User reviews

This is a case where the script plays with the audience in a manner that serves only in extending this story to 90 minutes. Story starts out in 1969 where a young girl named Faith (Cameron Diaz) travels to Europe with her boyfriend Wolf (Christopher Eccleston) but she dies under mysterious circumstances. Then in 1976 Faith's sister Phoebe (Jordana Brewster) decides to travel to Europe as well and try and find out what happened to her sister. In France she looks up Wolf who has stayed there and she wants him to help her retrace the steps her sister took and answer some questions. He is reluctant but decides to travel with her. Along the way he fills in the gaps of the occurrences and tells Phoebe that Faith had joined up with the Red Army who are an extremist group that is involved in terrorism. Phoebe and Wolf engage in a romance and this complicates the trip to Portugal where Faith died. Their is several things wrong with this film and it all has to do with the script. First, the romance between Wolf and Phoebe is all wrong and does nothing for the story. It rings completely false and comes across as forced. It seems weird that Wolf would engage in a romance with his dead girlfriends sister. Secondly, Wolf knows completely what happened to Faith but only lets out little chunks of information every 15 minutes or so. Wolf will look at Phoebe every 15 minutes and say, "There is something I didn't tell you"! Gee, thanks a lot Wolf! If Wolf had come clean the first time he talked to Phoebe then the film would have been over in about 30 minutes. Another thing that bothered me was that I don't think this film recreated the 1960's at all. Diaz wears hippie clothes but the time period just didn't ring true. I did enjoy a few things like the authentic locations where the film was shot. It is a very good looking film and the scenery is beautiful. The performances are all good especially by Brewster and Diaz. Besides "The Fast and the Furious" I had never really seen Brewster in anything. But after watching her performance in this film I came away very impressed. She's very good here and I hope better roles come her way. The script is told in a very contrived way and the film never comes across as believable.

Jennifer Egan's novel was brought to the screen by Canadian director Adam Brooks in a film that, based on some comments from contributors to this forum, sounds a bad proposition, but in fact, it's much better than one is led to believe.

This is a story about two sisters who loved one another dearly. Faith, the fair headed and happy-go-lucky hippie girl, takes her younger sibling, Phoebe, under her wing. Phoebe plainly loves Faith; when the older one decides to follow her boyfriend Wolf to Europe on a summer vacation from Berkley, she promises she will send Phoebe a post card every day. Faith does that, until the cards stop coming in and one night, some time later, the family receives a phone call to inform them Faith has died under tragic circumstances.

Phoebe can't forget Faith. That is why after some years pass by, she decides to take the same route the older sister took. She takes the cards from Faith and visits each place, starting in Amsterdam, then moving on to Paris and she wants to end up the trip in Portugal, where Faith encountered her untimely death.

In Paris, Phoebe hooks up with Wolf, who by now, is not a hippie anymore and is living with his girlfriend. Wolf, tries to persuade Phoebe into abandoning her trip and to go back home; she suspects that Wolf holds the key into solving the mystery, and as she is going to depart for Portugal she makes a discovery when she finds a picture that clearly contradicts Wolf's version he has told Phoebe. He feels guilty and, against his girlfriend's wishes, decides to accompany Phoebe to the town where Faith died. The story changes at this point and we go back in flashbacks to what Faith experienced in Europe and what happened in her final days.

The best thing in "The Invisible Circus" are the performances of the principals, something that Mr. Brooks has to take the credit for. The big surprise is the range of Cameron Diaz, who, as Faith, seems to select light comedy parts, when she is quite able to do good dramatic work under the right director. Jordana Brewster is seen as the older Phoebe and makes a wonderful contribution to the film. She is a stunning beauty with what seems to be a naturalness for acting. Christopher Eccleston is Wolf and shows he also is capable of doing more serious drama. The sweet Camilla Belle plays the younger Phoebe quite convincingly. Blythe Danner appears as the mother of the girls.

The European locations are gloriously photographed by Henry Braham. The film is also enhanced by the musical score of Nick Laird-Clowes and Petra Haden's original song. Elizabeth Kling edited with great elegance. Ultimately, this film shows Adam Brooks in great form as he gives the right tone to the adaptation of the novel and gets rewarded by having the right cast doing wonders for him.

