shot, either Camargo's or Whishaw's character could've done it, but neither had been developed enough for me to figure out who. I had to read about the play, Seagull, to figure out that it was Whishaw's character after he had apparently had a hallucination of Eva coming back - I have no idea how the hell anyone is supposed to put that together from this film!! None! ***** end spoilers *****So, to conclude, this movie is incredibly confusing and only worth watching if you're a huge Whishaw fan like myself, and are willing to put up with the rest of it for the sake of having seen all of his films; but be warned, even his captivating talent is not enough to make any sense of how the story unfolds. Camargos acting is mediocre, which upset me as I have been a fan of his in multiple other places, Katie Holmes does an okay job but is given a boring character whose presence itself does nothing for the film, and none of the other performances even warrant mentioning.Prepare to be disappointed if you go into this film hoping to get anything substantial out of it.

There are countless adaptations of successful stage plays into films. "Days and Nights" is an earnest attempt to update Anton Chekhov's play "The Seagull." When this play was first produced in 1896, it was considered a flop. But when it was revived by the stage director Konstantin Stanislavsky to open his new Moscow Art Theater in 1898, it was hailed as a masterpiece.The producers of this film clearly had a passion for Chekhov. Music figures prominently in Chekhov's plays, and the music in the film version was also intended to be intrinsic to the characters' lives. The screenwriter's goal was to adapt Chekhov's play to the Reagan era in America of the 1980s. Chekhov was an apolitical playwright, and it was not clear what was intended by inserting one of Reagan's speeches about the Berlin wall as a backdrop for the ennui of the characters. Another curious choice was to incorporate a subtle message about environmental issues. A bald eagle replaces Chekhov's seagull. And the housing developers are encroaching on the rural setting of the play--a detail that appears closer to Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard" than "The Seagull." ************* Spoiler Alerts ***************** The following should not be read by those who have not completed their film viewing:A major change from Chekhov's original play is the depiction of the character of Nina, who is seduced by the well-known writer, Trigorin. In the updated version, the successful filmmaker Peter (Trigorin) plots to run away with Eva (Nina), the young woman who is the love of the life of Eric, the avant-garde writer Konstantin in Chekhov's original play. But before Peter and Eva can meet to leave the lakeside retreat, Peter runs over and kills Eva in a pick-up truck! At the end of the film, there is a sad reunion at the lake three years later. Still haunted by the memories of Eva, the now successful film artist Eric also is present for the family reunion. In Chekhov's play, Nina, who has been jilted by Trigorin, has a final conversation with Konstantin, rejecting him once again. But in the updated version, Eric has a vision of the deceased Nina, then shoots himself, which is the same ending as Chekhov's original play.************* End of Spoiler Alerts ************** The hard-working cast (Allison Janney, William Hurt, Mark Rylance, and others) attempted to inhabit the lives of their characters. But the film adaptation lacked the depth, complexity, and the multi-dimensional nature of Chekhov's characters.One limitation of this film is that it is imperative that the viewers know the original play by Chekhov; it is not a successful stand-alone film. It may be fair to conclude that there was only one Anton Chekhov. No re-written version of his play will ever surpass the original in its seemingly endless insights into human nature.

I would say the finale of this film could be a spot-on summation of the average viewer's overall demeanor for being suckered into watching the film and possible self-destructive bent to paint the walls with their gray matter. After wading through the many unsympathetic, and downright tedious characters depicted in this long-winded overblown film, I can't believe I hadn't shut it down to watch something more entertaining...like a moth circling around my living room lamp. Allison Janney, William Hurt, Jean Reno...Katie Holmes (oh well can't blame her for trying anything to put more distance between herself and Psycho-entologist ex-hubby Cruise) one might think the acting talent could make this movie worth my while. Wrong. I suppose even the best of actors can't make a turd dance a foxtrot.

I can't actually recall an experience like that before. I had an ache where one thinks his heart is and isn't from the opening scene. It was brilliant as to how many stories where being told...not just the obvious, but the undercurrent of painful love amongst everyone. The writing was magnificent, but the changes were brilliant...the Eagle...amazing metaphors. I was absolutely stunned by the actors and their brilliance and reality, especially Katie Holmes with her quiet desperate life and then realization when she may lose it. The painful and complicated love between every character was almost overwhelming but balanced by the humor, which is often the case in real life. The stunning set and beautiful cinematography startles one from the outset with the lake shot, and The Visconti like use of lighting and color was something I have NOT experienced since...well Visconti. The moving camera from window to window initially sets up the vignettes that the entire film revolves around and tells the story. So complicated in subject, so real in presentation. I could spend hours talking about this film and far more than writing about it. What an achievement....what a piece of art....what an accomplishment...the first real FILM I have seen in many many years. Most importantly it will impact and change peoples lives. It did mine.