Third Person (2013) User Reviews

Blurred Lines

[3xHCCH · 7/10 · 20 June 2014]

Paul Haggis is best known as the director of the movie "Crash", which was the controversial winner of the Oscar for Best Picture in 2006 over its closest rival "Brokeback Mountain." Haggis is also the first screenwriter to win Oscars for Writing for two consecutive years, "Million Dollar Baby" in 2005 and "Crash" in 2006. It was the name of Paul Haggis that drew me to check out "Third Person" without knowing anything else about it.

Like "Crash", "Third Person" is also a film with multiple story lines. I have liked movies like this since I have seen "Amores Perros" and "21 Grams." I have admired how the scriptwriter managed to clearly tell three or four stories and then connect them to each other with an overarching bigger story.

Michael (Liam Neeson) is an aging Pulitzer-prize winning author who left his wife Elaine (Kim Basinger) and is now having an affair with a much younger Anna (Olivia Wilde) in Paris. Scott (Adrien Brody) is an unscrupulous clothing businessman who gets entangled with the shady financial problems of a gypsy-like local lady Monika (Moran Atias) in Rome. Julia (Mila Kunis) is a poor divorcée who lost custody of her young son to her estranged husband Rick (James Franco) because of an unfortunate accident with a plastic laundry bag.

It was good to see Liam Neeson again in a straight drama, not in another action vehicle that he is wont to do lately. Olivia Wilde is daring, gorgeous and smart, the perfect femme fatale. Mila Kunis stands out in a very serious dramatic role. Her brutally-emotional confrontation scene with James Franco was amazingly acted out. In terms of romantic chemistry though, the best was between Adrien Brody and Moran Atias. Their story line was interesting on its own, but seemed furthest off from any connection with the other two stories.

The underlying issue and conflict in all three stories was about trust. Anna's bizarre behavior is driving Michael nuts about her loyalty. On the other hand, Michael is using their stormy relationship as the subject of his book seemingly without Anna's consent. Monika's connection with a sleazy extortionist has Scott doubting her innocence. Rick cannot trust Julia anymore with even basic visitation rights to their son.

Even at the two hour mark, the three stories seem to be slowly losing their steam and getting nowhere without any detectable connection to each other. However, just as I was losing hope as to this film's ability to end properly, suddenly comes a most surprising development that actually manages to solidify the three disparate segments of this film into a single coherent whole. Paul Haggis has done it again to weave his magic with this inventive type of story telling via film.

My theory

[kokothehuman · 7/10 · 22 March 2015]

I really want to know if somebody else understood the movie the way I did. I thought that the writer (Liam Neeson) created all the characters in the movie, like he was writing about all of them, and they don't really exist, they just exist in his book. I say this because Mila Kunis is in the same hotel but like in a modern way, but they are the roses and the notebook. Also The lawyer of Mila speaks with Adrien Brody her ex husband and say to him that she will never forget him because their daughter die because of his fault. Also, Liam Neeson says that he is writing a book about a lot of personalities, I don't know if you can understand me but this was the say I understood the movie, thanks :)

RANDOM CHARACTERS MAKING EXCUSES FOR THEIR LIFE

[nogodnomasters · 7/10 · 26 August 2018]

The film opens with six or seven short subplots that come together but don't. This is a film one would expect from an indie director with an unknown cast. The film centers on Michael (Liam Neeson) a Pulitzer winner with severe writer's block due to the death of his son. He lives in a Hotel in Paris and it appears much of the film is actually his writings which is cause for much confusion. For instance when he leaves the hotel with his mistress Anna (Olivia Wilde) they are in Paris. When Julia, (Mila Kunis) the maid leaves the hotel, she is in New York (note 212 area code on building). Julia is having trouble getting her life together following the near death of her son as she struggles with social services and her husband for visitation rights.

There is also a weird scene going on in Rome where Scott (Adrien Brody) is stealing designs and meets a woman who needs help.

We don't know what motivates the characters until the end when it comes together.

Michael keeps a journal where he talks about himself in the third person. There is a third person in all the characters' lives and that is a child.

I believe the film is the disjointed writing of a grieving author searching for a topic. For most people, this film will be two plus hours of torture. For those who love films with an indie flare that forces the viewer to get engaged with the art, this one is for you.

Parental Guidance: F-bomb, sex, nudity (Olivia Wilde)

Third person interpretation

[Gemma-aa2 · 9 November 2014]

After reading various reviews, the interpretation of the film being about Liam's Neeson's novel seems to be quite accurate. He uses the characters of his book to symbolise his guilt and the significance of 'trust' through different situations. Towards the end of the film as the characters disappear, this reinforces the idea they are only a figment of his imagination.

