Businesswoman (Channing) who has sacrificed her emotional well-being for corporate success unwisely allows herself to be taken in by the manipulative lies of sociopathic young underling (Stiles) while traveling. Rather improbably, the two hatch plans to assault and sexually humiliate the young male recruiter (Weller) for no apparent reason other than antipathy to his masculinity, also lodged in their hotel. This procedure is a very risky business indeed, as the young man could have a fatal reaction to the alarming combination of drugs and alcohol foisted on him. Viewers should become very edgy as this sequence of mean-spirited events transpires with the never remote possibility of dire consequences ensuing. By film's end,ironically, the hapless male victim is the only one of the three who remains unscathed and left with his innocence relatively intact through unconsciousness. The new female CEO, however, is now left to face some disturbing and unpleasant truths about herself.
79 Reviews
Solid acting
rosscinema18 August 2002
Stockard Channing has always been a terrific actress and her excellent performance comes as no surprise but Julia Stiles is also very good thanks to a thought provoking script. I've always had my suspicions about Stiles and here she shows she also has some good "Stuff". I hope she gets offered more films like this instead of the teenage fare where all that is needed is attitude. As good as Stiles is its still Channing's film. Youth cannot overcome experience, not here anyway.
Not Believable
No_Miss14 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The Business of Strangers is about a middle aged CEO Julie (Stockard Channing) who befriends and spends a night with a sadistic underling Paula (Julia Stiles). It's the old cliché: the criminal gives the successful non-criminal new insight about themselves by talking them into committing crimes.
Usually this makes a good movie but in this case it's hard to believe someone as powerful as Channing's CEO would allow Paula to order them around. And Stiles character is not deep enough to believe she would be capable of such acts.
Overall the movie misses the mark.
Usually this makes a good movie but in this case it's hard to believe someone as powerful as Channing's CEO would allow Paula to order them around. And Stiles character is not deep enough to believe she would be capable of such acts.
Overall the movie misses the mark.
A nasty bit of business...
majikstl9 May 2004
Warning: Spoilers
((((SPOILERS))))))
Okay, in THE BUSINESS OF STRANGERS two women seek to get revenge on a man who has been accused (falsely, as it turns out) of rape. It is a small, but key part of the story. Their improvised scheme involves drugging him, taking him to a semi-public place, stripping him of his clothes and writing obscenities all over his body. Sexual humiliation, with the intent of leaving him shamed and degraded. A symbolic rape, as it were. But, they only strip him to his underwear. Why? Since the point of their actions is revenge and humiliation, then why not strip him naked? And why leave his clothes behind? As is, the poor guy wakes up, cleans up, dresses and apparently goes on like nothing happened. Instead of being a violation of his psyche as much as his body, the incident proves to be little more than a fraternity prank of no real consequence. The film wants to show the women doing a bad thing, but not bad enough to lose viewer sympathy.
That is the problem with this artsy, but feather-weight film: It never goes far enough. This man, who, up until he is taken advantage of, appears to be a cordial and sympathetic businessman, is cruelly victimized for no real reason, yet he doesn't seem to suffer anything more than a little bit of confusion. One of the women involved in the stunt is a newly chosen CEO of a major corporation and she seems a bit embarrassed at finding out she has been duped into risking her entire career for nothing, but that's all. The other woman, who devised this pseudo-sexual assault as a way of humiliating the first woman, doesn't even seem to get any great pleasure out of her petty manipulations. We see an act of kidnapping and sexual assault -- felonies -- but it seems to be meaningless, even though it becomes the focal point of the film.
Stockard Channing is Julie, the executive. Julia Stiles is Paula, a corporate underling who has displeased Julie and was subsequently fired. Forced to stay at a generic airport hotel while on an out-of-town business trip, the two get to know each other. Part of this emotional, semi-feminist, pseudo-lesbian bonding includes targeting Nick (Frederick Weller), a corporate head hunter and a business acquaintance of Julie's. Being a male, Nick presumably represents a common opponent for the women, which is amplified to the level of enemy when Paula maliciously labels him as a rapist as well.
The film embraces a feminist mindset, then debunks it. Three quarters of the film seems to suggest that Julie and Paula have a bond simply because they are both women -- even though they have little else in common -- and this culminates in their assault on Nick. The film also plays on the expectations of the audience, which has been conditioned to assume that women have a special bond and are justified at any act of rage against men (the "Thelma & Louise" syndrome). But, as we see, the abuse of Nick is not justified and is based on a myth that the mere suggestion of rape unites all women. In fact, this supposed gender bond allows Julie to trust Paula, who she has known for less than 24 hours -- and has already revealed herself to be exploitive and dishonest -- over Nick, a long-time associate who shows Julie nothing but friendliness and support. The film's twist reveals that the two women really don't have any unique sisterhood at all, and Paula was exploiting a feminist myth. Indeed, Julie seems to have done quite well in the "man's world" of business and really has more in common with Nick than with Paula.
But, having the nerve to take on an anti-feminist position, the film backs away from it timidly. Nick is victimized, but not too much. Julie betrays Nick, but not to the point where it costs her anything; indeed, even though she treats Nick despicably, the film tries to makes us more sorry for Julie. Though the film falls short of showing Paula to be evil or psychotic, it sidesteps her obvious hatred of men in favor of her sexual and social jealousy and resentment of Julie. Gender politics propels the story, but remains only an understated theme in the narrative.
As a character study, the film is not so bad. Channing is, as always, the picture of natural acting grace and subtlety. As Julie, she is always prepared for the worse to happen and is emotionally unprepared for enjoying life when it doesn't. Stiles is properly uncomfortable to watch as the perpetually duplicitous Paula, but her character never makes much sense. It is not believable that someone so irresponsible would end up assisting a high-powered executive. Maybe she is meant to be Julie's alter ego; a representation of Julie as a younger woman, or symbolic of Julie's pent up rage and resentment against men. Either way, she is less a person than a plot contrivance. Weller has the thankless job of being just an ordinary guy whose actions are open to interpretation. If he is innocent, he has our sympathy; if he is guilty the women have our empathy. The film lacks the courage to play the character either way, and Weller himself is left walking a tightrope for the benefit of the plot, making Nick seem oddly untrustworthy, even though he is given nothing to do or say that would support this.
THE BUSINESS OF STRANGERS looks good and has solid performances. But like the shiny glass and chrome world it portrays, it is all superficial veneer. The action goes too far to make it merely a character study, but not far enough to make it a psychological thriller. It is a film that seems to be greatly angry about something, but is too unsure of itself to fully vent its rage.
