Me and Orson Welles (2008) User Reviews (80)

Breezy, nostalgic celebration of film and theater and one of the most dynamic figures to impact them

[pyrocitor · 8/10 · 5 September 2008]

The career of Richard Linklater has proved one of the most delightfully eclectic in the film industry, veering between works as diverse as teenage subculture films (Dazed and Confused) to philosophical romances (Before Sunrise) to drug-addled paranoid thrillers (A Scanner Darkly) to mainstream comedies (School of Rock). But even with such a varied body of work, it is difficult to deny Linklater's latest still seeming somewhat of an anomaly: a lighthearted period piece examining the timeless figure of Orson Welles, making his name through a 1930s theater production of Julius Ceasar still seems an odd about face even for such a versatile director. And yet it is somewhat fitting that such a whimsically talented modern director should examine one of cinema's most legendary mavericks as Linklater's latest, Me and Orson Welles is a charming addition to his body of work, a breezy, self- reflexive yet nostalgic celebration of the mediums of performance as experienced alongside one of the most dynamic and influential figures ever to impact them.

The agile script ably captures the conflicting clashes of the behemoth of a personality that was Orson Welles, from the explosive temper tantrums to the slyly manipulative charm to the casual womanizing, painting a vivid (but likely not larger than life) portrait of the man without either romanticizing or demonising him. It is ultimately the presence of the titular character which rescues the film from becoming yet another "cast rehearsing a play" film, as the dynamo of Welles tearing through the film at all the least expected moments creates a sporadic force of havok keeping the film continually off kilter, preventing it from descending into cliché and keeping it consistently interesting as consequence. While the story's lightness of touch does make some of the plot points either overly obvious or unbelievable, a film so unassumingly enjoyable fails to evoke much complaint - whether dabbling in the dramatic or the comedic, Me and Orson Welles remains refreshingly cheerful and earnest, and all the better for it. Completing the package, Linklater's rare tackling of a period piece demonstrates his typically astute ability to capture the feel and flavour of the times, with the earnest ambition of the 1930s well complimented by subtly stylish sets and costumes while simultaneously avoiding beating the audience over the head with more overt details of the time (instead of the potential hackneyed Nazi allusions, Linklater includes merely a brief radio snippet which is quickly cut off, a classy and subtle inclusion).

Undergoing a difficult transition from teenage heartthrob to dramatic lead, Zac Efron gives a surprisingly solid performance as the idealistic young actor swept into the wild world of Welles, convincingly contributing charm, comedy and genuine sympathy to the emotional centerpoint of the film. However, given the title, it isn't difficult to imagine the inevitable highlight of the show, and true enough, as the infamous Welles, British stage actor Christian McKay doesn't so much steal scenes as seize and throttle them, exploding on screen with the same engrossing bluster that only the real Welles himself could conjure up. Blending the conflicting elements of an indisputably difficult character as easily as he nails the trademark voice and appearance, McKay's Welles alternates between devilish charmer and explosive force to be feared, shaking up the film with similar vigour and nuanced genius - one of the most impressive cinematic debuts in recent memory. Claire Danes is also on top form as a good hearted but endlessly ambitious member of Welles' company, and Ben Chaplin and James Tupper are endearing presences as eccentric members of Welles' calamitous company.

As unconventional a project as it may be, Me and Orson Welles remains one of the most unashamedly lighthearted and enjoyable forays into nostalgia in many a year, breezily blending the serious with the silly while never skimping on historical fact. The addition of McKay's brilliantly combustive Welles make the theatrical rehearsal sequences a joy to behold instead of drearily formulaic, making Linklater's latest film a charm to behold for even the most cynical of audiences.

-8/10

a revelation in Christian McKay's performance in Linklater's latest

[Quinoa1984 · 7/10 · 2 December 2009]

Orson Welles was, if nothing else, 'something. Even his detractors, like Ingmar Bergman, said that he had an 'immense personality', and this is what is a great appeal for an actor who can embody the full emotions of the man, and look like him second. Richard Linklater, the director, has an ace up his sleeve with the casting of Christian McKay- an actor who is a relative newcomer in film- that is just about right. It's actually a case where the actor, perhaps due to the personality/character of the man he's portraying, upstages others around him.

This is good (as is McKay, being in his 30's, making 22-at-the-time Orson appear or act older/wiser), since Welles is a man who could take over a room, and in fact was looked upon to do so with his Mercury theater players, who couldn't even do much rehearing or anything until he showed up. McKay goes into every little gesture or facial expression with gusto and, equally, some sublty when called for like when talking about his pet project of the Magnificent Ambersons.

It's almost so good a performance as Welles that you should see the movie just for him: fans of the director/actor/legend will want to see him brought to life and made in respectful homage, and non-fans will be marveled by a thespian bringing another thespian to life. There is a downside, however, in Linklater's casting (not so much with the supporting roles as they vary between being very good like the guy playing Joseph Cotten aka 'Joe the lady's man' to decent like Ben Chaplain as Coulouris) with Zak Efron. It's admirable that he's trying to get past his days of High School Musical and build up an actual career, but he doesn't breathe enough life into his coming-of-age character Richard to make him more than just passable. He's a cute kid, yet he's not really able to meet up to the dimensions of the character (which, to be fair, are kind of thin).

