Trust the Man (2005) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
65 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
A barely adequate film with some charms, some laughs and lots of groaners
Skon17 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
It's not that Trust the Man is a bad movie. It's not without some merit. But it's a film that could have been better had some time been taken with the script and with the direction. Spain's great filmmaker, Almodovar, complained this week that American movies have year by year become worse and worse because of their scripts. This film serves as a great example of what Almodovar is referring to.

The problem is that we're no longer writing characters in scripts, we're writing what I call "Oddities" - characters with a one-dimensional problem that makes them kooky but leaves them being just a type. It's more of a freak-show approach to storytelling (step right up and see the sex addict, step right up and see the woman who desperately wants to get married and have babies, etc). Here we have four great actors who are all playing oddities. Duchovny is the sex addict whose addiction is tempered by the fact he's a Mr. Mom and a great one too. His wife, played by Julianne Moore, isn't all that interested in sex for some reason which is not really made clear in the film. She's definitely attracted to him and the two seem to have a rather physically intense romantic relationship. But hey Screen writing 101 says conflict is necessary, so if the husband is a sex addict let's make his wife frigid for no apparent reason.

Likewise with the Gyllenhaal and Crudup characters. He's obsessed with being single, so guess what, let's make her obsessed with being married. As you can see this is a rather unclever film.

But there are funny moments. There are some great lines spread throughout the film. But it's long boring and you'll cringe as everyone seems to have a scene in which they break down and cry their eyes out in an almost childish spat.

This is the other main dysfunction of the film. Instead of making things believably come from the characters the film just pushes us this way and that way making things happen because it might be funny or it helps tie up loose ends, but it doesn't work with the stark realism of the New York setting. For instance, Duchovny's character starts to have an affair even though it's so clear that he's in love with his wife. We never for once think he is that sexually starved that he'd risk infidelity. Likewise we never for once believe that Julianne Moore's character is that disinterested in sex. She even takes out her friend after a breakup for some hot sex with an "attentive man." She goes as far as to admit having a threesome back in college. Does this sound like a woman who has no sexual interest whatsoever? And there's some question of whether she was having an affair too, though it seems like something was left on the editing room floor that would have explained that a little further.

Oh and for some reason Billy Crudup starts following around his therapist. Once again for no reason.

And the ending is just bad. It doesn't seem believable to begin with and comes off like sweetened sacchrine. Which is a shame because these two couples actually have chemistry.

It just takes too much time and sags around the midpoint of the 2nd act.

Plus for some reason there's a scene with Duchovny and Crudup talking where Duchovny ends the scene by suddenly announcing "I have to go" and then leaving. It's a rather poorly directed moment that seriously bothered me. Why does a character have to announce that they're leaving the scene? Just have them walk away. I think the audience can figure that out. Look for the moment, it's really odd.

I went to a preview screening of the film and I wish I could have talked to the director afterwards because with about 25 minutes of trimming they could have had a much tighter, old-style Woody Allen sort of film.

Sadly Almodovar is right. American scripts are at their lowest. Look at Superman Returns, Miami Vice, and now even this independent work. At least Fox Searchlight is also releasing Little Miss Sunshine at the moment. That movie is phenomenal and might be one of the few gems that refutes Almodovar's theory. But there's far too much to prove it.

I ask film-lovers out there. Why are we still accepting adequate films today? Why don't we hope for something more. Why don't we raise the level and say give us good films.