So it isn't an epic, but for people experiencing anything similar

(sibling suicide) it might be an interesting way of therapy. An

imaginative narrative and some fine acting makes it time well

spent. For some reason, it hasn't really caught on in the audience,

something I do believe is a result of the main theme. Why did she

commit suicide? Clearly, this is hardly something that US

moviegoers will flock to, had it been an European production it

probably would have reached its audience in a much greater

extent. It is however, a movie that although the realism tainted by a

shimmering romanticized glow, gives the viewer a whole hearted

impression.

This could have been a good movie, with some intense parts and good play. Unfortunately, it has been ruined by the script, which for all time, tricks the viewer into believing that there will be some kind of final revelation, which never happens. This is what lets the viewer down and therefore ruins the movie.

If the movie was honest from the beginning, then it could have become a very humanly intense road movie, like the kind of '70s movies by Bogdanovich or Altman. But because of the stupid cheat, it only becomes a modest and failed whodunit.

The acting and sceneries are good though. Worth a view - but only to regret how a better film it could have been.

What a shame. What a terrible shame. The table was set, the candles were lit, the guests had arrived... and then...

... well nothing really. Just pretentious drivel. It could have been great, OK maybe not great, but it could have been very good. All the elements were there but at the end of the day the bottle was empty: NO LIGHTNING! How that happened is a mystery with everything at the director's disposal...

... the story was quite brave although it certainly needed considerable work with possibly several finishing rewrites to fix the story and tighten up the characters a lot (the only thing that was consistently and constantly and unnecessarily tight was the cinematography, but i'll get to that). But the direction was lousy, the acting was just that: _a-C-T-i-n-G_ with a heavy side of cheese and lots of ham, and then the cinematography...

...well that was something to behold! But only if you are in film school's "Cinematography 101 how to never ever use a professional movie camera under any circumstances". Obviously the student had fallen asleep through part of the lecture's introduction and only heard "... use a professional movie camera..." then blissfully back to la la land as the sentence finished off.

What can i say; amateurish and pretentious to the last! I can only see this film meant to appeal as a Chick Flick because it's supposed to be sad, but then falls flat and just ends up being 'sad' (as an excuse for a movie)... so that even those 'Chicks' wouldn't be fooled by this schlockenspiel!

PS. I felt bad for Miss Diaz. She's a lot better at her craft than what this film allowed her to be, even though she was totally TOTALLY miscast. Actually i feel sorry for everyone in this movie except the director and (you guessed it) the cinematographer! I say '1st against the wall for them when the revolution comes!' OK, not really, after all "it was only a movie" but perhaps a good "tar and feather and running out of town" might be more satisfying or at the very least a lot more entertaining!!!

TTFN :-(

I wanted to love this film so badly...I really did. But it was a horrible disappointment.

I read Jennifer Egan's novel in 1996 and was enthralled by the story. In fact it remains one of my favorite books of all time. Mind you, the book had much more depth than this movie, in plot and emotional resonance. It MADE you care about the characters. It painted a complete picture of Phoebe, unlike the utterly poor characterization of the young girl in the film.

Though beautiful and showing *some* promise in her burgeoning career, Jordana Brewster was as flat and hollow in this performance as was the script. And Christopher Eccleston (Wolf) was just an awful choice for the role of Wolf, both physically and logistically. What an awkward looking couple. Wolf should have been more of a dark brooding character, and more physically alluring, like he was in the book. What's more, the chemistry between the two actors was painfully forced.

Cameron Diaz, however, deserves utmost praise for her performance. She took an impossibly mediocre script and gave her character life, a real spirit. She is simply gorgeous and her careful mannerisms make her very believable as a hippie. It's too bad her talent was squandered on this forgettable film.

In the book-to-movie category, this is a dreadful translation, almost as bad as Message in a Bottle with Kevin Costner. But don't get me started on that one...

I am not usually so harsh in my critiques but I was so disappointed here, because I really cared about the story and wanted to see it told right. It did not deliver...

Take away all parts of the movie that were "present" day and stick to the flashbacks. Then you would have had a great story. Faith and Wolf's story and their relationship was the best part. Diaz and Eccleston were wonderful. Brewster was ponderous to sit through. Surprised to see Blythe Danner as mom. She was great. Also look for Patrick Bergen as the father, always like him (Sleeping with the Enemy). This is a very hippy, save the world, kind of film. Don't care for it much, but I recommend seeing it for Diaz's performance alone. She has excellent range and it should be used more. Eccleston is, as always, compelling. He's wonderful!