Linklater's film is inherently interesting dramatization just on the main subject matter: Welles and the Mercury theater putting on the daring production of Julius Caesar that would propel him and his troupe into the first real spotlight. However the film is most interesting and gets its main dramatic fire when it focuses on the rehearsals and some of the backstage antics (i.e. an accidental setting-off of the sprinklers by Richard fooling with matches), not so much the quasi-love story between Clare Danes' character with Efron. It's not got anything we haven't seen before, even in the sort of whimsical fable that Linklater lays out. The conclusion of their relationship is wise- as is how Welles 'deals' with Richard late in the film- but ultimately one kind of sighs and sits through a lot of so-so acting/pouting by Efron in order to get to the juicier scenes with Welles. But, as I mentioned before, it's worth a full-price pretty much on the basis of Welles and McKay. As Welles himself could be: exceptional and/or decent at once. 7.5/10

Welles lives

[motta80-2 · 8/10 · 1 October 2009]

Orson Welles is alive and well and residing in the body of British actor Christian McKay! McKay is simply stunning here as Welles - the look, the eye-brow, the mannerisms, the bounce, the voice - never have i seen Welles, as a character, better done. Many have tried few have succeeded (although i have a soft spot for Vincent D'Onofrio's Welles-cameo in Ed Wood.

The same can be said in general for Richard Linklater's film in terms of featuring Welles and using the whole "putting on a show" theatrical device. I didn't like Oliver Parker's Fade To Black with Danny Huston hamming Welles. RKO 281 was solid and Tim Robbins' Cradle Will Rock was a noble, if unsatisfyingly drear effort. Aided by McKay's towering achievement, a (mostly) superb supporting cast and a deft lightness Linklater has delivered his best film in years.

To my mind he can be hit (Dazed & Confused, Before Sunrise) and miss (A Scanner Darkly, Fast Food Nation), but this is firmly in the hit category.

Other non-Welles films, such as Kenneth Branagh's In The Bleak Mid-Winter, have failed in their attempts to have fun at "putting on a show" format because they are too in love with moments that have that "you just had to be there" element. Christopher Guest made a go of it in Waiting For Guffman, but then he was mocking the pretensions so many others embrace as part of the scene. Somehow McKay's (as Welles) enormous personality and Linklater's breezy "makes it look so easy" style make you feel like you are there in Me & Orson Welles and it works to great effect - tantalising the viewer with moments and flashes of the play to come without giving it to you until the right time. The 'Me' of the title really becomes the viewer. You are swept along me both filmmaker and Orson (and it really does feel like Orson. After a few moments i never doubted the Linklater had somehow resurrected Welles and saddled him with Zac Efron!) And this brings me the film's one real problem (and surely a marketing nightmare for the distributors!) Now i'm no Efron hater, i haven't seen any of the HSM movies, but he was fine in both Hairspray and 17 Again but here he has to register in a fantastic ensemble of actors and he simply doesn't. Admittedly he is hamstrung a little by the role. Since the story and Linklater's direction make the viewer feel like 'Me' observing Welles as he creates his legendary production of Julius Caesar and the Mercury theatre company it is easy to kind of forget about Efron's Richard, or at least to dismiss him as Welles so often does. He just makes no impression at all. He's not bad he's just not really significant.

This leads to the inevitable problem that as we reach the films final act, once the play is done and Welles is off screen you feel like the movie is over. You've seen everything there is to see here, it is time to move along. But no, because Efron's story is unresolved so we get another 10 minutes of him and his ending. But you simply don't care. Once McKay/Welles had gone off with his supporting cast the movie was over, it just didn't know it! Amongst the supporting cast Claire Danes continues in display as easy charm, effortlessly likable and curiously beautiful in her quirky angular way. Zoe Kazan (last seen in Revolutionary Road) is a delight as the underused other woman in Efron's life (although if she'd been used more it would have meant more Efron, less Welles so maybe that's a blessing in disguise). James Tupper is excellent as Joseph Cotten, a great match for McKay's Welles. If they ever (God forbid) remake The Third Man they have the cast! Ben Chaplin is also marvellous as George Couloris. I'm constantly impressed by Chaplin and have no idea why he isn't a bigger name. Kelly Reilly doesn't have much to do but look gorgeous, which, naturally, she does with ease. Eddie Marsan seems miscast as John Houseman. I like Marsan but he didn't fit the bill for me here.

Ultimately this is McKay's show. He gives an electrifying performance at the center of a movie that while it is about Welles efforts to put on Julius Caesar is a charming, funny and swift-paced joy; but unfortunately it also has to make space for Zac Efron and his own storyline and there-in lie the flaws.

How you market this i don't know! I can't imagine Efron fans getting excited about a film set in the 1930s about the creation of an historic theatrical production staged by a man who's been dead for 25 years! And on the flipside i nearly didn't see it because i dismissed it, on first awareness, as a Zac Efron movie and so not for me. Only on a second invitation did i notice it was directed by Linklater (always interesting, if not always successful) which charged my want to see it.