Adequate just ain't good enough.
52 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Good Actors Struggle With Bad Script
wespain16 April 2007
I rented this movie because of the great cast. I finished it amazed that any established actor would have accepted a role in this thing based on the script, which was lame, unoriginal, and mildly offensive in its attempts at humor. Rarely has a battle of the sexes been so predictable. The story was filled with stereotypes and stereotypical behavior. The men came off as overgrown children. In any real world, their female counterparts wouldn't have put up with them for two weeks, much less years. It was painful to watch a game cast try to breath some humanity and originality into these characters. Moments intended as funny or telling merely smelled bad. Woody Allen covered the same ground years ago in a much better way. Try Hannah And Her Sisters. This particular would-be Woody update added nothing to the genre.
18 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Pretentious crap
ftrain17 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Barely a genuine moment in the movie. He started out setting the stage for a thoughtful drama/comedy and then littered it with completely fake characters and situations. The zen musician/friend/minister? The lesbian book publisher who gets water spit in her face and sticks around for a friendly chat? The European boyfriend with the fake European accent and stereotypical lisp? Getting chased by a security guard around Lincoln Center? Showing up in a cab in the middle of your brother's/best friend's wedding, and not having anyone notice? Ludicrous, disingenuous, pretentious nonsense. So many story lines started but not completed. The car that he has an emotional attachment to. The children's book the girl wants to publish. The ex-girlfriend who he bumps into a couple of times, who makes a pass at him, and then you never see again. The sex addicts support group? Julianne Moore's acting colleague who, at the end, we're apparently led to believe perhaps she was having an affair with, but that was never developed or explained. Maggie Gyllenhall suddenly, inexplicably pining for a baby? It was just one obnoxious scene after another. A waste of good actors.
55 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Trust The Man
tomhbrand13 November 2006
This film seems to seek only to be exactly what it seems to be on first viewing, and manages that superbly. And all this is is just one more 'relationship' movie, showing the problems faced in modern life by 'trendy' couples in New York.

The film portrays two couples living in New York, a brother and sister and their respective partners, who have the typical problems with each other. One couple has Julianne Moore and David Duchovny in a marriage gone stale (unimaginatively shown through the medium of having Moore's character repetitively refuse her husband sex), and the other has Maggie Gyllenhaal desperate to further both her career and relationship with a boyfriend who is terrified to commit, apparently because of a fear of dying.

Not exactly original is it. Throughout the movies I just found it to be simply leaning on the stable stereotypes and ideas of every other film of this genre before it, but with little or no effort to flesh out the characters to an interesting level, something vital in a film of this kind. None of the characters in this piece are interesting, and you just cannot bring yourself to care about them. I really expected more from Duchovny and Moore, who we know can do this sort of thing well if they try, and the only one here who vaguely manages to come out of this well is Gyllenhaal, who somehow manages to work through the material and give Elaine a level of naivety and a hope to improve on her lot to make us root for her.

This is where I felt the movie, like many others like it, missed the point; these characters have problems, they're not happy and their relationships are falling apart but they don't seem to want to bother doing anything about it. In fact 'helping yourself' is actively mocked. Tom and Rebecca go to marriage counselling once a year as a joke to wind up their guidance councillor. When Tom joins a sex addicts group (apparently if you're wife refuses to have sex with you ever, and tells you this to your face, if you still want sex yourself it means you're a sex addict. No one wants sex once you have children! What a freak!) we just get shown an amusing group of weirdos with stupid and amusing fetishes involving power tools.

What this shows to me is just one more love story of how New York (once again shown as a seeming example of the epitome of American society) drains people and makes them miserable and alone. How everyone is miserable, but trying to improve your lot is pointless and laughable, so just get over it and you'll get the inevitable happy ending where both couples get what they wanted from the start, not because they've actually changed or started liking each other, but because we've got the end of the film and need to wrap it up for that cathartic happy ending that the audience wants. The moral: don't bother trying to change your life if it's not working, it'll all work out in the end if you pretend your happy.
21 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
One of the worst of its genre
jodi_levy25 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
A waste of good actors...and good money! Nothing made any sense. There was no reason to care about these characters. Judging only by the ending, it seems that the whole point was that the men in the film were irresponsible, crass cads who finally learn the importance of love and family. Trite and boring. The story lines leading up to this predictable ending were beyond unrealistic, and yes, as someone mentioned above, there were multiple story lines that were not wrapped up. Elaine would never have been interested in that ridiculously fake French accent guy, and why on earth would she not have had a stronger reaction to her potential publisher kissing her on the street?? What did either couple do, learn, discover, realize or discuss that would have brought them to a reconciliation?? Shouldn't THAT have been the meat of the story?? The final scene in the theater was sheer nonsense! What an insult to the viewer! Just another disappointing film whose best (and only good) lines are in the trailer. A few saving graces for this film: David Duchovney was very good, the nod to 'The Graduate' at the end was cute, Gary Shandling was funny, and, unfortunately, that's about it!
26 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Betrayed by the Man (spoilers included)
kyrat20 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Such great actors, such potential. Such a bad film. Bad writing, crass immature 'humor' (starts with a burp/fart/poop three-part "joke" and goes down hill from there.

