Simply A Masterpiece

i must have seen a different film!!

A Masterpiece!

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

I spent a little time reading other people's reviews of this movie and I was honestly shocked that I seem to be one of few who liked it. Actually as the summary line above shows, I loved it. I laughed and cried! I didn't like the scene where the doctor pounded on Oscars chest twice and he miraculously had a pulse, but then it didn't matter anymore once he died. It just didn't seem as important. Once again, Morgan Freeman gives a wonderful performance. I adored his relationship with his wife; yes, even the faults. I thought the actress who played Chloe did a great job as well. The only character in this movie that I didn't connect with was Bradley, but if he wasn't in it, I wouldn't have been able to enjoy Diana!!!

The book was set in Ann Arbor (Michigan), home of the University Of Michigan and much of the 60's counterculture. The movie was shot and set in Portland. Changing the setting in a story like this is like taking a story set in 1920's New York City and changing it to modern day L.A. This was done because Hollywood film execs don't even know anything exists between New York and L.A. They cast women as men, Frenchmen as Scots, and only rarely do they get history right. If you are from another country or another planet, details like this may not matter to you. If you think things like places and people matter, you may find fault with this film.

This is a movie that features the always enjoyable Morgan Freeman and a decent amount of female nudity. Those are pretty much the only real selling points.Feast of Love focuses on a small group of people and the romantic contortions in which they engage. Harry (Morgan Freeman) is a college professor in Portland still coming to terms with a family tragedy. Harry is friends with Bradley (Greg Kinnear), a man who deeply needs to love but is so oblivious to the people he loves he doesn't notice his first wife (Selma Blair) is a lesbian and his second wife is an adulterous bitch. That second wife, Diana (Rhada Mitchell), lets herself be romanced by Bradley because he's so unobjectionable, even though she's really in angry, unhealthy love with another woman's husband. Bradley owns a coffee shop where Oscar (Tobey Hemingway) works, and Oscar falls in love at first sight with Chloe (Alexa Davalos), a coupling not approved of by Oscar's angry and violent father (Fred Ward).I think the point of this story, which was adapted from a novel, is to make you think about the utility of love. At one point, Diana says love is a trick to get people to procreate while Bradley says love is everything. Is all the pain and difficulty of seeking out and pursuing love worth it? I'm not sure the answer offered up is supported by the evidence in the movie.The fundamental problem of this film is that it never settles on a main character. At first, you think it's going to be Harry as the center of this romantically troubled crew. But then the movie focuses on Bradley's first wife and her yearning for a love she doesn't have. But after she leaves Bradley and hooks up with another woman, the movie forgets about her. Then you think the story might focus on Bradley and his recovery from a failed marriage, but as soon as he meets Diana the story focuses almost entirely on her and Bradley becomes a supporting character, until they break-up and the focus shifts again to Bradley. Even with Oscar and Chloe, the story starts out concentrating on Oscar and his poor upbringing but then, for no particular reason, shifts to looking at the relationship from Chloe's perspective and Oscar essentially disappears. As soon as you get interested in a character and their story, the film decides it's done with that person and brings someone else to the forefront.The other significant problem with the film is that it wants to believe that no one ever really gets that angry. It wants us to accept and even endorse a world where Bradley's first wife cheats on him with another woman and his second wife cheats on him with another man, but after his third marriage he can still be friends and pal around with his exes. But when supposedly traumatic personal events don't have any emotional consequences, they don't have any emotional significance either.As for Feast of Love's good points…Morgan Freeman gives another fine performance and, yes, he does narrate parts of the movie. And Selma Blair, Rhada Mitchell and Alexa Davalos all look quite good naked, although there are moments when the movie is so gratuitously showing off their female forms that the only thing missing is a blinking neon sign that says "Nudes! Nudes! Nudes!" Feast of Love isn't ultimately an aggressively bad film. It's just not good enough or perceptive enough to tell you anything about love and heartache you don't already know.

Of all the things in this movie, I learned one thing. That is: Greg Kinnear has trouble with the opposite sex. Most women will just go along with him until they find somebody they want. And the funny part of that is it happens more than once in this movie.The movie is set around several different people, many who become hooked up. Or in Kinnear's case, split up. Add in Morgan Freeman and you got room for loads of people.Its like a soap opera packed into a major release film with Morgan "God" Freeman to spice it up. Some of the instances seemed real, while others did not. And the 'everybody is still friends' mantra near the end is idealistic, but not realistic.Overall, it tries. But it turns out to be an average film. "C"