Ultimately though if you want to see it because you're an Efron fan, well go see it because your guy's in it and because you'll get to see something a bit different from what you're used it. And maybe you'll like it. If you're not an Efron fan, never fear, you can all but forget he's there and just enjoy Linklater at his breezy best and the best performance of Welles on screen since the great man departed this earth (and took possession of McKay!)

Great portrayal of Welles in a charming film

[death-hilarious · 6 September 2008]

Considering the fanatic cult following that Richard Linklater has developed with films like Waking Life, Before Sunrise/Sunset, and A Scanner Darkly, let me preface this review by saying that I'm not a Linklater devotee. If Linklater is endowed with a species of genius, I must confess complete ignorance to it. Indeed, my favorite Linklater film was School of Rock, and he has always impressed me more by the breadth of his work and his willingness to challenge the conventions of film than by any individual film. It's perhaps this maverick spirit that drew him to do a film about Orson Welles.

Me and Orson Welles, based on a novel by Robert Kaplow, tells the story of a teenager, Richard Samuels (Zac Efron), who is swept from learning about Shakespeare in the classroom to the fast paced world of the Mercury Theater on Broadway when he lands a role in Orson Welles famous 1937 production of Caesar. As Orson Welles struggles to get the production ready for the premier, Richard falls for the theater's resident hottie, a charming and ambitious aspiring actress played by Claire Daines, and finds himself growing up quickly to the realities of show business and the real world.

The movie is entirely carried by it's acting, and the actor generating the most buzz is the British born Christian McKay who plays Welles. I'm very uneasy about praising portrayals of real life figures, because it seems any time an actor plays any historical figure (from Gandhi to Capote and Idi Amin) they receive excessive attention. I think it has less to do with the "acting" involved than it has to do with the fact that most audiences feel much more comfortable passing judgment (and bestowing praise) on mimicry than actual acting. That said, McKay does a masterful job in capturing that mythical image of a young Orson Welles that all of us film geeks have in our head, from the striking resemblance in appearance to the pitch perfect intonations in his voice. Welles is charming and maddening, endearing and brutal, and always larger than life... and McKay captures it all perfectly. It's clearly a role that McKay has been mastering for a long time, as he was doing a one-man-show about Welles on Broadway before being snatched for the role in Me and Orson Welles. From the Q&A session (at the Toronto international film festival), McKay seemed intelligent and passionate about his work, and I truly hope he doesn't get pigeon-holed into spoofing Welles for his entire career.

Unfortunately the other acting foot that the movie stands on, isn't nearly as good. Zac Efron is just so pretty (and I say this as a heterosexual male) that it becomes distracting. Watching Efron act, it feels like he's trying to make women orgasm in every scene he's in, which works well in enough in the many scenes he's trying to court Claire Daines's character, but doesn't work in any other scene. Efron's acting makes it hard for the audience to emotionally connect and prevents the movie from achieving the emotional punch it might otherwise. The audience is never drawn in and they remain spectators, which, fortunately, isn't such a bad thing since the movie is so fun and nostalgically charming. Perhaps even the flighty and ethereal feeling the film gets because of it's lack of punch can be forgiven, since it's a movie about youth and growing up and so much of that involves tempestuous passions that end up being quite meaningless in retrospect.

8/10

TIFF 08: Quadruple space Me and Orson Welles

[jaredmobarak · 7/10 · 14 September 2008]

When I saw that Richard Linklater had a new film at the Toronto International Film Festival and that it took place during Orson Welles' run at the Mercury Theatre, I was very interested. Me and Orson Welles is based off a novel which creates a fictional character to be our entry point into the tumultuous world of Welles' troupe, attempting to get a performance of Julius Caesar out the gate. Young Richard Samuels finds and cons his way into a small part with the play, meeting the likes of Joseph Cotton, George Coulouris, and Welles all before Citizen Kane made them Hollywood players. Centering on a more specific period of time, not sprawling out to multiple plot lines like Robbins' opus, Me and Orson Welles is an authentic view of that time period, a veritable time capsule of Welles' ego before he had the film industry in the palm of his hand.

I've never seen High School Musical or Hairspray, but just looking at Zac Efron you can't help but think nothing good could come of his casting. In my shocking surprise, he was actually quite good, and possibly perfect in the role. The entire film hinges on his believability as a cocky yet talented high schooler that talks his way onto a high profile performance while he should be taking pop quizzes. This teen is unafraid to speak his mind and truly believes that he deserves the same respect as anyone else on the project, even if that means standing up to the giant that is Orson Welles. He is a kid, though, and he's naïveté comes out at numerous times, mostly to humorous effect. Embroiled in a five dollar bet with Cotton and Norman Lloyd about who can sleep with secretary Sonja first, when Richard's chance finally happens, his shyness and awkwardness add a nice slapstick comedic feel. Efron actually has a good handle on his facial expressions, helping both effectively add to the comedy while also to the realism of the time period we are watching, as far as acting style went back then—over the top and hammy.

