Great Film overall

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Comments are so tough with the film that I feel alone in the camp of the "positives".OK this film is far from being a perfection and I think I will never understand the very purpose of it. I even hesitate to say what was the topic. I assume it was about the coming-out of the main character, but even that I am not sure.Plus, I can't say Jon Foster, the main actor, is captivating. So why did I like ?I think the main thing I appreciated in that film is the atmosphere of mysteries. As the title suggests it, all along the film provides an imperceptible mystery. Because it plays with suggestions and switches. The storyline helps for sure to plunge into this atmosphere as the storyline is a mystery in itself ! But there are other causes. The photography for example, which clearly remains in my mind. Although Pittsburg is not a beauty on its own, the director manages to capture some good photos of it. Also the director did well regarding the changing weathers and lights. Switching between sun and rain, lights, twillights and darkness.The soundtrack follows the mysterious atmosphere well too.Saarsgard plays an interesting character as he acts an ambivalent tough but sensitive bi-sexual. There is also the constant hesitations of the main character. Obey his father or not ? The dark haired girl or the blond one ? The girlfriend or the boyfriend ? We can also capture the questionings of all the others characters.All this provides a sentiment of interrogations.So this atmosphere the director manages to render leads us not to be surprised when the main character admits at the end he is confused, because this is the feeling we have too.Mysteries. This is what I appreciated in this film I guess.

...they bothered making this movie? Anyone? I didn't think so.If you are looking for a coming-of-age movie, go rent Summer of '42. This is no Summer of '42.When your big stars are Nolte & Sarsgaard, & Sarsgaard gets more screen time, that is your first warning sign And, of course, for such an "artsy" movie, there is plenty of cursing & skin flung around, just to make it look "artsy".Sarsgaard did his usual uninteresting, cardboard character, punctuated by moments that were supposed to be intense. The intensity is that of someone with bi-polar disorder.Miller is most famous for her looks & what she had to say about the city of Pittsburgh after this movie. Pittsburgh SHOULD hold a grudge against her. She misrepresented an actual Pittsburgh native.Foster gave Sarsgaard a run for his money in the cardboard acting style. Wow! Was this his first role after high school graduation?So, we have this weird triangle. Foster has a crush on Miller, but is with his boss/girlfriend. He can't take Miller to bed, & won't take his boss to bed. So, he hangs with Sarsgaard & Miller, & watches them get it on.Then, after one of Sarsgaard's pseudo-intense moments, Foster & Miller get it on, a scene that we are "treated" to in every sloppy, moaning detail. Finally, just to round it all out, Foster & Sarsgaard get it on, with Foster in the Miller role. Now I know how 2 guys get it on (as if that was ever anything I needed to know).After all that, all that's left is the tragic ending for one character & the retrospective views of the remaining 2. It gets me right in the pit of my stomach. Oh, wait! That was the pepperoni pizza I just had.I'd like back the time this movie took out of my life, please.

Michael Chabon's 1988 novel " The Mysteries of Pittsburgh" was a novel about coming of age for a young man. The book is a fine account of a summer in the life of Art Bechstein, the son of a mobster who falls for Jane, a young woman, who is in love with another man. There is no doubt in our minds Rawson Marshall Thurber had the best intentions when he decided to adapt, then direct, this beloved work of many for the screen.The problem seems to be in the way Art comes out in the movie, where he also serves as the narrator as well. The way Mr. Thurber conceived his main character does not resonate with the viewer. It is never quite clear what did Jane and Cleveland see in this bland person to befriend and be part of a group; they are unevenly matched, to say the least.Cleveland is the most complex character in the novel. He is a bisexual man that is in the equation for the thrills he can get out of his situation with Jane. Art finds out soon enough what Cleveland is all about, but in the end he too is seduced by a guy that is a manipulator of the worse kind. It is also hard to believe, the way Cleveland is presented in the film he is the criminal he is supposed to be. Art, on the other hand, appears to be a closet homosexual, in spite of the sexual relationship he was having with Phlox, something that seems contrived and phony.Any film in which Peter Sarsgaard appears is worth a look. He is the most lively character in the picture. Mena Suvari shows up as a brunette with such a different look. It is hard to recognize her at first. Ms. Suvari is at her best in the film. Jon Foster is too bland to get anyone's attention. Nick Nolte plays Art's father. Sienna Miller, in spite of her looks, is an enigma in the movie.One thing that plays well is Theodore Shapiro's fine musical score. It gives the picture some class. Michael Barrett captures the spirit of the city, and its surrounding area in great images.

