Comments on: TIFF Review: Paul Haggis’ ‘Third Person’ With Liam Neeson, James Franco & Olivia Wilde Is Ludicrously Awful

By: Rolf

Rolf — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:05:28 +0000

@Patrick: This is truly that ONE time where the comment section holds any value. Thank you.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:05:28 +0000

Your review sounds like a personal attack on Mr.Haggis stemming from your own self-hate at being a critic, and not having become a courageous Creator such as he… But that's just how it sounds, and I'm giving you the benefit of doubt. No one deserves such slanderous words. Don't like it fine, but atleast review the 'actual' movie, don't make sweeping derogatory comments about a movie that didn't even exist on the screen.. You got it all wrong… Mila, James, Brody and the Italian Gypsy were all products of Liam Neeson's imagination. The two stories represented his own guilt and redemption over the death of his own son, while taking a call from his mistress (Olivia). They mirrored his current life and his finding his way back to forgiveness and trust of himself… "Watch Me." The basic primal need for all humans… Liam Neeson is coming to terms with his self-doubt as a novelist, and his guilt and torment, as he feels responsible for his son's death. A cheap salesman now, he steals characters (designs) and makes knock-offs (ie. his latest novels). He needs to redeem through the Gypsy (Olivia Wilde), and find the child, to heal his inner Mila Kunis. Franco is his wife (Bassinger) in real time… Ultimately, through the voices, he finds his child again on the fountain within himself, and this time — he "Watches." The way I see it, if you're going to review a film, you ought to, at the very least, understand the film and describe the narrative accurately… It seems, from your review, that you think all the stories are happening in real time… If that was true, you'd be right, the film sucks… But since that isn't the case, your opinion is based in confusion and very mean spirited. The film is profound, original and brave — As it is clearly a confession into Mr. Haggis's own deepest fears and inadequacies… He is Liam – He is all of the characters. Haven't seen a screenwriter lay it on the line like that, so blatantly, ever… He's got the balls to come out of the shadows… Do you? Write and direct your own movie, then you can talk. Your revew is irresponsible and destructive… Who's your editor anyway, fire him first for allowing such inaccuarate reporting…. I mean come on?!

By: C

Fri, 13 May 2016 09:05:28 +0000

I disagree with this review. I can't say that I enjoyed the film, because it left me depressed. It also left me thinking it over, which is what a good film should do. I'm waiting for it to be released to cinemas so I can see it again. There aren't many films that I would return to the cinema for a 2nd viewing.

By: James

James — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:05:28 +0000

Honestly? The only thing "inept" and "bungled" is this review. But, then, your three favorite movies of 2012 were 'Take This Waltz', 'Rust & Bone', and 'Tabu'. Unlike any other movie of the past several years, "Third Person" — two days after screening it — still evokes either 'aha's' as IMPCASE previously mentioned as well as emotional sorting-through. The movie has stayed with me, resonated, made me think, induced discussion. I truly can't remember the last time that's happened. I find Jagernauth's tone and approach and words here appalling; smug, destructive and self-involved simultaneously; nasty as the reviewer is himself.

By: impcase

impcase — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:05:28 +0000

Saw this at the premiere Monday night. I too think that the reviewer was at a different film. I'm still not sure whether I like this film, but it does (and has) foster conversation and arguments about it. Two days later, and I had an "aha" moment about a scene which I promptly shared with my friend. It was something we had not considered at the time, and agree upon. It's difficult to express without spoiling the film for those who haven't seen it.
Is this a mainstream film? No. Should you see it? In my opinion yes.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:05:28 +0000

MBARGA is clearly a studio plant.

By: JJ

JJ — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:05:28 +0000

Damn, Franco is in this? He's is so many bad movies now that he is reaching Nic-Cage-levels. Which only supports my 'James Franco is the new Nic Cage'-theory. But seriously, the guy is an awesome actor, so I'm hoping he will appear in some better films.

By: serena

serena — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:05:28 +0000

Kevin, we always knew you were a closeted Scientologist now out for revenge against those who escaped. Tell us, did that South Park episode accurately depict Xenu?

By: Rob

Rob — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:05:28 +0000

I too think this reviewer saw a completely different movie than I did. For a movie that is as lacking in subtlety as the reviewer would have us believe, the point of it appears to have completely eluded him (or maybe he's just not trying to spoil it). I'd rather not spoil it either, but I'll just say that I picked up on what was happening and what it really was all about thematically well before it was out of time and my only concern was how heavy-handed it may have been in revealing its true nature to the viewer, but apparently the clues that I picked up on weren't obvious enough for even a seasoned Indiewire reviewer. I thought the way that the story lines were connected was quite ingenious by the end of it but it seems this reviewer was too busy nitpicking the trees to see the forest.

By: mbarga

mbarga — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:05:28 +0000

I watched the film last night. I think this reviewer must have been at a different movie! I thought it was superbly written and skillfully acted. I think the reviewer did not understand the movie at all! He failed to read the symbols correctly or wasn't paying attention!!! He totally missed the point! I don't want to ruin the film and spoil the fun of figuring it out for future viewers. So I will simply say, it is all about grieving and suffering loss. And secondarily about betrayal, lies and trust. Go see this movie for yourself!

By: Marko

Marko — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:05:28 +0000

I love how you trying to have film reviews that don't say anything about the film in the headline, and then you go "Awww fuck it" with this one.

By: Jessica Baker

Jessica Baker — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:05:28 +0000

I couldn't disagree more, I thought the film was phenomenal.

By: Francesca

Francesca — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:05:28 +0000

I'm afraid we'll have it at Rome Film festival…

By: weetiger3

weetiger3 — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:05:28 +0000

Most of his cast are friends/board members of Artists for Peace & Justice, so I can understand wanting to help a friend, but surely they read the script first. It all starts with the script and if it's truly as "trite" as you say it is, wth did they think was going to happen? It's easier to make a bad movie of a good script than vice versa. But how does a director of Haggis' stature (I said STATURE, not talent. He may be a hack but he's a hack with an Oscar), make a movie as horrible as you've described? Was no one paying attention? He may have left Scientology but has surrounded himself with people afraid to tell HIM no? (And if it really is that bad, think of how smug all of those Thetans are going to feel.)

By: daniel

daniel — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:05:28 +0000

The more crappy films that Haggis makes the more you realise how awful Crash actually is.

By: oogle monster

oogle monster — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:05:28 +0000

When was the last time Mila Kunis starred in a great movie? Black Swan?