This kid becomes a big part of Welles' life in the story. The master takes him under his wing to show the ropes of theatre, drama, and radio, grooming him with superfluities and compliments. What Richard doesn't yet realize is the cutthroat nature of the industry and how everyone will lie, cheat, and steal to get what he wants. The boy's relationships blossom with the actors and Sonja, allowing him to comfortably make a name for himself in Broadway with them. He just can't learn that sometimes you have to swallow your pride and give into someone who can't to appease them and further your own career. Richard is young though and he doesn't yet feel this is it for him, the end all be all. So, when some might think a brazen attitude and confidence could be a necessary trait in theatre, a man like Welles will have none of it. Why would a man like him want a mirror held up to his face? No, he is the leader and you will listen.

It is a shame that whenever someone is called upon to play Orson Welles, it always ends up being a caricature or impersonation. It is true with Angus Macfadden in Cradle Will Rock and it is true here with newcomer Christian McKay, found in a one-man show doing the part and cast as a result. McKay is everything you'd think about with the legend, from the brash authoritative moods to the welcoming smiles charismatically pulling you in to do whatever he wants. Definitely more an embodiment of Welles himself than a performance of a character, you can't really fault him for it. A man that recognizable can only be done with impression and McKay does it to perfection.

As for the rest of the cast, everyone is great. Eddie Marsan is a stalwart and nice practical foil to Welles' mercurial genius; James Tupper knocks Joseph Cotton out of the park, playing a lothario that tries his best to shield Richard and help him stay in Welles' good graces; Leo Bill is a lot of fun as the improviser/comedian Lloyd; and Claire Danes likable as the object of everyone's affection Sonja. There is also Zoe Kazan as the writer Richard meets one day at a record shop. She is the one link he has to the real world, grounding him away from the chaos and narcissism the acting lifestyle brings. A real person, with goals and aspirations, her Gretta allows for the best relationship with Efron's character. It is a side-plot that one could say needed to be beefed up, but I actually think comprised just the right amount of time. Only coming back into the story every so often, it was a necessary juxtaposition to the craziness in the theatre, showing us the real Richard and not the act he put on to be a success.

The story is slight even though there is a lot going on. I would even agree that Linklater has crafted such a tight piece it seems simpler than it is because he makes it so. Some instances are so good, the poet Sinner in the play slowly being surrounded by silhouetted actors onstage, that I can't get the image out of my head. That said I might blame the fact I love Cradle Will Rock so much that this one just doesn't quite compare. Me and Orson Welles is a great film, highly recommended, but to me nothing glaringly special. It's just one of those films that I can praise over and over again for its parts, but when I think of the whole, realize that it never fully resonated with me past being a well-made, well-acted piece of cinema.

It's Welles' World and Everyone Else Just Exists in It Thanks to McKay's Masterful Turn

[EUyeshima · 7/10 · 20 May 2010]

I wish this 2009 indie focused far more on the most charismatic person in the cast. Foreboding with a glaring certainty and a penchant for spewing venom at anyone he deems unworthy of his attention, Christian McKay makes the young Orson Welles come alive as the intimidating megalomaniac he had to have been to create a masterpiece like "Citizen Kane". In 1937, he was only 22 when he mounted a contemporary version of Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" with his legendary troupe, the Mercury Theater, which showcased his prodigious theatrical genius, and his idiosyncratic blend of swagger and insight transcended the backstage chaos that would yield a stage triumph. Welles was the type of man who would shower his cast with hyperbolic praise and then just as suddenly, crush them with harsh criticism.

However, director Richard Linklater ("Dazed and Confused"), definitely not a specialist in period pieces, chooses to focus on the fictional character of 17-year-old Richard Samuels to carry the plot as he witnesses Welles' genius firsthand as a protégé-turned-actor. Filmmaker Cameron Crowe tried the same perspective shift in 2000's "Almost Famous", but the device doesn't work as well this time. It's not that teen heartthrob Zac Efron is bad in the role. In fact, he brings an enthusiastic sincerity to his comparatively shallow role, but the dominance of McKay's towering performance provides an imbalance that is difficult to ignore. Holly Gent Palmo and Vince Palmo's screenplay focuses on Richard's brush with greatness during the process of making art, and cineastes will enjoy the likes of Joseph Cotten, John Houseman and George Colouris portrayed with relish and surprising accuracy by James Tupper, Eddie Marsan and Ben Chaplin, respectively.

Of course, there are women to complicate matters among the troupe, and Mercury production manager Sonja Jones is both a beguiling and ambitious presence that endlessly fascinates the actors swirling around her. Needless to say, Richard is smitten, but she has plans of her own to consider. Claire Danes gives a smart, incisive performance as Sonja, giving her more depth than one would expect from the story. Zoe Kazan bookends the movie as an aspiring writer who believes she has found a kindred artistic spirit in Richard. Laurence Dorman's production design and Dick Pope's cinematography deserve mention as the combination evokes the film's period setting with conviction. But this is McKay's movie all the way and well worth seeing for his astonishing turn.