The characters are all 1 dimensional. There's Mr. I'm Bored/my wife isn't good enough... so I cheat. There's the stereotype of the professional woman too busy to fulfill her husband'd's needs. There's the intelligent interesting woman who suddenly is DESPERATE to get married and BREED. There's the usual "fear of commitment" guy.

I can't remember a funny moment or even a moment that seemed true to life.

And the ending was just disgusting. After both guys spend the 2nd half of the film bitching about how their women dumped them -- they make one last minute pathetic attempt to get their attention... and it works?? There was no apology. They act like middle schoolers - passing notes, stealing flower. There was no change/no growth/no character development. Duchovny wasn't sorry he cheated-- he was sorry he got caught. There's nothing to assume he won't do the same thing next week. And the 2nd guy didn't decide he wanted to get married on his own -- he merely gave in to his girlfriend's demands. They were all stupid.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
tragiclaura218 August 2006
The only thing this movie has going for it is the acting talent. There is no story, no arc, and the characters take an incredibly shallow view on relationships. Just like the other 2 B. Freundlich movies, it is all talk and no substance. Boring and has nothing to say. Tries way too hard to be funny, and all the forced jokes just fall flat. Since IMDb is forcing me to write 10 full lines, I will continue by saying that Julianne Moore is luminous as always, David Duchovny is very likable, Billy Crudup is over-the-top and annoying (scenery chewing much?) and Maggie Gyllenhaal is wonderful. She is the best thing in the movie and rises above the weak material.
51 out of 84 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An amusing look at all too familiar spousal situations
canscene1 August 2006
I missed this one at last year's Toronto International Film Fesival, but have just seen a preview prior, presumably to its Toronto release.

For me live-in lovers Billy Crudup and Maggie Gyllenhall delivered sparkling performances far more sympatici than the other couple -- the married pair of Julianne Moore and David Duchovny who also did their job well, but it's the antics of the former two that keep this film alive and moving.

Without wising a spoiler on you, I was in a genuine state of suspense over whether or not this movie would have a feel good ending.

The behaviour of these four characters is not really rooted in reality -- who expects this of a comedy? -- but their quirks and good qualities are sufficiently close to it speak for the times.

There were several good laughs and a couple of good running jokes which didn't pall on me.

I found Trust the Man a likable effort which should prove popular in spite of what I know will be some critics' objections for occasional in-your-face crudities
33 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Lots of fun and who knew David Duchovny could actually act?
s-oconnell13 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this film at the Toronto film festival, I wasn't too sure what to expect but was drawn in by a synopsis that included the word 'hilarious' (I was trying to balance out the effect of some darker movies I saw that day) and thought the cast looked interesting.

The movie was well written, quirky and a lot of fun. The biggest surprise of the movie for me was that David Duchovny not only turned in a good performance but managed to be quite humorous along the way. (Spoiler) His visit to a self help group after feeling guilt from a brief affair was particularly memorable (while almost straying into "dear red shoes..." territory).

Billy Crudup's energetic relationship phobic performance is a nice counterpoint to David Duchovny's measured approach and the pair of them play off each other nicely. Julianne Moore and Maggie Gyllenhaal also turn in great performances in their respective long suffering wife / partner roles.

I really enjoyed the movie and had a few belly laughs along the way.
39 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
great movie
billybuoy113 May 2006
this is one of the funniest movies i have seen in a while. great for guys (women, also) who are looking for a movie that's intelligent, too. i don't know what movie that first reviewer was watching, but i thought the cameos were hilarious, and that all the actors were totally believable. the soundtrack is great as well and has some very cool artists i hadn't heard of before. i think that the reason the movie is so good is because the writing is so good and tuned in. director bart freundlich definitely understands the underbelly of relationships. i imagine he goes through a lot of it himself. the relationships between the two main couples is very believable. i loved this movie.
47 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Lousy, stereotypical movie
Snoopymichele24 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers

This is the kind of movie that I would normally like-great cast, cute premise, gorgeous NYC scenery. But all in all, I thought it was a jumbled mess.