Okay, in THE BUSINESS OF STRANGERS two women seek to get revenge on a man who has been accused (falsely, as it turns out) of rape. It is a small, but key part of the story. Their improvised scheme involves drugging him, taking him to a semi-public place, stripping him of his clothes and writing obscenities all over his body. Sexual humiliation, with the intent of leaving him shamed and degraded. A symbolic rape, as it were. But, they only strip him to his underwear. Why? Since the point of their actions is revenge and humiliation, then why not strip him naked? And why leave his clothes behind? As is, the poor guy wakes up, cleans up, dresses and apparently goes on like nothing happened. Instead of being a violation of his psyche as much as his body, the incident proves to be little more than a fraternity prank of no real consequence. The film wants to show the women doing a bad thing, but not bad enough to lose viewer sympathy.
That is the problem with this artsy, but feather-weight film: It never goes far enough. This man, who, up until he is taken advantage of, appears to be a cordial and sympathetic businessman, is cruelly victimized for no real reason, yet he doesn't seem to suffer anything more than a little bit of confusion. One of the women involved in the stunt is a newly chosen CEO of a major corporation and she seems a bit embarrassed at finding out she has been duped into risking her entire career for nothing, but that's all. The other woman, who devised this pseudo-sexual assault as a way of humiliating the first woman, doesn't even seem to get any great pleasure out of her petty manipulations. We see an act of kidnapping and sexual assault -- felonies -- but it seems to be meaningless, even though it becomes the focal point of the film.
Stockard Channing is Julie, the executive. Julia Stiles is Paula, a corporate underling who has displeased Julie and was subsequently fired. Forced to stay at a generic airport hotel while on an out-of-town business trip, the two get to know each other. Part of this emotional, semi-feminist, pseudo-lesbian bonding includes targeting Nick (Frederick Weller), a corporate head hunter and a business acquaintance of Julie's. Being a male, Nick presumably represents a common opponent for the women, which is amplified to the level of enemy when Paula maliciously labels him as a rapist as well.
The film embraces a feminist mindset, then debunks it. Three quarters of the film seems to suggest that Julie and Paula have a bond simply because they are both women -- even though they have little else in common -- and this culminates in their assault on Nick. The film also plays on the expectations of the audience, which has been conditioned to assume that women have a special bond and are justified at any act of rage against men (the "Thelma & Louise" syndrome). But, as we see, the abuse of Nick is not justified and is based on a myth that the mere suggestion of rape unites all women. In fact, this supposed gender bond allows Julie to trust Paula, who she has known for less than 24 hours -- and has already revealed herself to be exploitive and dishonest -- over Nick, a long-time associate who shows Julie nothing but friendliness and support. The film's twist reveals that the two women really don't have any unique sisterhood at all, and Paula was exploiting a feminist myth. Indeed, Julie seems to have done quite well in the "man's world" of business and really has more in common with Nick than with Paula.
But, having the nerve to take on an anti-feminist position, the film backs away from it timidly. Nick is victimized, but not too much. Julie betrays Nick, but not to the point where it costs her anything; indeed, even though she treats Nick despicably, the film tries to makes us more sorry for Julie. Though the film falls short of showing Paula to be evil or psychotic, it sidesteps her obvious hatred of men in favor of her sexual and social jealousy and resentment of Julie. Gender politics propels the story, but remains only an understated theme in the narrative.
As a character study, the film is not so bad. Channing is, as always, the picture of natural acting grace and subtlety. As Julie, she is always prepared for the worse to happen and is emotionally unprepared for enjoying life when it doesn't. Stiles is properly uncomfortable to watch as the perpetually duplicitous Paula, but her character never makes much sense. It is not believable that someone so irresponsible would end up assisting a high-powered executive. Maybe she is meant to be Julie's alter ego; a representation of Julie as a younger woman, or symbolic of Julie's pent up rage and resentment against men. Either way, she is less a person than a plot contrivance. Weller has the thankless job of being just an ordinary guy whose actions are open to interpretation. If he is innocent, he has our sympathy; if he is guilty the women have our empathy. The film lacks the courage to play the character either way, and Weller himself is left walking a tightrope for the benefit of the plot, making Nick seem oddly untrustworthy, even though he is given nothing to do or say that would support this.
THE BUSINESS OF STRANGERS looks good and has solid performances. But like the shiny glass and chrome world it portrays, it is all superficial veneer. The action goes too far to make it merely a character study, but not far enough to make it a psychological thriller. It is a film that seems to be greatly angry about something, but is too unsure of itself to fully vent its rage.
The Games People Play
Rogue-3216 January 2004
While The Business of Strangers is by no means a thoroughly satisfying film (sort of how LIFE is never always completely satisfying), it certainly makes for nearly an hour and a half of compelling, thought-provoking fare. The always-superb Stockard Channing is at her coiled best, never really seeming relaxed even when she's supposedly tanked on scotch. An Oscar-worthy performance, even when we're not completely sure of her motivations - although this is a good thing here, because SHE's not so sure about what the heck she's doing either, even though she's supposedly so in control.
And Julia Stiles shines here too, investing her character of Paula with ambiguity galore - in the course of the film she exhibits confusion, rage, sadness, cruelty, disgust and much more -- sometimes all in the same scene.
There are no simple explanations here, no easy and tidy ending to this tale (just like in life - 'the messiness of life,' Paula alludes to early in the film). Every day people act out neurotic behavior (which has nothing to do with their daily lives but rather with things that have happened in their pasts), and every day people who are supposedly in control desperately long for 'a dominatrix' to work them over for a few hours a week. Julie 'hires' Paula to do that for her in this movie, and by the end, after all the mind games have been played and the dust settles, you're not sure what to think, which is also the way life does us for the most part.
And Julia Stiles shines here too, investing her character of Paula with ambiguity galore - in the course of the film she exhibits confusion, rage, sadness, cruelty, disgust and much more -- sometimes all in the same scene.
There are no simple explanations here, no easy and tidy ending to this tale (just like in life - 'the messiness of life,' Paula alludes to early in the film). Every day people act out neurotic behavior (which has nothing to do with their daily lives but rather with things that have happened in their pasts), and every day people who are supposedly in control desperately long for 'a dominatrix' to work them over for a few hours a week. Julie 'hires' Paula to do that for her in this movie, and by the end, after all the mind games have been played and the dust settles, you're not sure what to think, which is also the way life does us for the most part.
A slick String pulled psychological drama of the venus gender.
frereloupe96 August 2002
What do we get when we have two hard as marbles women waiting in airport for a "constantly delayed" flight? 90 minutes of awe and the urge to drink a cold bottle of Evian, for some reason BOS really makes me agitated, i don't know which character should i root for, the two of them are made-in-hell-tough,so tough i think my teeth will sink backwards if i bite on any one of these angry damsels.
The story basically goes like this; 40 something woman A in the hectic moment of her daily slave corporate basis, in the middle of it she manage to rough handle early 20 woman B, who supposedly is her assistant on spot. However after woman A managed to get promoted as a CEO. she sobered up and befriends woman B , who have secrets and intentions of her own, putting other character aside (MEN) a psychological claustrophobic game of mind-stabbing commences, who shall be the victorious? this is a tale of the older against the brash younger both with their unpleasant past stories.