A whirlwind week in the life of Richard Samuels (Zac Efron)....

[dave-3905 · 10/10 · 12 August 2009]

I expected this film to be a slight disappointment, but I was quite wrong about that!! The reason I was worried was Zac Efron. I'm a huge fan of Orson Welles and got very excited when I heard a film about the Caesar production was being made, but I thought this was too big a step for Efron. However he proved himself more than capable, and gives a very strong performance as Richard Samuels - a teenager who finds romance everywhere in life and yearns to act in bigger productions than school plays... who chances on Orson Welles and manages to talk/sing his way into Caesar.

Christain Mckay's performance as Orson Welles is equally impressive, as is Clare Danes as the ambitious yet charming Sonya Jones, and what's more the period (1930s New York) is captured brilliantly in the film, with great attention paid to language, location and costume.

In short: very, VERY entertaining and should appeal to a wide demographic - including Zac fans and doubters alike!!

Entertaining, but more legend than fact

[bg11731 · 6/10 · 29 November 2009]

Richard Linklater's "Me and Orson Welles" reminds us what a young whirlwind Orson Welles was well before Citizen Kane and RKO. His film time travels us to post depression era New York where young upstart Welles was reshaping the face of theater. However, Welles' daughter reportingly enjoyed the film, as did I, but felt at times it lowers the beginning stages of Welles' career to a lackluster episode of "Sex and the City" Here's the man who created the grand-daddy of media hoaxes, directed films that re-directed the path of world cinema, was a fantastic magician, I can go on. Do we really care about a life triangle Welles is in? The actor playing Welles is pre-Citizrn Kane Welles bought to life. It is not a party-time mimic like in "Ed Wood", but a performance that picks up all the facial expressions, mannerisms, large laugh that we all admire in Orson Welles. I can see why Welles' other daughter refuses to see the film. It was also fun to see represented here, other members of Welles' Mercury Theatre- Joseph Cotten, George Coulouris, Norman Lloyd.

Just when you thought Linklater's body of work couldn't get any more erratic...

[chaaa · 9/10 · 14 January 2009]

Me and Orson Welles is a wonderful story of a young boy (Efron)whose only acting experience is in high school musicals (ha! See what they did there) who manages to get a small part in Orson Welles' (Adam McKay) 1937 production of Julius Caesar. The film follows the volatile relationship between Orson and his company. He is a madman, a selfish, arrogant user and an absolute genius. He knows how the politics of show-business and he knows people, and how to play them. However, for all his antics, he is powerfully charismatic and it seems generally accepted that he is a genius.

Christian McKay's performance here as Orson Welles is wonderfully broad as he goes through every one of Orson Welles persona's with equal relish. He is snappy and arrogant but at the same time warm enough to earn some affection so when he lets a character down, you feel just as played yourself. The rest of the cast were great too. Zac Efron does his best here to leap from Disney heartthrob to leading man, and I personally thought he was solid and likable, with just enough of a sparkle in his eye and just enough skill to keep it there.

Overall this film has a charming story, which ends on such a high note I didn't know whether to smile or cry. It also boasts a very strong cast and most importantly a sweet disposition that stayed with me for a good half hour after the credits rolled.

Masterful Christian McKay performance compensates for lackluster plot

[Turfseer · 7/10 · 17 February 2010]

It's 1937 and the young Orson Welles is beginning to make a name for himself in both radio and the theater. His Mercury theater is putting on Shakespeare's 'Julius Caesar' and 18 year old Richard Samuels (Zac Efron) manages to get a bit part as Lucius in Welles' new fangled production in modern dress.

There isn't much to the plot of 'Me and Orson Welles'. Richard falls for Sonja Jones (Claire Danes), Orson's production assistant who has no guilt in sleeping her way to the top. She ultimately achieves her goal in getting a date with David O. Selznick, the famous Hollywood producer who two years later will produce 'Gone With the Wind'. But along the way, she has a momentary fling with Richard who naively believes that their relationship might turn into something. After Richard realizes that Orson is bedding Sonja, he takes Joseph Cotton's advice to "fight for her" and ends up getting on Orson's bad side by accusing him of being an adulterer. Orson, the egomaniac that he is, will not tolerate any dissent from any members of his cast, let alone a neophyte 18 year old, and promptly fires Richard. But since opening night is right on the horizon, Orson has to momentarily eat crow and flatter Richard so he'll return to the show. Once opening night has come and gone, Richard learns that Orson has dispensed with him for good. Richard decides that perhaps he was never meant to be an actor and exits gracefully with a young woman who he had met earlier, an aspiring writer who he had helped get published through the assistance and good graces of ex-lover Sonja.

What makes 'Me and Orson Welles' so enjoyable is Christian McKay's performance as the narcissistic thespian. McKay is in his late 30s and looks more like the Orson Welles of the mid to late 40s than the young wunderkind of 1937. Nonetheless, if you can overlook the age discrepancy, you'll be amazed at just how believable McKay is at portraying Welles when he was just starting out.