Mila Kunis's character is symbolic to Liam as he feels overwhelming guilt due to the death of his child. This particular situation shows what may have been Liam's life had the child lived as there is no trust, she is severely hurt and depressed as she is unable to see her son. The scene where Mila breaks the flower vases symbolises the significance of 'white' being the colour of trust and lies and she feels she is not trusted. The significance of the affair that Liam's character has is also along the same lines as this manic and complicated woman he loves only feels comfortable with married men as she can leave when she wants and she can't be hurt, the theme again being trust. Perhaps the older man she sees through the film is in fact her father which shows the complicated relationship she has had and the pain she has feel as she cannot trust men even her own father, yet she is drawn to him in need for forgiveness. As she accepts her love for Liam's character and begins to be more vulnerable to the idea of love, her emotions show her sorrow and she is finally able to say goodbye to the dependence she has for the older man and is now devoted to Liam. The American thief is responsible for his child's death and craves her voice to live on. When he is conned by the Italian woman, this again has the theme of trust as he trusts too easily and this woman will do anything to get out of the situation she is in with what looks like a non-existent predicament with her daughter. finally when the American man is out of money giving away everything he has, he must wait to see if the woman will return despite his lack of money. She does return and they are able to live life aware of each other's faults and flaws, something he needs given his role with the death of his child. This is something his ex-wife is unable to forgive him for and therefore they had no chance of staying together. He must move on.

The characters parallel Liam's life and the different paths he could have taken. From my interpretation, the affair was part of his imagination created for his novel and his wife worries that while he is away in Rome to write his novel, he may have an affair as he is a romantic. This is why she says "is she there" but he responds with no she isn't in a confusion of reality and the story of his novel.

The recurring "watch me" said by the son is driving the creation of Liam's novel as he remembers the trust his son had and the moment (may have been an accident) where he dies. *Note the idea of white being symbolic is seen through Liam's lover wearing a white dress, the flowers, the colour of milk as Mila's son convinces his father she should be trusted.

A Third Person Seemed To Be Too Much For This Tale To Handle

[FilmMuscle · 6/10 · 25 July 2014]

Third Person seeks to explore the betrayal of trust—the betrayal of fidelity and friendship. Paul Haggis, the director, has made a career out of making films that interweave numerous story lines. In this case, Liam Neeson, Olivia Wilde, Adrien Brody, Mila Kunis, and James Franco all comprise a wonderful ensemble that demands a range of powerful emotions to drive this story through its incessant melodrama (no negative connotation applied). The narrative here focuses on the romantic relationships and affairs that unfortunately still plague society and humanity's untamable nature. I'm sure we all know the implication of the film's title ("Third Person"), and with that, the drama goes on an almost two-and-a-half-hour drive through tense dialogue, flirtation, and sexy teases.

The movie teases and teases but never seems to reach the climax that its lengthy build-up continually suggests. Its first hour is fairly compelling in its set-up, deliberately introducing the audience to the exact predicament and its hapless participants. The plot over the rest of the film unravels quite cryptically, as well as in a manner that might appear heavily contrived to many viewers. There is a certain degree to which a suspension of belief should absolutely be mustered upon entering this picture. Aside from the contrivances, moments exist within that play to extreme dramatic effect but actually lead to a whole lot of nothing. After a great deal of meticulous development, a character screams and terrorizes a room out of realized anger as a tragic score plays to the segment's tune even though that scene essentially has no consequence in the sequences that follow (the character simply returns to a former state) as if the filmmaker was stylishly proceeding towards tragedy and quickly mopping up soon thereafter.

The actors themselves do a fantastic job and glue us to the screen albeit the script's occasional muddling of the conflict at hand. Adrien Brody, in my opinion, is the standout here, possessing a complex personality that battles between moral decisions and his wild desires. The writing in the first few scenes of his arc—we find him in a bar having a natural conversation with a mysterious woman (Moran Atias) as we immediately discern his dislike for foreign environments (particularly Italy) and his highly talkative, forceful nature. Olivia Wilde and Liam Neeson share the screen in probably the most compelling storyline where Neeson's strong infatuation for Wilde lends itself to perfidy and constant ridicule. Wilde's character plays a hard-to-get, but incredibly seductive, "sexpot" who tests Neeson's true loyalty to her while he starts to construct his next novel. Mila Kunis' part of the tale is definitely the least intriguing in its somewhat clichéd essence— she's bouncing from job to job, barely able to pay her monthly bills and struggling to reclaim her kid who was taken from her based on accusations of abuse.

Like I said, all of these individual threads in an interlocking story initially engross, but then, Third Person starts to drag on and on. It sits at a runtime of 2 hours and 17 minutes but honestly feels like it's reaching the 3-hour mark. The connection between these separate stories begins to materialize the further we advance into the plot while also shadowing it with plenty of confusion at the same time. The last scene is a head-scratcher…in a bad way. You're scratching your head because that "da dumb" twist moment unintentionally goes over everyone's head and falls flat in its execution. So, wait: how are they exactly connected thematically and emotionally? All I witnessed was a multitude of contrivances that saw these characters crossing each other's paths for a few seconds. Of course, there's a reason to all this once the very end comes to fruition, but the point of the entire ordeal sorely misses its mark. There's too much going on with the quick cutting intensifying as we progress, and none of the arcs conclude satisfyingly.