I am quite a fan of novelist/screenwriter Michael Chabon. His novel "Wonder Boys" became a fantastic movie by Curtis Hanson. His masterful novel "The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay" won the Pulitzer Prize a few years back, and he had a hand in the script of "Spider Man 2", arguably the greatest comic book movie of all time.Director Rawson Marshall Thurber has also directed wonderful comedic pieces, such as the gut-busting "Dodgeball" and the genius short film series "Terry Tate: Office Linebacker". And with a cast including Peter Saarsgard, Sienna Miller, Nick Nolte and Mena Suvari, this seems like a no-brainer.It is. Literally.Jon Foster stars as Art Bechstein, the son of a mobster (Nolte) who recently graduated with a degree in Economics. Jon is in a state of arrested development: he works a minimum wage job at Book Barn, has a vapid relationship with his girlfriend/boss, Phlox (Suvari), which amounts to little more than copious amounts of sex, with no plans other than to chip away at a career for which he has zero passion.One night at a party, an ex-roommate introduces Jon to Jane (Miller), a beautiful, smart violinist. Later that night they go out for pie, and she asks Jon a question that begins to shake him from his catatonic state of existence, "I want you to tell me something that you have never told a single soul. If you do, it will make this night indelible." Jon then tells her a reoccurring dream of his in which he wanders about town looking at the faces of strangers passing him by, yet none of them look him in the eye. "I imagine it must be what death feels like," he says.The next day Jane's wild boyfriend Cleveland (Saarsgard) kidnaps Jon from work and takes him out to a hulking abandoned steel mill, and soon Jon, Cleveland and Jane are spending every waking moment together going to punk rock concerts, doing drugs and drinking lots of alcohol. This doesn't sit well with Phlox, who pushes Jon for a more personal relationship, namely letting her meet his new friends and his father. The film then attempts to take us on Jon's journey as he shakes off the shackles imposed on him by his father, Phlox and his dead-end job as he finds freedom and expression through his relationships with Cleveland and Jane.There is a problem having us follow Jon throughout the film: he's completely uninteresting. He has no ambitions, passions or goals. He walks through life like the invisible wraith he described to Jane the night they met. At the outset this isn't a problem. But he never gets any more interesting. He's a completely passive character. He simply follows along the bohemian Cleveland and Jane, but he never once gives us any inkling as to what he cares about or wants to to do with himself.Consequently, the film and its supporting characters have nowhere to go and little to do other than party, have sex and get in arguments. In other words, much ado about nothing. What we have here is the shallow skin of a good movie without anything on the inside. Sweeping cinematography, ponderous voice-over with characters staring off into the distance, lots of sex scenes both straight and gay, big arguments, more angry sex, a chase scene and a tragic death... but it doesn't seem to matter. Ironically, at one point Jane, confused at a number of Jon's aimless actions, asks him, "What's going on, Jon? What is this all about?" Yes, Jon, do tell. We in the audience are dying to know, too.The title "The Mysteries of Pittsburgh" must refer to the characters themselves, because that's what they are. They are all facades, one-dimensional stand-ins for actual people. The film never lets us in. We never know what makes any of them tick. We see them do lots of things, but we don't know why. And the absence of "why" is one of the worst things a movie can have.