McKay pulls out all the stops, showing us what a 'character' Orson Welles was. He was a man who was bursting with creative ideas, always experimenting until he got things right. But the path to perfection was fraught with miscues and the scenes of all the flubbed rehearsals are quite amusing. McKay is brilliant especially when he shows Welles manipulating his actors so that they will bend to his will. It's made clear from the beginning, Welles always had to be in control. But occasionally, if you did oppose him, he would be flexible enough to consider contrary ideas (he's willing to incorporate suggestions that he initially rejects from Norman Lloyd who plays Cinna the Poet in Julius Caesar).

McKay also does a great job in showing what a great actor Welles was. Particularly impressive is the scene in which McKay has Welles 'improvising' during the radio broadcast. And don't forget how McKay/Welles handles Shakespeare in the final scenes where 'Julius Caesar' is finally put on; the tremendous raves from the audience are wholly justified. Screenwriter Holly Gent Palmo must be complimented on presenting the many nuances of Welles' larger-than-life character. I loved how the 'sprinkler incident' is foreshadowed by Welles' gut conviction that an earlier calamity can somehow prevent the occurrence of a later and more devastating catastrophe.

While it's admirable that Zac Efron chose to advance his career by getting involved in a more sophisticated production such as 'Me and Orson Welles' (as opposed to earlier 'low-brow' efforts such as '17 Again' or 'High School Musical'), he doesn't quite have the experience to be totally convincing as the naïve and impressionable Richard. Equally forgettable is Claire Danes who is saddled with the non-descript part of the social-climbing Sonja. Much more to my liking is Ben Chaplin as George Coulouris playing Mark Antony. Chaplin obviously is a classically trained actor who shows his range as both tragedian and comedian (he's great as Antony on stage but also as Coulouris who has stage fright before tackling the part).

'Me and Orson Welles' is basically a showcase for Christian McKay who has had experience in playing Orson Welles before in a one-man show. If your preference is for great performances as well as theatrical history, then check out this entertaining new indie dramedy.

Welles Bells

[Ali_John_Catterall · 5/10 · 26 July 2010]

Over a dozen actors have played Orson Welles on screen, attempting to nail mercury; a figure equal parts charming conjurer and driven dictator. The latest challenger is Christian McKay, a British stage actor. But McKay doesn't just 'play' the great genius. Rather, like some voodoo priest, he appears to have ensnared and bottled Welles' immortal soul, in order to resurrect every tyrannical tic and mellifluous mannerism of the man who, like Vincent Price in Theatre Of Blood, had the temerity to rewrite Shakespeare. So that's the Orson Welles bit of the title accounted for.

Then there's "Me". Zac Efron's presumably here for the same reason Robert Pattinson was recently cast as Salvador Dali in Little Ashes: honey to the box office bee. In Richard Linklater's period piece he's a high schooler who lucks his way into Welles' famous 1937 production of Julius Caesar at the Mercury Theatre; a once-in-a-lifetime "opportunity to be sprayed by Orson's spit".

Compared with his co-performers, especially shock-haired Leo Bill, who fits the 1930s like a bespoke blazer, Efron's is a face and sass out of time. His is a rite de passage without a passage, a coming-of-age story in which the cocky protagonist comes, but never attains wisdom. Thus the film demands an emotional investment in a character we can't care about. Adventureland tells a similar story much better. But McKay is this film's incredible, all-conquering ace.

Perfect blend of coming-of-age and theatre

[napierslogs · 9/10 · 26 August 2010]

The "me" in "Me and Orson Welles" is Richard (Zac Efron) a high school student who gets himself a part in Orson Welles' production of Julius Caesar at the Mercury Theatre. He's the kind of kid that loves everything creative in the world, is romantic, and is confident and sure of himself. Well, that is until he's alongside Orson Welles. Christian McKay plays Welles as the cocky and out-spoken man that I'm sure he was.

Directed by Richard Linklater, he has managed to turn this coming-of-age film into a Shakespearean theatrical production. My living room was transported into a theatre house, and I was watching a play. The lighting and score mirrored the production and its time; the actors were all right on cue; and backstage became the forefront.

This film is not a biopic, it's just the story of a young man discovering the acting world and the real world -- all alongside one of the most dramatic artists of the time. Romance was added to the storyline, along with a touch of self-discovery and world wonderment -- but that was done beautifully and softly. "Me and Orson Welles" is the perfect blend of coming-of-age and theatre.

The importance of not being earnest

[miloc · 6/10 · 15 December 2011]

Richard Linklater's film of Robert Kaplow's novel merits a watch, if only for Christian McKay's splendid evocation of the young Orson Welles. McKay has the vocal chops, the look (in profile it's uncanny) and, most importantly, the attitude. Without apparent effort, he catches the mammoth self-confidence that made Welles one of the most intimidating screen presences in cinema. I have no idea how much time and effort this actor (in his first feature film) spent in mastering the smirk Welles gives when neophyte actor Richard Samuels (Zac Efron) talks of his "lover"; in any case the work pays off. It's like a cameo by Harry Lime.