With that being said, I still respect Haggis' ambition and his ventures into such heart-rending tales. Contrary to general reception, I genuinely enjoyed Crash, and now, I most likely find myself enjoying Third Person more than most as well. It's primarily absorbing throughout, just a tad bit too long and woolly.

In a 3 in 1 story, we explore the complications of three relationships.

[Amari-Sali · 7/10 · 20 September 2014]

With a cast boasting Liam Neeson, Mila Kunis, Olivia Wilde, as well as Adrien Brody, in starring roles, it is hard to not be intrigued what this combination would do. Though with a low box office tally, as well as a low ratings on most media review web sites, could it be this combination doesn't create a cohesive film? Read below to find out.

Characters & Story

Beginning with the central story, Michael (Liam Neeson) is a Pulitzer Prize winning author who seemingly, as of late, hasn't shown the writing abilities which lead to him deserving a Pulitzer. And while he works on his new book, somewhere in Paris, his mistress, and mentee, Anna (Olivia Wilde) visits him, on his request. Though with both of them having their own agenda when it comes to being in each other's company, it is hard to say who is getting the most out of who.

As for the first side story, it deals with a man named Scott (Adrien Brody) who works in dealing fraudulent designer clothing designs who, one day while in Italy, comes across a woman in a bar named Monika (Moran Atias) who is in need. Why? Well, her daughter is being held hostage and she needs 5,000€. And with Scott having a child who he hasn't seen in a long time, and Monika not being able to see her daughter in 2 years, his sympathy for her leads to him doing his best to help.

Leaving story 3 in which we watch Julia (Mila Kunis), a mother desperately trying to see her son, fighting a legal battle against her ex Rick (James Franco) who is doing everything in his power to stop her. The reason? Well, she neglected their son one time, endangered his life, and no he feels like he can't trust the two of them to be together. Leading to us watching an uphill battle in which Julia tries to prove to Rick, as well as the courts, that she deserves, at the very least, visitation rights.

Praise

To me, each story could have possibly been its own movie. Neeson and Wilde's was complicated enough to be a full length picture, which I would see; Brody and Atias' story could have been an action movie, a drama, if not a noir, which I probably would be labeled "TV Viewing"; and Kunis and Franco certainly could have had a nice dramatic film in which, maybe, Kunis could show her abilities, or lack thereof, as a dramatic actress. Which I probably wouldn't pay to see.

Noting specific reasons to praise the film's story as a whole though, really only Neeson and Wilde bring anything interesting to the film. For while the concept of the older established man, and the woman who wants to be taken seriously, as well as receive validation from the man she admires, isn't new at all, something about their chemistry just works. For with the many complications in their relationship, of which for every cute moment there is an argument or one being a butt head to the other, you have a growing desire, despite it all, to see them work it out. Then, if you look at the many theories about Michael's newest book, it adds a whole new depth which helps make the non-Neeson/ Wilde stories much more compelling.

Criticism

However, if you are like me and don't connect the dots like IMDb user T-Max did, honestly you are left unsure how these stories are interconnected, besides by weakly developed relationships. Making it so, based on each story standing on its own, you have one major story, being Neeson's and Wilde's, compensating for Brody's and Kunis'. For, you see, focusing first on Brody and Atias' story, the plot just doesn't grab you in anyway. For it starts in a bar, it seems Scott is attracted to Monika, but with Monika giving him the cold shoulder he tries to win her over by talking about his kid and trying to seem like he isn't just trying to get in between her thighs. Leading to this whole, is she trying to con me, or not, plot which honestly isn't set to the type of tone where you feel it is relevant. If just because there isn't much of a build to make it seem like Monika maybe conning him, much less you giving a damn enough about Scott to care if he loses 1000s of euros because of Monika.

Then, when it comes to Kunis and Franco, quite honestly I just don't think of Mila Kunis and think, "She should play a dramatic role." A thought she doesn't change at all in this film for she doesn't break the idea that she is a better comedic actress than anything else. For something about her, which may be due to me mentally type casting her, just doesn't make her attempts at being dramatic, or playing a role which requires real depth, to seem compelling nor realistic. Add in she is playing off Franco, who also I just don't see as a good dramatic actor, and it really kills what honestly was an interesting storyline. Just played by the wrong actors.

Overall: TV Viewing

If this movie was just about Michael and Anna's relationship, this might have been labeled Worth Seeing. However, with the inclusion of Brody and Kunis' story, the film gained liabilities which didn't create the type of interest that Michael and Anna did in terms of characters, nor the characters' stories. Making it where I must label this as a "TV Viewing" since Brody and Kunis' story felt like extra fat which should have been trimmed off.