Billy Crudup, woefully miscast as Tobey, a "36 year old slacker," comes off as an effeminate (what was that silliness with Eva Mendes's character in the restaurant???), self-centered jerk who only acts like a decent person when his girlfriend Elaine (a cute and perky Maggie Gyllenhaal) rightfully leaves him. But her new boyfriend is a stereotype of the European pseudointellectual who is one of the most unlikeable characters ever to grace the screen in this decade. Given the choice between the "Sprocket" and her lovesick, obsessed ex-boyfriend, it's no wonder she chooses to go back with a guy who at one time refused to drive her to work because he didn't want to move his car from the opposite side of the street.

Julianne Moore plays Tobey's sister Rebecca, a successful but insecure actress who is married to David Duchovny's stay at home husband Tom. Duchovny, who is a terrific actor, doesn't have much to work with, and his character is so schlubby and whiny you wonder why a gorgeous divorcée (another stereotypical Manhattan newly divorced single mom on the prowl just waiting to pounce on Mr. Mom) and a glamorous actress would want to spend even ten minutes in his company. The irony is that this seemingly asexual man is actually a sex addict who joins a support group called (stereotypically of course) Sexaddictsrus. Of course he makes a mockery of his first session, making up a preposterous story about being wrapped in deli meat in order to be satisfied. Oh, and of course he uses a fake name. Eventually he does come clean and admit that he has a real problem because he can't have a meaningful relationship with his sexy and dynamic wife, and his affair ends just like that. Naturally, his wife forgives him after he pulls a crazy stunt on the opening night of her play, and Elaine dumps her Eurotoyboy after Tobey screams out his undying love for her in the theater on the very same night. None of the issues are ironed out on screen, and a sweet and tidy ending is in store for the viewer who dares to stick it out.

The film was supposedly modelled after the Woody Allen films like Annie Hall and Manhattan, but it's light years away from them because it's boring and the characters are completely unlikeable. The conversations are totally pretentious, with the characters making sweeping generalizations about the nature of their relationships and very existences.

Overall, it's a lousy, stereotypical movie that is a 4 out of 10.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An embarrassment to "smart" movies
jdevriend5 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This is a movie I went back and forth on seeing. I'd see a commercial and think it would be terrible. Then I'd see the trailer while waiting for another movie and think it would be good. Finally I decided to go. This was a tragic mistake. For a couple of minutes, though, it was looking pretty good. I was getting prepared for an intimate look at how sane, educated people handle adult relationships. Then the opening credits ended and there's David Duchovny, talking to his son while he (the son) is on the toilet and explaining how a fart can be better than a poop. It didn't get any better from there.

Not counting porn, this is the worst-written film I have ever seen. Now there are plenty of badly-written movies out there, but they don't pretend to be anything other than a crude vehicle that gets you to the CGI, stunts, and/or bloodshed. This is even worse than those because Bart Freundlich thought it was going to be about something important, and it's just absolute junk. The characters in this movie do not exist in real life. They have no depth or dimensions or personalities. They are all completely unlikable. (I started applauding when Duchovny tells Billy Crudup's character to shut the hell up. You and me both, David.) They don't talk or think like anyone I've ever come across. They float from wildly expensive restaurant to wildly expensive restaurant and whine about their problems without ever stopping to think that they are the cause of them all. Would you want to sit through an hour and 40 minutes of rich, pampered, pretty white people living in a bubble and complaining about how much their lives suck? I didn't think so.

But wait, there's more. The script makes Maggie Gyllenhaal look like a sniveling, whiny private-school sorority girl. That alone is an art crime against humanity. But considering Crudup is reduced to a one-note death-obsessed Neanderthal, and Duchovny ends up speaking jive during a particularly bigoted note in the script, and the whole thing wraps up like a teen drama on the CW, I think I'm on pretty solid ground with my assertion.