About a quarter of the way into "Invisible Circus," I and those sitting around me found ourselves far more amused by the person snoring loudly than by anything happening on the screen. That, in and of itself, is a partial indictment of the film. But then, there are some really excellent movies that also induce sleep.

The movie traces the obsession of an 18-year-old over her older sister's suicide, and her attempt to follow in the footsteps of her sister's last months. This film falls into that large category of movies that seem to have an interesting set of ingredients, but somehow didn't get cooked right. That's not to say that it is terrible--you need to go to see Anti-Trust for that--it just doesn't fit together too neatly. In trying to be a love story-thriller-mystery-coming of age genre-bender, you end up with a movie that does none of them well. As a mystery it is far too predictable, as a thriller I was unmoved, the love story is monochromatic, the actors rarely move beyond wooden.

Which is all really too bad. This is a movie that could have worked. The cinematography captures some really stunning location shots, and the story itself is interesting. The execution, however, falls flat.

Wait and rent it. Or go rent "The English Patient" instead.

The plot of this film is not complicated. A very attractive young girl goes to Europe in search of the reasons for her older sister's suicide ten years earlier. There she meets up with her sister's former boyfriend and together they travel to all the places her sister went, and gradually the reasons become clear.

But what makes this film so special, and soar above the limited plot, are the beautiful portrayals of the characters. Although the older sister's boyfriend is a drop-out hippie, he has noble ideals, moral standards and incredible strengths. And although the older sister, who we see in flashbacks, shares these ideals, she doesn't have a sense of limitation or balance, of how much is too much. And although the younger girl is fiercely loyal to her sister's memory, she gradually finds the strength to face the fact that her sister was only a normal girl, after all.

The most special moment in the film is when the young girl and the sister's boyfriend finally stop fighting their attraction to each other. I can't recall ever seeing more beautiful, touching, romantic tenderness in lovemaking in a film!

In all these ways this is a truly beautiful film, a film to be treasured, and to be seen again and again. 9 out of 10.

As a father of four in his forties I thought this film made compelling viewing - if not edge-of-the-seat stuff. I deserves a far higher rating than the 4.3 that it had when I wrote this. (I gave it 7.)

I agree with some of the comments about the characters but Cameron Diaz was, again, sparkling in yet another very different role. The plot was a little silly but the point of the film for me was beautifully summed up in the final, quite surreal, sequence. A moving ending for any parent.

I could imagine that a young, single bloke might find the film quite boring but for other people not fixed on high doses of testosterone would find something sweet in this.

After watching this movie, I couldn't make up my mind if I liked or hated this film. After considerable thought, I finally decided that I *would* have liked this film a lot, if it wasn't for one thing: Jordanna Brewster. Cameron Diaz was great, as well, as Blythe Danner, and just about everyone else in the film. But then you cast Jordanna Brewster (career highlight being films like "The Faculty"), and it throws the entire film off. From her over-acting to me not believing that she could actually be related to Cameron Diaz (genetically impossible!), the film could have been great. But all the "could-haves" and "should-haves" don't make up for it. Don't pay to see this film.

Those disappointed in the film "The Invisible Circus" would make a better investment by purchasing the novel by Jennifer Egan. Written from the perspective of eighteen-year-old Pheobe, the novel is an enchanting coming-of-age story with the added intrigue of her lost "hippie" sister.

Most of the narrative focuses on Pheobe's inner thoughts; which no doubt made translating it to the screen a difficult task. Debates on whether it is a "chick flick" are warranted; both the film and the novel center heavily on the female viewpoint.

In response to the first posted review, the paintings by Pheobe's father, Gene, are *supposed* to be awful. Part of the narrative focuses on Pheobe's realization that her father was not a sainted, thwarted artist, but an ordinary man.

I won't lie to you guys but this movie it's boring and dull.The plot is empty and there isn't even what I call `story'.A piece of trash is a good word.The only thing that matters is the younger and talented Jordana Brewster which I like very much.She's in somehow brazilian cos' she lived in Rio de Janeiro for a long time.And she's my hope to bring the fame to Brazil that we have a lot of talents here.Could open many doors to the artist in Brazil.

I really like her ,not only because she's from my country.She made a fine job in this picture and I believe that she'll grown professionaly in the future.But let's talk about the boring Circus.