'Watch me'

[gradyharp · 7/10 · 9 October 2014]

Paul Haggis both wrote and directed this very long movie (137 minutes) that plays with our minds in a way not dissimilar to his most famous similar film CRASH. The quilted story takes patience and close attention to paste each of the three running stories together – three (at times augmented) couples whose lives are altered in some way by a child – drowning, abusive by placing in a plastic bag, a conveniently imagined child – and it all ties together with slips of paper, pages of novels, paintings and other threads spread around Paris, Rome, and New York.

'Michael (Liam Neeson) is a Pulitzer Prize-winning fiction author who has sequestered himself in a hotel suite in Paris to finish his latest book. He recently left his wife, Elaine (Kim Basinger), and is having a tempestuous affair with Anna (Olivia Wilde), an ambitious young journalist who wants to write and publish fiction. At the same time, Scott (Adrien Brody), a shady American 'clothing designer' businessman, is in Italy to steal designs from fashion houses. Hating everything Italian, Scott wanders into the Café American with barkeep Marco (Riccardo Scamarcio) in search of something familiar to eat. There, he meets Monika (Moran Atias), a beautiful Romanian woman, who is about to be reunited with her young daughter. When the money she has saved to pay her daughter's smuggler Carlo (Viinico Marchioni) has stolen, Scott feels compelled to help. They take off together for a dangerous town in Southern Italy, where Scott starts to suspect that he is the patsy in an elaborate con game. Julia (Mila Kunis), an ex-soap opera actress, is caught in a custody battle for her 6 year-old son with her ex-husband Rick (James Franco), a famous New York artist. With her support cut off and her legal costs ruinous, Julia is reduced to working as a maid in the same upscale boutique hotel where she was once a frequent guest. Julia's lawyer Theresa (Maria Bello) has secured Julia one final chance to change the court's mind and be reunited with the child she loves. Rick's current girlfriend Sam (Loan Chabanol) is a compassionate onlooker.'

With a cast such as this the film works as well as it can with such obtuse twists and turns involving each of the three couples. The film 'feels' like it wants to be wonderful, but it just plods along too slowly to make us care very much about this odd groups of maladjusted misfits.

Pretentious & Melodramatic

[larrys3 · 2/10 · 2 October 2014]

If you'd like to torture yourself for over 2 hours, then watching this movie might do the trick. Despite its' all-star cast, I just found this film to be loaded with pretentiousness, over-the-top melodrama, and contrivances so thick you could choke on them.

The plot evolves around various personal stories playing out in Rome, Paris, and New York City, that will eventually all interconnect in some way. I'm no genius, but the dramatic twists and turns that take place in these stories, I seemed to be able to telegraph a mile away.

In addition, the characters become so unlikable that I lost interest in what would happen to them long before the movie was over.

In the end, I even felt that the writer and director Paul Haggis, who's known for highly dramatic films such as "Crash" and "Million Dollar Baby", was "playing games" with the viewer's heads, and very little turns me off more in watching a film than that. In my view, a big disappointment from Haggis.

Don't read unless you've seen the movie - huge SPOILER!

[nikubo · 8/10 · 6 July 2014]

++++++++++++++++Spoiler Alert+++++++++++++++++ Half the other reviewers just didn't get it - this is a very good movie with a trick ending that ties all story lines together wonderfully. Most of the negative reviews were written by people that missed the entire point of the movie. Without going into great detail on the three (really four) story lines this is the hook: all the story lines are simply imagined by the author character (Liam) as he composes his novel.

A prize-winning author is in Paris working on a novel, having just suffered through the death of his young son in a swimming pool accident. The movie starts and ends with him at his desk in a hotel room - the opening scene fades out with a faint "watch me" heard (imagined) by the author. The movie ends with the same scene, but now we know the "watch me" was uttered by his son just before he died in the swimming pool. We even meet his son at the end, the little boy sitting on the fountain. Everything from the opening scene to the ending scene all took place in the author's head as he sat in the hotel writing his novel. The story lines and their characters are simply the author rationalizing away his guilt for the death of his son. As he realizes that all his characters are manifestations, twisted sometimes, of his own psyche, he alters them, going so far as to entirely remove them from his novel. Thus we have the lawyer finally diving into the pool and disappearing, (as he removes her from the narrative) and slowly all the other characters just disappear, as he removes them from the book. Even his publisher is a figment of his imagination, a character created when he realized that his writing was becoming jaded, and far too close to his own life.

That's it. The key to understanding this movie is to realize that everything between the opening and closing scenes all took place in the author's head as he worked on his novel. As he came to terms with his son's death, the characters he drummed up disappeared, each created and played out as he worked to soothe his inner guilt. My two cents!

Under whose watch is a child safer?

[eldiez4ever · 7/10 · 12 October 2014]

This movie reeks of personal touches ... and the depth of Paul Haggis is all over the screenplay.