Yes, it only deserves 1 star. I thought to myself: Was there anything of value that I could take from this movie and justify giving it maybe 2 or 3 stars? There might have been, but the movie was such an insult to me and other smart people that I decided it wasn't worth it to figure out what they were.
12 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
What do you get when you mix clichés, predictability, and phoned in acting?
iponews1 September 2006
I had heard Trust the Man would be a page out of the Woody Allen catalog. I had also heard words such as 'sophisticated', 'smart', and 'hip' tossed around. What I found were actors trapped in their predictable roles with only rare genuine emotions expressed.

I was very disappointed that one of my favorite actors (Moore) comes off in a very unfavorable light. I'm also curious as to why every couple in this film invented reasons why they should stay together, when clearly there exists no believable chemistry.

Perhaps this movie failed because it was too sweet. Perhaps if it had relied less on wit, and more on authentic marital woes it would have resonated with a broader audience.

Bottom line: The movie is fluff. Woody Allen is not yet out of a job.
24 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
andabittner28 September 2006
this is a realistically filmed relevant love story. i love the actors and actresses looking like and behaving like real people. the director has used minimal make-up and realistic lighting to have these actors appear just as they would in real life. all adults should be able to find some version of themselves and there lives in the 4 leads. and the interactions between the actors is absolutely spot-on. crudup in particular is someone you probably know in this film, and as usual is almost unrecognizable as anyone other than the role he is playing, see 'stage beauty' if you are not convinced. not a block-buster, not an Oscar winner, but a solid piece of film that can be enjoyed by everyone.
22 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Poor plot
Gordon-112 October 2006
This film is about the relationship turmoil about two couples, with them all trying their best to save their relationships.

I saw this film mainly because of the stellar cast that the film has assembled. The initial scene of couple therapy reminds me of a similar scene in "Mr And Mrs Smith", and is certainly funny. However, there is not much humour in the film after that. The plot then spirals to become outrageous and unbelievable. This film is marketed as a comedy, and yet I do not think it is funny. It is more drama than comedy.

The film is often slow and fails to grasp the attention of the viewers. I get the impression that events in the film happen just for the sake of happening. I can see no reason why the events happen that way. Maybe it really was because my attention deficit, that I do not even recall seeing David Duchovny's character having any evidence of having an affair at all apart from his self confession.

I think this film could have been good with a better plot, but the plot is quite a mess and does not make viewers interested in what happens next. The ending is artificial and seem forcefully put together. I would not recommend this movie!
18 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An occasionally funny romantic comedy although it's mostly a non-engaging ride
christian12316 March 2007
Tom (David Duchovny) is a stay-at-home dad married to a popular actress (Julianne Moore), while his best friend and her younger brother Tobey (Billy Crudup) has lived for eight years with the hard-working Elaine (Maggie Gyllenhaal) but won't commit to the relationship by marrying her. This is what happens when these four New Yorkers decide to explore other options.

At a glance, Trust the Man seems harmless enough but it's actually fake and a bit too insignificant to really have an impact on the viewer. The script was simple and it wasn't hard to figure out where things were going. The dialog was okay although some of it was a bit unnatural. I'm not from New York so maybe this is actually normal behavior but a lot of the conversations were just awkward and none of it felt real. All of the characters spoke in the same way so the movie got a little irritating because it was just the same personalities on screen and there was no variety. However, some of the dialog and scenes were pretty funny.

The characters weren't particularly interesting and most of them were unlikable. In the beginning, their situations were interesting to watch and then the film ditched the laughs and got all serious. The sudden change of tone invited the viewer to feel sorry for these people even though most were one-dimensional and pretty selfish. So, the first half of the movie was decently funny and consistent. The second half was serious and just not very interesting. The one thing I did like about the movie was the setting and Bart Freundlich did a good job at creating a realistic area. It's too bad he couldn't use some of that realism with the script and characters.

