In contrast to the superficial, high-action flicks that constitute so much of the Hollywood fare, I found Bad Manners to be more adult-oriented, provocative, strong. Kim's flippant, naughty bravado lends itself to the suspicions the others have of her (as far as the "theft" of the fifty dollar bill). The real drama is almost unnoticed. Wes seems "safe" as a husband. His career has stalled, and worse, he has failed (is failing) as a husband, and makes no effort to change. Matt and Kim show up, and for all of Kim's sassiness, she performs a powerful service -- especially to Nancy. The very end has a couple touches that upset everything. Kim had never stolen the fifty at all. (Does that mean she was also innocent of the music "fraud" as well). And second, Nancy is presented as contemplating (at least) her own liberation, sexually. And Kim, blamed and abandoned by all, is alone and outcast -- yet apparently quite innocent after all.
11 Reviews
Who stole the 50 dollars?
Mort-318 February 2001
This should not be the question. The writer's intention was to characterize four different types of people and the opinions they have about each other. Who believes whom? Who trusts whom? And who is lying? And why? The German title of the movie means Little Lies Among Friends` in English, which hits the nail on the head: This story is a small, even a little sadistic view on interhuman relationships and how they are easily destroyed by secrets, lies and misunderstandings.
I really enjoyed the movie, although it's easy to see that it was a play originally; the constellation of characters reminds very much of Albee's Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?` and many dialogues are longer than usual in movies. Of course, Bad Manners` lacks Albee's brilliance of language and his mental brutality, but it's a creative approach. Especially David Strathairn's character is very interesting because it's the most unpredictable one.
I really enjoyed the movie, although it's easy to see that it was a play originally; the constellation of characters reminds very much of Albee's Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?` and many dialogues are longer than usual in movies. Of course, Bad Manners` lacks Albee's brilliance of language and his mental brutality, but it's a creative approach. Especially David Strathairn's character is very interesting because it's the most unpredictable one.
Extraordinary - a little 'off the beat'
tohu2 June 2008
An ageing couple of academics are stuck in a stale marriage. Her old boyfriend comes to stay for a few days with his (much younger) girlfriend. Things are tense from the beginning. And then $50 goes missing.
This is an extraordinary film. I started watching it while working on my computer - so the movie was just on in the background - but gradually it pulled me in and I couldn't take my eyes off it.
The scenario it sets up could have gone in a number of different directions. At one point early on I had a horrible feeling it was going to be a standard sex flick about middle-aged adultery. Or, after the money goes missing, it might have moved too fast and forced us to watch a bunch of repressed characters suddenly turning to screaming and violence. But no - it's classier than that. What we get instead is a slow-burning exploration of character and relationships. And it isn't at all clear where it is going to go.
I won't over-praise it. The film drags at times, and as others have said its origins as a stage play are very obvious (there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, except that it does show a slightly limited imagination). The acting is good, rather than top-notch, and personally I always find Saul Rubineck is one of those actors who plays the same character every time.
So it is not perfect. But if you're in the mood for something a little 'off the beat,' it's worth watching. Just don't expect to get any work done while it's on!
This is an extraordinary film. I started watching it while working on my computer - so the movie was just on in the background - but gradually it pulled me in and I couldn't take my eyes off it.
The scenario it sets up could have gone in a number of different directions. At one point early on I had a horrible feeling it was going to be a standard sex flick about middle-aged adultery. Or, after the money goes missing, it might have moved too fast and forced us to watch a bunch of repressed characters suddenly turning to screaming and violence. But no - it's classier than that. What we get instead is a slow-burning exploration of character and relationships. And it isn't at all clear where it is going to go.
I won't over-praise it. The film drags at times, and as others have said its origins as a stage play are very obvious (there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, except that it does show a slightly limited imagination). The acting is good, rather than top-notch, and personally I always find Saul Rubineck is one of those actors who plays the same character every time.
So it is not perfect. But if you're in the mood for something a little 'off the beat,' it's worth watching. Just don't expect to get any work done while it's on!
An excellent thought-provoking film!
Jared X19 October 1998
If you liked Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf?, you will probably enjoy this movie. It is well-conceived, minimalist and sharply focused: A foursome comprised of two academic couples compete for the egoistic satisfaction of out-guessing each other, questioning and jeopardizing the foundation of their relationships in the process. Thoughtfully written, brilliantly acted, and keenly photographed. A must see.
Interesting intellectual combat
=G=3 May 2001
Two couples share a home for a few days during which suspicions are hatched, intellectual war is waged, and verbal fencing dominates. "Bad Manners" is a dialogue intense film with a well wrought script and good performances by the ensemble of four. An intriguing watch for more mature audiences.
What Unlikable People
Theo Robertson23 June 2003
Let`s see if I got this straight ? Nancy invites her former lover Matt and Kim his new partner to stay with her and her husband Wes . Excuse me but how many men would allow their wife to do this ? What you would ? But that`s because you`d like to have a wife swap ! Well that`s not what I meant , what I meant was ... oh never mind . On second thoughts that`s what Wes might have been thinking of . As soon as you see him you`re reminded of that schoolteacher you had , you know the one whose only function in life was to make every kids life a complete misery and I`m certain people like that do so because they`re sexual inadequates . Oh and Wes is money obsessed and a rabid non smoker so I guess he needs a vice like wife swapping to give his life some purpose . And Matt what`s he all about ? He`s a nice guy but he`s a middle aged nice guy , he`s a fat middle aged guy and he`s having it off with Kim a pretty fit girl who`s young enough to be his daughter . Like hello Earth to Ken what`s it like being a schmuck ? I can`t say I can blame Matt since Kim`s fit , young and in your face which is a big turn on for most men especially fat middle aged ones . I bet she`s great in bed too because she comes across as having plenty of past form , in fact compared to her Monica Lewinsky`s a bit frigid . And Nancy ? Well put it like this if someone took an overdose of prozac the doctor`s would prescribe a ten minute conversation with Nancy as an antidote . So in BAD MANNERS not only do the characters deserve all they get - they all deserve each other in this talky drama that states God does not play dice
Where truth, belief and trust are savaged beyond repair.
RJBurke194231 May 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Who and what do you believe? How well do you know your family members and friends? How about your lover, wife, husband? Who can you trust, unequivocally? Nagging questions all, but of crucial importance in the maintenance of human relationships at all levels.
The original play and now this film provide a cleverly contrived structure to examine these core issues but it necessarily falls short of providing definitive answers, except for one: how it all started. From that point – like after the first shot is fired in war – all is chaos thereafter and truth is dead and gone.
The opening scene is relatively innocent, yet it contains the nub of things to come when the young woman, Kim (a ravishing Caroleen Feeney) poses a logic problem to her middle-aged lover, Matt (Saul Rubinek) as they drive to their destination. As he gropes for the generally well-known solution about posing the one correct question to two opposing entities - computers, as it happens - it's clear he has no answer...
They're on their way to Matt's former girl friend, Nancy (Bonnie Bedelia) from twenty years ago, to her house and her husband, Wes (David Strathairn), both of whom are academics: Wes at a finishing college for girls - or is he? - Nancy at Harvard and a tenured professor no less. In fact, all four are academics, Matt being a musicologist and Kim with a computer science career at MIT.
Matt is on his way to Harvard to deliver a lecture, one that he thinks will shatter the music world with his monumental discovery about computer generated music – and a revelation only made possible with the assistance of Kim. Nancy and Wes, for their part, just tend to get more entrenched in their cloistered world as they grow older and, incidentally, emotionally apart.
Anyway, Matt thought it would be a good idea to visit his old flame while at Harvard. And why not? Relive old times, exchange pleasantries, the old you-did-I-did routine to see who's been most successful in life – so far.
Well, after pleasant meal at a local diner, things start to deteriorate rapidly when Wes, the next morning, discovers that a $50 bill is missing from his wallet. Mentally retracing the prior evening, Wes and Nancy agree that he didn't pay for the meal with the $50 - Nancy used plastic. And so, Wes says: Well, then, Kim stole it from me!
The real problem, of course, is that Wes resents Matt's presence; Wes also has eyes for Kim, as much as he tries to deny it; and Matt still, obviously, has a soft spot for Nancy. Kim, the real outsider, is a spoiler: verbally, bodily and emotionally as she uses all her feminine skills in attempts to burst the studied poise of those she deems to be posers. To that extent, Kim is perhaps the only honest – to a point – person in this quad-wrangle.
And so, the physical and verbal jousting continues, in various locations in the house and outdoors – and obviously reminiscent of Who's Afraid of Virgina Woolf? (1963); although the latter is a superior movie and a better story. Still, Bad Manners manages to provide incisive dialog, delicious irony and a believable story – all too believable, perhaps.
The cast here is uniformly excellent, although none of the characters are likable except for Professor Harper (Julie Harris) who tells Matt, in no uncertain terms, exactly what she thinks of his musical discovery. Saul Rubinek's face says it all; and that scene is the best of the movie, I think.
Interestingly, the epilogue reveals the irony of what really happened to that $50 bill – an item that just doesn't matter in the context of what happened between the feuding four. I understand that the original stage play excluded that information; so, I guess it's possible the film's producers demanded it for the movie as a sop to viewers' curiosity. So many viewers just have to have their closure kick, don't they?