Stockard Channing takes the role of a woman who's been around in a male dominated corporation, had this been a film of a bigger scale, an Oscar nomination would be a no-question, enough said.
Julia Stiles taking the antagonistic role here, sporting some rub-on tattoos, she plays her part as the rebellious writer/assistant (who might or might not have been pulling strings since it all begun) too convincingly, its a love and hate character,i never saw her being so menacing,which is always a good surprise.
Director Patrick Stettner, on his feature debut,works his gig neatly, from the first opening scene, he entrust the audiences intelligence by giving us hints about the backdrops of where the story going to take place, Michael Mann-ish shots of Landscapes really gives you the sense of chill that you usually get when youre sitting in an empty soccer stadium,and you're not even a soccer fan.
Certain scenes really offer some deep screen linguic messages, such as the scene where the two heroines explored the area of the hotel that is under construction, makes one eager to flip his/her film language Cyclopedia.
The lightings are subtle yet vivid, the pale white backdrop, the contrast of dark foreground which works as an enclosure for battlefield of the two women, which separates them from the outside world.
A good film , especially those who didn't expect anything, i was having high expectation because of some recent positive hearings, well satisfied i am, in a negative accentuated kinda way.
3.5 out of 5 stars.
+3.5 for upsolid performances from the aging yet raging Stockard and the young Stiles, Good direction and photography, an enganging dialogue in the tradition of Mamet(think Glengary Glen Ross).
-1.5 for minor uh oh and a storyline that could have been more..ummm.. broad.
The story basically goes like this; 40 something woman A in the hectic moment of her daily slave corporate basis, in the middle of it she manage to rough handle early 20 woman B, who supposedly is her assistant on spot. However after woman A managed to get promoted as a CEO. she sobered up and befriends woman B , who have secrets and intentions of her own, putting other character aside (MEN) a psychological claustrophobic game of mind-stabbing commences, who shall be the victorious? this is a tale of the older against the brash younger both with their unpleasant past stories.
Stockard Channing takes the role of a woman who's been around in a male dominated corporation, had this been a film of a bigger scale, an Oscar nomination would be a no-question, enough said.
Julia Stiles taking the antagonistic role here, sporting some rub-on tattoos, she plays her part as the rebellious writer/assistant (who might or might not have been pulling strings since it all begun) too convincingly, its a love and hate character,i never saw her being so menacing,which is always a good surprise.
Director Patrick Stettner, on his feature debut,works his gig neatly, from the first opening scene, he entrust the audiences intelligence by giving us hints about the backdrops of where the story going to take place, Michael Mann-ish shots of Landscapes really gives you the sense of chill that you usually get when youre sitting in an empty soccer stadium,and you're not even a soccer fan.
Certain scenes really offer some deep screen linguic messages, such as the scene where the two heroines explored the area of the hotel that is under construction, makes one eager to flip his/her film language Cyclopedia.
The lightings are subtle yet vivid, the pale white backdrop, the contrast of dark foreground which works as an enclosure for battlefield of the two women, which separates them from the outside world.
A good film , especially those who didn't expect anything, i was having high expectation because of some recent positive hearings, well satisfied i am, in a negative accentuated kinda way.
3.5 out of 5 stars.
+3.5 for upsolid performances from the aging yet raging Stockard and the young Stiles, Good direction and photography, an enganging dialogue in the tradition of Mamet(think Glengary Glen Ross).
-1.5 for minor uh oh and a storyline that could have been more..ummm.. broad.
I like the sloppiness of real life.
lastliberal22 January 2008
Fascinating study of two very different women with the ever impressive Stockard Channing (The Matthew Shepard Story, "The West Wing") and Julia Stiles (The Bourne Trilogy, Edmond).
Julie (Channing) had to scrape her way to the top, apparently coming from the wrong side of the tracks. She is so fearful that, when her boss wants to meet with her, she immediately calls a headhunter to see what's available.
Paula, with her multiple tats, is a child of privilege, and just wants to have fun.
Can you imagine the clash? Unfortunately, Nick (Fred Weller) gets between them and suffers as a result.
It is one of those films that will have you thinking long afterwords.
Julie (Channing) had to scrape her way to the top, apparently coming from the wrong side of the tracks. She is so fearful that, when her boss wants to meet with her, she immediately calls a headhunter to see what's available.
Paula, with her multiple tats, is a child of privilege, and just wants to have fun.
Can you imagine the clash? Unfortunately, Nick (Fred Weller) gets between them and suffers as a result.
It is one of those films that will have you thinking long afterwords.
Corporate Fraud
rcraig6228 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
"The Business of Strangers" is a stylish piece of work, but it's a bit fraudulent. The story, to me, anyway, is completely implausible. I just didn't believe a woman with the controlled personality of a CEO could be so easily drawn in to such a dumb prank. And once I found myself disbelieving that, I didn't buy anything else that happened in the film. The film also glosses over the implications of what Julia Stiles' character does - the guy could easily have died from the drug overdose. I suppose some people will interpret the ending as Stiles' character, the cold, manipulative bitch, beating the CEO at her own game, but I didn't see that at all. She just struck me as a man-hater, a lonely, lost little girl.
This movie is also far from original. It contains too many elements from better movies I've seen before, notably "In The Company Of Men". Even the best lines of dialogue in the movie are an utter cliché, when Stiles and Stockard Channing are swapping "Ok, you told me what I am, now I'm going to tell you what you are" barbs. The performances are all great; it's just the material that's lacking. "The Business of Strangers" is not terrible, but it's weak, and it trivializes not only the plight of women in the corporate workplace, but rape victims as well.
This movie is also far from original. It contains too many elements from better movies I've seen before, notably "In The Company Of Men". Even the best lines of dialogue in the movie are an utter cliché, when Stiles and Stockard Channing are swapping "Ok, you told me what I am, now I'm going to tell you what you are" barbs. The performances are all great; it's just the material that's lacking. "The Business of Strangers" is not terrible, but it's weak, and it trivializes not only the plight of women in the corporate workplace, but rape victims as well.
Edgy, daring, unconventional
DennisLittrell23 September 2003
Near the beginning of this imaginative film when Paula Murphy (20-year-old Julia Stiles) and Julie Styron (Stockard Channing) meet in earnest, Paula tells Julie what she really does in life: "I'm a writer," she says. I write short stories about things that I experience. Nonfiction. "Fiction is too stupid, too neat. I like the sloppiness of real life." What we don't know at the time is that Paula is about to improvise just such a tale involving Julie, a tale that challenges the middle-aged executive's lifestyle and her assumptions about herself and inspires her to do things she wouldn't normally do.
