I went to this movie expecting to like it but it left me a bit cold. The performances were solid but at least for me they failed to move me. I was very surprised that what I was thinking about during the movie were issues around prostitution and therapists (and how the two intersect). Helen Hunt's character is a prostitute, not a "sex surrogate" or therapist; her psychobabble she speaks into a tape recorder is false. The casting of such an unattractive actor as her husband was distracting and harmed the movie for me. The religiosity also put me off from the movie.
I don't find John Hawkes to be charismatic and the camera simply doesn't love him. (Regardless of how many takes it took to get a performance out of Marilyn Monroe, it didn't ultimately matter because the camera simply loved her. She had "it"; John Hawkes doesn't have "it".) I found the film predictable and boring. There is full female nudity so why isn't there full male nudity? When she shows him what he looks like in a full length mirror, we ought to see his whole body.
John Hawkes and Helen Hunt might get Oscar nominations, but I would much rather see Judi Dench in the supporting actress category, and several actors (Ewan McGregor, Jean-Louis Trintignant just to name two) in the lead actor category.
I don't find John Hawkes to be charismatic and the camera simply doesn't love him. (Regardless of how many takes it took to get a performance out of Marilyn Monroe, it didn't ultimately matter because the camera simply loved her. She had "it"; John Hawkes doesn't have "it".) I found the film predictable and boring. There is full female nudity so why isn't there full male nudity? When she shows him what he looks like in a full length mirror, we ought to see his whole body.
John Hawkes and Helen Hunt might get Oscar nominations, but I would much rather see Judi Dench in the supporting actress category, and several actors (Ewan McGregor, Jean-Louis Trintignant just to name two) in the lead actor category.