The story could be written by a 10 years old boy.It's very senseless and without connection with the things.Everything is twrown to the viewer and he must understand those crazy facts in the plot.Cameron Diaz commits suicide and hurting a lot her younger sister played by Brewster.So when she turns 18 she decides to do the journey that her sister made before diying(?!).Why would she do something like that?If you knew that somebody die you would understand!Hurts!But what can you do?She thinks that discovering facts of her sister would bring her back?

And what is the connection with the title and the story?And why such good artists played in this drama?The end is cruel to the cinema history.And Adam Brooks had a terrible idea to develop this project that maybe only works on the book,which the movie was adapted.

It's a story for crazy people!Don't watch!It's too bad!... I could give millions of bad words to describe the piece of trash that this movie is!

Two thumbs down!

This is a very sensitive film adaptation of the novel by Jennifer Egan of a younger sister's haunting search for her lost older sister, who is supposed to have committed suicide for unknown reasons some years before. Much of the film is shown in flashbacks, where the older sister is played by Cameron Diaz. Diaz creates a wild, carefree, idealistic character who was typical of the 1960s, a radical flower-child who wants to change the world. The other sister, who was six years younger, is played by Jordana Brewster. She lives in America, and the story commences in the 1970s when Brewster is old enough to want to set out for Europe on her own to seek the answers to Diaz's mysterious death in Portugal. Brewster is a quiet, introspective girl, who is obsessed by discovering the truth about Diaz, a task made all the more urgent in that she is haunted also by the death of their father when they were young, and the consequent feelings of loss and abandonment. The mother is sympathetically played, with a kind of desperate suppressed emotion, by Blythe Danner, who can always be relied upon to provide an element of gravitas to any story. Brewster leaves suddenly for Europe, using savings left to her by her father, and follows the trail of the postcards sent to her by Diaz. She begins in Amsterdam but gets nowhere, so she goes to France and in Paris she finds her sister's old boyfriend, played by Christopher Eccleston. She had known him in America, and he and Diaz had left for Europe together, but Eccleston had never come back. On the one hand he is glad to see her, but it is clear that he is also deeply disturbed and upset at her visit. He is living in a large flat with a French woman and says he has put the past behind him. He claims that he never saw Diaz again after July, 1987, when she left him to go to Berlin. He invites Brewster to stay in his flat and when he is out, she discovers old photos of her sister in a drawer, and one bears the date on the back of August, 1987. So she confronts him and he admits he lied, that he had in fact really gone to Berlin with her. Later in the story, he admits that he lied again, and that he had known Diaz much longer even than that. Diaz had been attracted to radical causes in a naïve way. In Berlin she was able briefly to join the Red Brigades, a terrorist group. But when they discovered how feather-headed she was, they sent her out to buy some newspapers, and when she returned, their squat had been totally vacated and they had vanished. This was their clever way of dumping her so that she would never be able to trace them. She feels well and truly 'dumped' and joins another, less deadly terrorist group. But that affiliation too does not prosper because she ends up detonating a terrorist bomb which kills an innocent man, leaving a widow with several children behind. This suddenly wakes her up from her naïve revolutionary fantasies, so she goes off the Portugal to try to get herself together. The film has some inept patches, such as a purposeless sequence where the younger sister, who has been given some LSD by a stranger, takes the pill and has a bad 'trip' while riding a tourist boat on the Seine. This gives an excuse for psychedelic camera angles and so forth, but it does not move the story forward at all and should have been cut from the script. Despite rambling a bit, the film does retain the mystery right through to the end, where surprising things are revealed in Portugal. The film is not just a mystery story or a thriller, but has some significant lessons to impart, and shows a humanity and a concern for the characters which is often lacking in more one-dimensional thriller stories. It is also an interesting insight into attitudes of what has now become a historical epoch, though to those of us who experienced it personally, it all seems as if everything happened just the other day, or even just a few minutes ago, so vivid were those times and the people and events then.

This movie attempts many things but never really accomplishes anything, the plot time travels, meanders and weaves along without really satisfying. It left a hollow , "is that all" feeling at the end. Unless its free to air and there is nothing else on, forget about it.