Out of the leading cast, Billy Crudup gave the best performance. His character was pretty selfish yet still engaging and funny. David Duchovny was very wooden and not interesting at all. This was probably the intention although I didn't like the idea of his character at all and his performance was unbearable at times. Maggie Gyllenhaal was fine but she can do better and she didn't seem to really be trying. Julianne Moore had a couple of good scenes although she was a bit over the top and fake. Out of the supporting cast, Eva Mendes was surprisingly funny although she was only on screen for about ten minutes, maybe a little less. She was the only one who stuck out from that group. Overall, Trust the Man had a decent story although it couldn't generate genuine sympathy due to it's shallow and fake storyline. If you like any of the actors, it might be worth a rental although they all have better work out there. Rating 5/10
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Freundlich is a Hack
megunticook3 September 2006
How Burt Freundlich continues to get movies made is astonishing. He's been a hack since his first feature and continues to be with this film. Even more astonishing is that he got an actress as luminous, intelligent and talented as Julienne Moore to not only appear in his hack films but to marry him to boot! (I'm guessing there's an on-set love child reason behind this.) She's probably responsible for gathering the rest of the usually talented cast to participate in what amounts to be a sub-high school level wanna-be's attempt at a Woody Allen homage. Freundlich does not know drama, does not know structure, couldn't write a script if it were ghost written for him and directs with a hand so leaden it's amazing the audience can walk out of the theater afterward in full consciousness. His films are just mind-numbing. This guy is no auteur. It must have been a slow year at Sundance when "Myth of Fingerprints" slipped through with such shining notices (and, for God's sake, how did he assemble THAT cast? Such talent, so wasted.) What he needs to do for the sake of his craft is take some episodic TV jobs. Learn how to tell a story. And quit relying on your wife to get your sorry films made.
19 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Trust no one
ryancm6 February 2007
While not the most awful movie I've ever seen, it's close. Such great locations of New York with some good actors, and then to be ruined by this ridiculous screenplay. What a waste. I knew things were going down the toilet after that first scene with the son in the bathroom. Come on!! Horrible. The characters are not very likable and so who cares who loves who or who does what to whom. Billy Cudrup should retire from so called "acting". He's terrible. Only Maggie Ghynenhaal brightens up the proceedings, but even she can't save it. Too bad more wasn't given to the wonderful Ellen Barkin. No character development. Would have been better to have spotlighted her and made more of her character. She's in one moment and out the next. Another waste. The near ending in the Theatre was a travesty. Badly filmed, edited and acted. So unbelievable it would have sunken even a good movie. What harpooned to Bob Balabans credit??
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
this is a great movie that is meant to entertain and poke fun and it does both well.
kirstone-18 February 2007
I really liked this movie. when i first watched it i laughed incredibly hard. and i just wanted to say that maybe that movie doesn't have an original plot (look into existentialism) but it is entertaining. i loved Crupup instead of and maybe because of his faults. The fact that he was so intent on moving his car just goes to show how so many people try to control their lives through controlling the little things. His obsession with death is laughable but there are people like that. I thought that this movie was a good example of communication errors of couples. about how even though these two couples are talking neither one is really understanding. i also enjoyed the fact that both of these couples have been together for awhile. instead of the millions of movies about budding love this movie is about sustaining love. it is only the naive that think that is easy. i think people should watch it and just want to be entertained because lets face it, most movies nowadays are not about education. we should not go into a movie thinking that we will see truth and beauty. this movie was well done and it was funny. i loved it.
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Trust must be earned. Its neither a right or a privilege for writers or critics.
alhof26 August 2006
Trust the Man finds an audience for romantics who want a refreshing breather from sensationalism, graphic content,crude language, and critic bashing. Freundlich earns its trust with sensitive glimpses of life, love, and adult humor. Critics fail to recognize that many viewers like feel-good endings, and the "predictible" reality of couples who try to make relationships work. Freundlich writes with heart and sensitivity and knows the difficult task of earning trust. The films stellar cast plays off their different strengths and weaknesses. Maybe writers,critics,actors,audiences and studios could also play fair game where respect, professionalism and trust should be earned and equal to the price of admission.
14 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Formulaic Survey of Loopy Relationships
gradyharp8 February 2007
TRUST THE MAN is a director and a scriptwriter (Bart Freundlich) looking for a reason to justify this shallow, ill conceived, and ultimately boring movie. Supposedly we are to examine role reversal in modern marriages and the rise of the feminist to the head of the household. This is about stay at home dads, successful working moms, varying physical and psychological needs, failure to commit guys, and approaching the end of fertility zone women - and each of the four characters in the film try to make us care about their plights but just can't get past the clumsy script.