This is the "business of strangers." And this is the story within the story. Paula is the diabolical kind of person who is dedicated to introducing people to themselves so that she can watch them twist, a privileged, under-achieving Ivy League girl with machinations. Julie is a community college workaholic who never had time for a family, or love, or self-discovery, a lonely woman whose life is a parade of sterile hotel rooms, anonymous strangers, alcohol and pills. Although the story drags in a little in spots, the overall effect is edgy and fascinating, and the contrast between the principals keeps us wondering who is going to come out on top.
The action really begins when Julie, in an expansive mood with some booze and her promotion to CEO, shows some interest in the girl she just fired for being late to a presentation. It's not clear what sort of interest that is. Julie responds as a spider coaxing a fly into the web, but it's not clear what she's up to. They go to the pool and play around, get on the treadmills at the gym and run. They go back to Julie's suite and drink some more.
At this point I'm afraid that the film will deteriorate into a politically correct cliché of some kind, or a lesbian wish-fulfillment debacle, without anything really happening. Enter (or actually re-enter) Nick Harris (Fred Weller) who, Paula has confided to Julie, raped her best friend when they were undergraduates in Boston. This excites Julie's loathing and so the two women play out an improvised and drunken revenge scenario that is a bit over the top, but psychologically correct.
After some intense emotional interaction, the film resolves surprisingly and rather neatly, allowing us to see that Paula has indeed spun out a tale whose moral might be, "watch out for young foxes." The scene in the airport emphasizes this, with Julie and Nick sheepishly sorting out last night's bizarre debauchery while trying to maintain their dignity, with Paula poised brazenly in plain sight wearing earphones, a smug silhouette in the distance.
Patrick Stettner wrote the script, which, judging from the series of stationary settings and the limited cast, I suspect was originally a stage play. He also directed in a business-like manner, getting a saucy and smirk-laden performance from Stiles, whose originality and talent is obvious, and a steady and believable one from veteran Channing. Incidentally, Channing is a Harvard graduate who is perhaps best known for her performance as Betty Rizzo in Grease (1978) playing a teenager when she was 32-years-old! Here she braves some close camera work that starkly reveals the 57-year-old actress beneath the makeup. Yet, as always, Stockard Channing pleases us.
But see this for Julia Stiles, a thoroughly professional player, whose arrogant, sneering, and edgy style add spice to, and partially disguise, her youthful mastery of the fine art of acting.
(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)
This is the "business of strangers." And this is the story within the story. Paula is the diabolical kind of person who is dedicated to introducing people to themselves so that she can watch them twist, a privileged, under-achieving Ivy League girl with machinations. Julie is a community college workaholic who never had time for a family, or love, or self-discovery, a lonely woman whose life is a parade of sterile hotel rooms, anonymous strangers, alcohol and pills. Although the story drags in a little in spots, the overall effect is edgy and fascinating, and the contrast between the principals keeps us wondering who is going to come out on top.
The action really begins when Julie, in an expansive mood with some booze and her promotion to CEO, shows some interest in the girl she just fired for being late to a presentation. It's not clear what sort of interest that is. Julie responds as a spider coaxing a fly into the web, but it's not clear what she's up to. They go to the pool and play around, get on the treadmills at the gym and run. They go back to Julie's suite and drink some more.
At this point I'm afraid that the film will deteriorate into a politically correct cliché of some kind, or a lesbian wish-fulfillment debacle, without anything really happening. Enter (or actually re-enter) Nick Harris (Fred Weller) who, Paula has confided to Julie, raped her best friend when they were undergraduates in Boston. This excites Julie's loathing and so the two women play out an improvised and drunken revenge scenario that is a bit over the top, but psychologically correct.
After some intense emotional interaction, the film resolves surprisingly and rather neatly, allowing us to see that Paula has indeed spun out a tale whose moral might be, "watch out for young foxes." The scene in the airport emphasizes this, with Julie and Nick sheepishly sorting out last night's bizarre debauchery while trying to maintain their dignity, with Paula poised brazenly in plain sight wearing earphones, a smug silhouette in the distance.
Patrick Stettner wrote the script, which, judging from the series of stationary settings and the limited cast, I suspect was originally a stage play. He also directed in a business-like manner, getting a saucy and smirk-laden performance from Stiles, whose originality and talent is obvious, and a steady and believable one from veteran Channing. Incidentally, Channing is a Harvard graduate who is perhaps best known for her performance as Betty Rizzo in Grease (1978) playing a teenager when she was 32-years-old! Here she braves some close camera work that starkly reveals the 57-year-old actress beneath the makeup. Yet, as always, Stockard Channing pleases us.
But see this for Julia Stiles, a thoroughly professional player, whose arrogant, sneering, and edgy style add spice to, and partially disguise, her youthful mastery of the fine art of acting.
(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)
WORTH WATCHING BUT,
flimbuff4 November 2002
the many and various comments about this film indicate that it mostly found an audience of Stockard Channing fans and 'understanding feminists'. Channing is excellent as the successful business woman who has made it to the top in a man's world but finds a 'little something' missing from that success. Kind of a worn out premise but well done nevertheless. A little more inscrutable is the Chiles character whose motives we will never know. Her deceitful bitterness is undiscoverable because of the her character's mystery. Was she really raped by our good looking but unpersonable simp or was that something she imagined from her 'nonfiction' writing? The movie went wrong by simply not developing who she was and just hints at an unexplained complexity. Worth watching for the performances but not worth thinking too much about because the screenwriter never really tries to go above mere generalizations.
So women can act as stupid as men, cinematically? YAY!
Boyo-231 October 2003
If this is supposed to be a turn on the usual men-exploiting-women movie, then congrats to all concerned, its great to know that the playing field is now equal.
It started off great, it really did. The cinematography is remarkable and I am assuming there was not a gigantic budget, but you'd never know it by what is onscreen - the 'look' of the movie is also terrific. It has a certain feel to it - I give it that much credit gladly.
But then you get to the characters and the screenplay and the actual words that are said and it all goes into the garbage can very fast. I didn't buy either womans' motivation for anything. Is the woman Julia Stiles plays a psychopath, a liar, a spoiled brat or just bored? Is the woman Stockard Channing plays an idiot, a moron or just bored? For Stiles to accuse Frederick Weller of rape/sexual abuse just for the fun of it is an insult to women and men worldwide who have actually suffered such abuse.
I like Weller and watched this originally to see him. I watched it again to make sure I hated it as much as I did the first time, and I did. 3/10 and that's generous on my part.
It started off great, it really did. The cinematography is remarkable and I am assuming there was not a gigantic budget, but you'd never know it by what is onscreen - the 'look' of the movie is also terrific. It has a certain feel to it - I give it that much credit gladly.
But then you get to the characters and the screenplay and the actual words that are said and it all goes into the garbage can very fast. I didn't buy either womans' motivation for anything. Is the woman Julia Stiles plays a psychopath, a liar, a spoiled brat or just bored? Is the woman Stockard Channing plays an idiot, a moron or just bored? For Stiles to accuse Frederick Weller of rape/sexual abuse just for the fun of it is an insult to women and men worldwide who have actually suffered such abuse.