An interesting movie with Jordana Brewster as a young woman who travels to Europe in an attempt to find out what became of her older sister (Cameron Diaz) who mysteriously died years earlier. Brewster is very good and keeps you involved despite some unrealistic plotting, such as having her amazinly find and start a romance with her dead sister's much older boyfriend (Christopher Eccleston). Still, mostly good. GRADE: B

One of the worst movies I've ever seen. Yes, I know I'm not the target audience. Target audience is females, either college age or middle aged or any aged I guess. I'm none of these so the makers don't mind if I don't like it. But that won't excuse the fact that the dialogue and the plot are horrible. The main character, Phoebe, goes on a journey to Europe to find out what happened to her sister, Faith, who committed suicide. Phoebe is an inane character that i hope no one identifies with. Faith is also a character with very little believability. Wolf is the only person who seems to be somewhat reasonable. As I said the dialogue is boring and uninteresting. The plot does completely stupid things at times. The absolute worst is that Phoebe and Faith's father is an artist but his paintings are completely dreadful. There is nothing new, interesting or refreshing in this movie. If your a guy, you will pray for the ending. If your a chick you might be able to sit through it but you will be unimpressed.

The films' producers are hoping that Cameron Diaz' name will help sell this picture. Unfortunately, nothing can save what has already been captured on the screen. Despite some beautifully shot European locations and some solid production design elements, the film fails mostly due to its awkward, unbelievable romance between Brewster and Eccleston. An unplesasant filmgoing experience.

Well, I AM "the target market" & I loved it. Furthermore my husband, also a Boomer with strong memories of the '60s, liked it a lot too. I haven't read the book, so I went into it neutral & I was very pleasantly surprised. It's now on our "Highly Recommended" video list.

what a waste of time! i expected better from cameron diaz! i guess it wasn't really her fault for being in a terrible film. the film does not capture the beauty of europe.....and wasn't successful in leading the audience into suspense or wonder. weak attempt at storytelling and narrating -- dialogue is dull and wasn't able to convey what i sometimes think simplicity is beauty. no love, energy, electricity on screen. too bad!!!!!!!!1

In the early 1960's, two sisters are growing up. Faith is the elder of the two and is the apple of her father's eye – listening to all his talk of art and freedom, while younger Phoebe is given less attention. When their father dies, Faith takes it the hardest – near comatose at first but then getting into any revolution or cause that the period allows her to support. Heading off to Europe with her boyfriend, it is only a few months before her death brings even more pain to the family. Older now, Phoebe decides to use her sister's daily postcards as a guide and follow her footsteps around Europe to try and work out what happened to her.

With a quite famous cast, I decided to give this film a look but found that despite the professional sheen on it, this isn't that good a film. The plot is too unlikely, unconvincing and delivered in a phased manner that doesn't really work. Phoebe's journey is pretty unnecessary and her reasons for it didn't make a great deal of sense; it relied too much on some form of mysticism that it never earned (or kept consistent). The truth behind Faith's death unfolds but it does it in a lazy way – Wolf just keeps revealing a bit more every here and there, why he suddenly feels he has to tell things that he had secret two minutes ago is not clear but the film uses it to keep things moving. Meanwhile, in flashback, Faith's story is unconvincing – she is naïve, stupid and her political journey comes across as nothing more than the rebellion of any teenager.

It didn't help to have Diaz playing the role because she can't go beyond the character's surface and just ends up with a very basic performance that never got close to the sort of emotional turmoil that would have been needed to make a convincing Faith. Brewster is much better although it would have been a nice touch to cast two actresses that look like they could have at least come from the same family. Brewster has plenty of clunky lines to deliver but does reasonably well and she is allowed to nail Faith's character bang on the money at the end. She also has a good chemistry with Eccleston, which helps to cover up for the fact that the romance between them is a bad idea that didn't work that well. He is interesting enough though and shows he is a good actor by making more of the material than was on the page. The direction makes the most of nice European locations but it totally fails to capture a sense of time – apart from some haircuts and costumes there is very little to tell you when the film is happening and, even if you know, it never feels like the period it wants to be of.

Overall it feels interesting enough and has emotional moments and nice touches in it but generally it doesn't work because the writing is poor and cannot make the story work; like another reviewer has said, it comes across rather contrived. The performances from Brewster and Eccleston are both better than the material but Diaz is too weak considering the weight she is asked to carry.

A depressing, pointless, meandering exercise in tracing a sisters dementia.

Even though the entire movie is dedicated to a herky-jerky review of her life, there is no real sense of why Cameron Diaz chooses to do the ultimate act, nor her sisters reaction.

Beautiful women and scenery, decent acting, but painful to watch or enjoy.