The cast is as fine as could be assembled to try to make this story matter: Julianne Moore with David Duchovny, Maggie Gyllenhaal with Billy Crudup, and such 'extras' as Garry Shandling, Sarah Knowlton, Dagmara Dominczyk and Justin Bartha. The four leads are always a pleasure to watch, even in a poor film, but put naive lines in their mouths and we just cringe. The ending is chicken soup without the healing factor. In the end this is a film to watch only for the leads: maybe turn off the sound...? Grady Harp
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
No wonder it received such a small release...
jellyneckr5 May 2007
With over 100 feature films released in year, it can be hard to keep track of all the titles worth tracking down and checking out. Last year I saw a preview for Trust the Man before Thank You For Smoking, but with the great number of other flicks coming out in wider release, I forgot about it until this weekend. After watching it, I wish I had forgotten about it completely for there is almost nothing redeeming about this cinematic catastrophe. The cast has no chemistry, the writing and directing is amateurish, and cinematography is murky.

However, the picture's biggest fault is the tone. Trust the Man drifts uneasily from dirty sex comedy to tepid romance to boring drama from scene to scene, making for not only an extremely frustrating viewing experience, but an uncomfortable one as well. It's as writer/director Bart Freundlich didn't know what genre he wanted his movie to fall under during shooting, thinking that he would decide later in the editing room. Apparently that didn't work out either as it seems there are numerous scenes missing or incomplete. Other scenes go on far too long(the scenes with Billy Crudup in his car are perfect examples). There wasn't a single scene in Trust the Man I found effective, funny, or well done. The plot is a huge mess, gaping with holes. The only reason I give it a 1 as opposed to a zero is I reserve zeros for only those films that I find morally offensive/repugnant or without any artistic value whatsoever. 1/10
9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Awful Movie
goodkarma7028 September 2008
The worst part of this movie is how talented the cast is in everything else they've appeared in. In this, they are smug, self righteous and annoying. The main problem is, that they are trying to act like "normal people" and some of the most talented actors, just can't pull that off. Philip Seymour Hoffman can definitely pull it off. Paul Giamatti can pull it off. These actors appear uncomfortable and really boring trying to be "regular" people in unusual situations, but even the situations are not that usual. The minority of people watching movies are actors or authors or whatever, so these situations don't ring true and as the most annoying of all, Maggie Gyllenhall comes across as giggly and stupid, something that is sad to watch, given how talented she is. Trust THIS woman, do NOT watch this movie!!!
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
its just BAD!
neekeeko16 January 2007
This is the most boring long-winded movie I've seen in a long long long time. I regret not reading any write-ups before I went to see it... definitely won't make that mistake again. I just tagged along with my grandmother who wanted to go see a movie, a once-monthly excursion for her - and she was very excited. We ended up leaving 30mins into the film as she was really bored. And she couldn't stop talking about what a disappointment it was! Overall the plot is incredibly slow, the dialog seems to revolve around 'sex' the WHOLE time (do people not discuss anything else in Manhatten???) The 'jokes' are not funny, I can't quite figure why they pegged this as a comedy... Drama maybe, comedy a resounding NO. The acting is OKish, also not what I would think considering who is in the cast - It's not worth wasting your money on!
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
it is a bad movie.
carburatore20 November 2006
It is a sentimental collection of clichés for Manhattan dwellers. The acting is quite hopeless, which is perfectly understandable with such a bad plot. The plot is really un-useful. Not too mention the non-humour of most of the "funny" parts (like when they are picking on the foreign fellow). The only thing that made me see the movie was Maggie Gyllenhaal, which I think is really one of the sexiest young actress around(wasn't for the voice....but she can put some decent tone if she feels like). The director is hopeless: Would be Woody Allen should get a job,possibly away from theaters. Soundtrack is OK but quite predictable. You would do yourself a favour if you save the money and get a couple of beers, is better entertainment.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed