The story of a Californian couple expecting a child and their group of friends confronted with the tragedy of a big loss.The story of a Californian couple expecting a child and their group of friends confronted with the tragedy of a big loss.The story of a Californian couple expecting a child and their group of friends confronted with the tragedy of a big loss.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Awards
- 1 win & 2 nominations total
Louis Ferreira
- Russ
- (as Justin Louis)
Stéphanie Schneider
- Party Videographer
- (as Stephanie Schneider)
Octavia Spencer
- Nurse B
- (as Octavia L. Spencer)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
First, A WARNING: If you are pregnant or just had a child, do NOT go see this film. Really. You simply don't need some of these concepts swimming around your mind. Trust me.
I found this film depressing without being cathartic.
It certainly touches on some complex aspects of the situation in the film, not least of which is the near-primitive rejection of a 'wounded animal' by the herd (in this case a group of new or expectant mothers.) And Radha Mitchell does an excellent, nuanced job of portraying the shifting emotions and fragility of the main character. Justin Louis - looking an awful lot like Aidan Quinn and portraying a similar type of character (amiable, sensitive, manly) - is also quite affecting as the husband struggling helplessly to make things better when almost any move he makes is doomed to be wrong.
The other characters, too, are well-cast and well-acted. And the photography is just moody enough to have texture without being distractingly 'pretty'.
So, what kept this from being a powerful and ultimately satisfying film (for me)?
First of all, the pacing, which was reminiscent of many French or Swedish films. Lots of lingering domestic vignettes, almost documentary like, setting up who these people are, their relationship, their world. It takes a LONG time to get to the central crisis of the film. And once it occurs, there's lots more lingering domestic scenes.
All of this is justifiable in a film that focuses on the emotional effects of one incident. But it assumes - rather than compels - a certain complicity on the part of the viewer.
More fundamentally though, the fact that the main character seems pre-ordained for SOME kind of catastrophe makes her big reversal seem more inevitable than shocking. It doesn't help that she's portrayed as deeply anxious from the start. So much so that at times this feels like an early Polanski film, preparing us for something really awful. So, when the worse does occur, rather than being shocked, we're almost relieved.
Add to this the curious choice to give the protagonist a monstrously remote mother and what would be surprising here would be for her to ever experience unshadowed happiness. She seems at the least fragile, if not quietly but fundamentally disturbed from the start. The result is that some of her more excentric behavior later seems to flow not from the tragedy but simply from what we know of her character.
Since none of her girlfriends react with common decency, never mind nobility, about the only truly likeable character we meet is the husband, so that it's far harder to be intimately affected by the central events here. Because it simply seems that even if they had never occured, this would never really have been a very happy world.
Still, a good, if not memorable film. Especially for under $500,000. And - a surprising bit of light at the end - some of the most beautiful credits I've seen in a while.
I found this film depressing without being cathartic.
It certainly touches on some complex aspects of the situation in the film, not least of which is the near-primitive rejection of a 'wounded animal' by the herd (in this case a group of new or expectant mothers.) And Radha Mitchell does an excellent, nuanced job of portraying the shifting emotions and fragility of the main character. Justin Louis - looking an awful lot like Aidan Quinn and portraying a similar type of character (amiable, sensitive, manly) - is also quite affecting as the husband struggling helplessly to make things better when almost any move he makes is doomed to be wrong.
The other characters, too, are well-cast and well-acted. And the photography is just moody enough to have texture without being distractingly 'pretty'.
So, what kept this from being a powerful and ultimately satisfying film (for me)?
First of all, the pacing, which was reminiscent of many French or Swedish films. Lots of lingering domestic vignettes, almost documentary like, setting up who these people are, their relationship, their world. It takes a LONG time to get to the central crisis of the film. And once it occurs, there's lots more lingering domestic scenes.
All of this is justifiable in a film that focuses on the emotional effects of one incident. But it assumes - rather than compels - a certain complicity on the part of the viewer.
More fundamentally though, the fact that the main character seems pre-ordained for SOME kind of catastrophe makes her big reversal seem more inevitable than shocking. It doesn't help that she's portrayed as deeply anxious from the start. So much so that at times this feels like an early Polanski film, preparing us for something really awful. So, when the worse does occur, rather than being shocked, we're almost relieved.
Add to this the curious choice to give the protagonist a monstrously remote mother and what would be surprising here would be for her to ever experience unshadowed happiness. She seems at the least fragile, if not quietly but fundamentally disturbed from the start. The result is that some of her more excentric behavior later seems to flow not from the tragedy but simply from what we know of her character.
Since none of her girlfriends react with common decency, never mind nobility, about the only truly likeable character we meet is the husband, so that it's far harder to be intimately affected by the central events here. Because it simply seems that even if they had never occured, this would never really have been a very happy world.
Still, a good, if not memorable film. Especially for under $500,000. And - a surprising bit of light at the end - some of the most beautiful credits I've seen in a while.
Maybe I just didn't get this. The ending was dissatisfying. Maybe it's just me or something but! What I came away with from this film was " Shallow Friendship ". Worst for me is the last call between alleged friends. They couldn't wait to welcome her back to the "sisterhood of mums and expecting mums" once Angie said she was pregnant again. And the fact that Angie was so chuffed to be welcomed back. No one gave her sympathy or support. Frankly I would have beat them up 😂😂. In saying that .. an ok film. Could have been much better. And I won't lie. It's an entertaining film for a Lazy rainy day. But to be honest? A wee bit Hallmark for my taste. Just judge for yourself.
5=G=
"Everything Put Together" would be a really great movie....on another planet. Good on execution and implausible on story, this serious little indie drama tells of a woman who is ostracized when her baby dies from SIDS. Of course no one behaves like the characters in this flick which sinks the credibility and makes the buy-in all but impossible. Just more flotsam on cable which may have some token entertainment value for the needy sofa spud. (C)
Generally I enjoy the independent/Sundance/artistic license type movies. I also like Radha Mitchell and hope she gets more and better movie roles in her career. Overall, however, I thought this movie came up short. I can scarcely imagine a mother as distant and unaffected as the lead character's mother. My own mother would have immediately attached herself to my side if I were in Angie's shoes. Also, her circle of friends and their self-centeredness seemed a bit overdone. I am as cynical of mankind's charitable nature as the next, but even I believe most `friends' have much more compassion and common sensibilities in dealing with a friend that just lost her baby than was portrayed by Angie's friends, who came across as unintelligent and shallow. Also, from the beginning, I believe the average couple would have enlisted the help of group or solo therapy to deal with such a horrific loss. The husband may have `been there' for her but he provided no source for a solution to his wife's angst. He should have encouraged her to seek professional therapy rather than popping for a trip to Aruba as the cure all. It is still an interesting film to watch if you assume for a moment that you live in the cold, heartless, `stereotypical' world of easily detachable people. Again, I see Radha Mitchell as a very compelling actress to watch. Thanks.
the previous reviewer commented that people didn't act like this in real life--first of all, it is meant to be a slight parody; second, people DO act like this. i thought the movie was a fascinating examination of the kind of mindset that prefers to keep everything in its place--"put together", you might say--and doesn't know what to do when a round peg suddenly becomes square.
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaShot with a Mini-DV camera on a budget of 100,000 US dollars. All the actors and the crew worked without pay.
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Un grito en la noche
- Filming locations
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $100,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $2,963
- Gross worldwide
- $8,741
- Runtime1 hour 29 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content

Top Gap
By what name was Everything Put Together (2000) officially released in Canada in English?
Answer