What's more important, though, is what happens to those four after the dust of personal invective drifts away and settles. There are hints of possibilities, but that's always another story...
Give this film eight out of ten. Highly recommended for adults only.
May 30, 2012
The original play and now this film provide a cleverly contrived structure to examine these core issues but it necessarily falls short of providing definitive answers, except for one: how it all started. From that point – like after the first shot is fired in war – all is chaos thereafter and truth is dead and gone.
The opening scene is relatively innocent, yet it contains the nub of things to come when the young woman, Kim (a ravishing Caroleen Feeney) poses a logic problem to her middle-aged lover, Matt (Saul Rubinek) as they drive to their destination. As he gropes for the generally well-known solution about posing the one correct question to two opposing entities - computers, as it happens - it's clear he has no answer...
They're on their way to Matt's former girl friend, Nancy (Bonnie Bedelia) from twenty years ago, to her house and her husband, Wes (David Strathairn), both of whom are academics: Wes at a finishing college for girls - or is he? - Nancy at Harvard and a tenured professor no less. In fact, all four are academics, Matt being a musicologist and Kim with a computer science career at MIT.
Matt is on his way to Harvard to deliver a lecture, one that he thinks will shatter the music world with his monumental discovery about computer generated music – and a revelation only made possible with the assistance of Kim. Nancy and Wes, for their part, just tend to get more entrenched in their cloistered world as they grow older and, incidentally, emotionally apart.
Anyway, Matt thought it would be a good idea to visit his old flame while at Harvard. And why not? Relive old times, exchange pleasantries, the old you-did-I-did routine to see who's been most successful in life – so far.
Well, after pleasant meal at a local diner, things start to deteriorate rapidly when Wes, the next morning, discovers that a $50 bill is missing from his wallet. Mentally retracing the prior evening, Wes and Nancy agree that he didn't pay for the meal with the $50 - Nancy used plastic. And so, Wes says: Well, then, Kim stole it from me!
The real problem, of course, is that Wes resents Matt's presence; Wes also has eyes for Kim, as much as he tries to deny it; and Matt still, obviously, has a soft spot for Nancy. Kim, the real outsider, is a spoiler: verbally, bodily and emotionally as she uses all her feminine skills in attempts to burst the studied poise of those she deems to be posers. To that extent, Kim is perhaps the only honest – to a point – person in this quad-wrangle.
And so, the physical and verbal jousting continues, in various locations in the house and outdoors – and obviously reminiscent of Who's Afraid of Virgina Woolf? (1963); although the latter is a superior movie and a better story. Still, Bad Manners manages to provide incisive dialog, delicious irony and a believable story – all too believable, perhaps.
The cast here is uniformly excellent, although none of the characters are likable except for Professor Harper (Julie Harris) who tells Matt, in no uncertain terms, exactly what she thinks of his musical discovery. Saul Rubinek's face says it all; and that scene is the best of the movie, I think.
Interestingly, the epilogue reveals the irony of what really happened to that $50 bill – an item that just doesn't matter in the context of what happened between the feuding four. I understand that the original stage play excluded that information; so, I guess it's possible the film's producers demanded it for the movie as a sop to viewers' curiosity. So many viewers just have to have their closure kick, don't they?
What's more important, though, is what happens to those four after the dust of personal invective drifts away and settles. There are hints of possibilities, but that's always another story...
Give this film eight out of ten. Highly recommended for adults only.
May 30, 2012
How could it be so bad
Nordicnorn29 June 2007
Great actors, good filming, a potentially interesting plot, and what should have been good dialog. Nothing else is good about this movie. Perhaps the writer or director thought they could make a thought provoking film out of annoying characters who are as deep as a cup of coffee.
Within 10 minutes I disliked the portrayal of Kim by Caroleen Feeney so much that it became a distraction. While Kim is supposed to be an unsympathetic character, I am not sure I was supposed to want to commit acts of physical violence upon her. The first (of many) bizarre things that happen is that Wes (David Strathairn) goes from "I am missing $50.00" to "She stole 50$" in about 3 seconds. It was quite implausible, since she (Kim) never had access to his wallet nor was she a master pickpocket-- there simply was no rational reason to suspect her. Most people have lost/misplaced money and assume just that... we LOST it. Same goes for Kim later. All very unrealistic behavior in what is supposed to be (I think) a look at real people. The character of Kim was, at minimum, suffering from a BiPolar disorder. Wes had huge inadequacy issues, Nancy was just boring, and Matt was delusional (particularly about music). I actually turned this off about 2/3 of the way through. However, to write a valid comment, I forced myself to turn it back on hoping that something would come together in this movie. No, sorry, it was still bad. Make it a point to miss this one.