A boy who is taken away from his mother for 'the best interest of the child', dies while in custody of his father who was supposed to be the better, safer parent.

The father Michael, Liam Neeson's character, writes a book about this, involving his ex-wife Elaine (the character of Kim Bassinger) and his troubled mistress Anna (the character of Olivia Wilde).

The characters of Adrian Brody and James Franco are fragments of the writer, as are the characters of Mila Kunis and Maria Bello fragments of his wife's.

While James Franco and Mila Kunis' story narrates the child custody phase of Michael and Elaine, the story of Adrian Brody seems to be the part of his life when Michael is in Rome after his son's death and gets caught up in trying to save the life of Monika's daughter, as if in redemption.

The three stories tie up neatly at the end, leaving us with the hope for a better tomorrow for Michael and Elaine, in the face of their personal tragedy, due to ego and power during the custody battle.

The movie is a metaphor for the legal system and its tragic consequences. Despite the erratic mental conditions, the characters maintain their dignity and composure.

It is not a movie for an audience who are not exposed to festival films or foreign films and those who are expecting a simple, linear, crash-type storyline.

Well-intentioned but Forced

[rm_777 · 5/10 · 26 September 2013]

*** MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS***

Paul Haggis has a heavy burden after winning Best Picture at the Oscars with "Crash," as high expectations have soon formulated any time he creates an interwoven story. Third Person, with its stellar cast and beautiful scenery, amplifies the hype, but unlike its predecessor, it doesn't deliver.

Third Person tells three love stories, featuring unrelatable caricatures. Liam Neeson is a Pulitzer-prize winner author, who smokes cigarettes in darkness and slams his Macbook when ideas don't seamlessly flow to him (people do that?). Olivia Wilde is a charming though emotionally-detached single-in-the-city gal. Adrian Brody is an American in Rome who detests the culture yet thrives in stealing. James Franco is artist-son of wealthy New Yorkers… really? The characters often lack chemistry and their development often seems forced to fill the 'love du jour' trend of love-then-fighting-then love again. The performances are uninspiring, with the exception of Mila Kunis, who plays an ex-soap opera star and single mother trying to get her life back together.

Haggis spent many years crafting this film, but he had to verbally inform the audience of many of the interwoven intricacies. The film will appeal to the New York liberal intellectual crowd who thrive on 'complex' characters, but ultimately, this movie is all sizzle, no steak.

After the TIFF movie premiere, Haggis candidly stated that for the film he had difficulty attaining financing until the last minute. Perhaps this was an omen.

That kind of movie that you love more when you get it.

[mary-anne1988 · 8/10 · 28 December 2015]

I loved the plot and also the actings, and I truly don't understand the low reviews. I mean, of course it is not an easy film to watch, sometimes it fails to keep your attentions because it does develop slowly and most parts you don't get it right away... But it is a great movie, intelligent and with amazing actings. I confess I didn't get all the points right away and had to do a little research afterwards, but when I got it all, the story became even more beautiful. I gathered some of those points I found important to understand to be able to evaluate the movie properly, so if you don't want spoilers DON'T READ BELOW HERE.

*******SPOILER ALERT*******

1. The writer was NOT in Paris writing his book; he was in Rome. Maybe some people missed this detail (as I did), but when his wife calls him, in the final scene, she asks him, "How's Rome?". And also you can clearly see he's sitting in a café in an Italian city.

2. Everything that happens between the starting scene, when he hears his son's voice on the hotel room "Watch me," and the same voice "Watch me" in the final scene of the film, is part of his book -- including the story about the writer in Paris with his lover. Probably his mistress name was not Anna, and we can notice that she is fictional by how idealized (at least partially) she is: young, pretty, and with sense of humour, and perfect.

* Remember that he always writes in Third Person (not by chance, the name of the movie).

** Perhaps Paris did happen, but not during that time space we are watching the movie. Maybe months ago... Note that his wife calls him twice and both times she asks: "Is she there?", and he always answers "No" -- in the final scene, he still adds "She left me two months ago".

*** Note the references to white in each story: Anna's dress in the final scene is white, the glass of milk the child gives his father is white, and the car in which the American drives away with the gypsy lady is also white. "White the color of trust. And the color of the lies he tells himself" -- says the end of the book.

3. As he atones for his sins through the characters from his book, we know what really happened going from there:

• In real life, he loses his lover when she learns that it was because of her call that his son drowned; in Paris' story, his mistress ("the only true love of his life") comes back to him.

• In real life, he loses his son; in Italy's story, the American saves the gypsy lady's daughter (note that inside the car they look back and smile, and as the camera goes away you can see the silhouette of a child in the back seat of the white car).

• In real life, he never wins back the trust of his ex-wife; in the story with Mila Kunis, James Franco trusts her again after the incident in the elevator.

* Also note the references to bad fathers in each story:

• In Italy, the American also lost his son.

• In New York, the boy's father is absent and always working, and they do not have a close relationship.

• In Paris, the father used to abuse of Anna, probably since she was a child.

It Took Me Awhile to Figure This One Out

[Orson47 · 7/10 · 16 September 2014]

I am a Haggis fan. I have enjoyed his other films and since I also like both Liam Neeson and Olivia Wilde, I set aside the requisite time to watch Third Person. To be candid, it was not until I read some of the reviews posted here that I figured out what was going on, but only because I was trying to understand what the point was of the Adrien Brody character and how anyone with a grain of sense in their brain would do what he did. That part of the story could have been eliminated and the film would have been shortened by about 30 minutes for the better. His part in this saga was unnecessary and frankly very unbelievable and added zero to the overall story. If I had directed this; I would have eliminated that entire portion of the script involving the Brody character and left the rest intact. The Mila Kunis character was well played and she showed that she has some serious acting skills. The other supporters including Kim Basinger, James Franco, and Maria Bello produced very credible performances. The character played by Olivia Wilde did trouble me a bit, but as the story unraveled, I realized that she had issues and those manifested themselves quite nicely with the relationship she had with the Liam Neeson character. The other point that kept this from being an 8 or 9 was that locations of where things were happening was hugely confusing, especially near the conclusion when you have no clue if the characters are in Paris, New York or Rome. That part stretched the credibility factor, as did the Fiat product placement throughout, although, without giving too much away, I get that the settings were the responsibility of the Neeson character's mindset.

A horribly dull and uninteresting drama

[eddie_baggins · 3/10 · 12 February 2015]

Poor old Paul Haggis, ever since his success as a dedicated screenwriter with the likes of Million Dollar Baby and his Oscar winning directional comeback Crash (one of the most backlashed Best Picture winners in Oscar history) he seems to have entered into a creative funk that has seen him direct In the Valley of Elah and the Next Three Days, both financially unsuccessful and mediocre films that have now reached a new low with this Crash wannabe Third Person.

Third Person is the very epitome of a pretentious movie, a long winded self-assured multi character spanning drama that goes on far too long and attempts to wow us with its final reveal. It's a film with an interesting idea yet not the sense to play it out in an effective manner and it's a showcase for Haggis's lost touch behind camera that he can't illicit any good will from his actors, his story or his characters. Third Person seems intent on being depressing at any given time and while that is not a movie ruining play it doesn't work here when the script is so bland and situations so unbelievable in many aspects. The story line between Adrien Brody's seedy businessman Scott and Moran Atias's feisty mother Monika has to be one of the worst of last year and no amount of quality acting could've saved it or the picture as a whole.

While the lead here may be the ever stoic Liam Neeson as troubled writer Michael, Third Person spreads its acting burden across the capable shoulders of Olivia Wilde, Mila Kunis, Adrien Brody, James Franco and bit turns by the likes of Kim Basinger and Maria Bello, yet you wouldn't say a single one comes out of it on tops although Wilde shows some hidden intensity that showcases a more worthwhile film could well benefit from her presence. How all these people's lives interact with each other's is one of the films many frustrating pay offs and it makes you question why the story needed to be told in the way it was, but sadly it feels where the pretension of greatness stems from, you can almost see Haggis licking his directional lips at the thought of more Crash like success.

A dull film that thinks itself to be oh so clever, Third Person is a downright boring movie with a raft of unlikeable and uninteresting characters who occupy a storyline line that consistently fly's the line between utterly unbelievable through to total boredom. You're always sitting and waiting for Third Person to go somewhere, anywhere but thank goodness there are moments when people yell or break things as if they didn't, Third Person would've been one of the year's biggest non-events in a narrative and movie sense. As it stands, it's just plain old awful.

1 and a half white roses out of 5

For more movie reviews and opinions check into -

www.jordanandeddie.wordpress.com

A writer describing himself in the Third Person.

[TxMike · 19 October 2014]

If we refer to ourselves it is normally in the first person, "This is me, I am a writer." When referring a colleague we might say, "You are a writer." But when we want to be indirect in referring to ourselves we will use the third person, and that is what the author does in this story.

Liam Neeson is Michael, prize-winning author, having relationship issues and holed up in a small Paris apartment to finish his latest work. There are several other key characters in the movie but I will not discuss them. In fact, if someone is reading my comments but has not yet seen the movie, DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER.

SPOILERS FOLLOW: DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER.

Michael is real in this story, and some of the other characters are real, but many of them are not. We don't see this clearly until the last few minutes of the story. We first get the hint when one character who had lost a child to drowning finally dives into the pool, but she disappears as we watch. She is fictional, one of the characters in Michael's writing. Later we see a woman walking away from him in a crowd, as he tries to follow her she turns into a different woman, then yet another different one.

The point of all this is Michael is incorporating himself "in the third person", into some of the characters. We don't really know for sure when the story ends who was supposed to be real (in the fictional sense) and who was just a figment of Michael's imagination. Yes this will probably drive some viewers crazy and become very unhappy that they could not unequivocally figure out every detail, but it doesn't bother me. It is a good movie that gets you to think about what you are seeing and what you just saw.