I like Weller and watched this originally to see him. I watched it again to make sure I hated it as much as I did the first time, and I did. 3/10 and that's generous on my part.
Girls just 'wanna' have fun!
jotix10015 December 2001
What a pleasure to watch Stockard Channing in this film! The range of emotions she undergoes playing Julie, an over-the-hill, frustrated and angry woman, who perhaps has been overlooked by her employers, like so many other women with a lot of qualifications, too many times. She is totally vulnerable. She's afraid of losing her job, which she has worked probably so hard to obtain and keep. She goes from one extreme to another in a range that is very hard to imagine another could convey as eloquently as Ms. Channing.
She meets her match when Paula, her new assistant, gets into the picture. Paula is an enigmatic character who we don't know where she's coming from, yet, she exerts an incredible amount of power over her newly acquired boss. That's when the fun and games begin. Julia Stiles projects a mystery about who this assistant is, obviously a product of privilege and wealth in sharp contrast with Stockard Channing character, who we get to know, comes from very humble origin and whose ascent into the position she is now is the product of hard work. Her ambition is natural because her Julie has had to struggle and fight for whatever she has gotten from life, including her present executive position.
It's like a good tennis match watching these two actresses go at it, and at each other throughout the film, but it is Miss Channing who outshines and makes this feature so much fun to watch. The script and direction from Patrick Stettner are just right, but he is well served by his cast.
She meets her match when Paula, her new assistant, gets into the picture. Paula is an enigmatic character who we don't know where she's coming from, yet, she exerts an incredible amount of power over her newly acquired boss. That's when the fun and games begin. Julia Stiles projects a mystery about who this assistant is, obviously a product of privilege and wealth in sharp contrast with Stockard Channing character, who we get to know, comes from very humble origin and whose ascent into the position she is now is the product of hard work. Her ambition is natural because her Julie has had to struggle and fight for whatever she has gotten from life, including her present executive position.
It's like a good tennis match watching these two actresses go at it, and at each other throughout the film, but it is Miss Channing who outshines and makes this feature so much fun to watch. The script and direction from Patrick Stettner are just right, but he is well served by his cast.
and then, and then?....aw shucks!
rjennica22 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Stockard Channing and Julia Styles deserve Oscars for this would-be psycho thriller which, as others stated, just built you up, just to let you down. It could have been more mind bending if the surprise element of Julia's true character revealed, had been more thoroughly explored rather than teasing us for so long, with no shock value at the end. Doesn't have to be blood and gore, but certainly some kind of "consequence" for the malicious actions of both women against an "innocent" man besides leaving us with the proverbial thought, 'Oh, maybe I really don't want this job...I should get a life.' Still, for all the potential 'could've beens', I enjoyed the movie.
A strange business
fateslieutenant26 January 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Watch the first fifteen minutes for Stockard Channing's subtle but amazing portrayal of a woman alone at the top and afraid of tumbling; strong and intelligent but uncertain of her choices and seemingly alone in the world but for her therapist, secretary, and other employees, she cannot tell success from disaster. Clever editing keeps us in the dark, too, and her promotion is at first easily mistaken for a lover's rupture. The pleasure of her good fortune is soured when we realise that she has no lover, just a job.
The quality of the plot plummets inexplicably with the arrival of Julia Stiles' character, and the quality of the acting plummets just as violently with the arrival of Julia Stiles. It's not entirely her fault: she gets nothing but ridiculous lines. The story that ensues is a betrayal of the movie's first quarter-hour: there is no real story to speak of, just a series of picaresque moments, and the gentle but invasive probing of character that was promised is dismissed in favour of a meaningless attack on someone's life. Murder, especially of the wanton variety, is the thing Hollywood uses to give a film a sense of intellectual depth when it has none; ironically, it is fast becoming the thing independents use when they are scared of being thought dull and overly-intellectual. Sadly, it didn't improve this film.
The quality of the plot plummets inexplicably with the arrival of Julia Stiles' character, and the quality of the acting plummets just as violently with the arrival of Julia Stiles. It's not entirely her fault: she gets nothing but ridiculous lines. The story that ensues is a betrayal of the movie's first quarter-hour: there is no real story to speak of, just a series of picaresque moments, and the gentle but invasive probing of character that was promised is dismissed in favour of a meaningless attack on someone's life. Murder, especially of the wanton variety, is the thing Hollywood uses to give a film a sense of intellectual depth when it has none; ironically, it is fast becoming the thing independents use when they are scared of being thought dull and overly-intellectual. Sadly, it didn't improve this film.
A Hidden Treasure
sm425618 October 2002
Call it an art film. Call it low-budget. Call it limited-release. But it's a lot more entertaining and intelligent than 95 percent of what Hollywood produces these days. (I know this was filmed primarily in New Jersey, but you know where I'm coming from.)
The psychological and physical tension between the two leading characters (Channing and Stiles) really makes this film. There's a lot to think about here, including the price to be paid for corporate success and how trust often ends up being the world's most valuable commodity.
Anyone who's ever reached the top of the corporate ladder and then found themselves to tired to enjoy it will appreciate Channing's performance. She's a perfect fit for this role, strong and confident on one hand but insecure and a tad lonely on the other.
It seems strange to say it, but I really liked something about how the culture of business travel was illustrated in the movie -- hotel bars, shuttle buses, cell phones, neatly-organized suitcases, lounges, alarm clocks. Maybe these characters simply have more impact in such an artificial environment.
A solid 8 1/2 out of 10.
The psychological and physical tension between the two leading characters (Channing and Stiles) really makes this film. There's a lot to think about here, including the price to be paid for corporate success and how trust often ends up being the world's most valuable commodity.
Anyone who's ever reached the top of the corporate ladder and then found themselves to tired to enjoy it will appreciate Channing's performance. She's a perfect fit for this role, strong and confident on one hand but insecure and a tad lonely on the other.
It seems strange to say it, but I really liked something about how the culture of business travel was illustrated in the movie -- hotel bars, shuttle buses, cell phones, neatly-organized suitcases, lounges, alarm clocks. Maybe these characters simply have more impact in such an artificial environment.
A solid 8 1/2 out of 10.
Not exactly Thelma and Louise
imdb-302227 February 2004
Stockard Channing balances toughness and vulnerability in this intimate glimpse of how deception digs its hooks into a hard-driving corporate executive who meets a cool bohemian (Julia Stiles) with a plan and decides to go along for the ride.
There's an uneasy and unconvincing bonding between the two - not the buddy kind of Thelma and Louise - that puts this story on edge. Channing brings as much life to her character as possible, yet the path she follows doesn't ring true. While she has reached a pinnacle in her career that leads to the inevitable, "What now?" question, her falling in with the Stiles character doesn't make a good enough answer.
It could be the basic incongruity of this camaraderie, though, that makes it a viable thriller. I wanted to yell, "No, don't do it!" to each of the main characters at various times. And I felt that sense of dread when things started the inevitable downward spiral from bad to worse.
These bad-to-worse actions of the two main characters can elicit a squirmy discomfort on the part of the viewer. Sometimes the movie's just too hard to watch. Yes, there's tension and excitement. But there's also a little too much mean-spirited violent behavior (not necessarily raw violence) that makes for difficult viewing.
The movie feels like a stage play, demanding that the dialog carry the story. Unfortunately, it lacks wit and compassion, and the thin plot and weak resolution don't help out any. The best part is Channing. 6 stars.
There's an uneasy and unconvincing bonding between the two - not the buddy kind of Thelma and Louise - that puts this story on edge. Channing brings as much life to her character as possible, yet the path she follows doesn't ring true. While she has reached a pinnacle in her career that leads to the inevitable, "What now?" question, her falling in with the Stiles character doesn't make a good enough answer.
It could be the basic incongruity of this camaraderie, though, that makes it a viable thriller. I wanted to yell, "No, don't do it!" to each of the main characters at various times. And I felt that sense of dread when things started the inevitable downward spiral from bad to worse.
These bad-to-worse actions of the two main characters can elicit a squirmy discomfort on the part of the viewer. Sometimes the movie's just too hard to watch. Yes, there's tension and excitement. But there's also a little too much mean-spirited violent behavior (not necessarily raw violence) that makes for difficult viewing.
The movie feels like a stage play, demanding that the dialog carry the story. Unfortunately, it lacks wit and compassion, and the thin plot and weak resolution don't help out any. The best part is Channing. 6 stars.
Well Acted, but Contrived and Predictable.
a-kos28 December 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Stettner offers a microcosm of the modern business world in his first full length film, The Business of Strangers. Stockard Channing plays Julie, a professional so devouted to her career she has neglect virtually every other aspect of her life. She suspects she might be fired soon, and meets with an employment "headhunter", Nick (Fred Weller). Julia Stiles is Paula (at least that's the name she provides), Julie's young, impetuous, obviously unstable assistant. After an acrimonious initial meeting, the two serendipidously meet in a hotel bar and become friends (Julie sees Paul as herself 20 years ago). It turns out Julie has been promoted, not fired, and Julie and Paula decide to live it up in the bar. During the party, Nick shows up (his flight was cancelled). Later, Paula tells Julie she knew Nick in college, and he committed an atrocity against her best friend. Later, when Nick shows up at Julie's room, the two women decide to get even.
(WARNING: Some spoilers ahead).
From the time Julie, Paula, and Nick meet at the bar the film is very predictable and staged. It's obvious from the time her character is introduced that Paula is unstable and duplicitous (she's hostile to virtually everyone she encounters). It's unreasonable to think a shrewd businesswoman like Julie wouldn't see through Paula's guise, and even more inconceivable she would risk her career to abet Paula in her malicious treatment of Nick (what they do is felonious).
After Julie and Paul part ways (neither one too worse for wear), Julie reconsiders her life decisions and seems to re-evaluate her priorities. This gesture by Stettner, while earnest, isn't the epiphany he seems to think it is, and in fact it's obvious from early on that Julie will realize this. The Business of Strangers is one of those films that seems tailored for critics, with little appeal for anyone else: Yes, the acting is first rate and the deliberately antiseptic direction is an effective, somber indictment of the modern business world. But, anyone who has seen more than a few films knows exactly where this one is headed after the first 30 minutes. Ultimately, The Business of Strangers is just an exercise for Channing, Stiles, and director Stettner.
(WARNING: Some spoilers ahead).
From the time Julie, Paula, and Nick meet at the bar the film is very predictable and staged. It's obvious from the time her character is introduced that Paula is unstable and duplicitous (she's hostile to virtually everyone she encounters). It's unreasonable to think a shrewd businesswoman like Julie wouldn't see through Paula's guise, and even more inconceivable she would risk her career to abet Paula in her malicious treatment of Nick (what they do is felonious).
After Julie and Paul part ways (neither one too worse for wear), Julie reconsiders her life decisions and seems to re-evaluate her priorities. This gesture by Stettner, while earnest, isn't the epiphany he seems to think it is, and in fact it's obvious from early on that Julie will realize this. The Business of Strangers is one of those films that seems tailored for critics, with little appeal for anyone else: Yes, the acting is first rate and the deliberately antiseptic direction is an effective, somber indictment of the modern business world. But, anyone who has seen more than a few films knows exactly where this one is headed after the first 30 minutes. Ultimately, The Business of Strangers is just an exercise for Channing, Stiles, and director Stettner.
Two fine performances anchor this film
Quinoa198422 December 2001
The Business of Strangers, the official selection at the Sundance film festival of 2001, is a well written and mostly well staged drama/character study with a business woman (Stockard Channing) who has just been promoted to CEO of the company which she was just fired from and her creative assistant (Julia Stiles). They are held up at an airport hotel during a storm and confide in each other things here and there, until a corporate head-hunter comes in the scene who raped one of Stiles' college friends. Then the plot unfolds, though rather quickly since it takes place in the span of a night. Nothing great (why it was the official selection at Sundance and at Toronto is beyond me), but still an interesting portrait of women in the business world and how they handle things. The ending is questionable though (is the headhunter lying or is Stiles, you decide). B+
Repeat Business.
ArrivederciBaby13 August 2002
What do you have when you copy the opening titles from "The Ice Storm", the background music from "American Beauty", and various plot elements from "Bound", "Swimming With Sharks", "Tape", "In the Company of Men", and "Glengarry Glen Ross"? You have "The Business of Strangers", a film completely devoid of original ideas from writer/director Patrick Stettner. If you've never seen the former films, you may be impressed by this ridiculous potboiler. If you've never seen the former films, you should, because they are all expert, original visions from top-level filmmakers. As Stettner pulls out each cliche from his grab bag, all you can do is roll your eyes - even a hackneyed shot like "office windows looking like prison bars" is given full commitment, as if it hadn't been seen dozens of times since the '60s. Perhaps Stettner has talent. Hopefully next time he'll write about something from within himself, and be a true artist. And maybe not.
One of the best
IOBdennis26 August 2002
If you don't like movies that ask you to work with them and make you think, then pass this one up. I am not fond myself of cute cult flicks that everyone says are oh-so-marvelous, such as "In the Bedroom," which I thought stunk. This movie with its bullseye performances is one of the best. Heaven forbid there are leitmotifs and innuendoes and symbolic turns in this film. It's intriguing, convoluted, brain-teasing, mesmerizing, funny, scarey, and altogether enjoyable. So, if you prefer whiz-bang, shoot-em-ups, with no plot, no character, and hackneyed characterizations, wait for the next Hollywood blockbuster, and avoid this adult drama that has flair, spice, hidden flavors.
Classic drama
Chris_Docker13 May 2002
(6/10) Starts very promisingly. Great sweeping modern architecture are impressive camera work are a great medium for a tale of corporate ladder climbing and the stresses and tribulations that gives - admirably depicted by Stockard Channing's character. We also see the young Julia Stiles tackling a more substantial role than she had in Save the Last Dance and the swathe of teen comedies like 10 Things I Hate About You that she is better known for. What follows is quite a powerful drama that might work well on the stage, yet the power plays of the two women and the struggles with events with weak or despicable men fail to realise the philosophical questions about gender one might have hoped the film would tackle.
This is a strange film
Emma D7 May 2002
I'm not sure about this one. I saw it at the weekend after reading the reviews and the movie was not what I expected.
It could have been better but it could have been worse. Stockard Channing is fantastic in this film and probably the only reason to watch it.
This film looks like it belongs on stage and not on the big screen. There were so many issues that the film brings up but it never really explores these issues fully. It's a pity because the performances from the two leads are so strong that I want to like the film. And yet, I can't say that I would recommend this movie.
If you want to see it, wait till it's out on video.
It could have been better but it could have been worse. Stockard Channing is fantastic in this film and probably the only reason to watch it.
This film looks like it belongs on stage and not on the big screen. There were so many issues that the film brings up but it never really explores these issues fully. It's a pity because the performances from the two leads are so strong that I want to like the film. And yet, I can't say that I would recommend this movie.
If you want to see it, wait till it's out on video.
Would have liked to see more but that probably would have ruined it
Alan-4010 November 2002
Paula hates men, and has learned to use her sexual attractiveness as a weapon against them. It's made obvious the way she likes to taunt them in the elevator, the dance floor. Making out in the hallway just enough to get him turned on, then kick him away. Throwing their lame smalltalk back in their face. (At the end of the movie I asked my SO why she "did it" and the answer was "because she can." I got it right.)
Paula is a constant, but what about Julie? Together but brittle, Paula boils things to the surface of Julie that otherwise would not have come to light without sufficient heat. This movie keeps you watching, and you can't help but question whether the characters and fallen "out of character" or not. But that's the whole point.
You keep watching because you want to see where it goes. Over the edge, or reel back to safety?
Actors aside, the background is perfect, as anyone who has spent any amount of time on business trips knows.
Eight stars.
Paula is a constant, but what about Julie? Together but brittle, Paula boils things to the surface of Julie that otherwise would not have come to light without sufficient heat. This movie keeps you watching, and you can't help but question whether the characters and fallen "out of character" or not. But that's the whole point.
You keep watching because you want to see where it goes. Over the edge, or reel back to safety?
Actors aside, the background is perfect, as anyone who has spent any amount of time on business trips knows.
Eight stars.
Weird thriller
jason_1317 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The Business of Strangers is a thriller, I would say one of a kind, but this time, this is not in the positive meaning of the word positive. Well, maybe it's only me, but I thought the movie is too strange for its own good. Of course I liked some scenes, but the movies was boring overall and as I said couple of times already - strange. So we have a mature woman who fires a young beautiful girl, but after she realizers life is not that bad, she brings the girl back to her job when they meet in a hotel. In fact the movie continues in the hotel and ends there which I consider as another pointless act.
The plot's direction leads us to another kind of movie, highly different than the first 15 minutes which are kinda promising if you don't have some big expectations. The movie is overrated according to IMDb's rating. It's even for 6.0. This is my opinion of course, but I am just saying this, cause your expectations might become higher if you see the rating and you might think the movie is special or something. As I said, it is different, but I didn't like that. I suppose, I should give some arguments why I don't like the movie that much or why I think it's strange. Well, there are some SPOILERS below. We have something like a friendship between a young beautiful girl with self confidence, eccentric character and optimistic look on her present and future life and a mature woman with strange understandings of life, dark past and pessimistic look on her future life. These 2 totally different girls meet and the movie becomes strange. First the director and writer as well, recreates a lesbian kind of story which was kinda strange addition to the plot and the idea of the movie. This is the main problem with the movie. I didn't get what does the creator of the movie, want to show with this relation between the two females. Then, when we think that these 2 girls are about to kiss or something, or if not, they would become best friends and they will trues each other although of them is under the control of the other when it comes to their job. Nope, that does not happen. When a guy arrives and meets Julie Stile's character, she tell her mature friend who knows the guy from a long time, that he had raped a friend of hers. Another strange plot twist that I didn't like. It was a really strange decision of the director. After these 2 strange plot directions, I realized the movie symbolizes something and it's full of deeper meanings that are not necessary at all.
Other than the stuff above, I was surprised from the good acting, the nice themes and the good directing. These things made me give a good rating for the movie. I don't quite know why. I guess, I've been in good mood. I always look for a great plot in similar kind of movies. Anyway, I don't recommend it to anyone, although I can't say it's the worst movie ever. I guess it just lost its potential, trying to be a thriller like no other.
The plot's direction leads us to another kind of movie, highly different than the first 15 minutes which are kinda promising if you don't have some big expectations. The movie is overrated according to IMDb's rating. It's even for 6.0. This is my opinion of course, but I am just saying this, cause your expectations might become higher if you see the rating and you might think the movie is special or something. As I said, it is different, but I didn't like that. I suppose, I should give some arguments why I don't like the movie that much or why I think it's strange. Well, there are some SPOILERS below. We have something like a friendship between a young beautiful girl with self confidence, eccentric character and optimistic look on her present and future life and a mature woman with strange understandings of life, dark past and pessimistic look on her future life. These 2 totally different girls meet and the movie becomes strange. First the director and writer as well, recreates a lesbian kind of story which was kinda strange addition to the plot and the idea of the movie. This is the main problem with the movie. I didn't get what does the creator of the movie, want to show with this relation between the two females. Then, when we think that these 2 girls are about to kiss or something, or if not, they would become best friends and they will trues each other although of them is under the control of the other when it comes to their job. Nope, that does not happen. When a guy arrives and meets Julie Stile's character, she tell her mature friend who knows the guy from a long time, that he had raped a friend of hers. Another strange plot twist that I didn't like. It was a really strange decision of the director. After these 2 strange plot directions, I realized the movie symbolizes something and it's full of deeper meanings that are not necessary at all.
Other than the stuff above, I was surprised from the good acting, the nice themes and the good directing. These things made me give a good rating for the movie. I don't quite know why. I guess, I've been in good mood. I always look for a great plot in similar kind of movies. Anyway, I don't recommend it to anyone, although I can't say it's the worst movie ever. I guess it just lost its potential, trying to be a thriller like no other.