Within 10 minutes I disliked the portrayal of Kim by Caroleen Feeney so much that it became a distraction. While Kim is supposed to be an unsympathetic character, I am not sure I was supposed to want to commit acts of physical violence upon her. The first (of many) bizarre things that happen is that Wes (David Strathairn) goes from "I am missing $50.00" to "She stole 50$" in about 3 seconds. It was quite implausible, since she (Kim) never had access to his wallet nor was she a master pickpocket-- there simply was no rational reason to suspect her. Most people have lost/misplaced money and assume just that... we LOST it. Same goes for Kim later. All very unrealistic behavior in what is supposed to be (I think) a look at real people. The character of Kim was, at minimum, suffering from a BiPolar disorder. Wes had huge inadequacy issues, Nancy was just boring, and Matt was delusional (particularly about music). I actually turned this off about 2/3 of the way through. However, to write a valid comment, I forced myself to turn it back on hoping that something would come together in this movie. No, sorry, it was still bad. Make it a point to miss this one.
Original and Intriguing
jayraskin122 August 2007
This film works on a number of levels. First it is a nice satire on academic life. As others have noted, it is a companion piece to Whose Afraid of Viginia Woolf. It does a nice job of satirizing the competitiveness and egotism of academic life. It also raises two important issues: how can/does non-scientific spirituality interact with a scientifically-minded academic community and misfortune can lead to misunderstanding and ruined relationships. The movie allows us to think about these two problems without forcing any really heavy conclusions on us.
The acting is excellent and the direction terrific. May wife and I (both teachers) were laughing in just about every scene. I think teachers and other intellectuals will really appreciate the movie. Others may have a tougher time with it.
The acting is excellent and the direction terrific. May wife and I (both teachers) were laughing in just about every scene. I think teachers and other intellectuals will really appreciate the movie. Others may have a tougher time with it.
Pretentious Trash
Paritai18 October 2002
A woman who is a tenured professor at Harvard invites an old boyfriend to her home. He brings along an ill-mannered (hence the title) girlfriend who, moreover, the woman's husband thinks stole $50 from his wallet. That's the setup, and from there it deteriorates. Why does the woman not ask her guests to leave? No reason is even suggested. If you can swallow that, perhaps you can enjoy the rest of the movie, though there isn't much to it except more bad manners and suspicions and accusations and, notwithstanding the blurbs on the videocassette box, precious little wit. Oh, yes, you get to hear the girl talk dirty.
There is also the putative pleasure of seeing that the rich (the Cambridge mansion where the movie takes place is worth a fortune in today's real estate market - right now you can take advantage of a pre-construction offer and purchase a studio apartment in Central Square for $360,000), and the highly respected, handle their personal affairs as poorly as the rest of us. If you changed the characters' professions, if the Harvard professor were a waitress, and her former boyfriend was in town not to deliver a musicology lecture but to compete in a bowling tournament, and if the setting were a 2-bedroom apartment in Queens, I strongly suspect the critics would pan the movie as just a lot of uninteresting and, yes, ill-mannered conversation where nothing happens.
But the professor is not a waitress, she is a tenured member of the Harvard faculty. No one, certainly no woman, achieves that distinction by being an ineffectual wimp. Yet no intelligent, forceful person would put up with this invasion of her home, and even attack on her marriage - she would ask her guests to leave (there's plenty of nice hotels in Cambridge).
There is also the putative pleasure of seeing that the rich (the Cambridge mansion where the movie takes place is worth a fortune in today's real estate market - right now you can take advantage of a pre-construction offer and purchase a studio apartment in Central Square for $360,000), and the highly respected, handle their personal affairs as poorly as the rest of us. If you changed the characters' professions, if the Harvard professor were a waitress, and her former boyfriend was in town not to deliver a musicology lecture but to compete in a bowling tournament, and if the setting were a 2-bedroom apartment in Queens, I strongly suspect the critics would pan the movie as just a lot of uninteresting and, yes, ill-mannered conversation where nothing happens.
But the professor is not a waitress, she is a tenured member of the Harvard faculty. No one, certainly no woman, achieves that distinction by being an ineffectual wimp. Yet no intelligent, forceful person would put up with this invasion of her home, and even attack on her marriage - she would ask her guests to leave (there's plenty of nice hotels in Cambridge).
A dialogue driven movie that keeps your ears erect!
roakes3 November 1998
This is a very funny, very sad, verbally intoxicating challenge for four gifted screen actors who take you along through a domestic crisis caused by an untimely visit by a wife's college boyfriend and his current infatuation. It could have been called "The Fifty Dollar Misunderstanding". Only in the last few minutes of screen-time are the stage origins too obvious. I loved this movie.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