Engrossing stories but the conclusion isn't well handled

[phd_travel · 6/10 · 24 July 2014]

The 3 stories are interesting and each hold attention. Firstly Liam Neeson and Olivia Wilde play married writer and mistress in Paris, then James Franco and Mila Kunis play artist and wife / negligent mother in a custody battle in NYC, finally Adrien Brody as tourist in Rome subject to a scam. The acting is good especially from Mila in a dramatic turn as the mother struggling as a maid and get visitation for her child. The Adrien Brody part is all too familiar and frustrating as most tourists have had some scam practiced on them in Europe big or small. Olivia plays the quintessential mistress type very well and looks stunning.

The problem is that when things link up at the end it's too rushed and not clear enough so it feels frustrating that you got all interested in the characters to be resolved in a rushed manner. One spends all this concentration and effort on the stories and seeing how they link up and then the explanation is so crude. What a shame this movie could have been good if only the conclusion had been better handled.

A little too dark and underdeveloped but still interesting enough.

[Hellmant · 7/10 · 24 July 2014]

'THIRD PERSON': Three and a Half Stars (Out of Five)

Paul Haggis wrote and directed this dark drama flick about three interlocking love stories; reminiscent to the storytelling style he used in the award winning 2005 film 'CRASH'. The stories revolve around a writer and his mistress, a mother who was accused of abusing her child and an American who falls for a Romanian woman, while taking a business trip in Italy. The all-star cast includes Liam Neeson, Mila Kunis, Adrien Brody, Olivia Wilde, James Franco, Moran Atias, Loan Chabanol, Maria Bello and Kim Basinger. I found the story to be a little too dark and underdeveloped but still interesting enough.

Neeson plays Michael, a writer who lives in Paris and recently left his wife, Elaine (Basinger), for another woman, named Anna (Wilde). Kunis plays Julia, a mother in New York who was recently accused of trying to kill her son. Franco plays her ex, Rick, who is trying to keep custody of their child away from Julia (due to the accusation). Brody plays Scott, an American businessman traveling in Italy who falls for a Romanian beauty, named Monika (Atias). Monika's daughter was kidnapped by a Russian gangster, named Marco (Riccardo Scamarcio), and Scott tries to help Monika get her back.

The stories all deal with a common theme of children and poor parenting (in some way). They don't all really intersect (some do briefly) but there is a nice twist at the end that helps explain why they're all related. A lot of the details of the film, and the ending, are very vague and some of the characters are pretty underdeveloped. It's definitely not nearly as well made as 'CRASH', or some of Haggis's other movies, but it is interesting and entertaining (especially for a film that's 2 hours and 17 minutes long). The performances are all decent and Chabanol and Atias are both breathtaking to watch. It's a flawed movie but still a good one.

Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: http://youtu.be/ZEmam3XwQxw

A lot going on

[dar0417 · 6/10 · 1 September 2020]

This movie had a little to much going on. Similar to Crash but this format does not work with 3 different love stories as well.

disappointing

[heulflodyn · 2/10 · 16 November 2014]

The film left me feeling defiled, it has a vile conclusion this is the last thing I want to watch, I won't bother with any more from this writer, there ought to be a warning on it.

I had to read other reviews to try to even make sense of the story it was confusing, pieces of paper from New York appearing in hotels in Paris, what the chuff? The only part I liked was the relationship with Scott and Monika. That was the only part that felt real.

The 'big secret' Anna had? Just vile. I feel sick. Why would you write a story like this, it could have been anything but you chose that. It's awful

The kind of artistic effort we don't see enough of.

[Rogermex · 9/10 · 11 July 2014]

This is an excellent human drama. Any of the negative reviews you see about it are basically coming from a "dumbing down" stance. Like . . (duh) WHY is this director trying to be so intellectooul?" It's a damned clever piece of work, and we don't get that much any more in this age of comic book movies.

It is also VERY moving, and finely acted. Watching Olivia Wilde's character, I kept thinking, wow such a "borderline" case, then we find out precisely WHY she's such.

You should go see this and bring your brain with you. Don't tell anyone else what it's about or what the spoilers are, and I'm not either.

"White" - the color of trust, and belief, and lies.

Good intentioned

[susiekhoo · 6/10 · 11 March 2020]

Somehow this movie is truely good intentioned.....great acting, truely but it made me feel frustrated as it didn't make sense...... I loved it and hated it at the time ..... tension .... so much tension... don't watch this if you are not chilled .....it tried to connect all the stories but it didn't quite do that .... just ended up feeling frustrated.......