This movie uses the Mercury Theatre's celebrated production of Julius Caesar as backdrop to its rather slight story. The screenplay tells us that Welles, whatever genius he possessed, may not have been a great guy-- and, well... are we wrong to ask how much that matters? Efron, as the young hopeful who falls into Welles's considerable gravitational pull, has a certain charm and potential talent, but looks and acts somehow utterly of his own time-- we never believe him as a 1930s construct. (Possibly he hasn't watched enough old movies.) He falls in love with Claire Danes, who plays an ambitious... something, I missed exactly what her job was. Script girl? Dramaturge? Anyway, she works on the play. Danes does a decent job as whatever she is, but she and Efron generate zero chemistry. "Why am I so interested in you?" she asks at one point. I had no guesses.

If I had to speculate, I'd say that the romantic plot did not grab the director much. He does good work casting the real-life characters. Eddie Marsan makes a credible John Houseman; Ben Chaplin registers strongly as a nerve-racked George Coulouris; and James Tupper looks, sounds, and feels right as the affable young ladies' man Joe Cotten. The backstage squabbles, trivial though they may be, draw more interest than the emotional business upfront. And Linklater truly comes awake as a director in capturing performance: whether he's staging a quick radio sequence in which Welles steals the show or very finely recreating the Mercury's legendary Caesar, you get the feeling Linklater would be happiest just sitting back and watching the show. And here the movie is at its best-- far more than Tim Robbins' earnest, turgid Cradle Will Rock, this movie, absent of politics, captures the excitement of truly revolutionary theater at a time when such a thing was still possible.

In fact, that lack of earnestness may be the key here. Caesar was a great production not because it deconstructed Hitler, but because Welles gave it a sense of importance strong enough to deconstruct anything. Welles was a great artist, and perhaps more crucially he was a great bulls--t artist. Let's put it more simply: that WAS his art. This is a film about learning to bulls--t, learning when not to say what you mean, learning when not to be honest-- and that's bracing. It reminds us that trickery, deception and narcissism can be magic, and that egotism with a will to dazzle us can be more dazzling than anything we describe as "talent" and "sincerity". It's why the movie stalls when McKay is not on screen-- he convinces us he IS Orson Welles, that he is the most important man in the world-- and in defiance of logic and perspective, we buy it. And at the end of the day, that transparent and fantastic lie-- that's art.

Bored the whole way through

[TheArgentWolf · 2/10 · 7 January 2011]

When thinking about this film, the one thing that comes to mind is the scene talking about the short story - where nothing happened. I was looking forward to this movie, after all the rave reviews about it, and though it was not the worst film I've ever seen, it's definitely nowhere near the top. I spent the entire thing bored, waiting for something that wasn't monotonous to happen, and it never did. Although well acted, I had little interest in the characters or plot lines. Perhaps it's due to a lack of knowledge or understanding of Orson Welles' career, on my part, but I would not recommend this to other people.

So cynical you might miss it

[rooprect · 28 March 2017]

I wanted to hate this movie because it gave me a bitter aftertaste that I couldn't put my finger on. I admit, the praise that others have heaped upon this film is true: acting is superb, the entire production is authentic, and Christian McKay's rendition of Orson is very convincing, particularly that voice. So why did it leave me with a feeling like I had just ingested a triple salami sandwich with extra onions and pimentos?

The key is staring us all in the face; it's in the title. "Me & Orson Welles" (notice the audacity of putting "Me" before "Orson Welles") is a scathing portrayal of the unapologetic one-upmanship and venomous diva mentality which apparently dominates the entertainment industry and always has. Orson Welles is shown to be arrogance personified, and understandably so, but far more unsettling is the way every member of the stage community, from the leading lady all the way down to the lowly set designer, is equally self-centered and demanding "me me me". What's very clever about this movie is that it's very subtle. This is not a thick satire like "Catch-22" or a society-deprecating fable like "Edward Scissorhands" which immediately shows us the fault in the human condition. No, this is so subtle that most people may not even catch the sarcasm at work.

Aside from good looks, not a single character is likable. Claire Danes with her breezy smile and undeniably cute face plays a theater gold-digger so adept with her ladder climbing you'd think she was a firefighter. Always on her way to rendezvous with the latest producer/celebrity du jour, you start to wonder if she has a soul behind those dark eyes. Hats off to Claire for being able to play such a destestable character with grace, elegance and charm that makes us overlook her selfish agenda and instead become captivated by her. Other characters are more obvious with their self-serving natures, demanding more lines, special lighting, and everything short of a bowl of m&m's with all the brown ones removed. (Any 80s hair band fans out there? That's a reference to Van Halen's bizarre demand/prank at every concert.)

Ironically, and brilliantly, the one character whom I found to be thoroughly likable despite his selfishness was Orson Welles himself. This is simply because he openly and unapologetically makes himself the despotic king (much like Julius Caesar, the play they are performing), while all the other characters are toadies and yes-men who hypocritically assume their subservient roles in the pecking order. But Orson is shown to be probably how he was in real life: a master manipulator and Machiavellian stage tyrant whom you gotta love because he lets everyone know exactly what they're in for, should they choose to join his bizarre circus known as the Mercury Theater.