Women in the Workplace
film-critic2 July 2007
The fearfulness of Channing's Julie Styron seemed unprecedented, and when we witnessed her with clients, the decision to take her forward was laughable. Was she as good as she seemed, or was she just playing the corporate field to better her advantage? The other question that came to mind was her coincidental neurosis dealing with the sporadic meeting with her boss. There was nothing, outside of moving the plot forward, which would have indicated these sudden laps of shame in her profession. The drop-in of Julia Styles suddenly meeting in the same business setting (having never met before), missing a plane together, and coincidentally ending up at the same bar sharing drinks and eventually inner secrets, just flabbergasted me. Why would these two ever meet up in a typical setting? While I don't want to think that this was just a film about the imagination of Channing, it did make you question and use the word "why". Typically I like this mind-boggling element in films, but in "Business of Strangers", it just didn't work. There was no "tell" in this film, and that tugged at me the wrong way in this film. The eerie patience that was demanded of the viewer left us with no moment of satisfaction. There was quite a bit of wait, but no payoff at the end. On one hand we have a very self-centered woman, career bent, but possibly not happy with her choices, and yet on the other we have a care-free young lady, experimental in nature, ready to change the world one person at a time. It seemed too forced, too stereotypical too manipulative. I needed more similarities; I needed more shock to really bring these two strangers together. This tried to be a darker rendition of "The Odd Couple" with drinking, rape, and random revenge. Force enough onto a character (or characters), the audience begins to believe that it is a Hollywood feature, and you meaning imperatively finds itself lost in the trenches.
Acting. In "Business of Strangers" it wasn't bad, but it wasn't the greatest that I have seen of Stiles or Channing. Their chemistry was decent, but it didn't compare to that of those characters in "Tape" or "Company of Men". This was obviously a stage film, meaning that it was a small play that had the unique opportunity to see the other side of a film camera. It was a boring premise, which is one reason I feel so fooled by this film, which was followed up by my second pet peeve of this film, it never tackled any real issues. Who were these two characters that we so dutifully were thrust into their lives? What makes them tick? What is their past? What is their future? Most importantly, at least with this film, what makes them connect? Unlike other films brought from the stage, "Business of Strangers" answers none of the above. Perhaps it is my male view on a very personal female film, but this was released to general audiences, so the appeal had to be broad. It was not emotional, it was not sad, nor was it victorious at the end. While I do not think rape is a minute problem in America, I do feel that I needed more with Channing and Stiles. Was she lying about the incident? Was she just trying to get Channing to release something from within? I wanted answers, I was pining inside for them, but the never arrived. Unlike "Shape of Things", there was just something missing. It was as if a big chunk of the film was misplaced. Fred Weller did a decent job, but his motive was missing.
Director Stettner did his job by bringing the characters together in, albeit, random events. He set the stage with surprisingly the darkest of corners and hidden hotel rooms. There was even a moment of unneeded tension in a scene (while I felt it wasn't needed) that was done with some bit of grace, but he continued to forget the element mentioned above motive. There was no reason to answer the question "why", when our characters were taking unmotivated photographs, when they were about to commit murder, or when they were talking to each other like they had known each other for years. There was no reason for director Stettner to get us from point A to point B, so in my opinion, he moved the action along through a series for unconnected points. Sure, the acting was meaty, but the words that they spoke merely were attached to a script which eventually had to have and ending. For a little over and hour, I watched good actors read through a bad script. Again, if there was more creativity in the motion of Stettner's work, then maybe I would have felt better by the ending, but I wasn't sitting on the edge of my seat, the characters didn't have me questioning the validity of my own life, nor was I ready to gush Niagara Falls over the body of work. By the end, I felt bland, as if I just watched a feminist remake of "In the Company of Men" or "Tape".
Overall, I wish I could say that I can suggest this film, but I cannot. The acting, with enough said above, you should realize that these are two great actors working through an abominable script. The story was pieced together probably overnight without much thought going into the entire process. It was dark, but the tones were miscommunicated as we tried to grapple with the idea that these two people had never met before but spoke as if they were best friends. Coupled with dialog that would make kindergarteners chuckle, "Business of Strangers" was a film packed with missed possibilities. If you are looking for either a redemption film or a film about coping with your tough job, may I suggest anything outside of this film.
Grade: ** out of *****
Acting. In "Business of Strangers" it wasn't bad, but it wasn't the greatest that I have seen of Stiles or Channing. Their chemistry was decent, but it didn't compare to that of those characters in "Tape" or "Company of Men". This was obviously a stage film, meaning that it was a small play that had the unique opportunity to see the other side of a film camera. It was a boring premise, which is one reason I feel so fooled by this film, which was followed up by my second pet peeve of this film, it never tackled any real issues. Who were these two characters that we so dutifully were thrust into their lives? What makes them tick? What is their past? What is their future? Most importantly, at least with this film, what makes them connect? Unlike other films brought from the stage, "Business of Strangers" answers none of the above. Perhaps it is my male view on a very personal female film, but this was released to general audiences, so the appeal had to be broad. It was not emotional, it was not sad, nor was it victorious at the end. While I do not think rape is a minute problem in America, I do feel that I needed more with Channing and Stiles. Was she lying about the incident? Was she just trying to get Channing to release something from within? I wanted answers, I was pining inside for them, but the never arrived. Unlike "Shape of Things", there was just something missing. It was as if a big chunk of the film was misplaced. Fred Weller did a decent job, but his motive was missing.
Director Stettner did his job by bringing the characters together in, albeit, random events. He set the stage with surprisingly the darkest of corners and hidden hotel rooms. There was even a moment of unneeded tension in a scene (while I felt it wasn't needed) that was done with some bit of grace, but he continued to forget the element mentioned above motive. There was no reason to answer the question "why", when our characters were taking unmotivated photographs, when they were about to commit murder, or when they were talking to each other like they had known each other for years. There was no reason for director Stettner to get us from point A to point B, so in my opinion, he moved the action along through a series for unconnected points. Sure, the acting was meaty, but the words that they spoke merely were attached to a script which eventually had to have and ending. For a little over and hour, I watched good actors read through a bad script. Again, if there was more creativity in the motion of Stettner's work, then maybe I would have felt better by the ending, but I wasn't sitting on the edge of my seat, the characters didn't have me questioning the validity of my own life, nor was I ready to gush Niagara Falls over the body of work. By the end, I felt bland, as if I just watched a feminist remake of "In the Company of Men" or "Tape".
Overall, I wish I could say that I can suggest this film, but I cannot. The acting, with enough said above, you should realize that these are two great actors working through an abominable script. The story was pieced together probably overnight without much thought going into the entire process. It was dark, but the tones were miscommunicated as we tried to grapple with the idea that these two people had never met before but spoke as if they were best friends. Coupled with dialog that would make kindergarteners chuckle, "Business of Strangers" was a film packed with missed possibilities. If you are looking for either a redemption film or a film about coping with your tough job, may I suggest anything outside of this film.
Grade: ** out of *****
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