Tough to follow for the average viewer

[wmwheeler8 · 4/10 · 17 June 2015]

This movie tries to tell a story by using multiple story lines that fit together and have nothing to do with one another at the same time. Half way through I got what the director was attempting to do and still found myself scratching my head. There was below average character development and we were never really told who each character is. The all-star cast wasn't enough to carry this movie. The story took far too long to unfold. The transitions between the stories didn't always make sense. This film missed its mark which was disappointing because it could have been good. The jumping around from story to story wears thin after a while and really loses the audience.

Persons

[kosmasp · 10/10 · 23 September 2014]

Paul Haggis did it again. At least for me he did. Obviously judging by the low rating, it hasn't had the same effect on others here. I really loved the movie, the intricacies, the connections and of course the "resolution". There might be a better word for the ending, but one thing is for sure: The movie demands more than one viewing. You can watch it with different eyes (your own, just a matter of speaking) and see things in a new light.

There's also trademark Haggis dialog, pointing in one direction, making fun of it, by almost straying away, than going full throttle on the first assumption you made. You may or may not like that, but it's what Haggis can do very good. And he has the actors to pull anything off, he gives them. It's a great movie with little hints here and there, that make sense in the end. Even if you don't get everything the first time around, it is a rewarding (viewing) experience

Three stories...

[Thanos_Alfie · 6/10 · 26 April 2020]

"Third Person" is a Drama - Romance movie in which we watch the lives of three couples in three different cities New York, Paris, and Rome. We also watch how their lives change due to a series of different events and what obstacles they have to surpass in order to find happiness and embrace their selves.

I liked this movie because I found it very different from what I expected and because it had a very interesting plot. Despite that I believe that there were some mistakes in the combination of the three cities and the lives of the couples. I enjoyed the interpretations of Liam Neeson who played as Michael, Olivia Wilde who played as Anna, Adrien Brody who played as Scott and Mila Kunis who played as Julia. All the interpretations of the cast were very good I just chose the best according to my opinion. I recommend to watch this movie because I am sure that afterwards you are going to think about your life choices and the people you met or even interact with. It's a nice movie that will make you think a lot.

Interesting premise undone by its execution - shouldn't the final film be more scintillating than this?

[shawneofthedead · 4/10 · 23 July 2014]

Third Person is an odd beast of a film. It awkwardly tries to tell three different stories of love, romance and loss - none of which seem, at least on the surface, connected in any way. The characters can sometimes feel paper-thin and poorly-written, and their motivations are murky at best. But, stick with it all the way to the end, and you'll find that writer-director Paul Haggis' premise is a twisted and very ambitious one. It's almost reason enough to excuse the fact that the film he's created out of it isn't actually all that good.

We open on Michael (Neeson), a tortured, prize-winning novelist who's holed himself up in a hotel in Paris to write his latest book. There, he meets his mistress Anna (Wilde), a bright, feisty woman with aspirations to write and a deep secret of her own, even as he chats with his estranged wife Elaine (Kim Basinger) on the phone. Cut to Rome, where Scott (Brody) takes a break from trading in top-secret fashion designs to get embroiled in the life and troubles of Monika (Atias), a woman trying to buy her young daughter back from a smuggler. Meanwhile, in New York, Julia (Kunis) struggles to keep herself together in her bitter custody battle with ex-husband Rick (Franco). All she wants is to see their son again, but events keep conspiring against her every attempt to prove herself worthy of visitation rights.

There's no denying that Haggis' fundamental concept for Third Person is fascinating. It's layered with rich ideas - the genesis of inspiration, the power of creation, the themes of loss, lies and love, and what it means to really trust someone - and its narrative twist even accounts for some of the cardboard-stiff dialogue that emerges from the mouths of Haggis' characters. Speaking of which, the twist, which an astute viewer should be able to figure out at some point during the film, actually becomes more audacious in the final few moments - when secrets unravel, and it becomes clear just what kind of person Michael really is.

But what's so very frustrating about Third Person is that it never really lives up to its potential. Sure, its premise and characters can be picked over for ages: what is real, and what's imaginary? Did this character actually say that? What is the significance of that character? - and so on. But would anyone who has sat through the entire film really want to? For the most part, Third Person unspools like a tedious melodrama, with Haggis' generally quite accomplished cast (surprising MVP: Kunis) speaking in odd, weighty language that would not feel out of place in a soap opera. The characters all struggle to feel real, with Anna in particular flitting between emotional extremes in a most wearying manner. That might be Haggis' point - but it's hammered home in so joyless a fashion that it's hard to care too much, after a while.

Ultimately, Haggis' high concept proves to be the film's bright spot - and also its undoing. He has to juggle so furiously to keep all his balls in the air that he perhaps fails to realise that his three stories only become genuinely interesting in retrospect - which is a criminal waste of his audiences' interest and affections. He also doesn't really go as far with his concept as he could have done, although that might - arguably - be because he wants to allow his viewers the chance to finish the story for themselves. Whatever the case may be, Third Person languishes when it should race, and loses itself in the intriguing knots of its own premise.