Now enter Zac Ephron's wide-eyed, idealistic and naïve character "Junior" who is thrown into this bizarre food chain, full of ridiculous notions like giving credit where credit is due, respect for others, and of course the most doomed concept to enter a theater since Abraham Lincoln, "love". Zac Ephron's monologue near the end when he recites a verse in class is chilling, and the sinister stare he gives as he delivers the last line is indicative that he has learned a thing or two about theater. Pay attention to that monologue because it sums up everything I'm saying here.

I think if you're intrigued by dark (yet subtle) themes like this, then you'll have a great time. I have to strongly disagree with a few other reviewers' descriptions using words like "charming", "nostalgic" and "wonderful". That's like saying Beethoven's 5th symphony was a real toe tapper in "Clockwork Orange". Knowing director Richard Linklater's body of work including muckraking films like "Fast Food Nation" and even the insidiously disturbing teen flick "Dazed and Confused", I have no doubt that "Me & Orson Welles" was a deliberate anti-romance. And I don't mean romance between two people; I mean the romance of a young lad and his first "kiss" with the theater. Definitely check out this flick if you're up for a challenge and not afraid to get a little dirty.

Executive Performance

[Polaris_DiB · 7/10 · 7 October 2010]

Linklater taking on Orson Welles? Sign me up. The only thing really unfortunate about this movie is the title, the only justification of which I can tell is that the lead character is so young and brash that he thinks of himself before Orson Welles but ironically thinks so in grammatically incorrect terms. However, this not being backed up by an explanation, it may also just simply be a grammatically bad title. I do not know, all I know is that it's unfortunate.

Anyway, onto the actual movie itself. Orson Welles being a particularly iconic figure, not only for Citizen Kane but also for the independent film industry as a brash, young, intelligent egoist willing to stand up to the biggest of institutions, it is not surprising that independent filmmakers love to take him on. Here the story is something like Orson meeting Orson, where a younger, brash, slightly less intelligent egoist has his ten seconds of fame working side-by-side with Welles on the stage, and in the process making a dizzying, delightful, sexy ride of it, until the brakes are hit hard and bloody noses are bounced off a few dashboards.

Zac Efron plays Richard, a bored high school student who wants to be an actor (!). Or a writer (!). Or an artist (!). Or whatever, he ultimately has to admit, allows him to participate in the world where creativity meets fame. Strolling across the city one day after a very Linklaterian meeting with cute and reserved Gretta (Zoe Kazan), he manages to act as such an attention whore that he gets under the radar of none other than 37 year old Orson Welles (Christian McKay), currently producing his Nazi-themed version of Julius Caesar. Taken on board, Richard got game, but ultimately his own needy desire for recognition (and of course the always fun issue of a girl (Claire Danes)) eventually brings Orson Welles and Richard into conflict. And I mean c'mon, he's going up against Orson Welles! Actor to actor, of course, Richard doesn't stand a chance. Actor to actor otherwise, Zac Efron and Christian McKay are perfectly matched, McKay for his spot-on presentation of Welles' cigar-chewing egotism and Efron for having to hold the brunt of the movie on his back basically being the exact type of youth that once upon a time was Richard and these days is more recognized as that friend-whore on Facebook. It is like the matching of Amy Adams to Meryl Streep in Julie & Julia (what is it with these ampersands?!), where one plays a recognized historical figure to aplomb, and the other perfectly nails the navel-gazing millennial everyone despises, but it is to the actor's credit that such a vapid character ultimately ends up being engaging. To Efron's credit, he may not be perfectly embodying Orson Welles, but he is perfectly embodying the part of all of us that wants to be Orson Welles.

The rest of it, really, is all Linklater. Ultimately the shy and awkward girl is the right way to go, the intellectual discussions say more about the characters' own perspectives than about the story's themes, bright-eyed youth looks to the future despite being shackled by its own overeducated situation in too-much-free-time. Meanwhile, it is shot well, beautifully lit, drily humorous, and manages to make you feel a little sorry for Richard once he loses, even though the character deserves it. This is helped mostly by the fact that he doesn't really lose "What's Most Important" and he didn't know what he wanted in the first place. Great execution of a familiar theme.

Now. It is "Orson Welles and I"! --PolarisDiB

Very Enjoyable

[bob-rutzel-1 · 7/10 · 29 August 2010]

Richard (Efron) an aspiring actor who is still in high school gets a job in an Orson Wells (McKay) play.

We know about War of the Worlds, Citizen Kane, "Rosebud" and of course, "we will sell no wine before it's time" etc, but I don't think most know how talented Orson Wells was and how well he could multi-task. Here we get a glimpse of his greatness. And, we enjoy the ride. We like big, powerful, flamboyant characters and this movie shows him as all of that.

What makes this ride more than enjoyable are many things. The dialogues by Wells are most striking. The cinematography makes everything seamless as the sets are amazing and the cast blends in like they lived there all their lives. The pace is right on. We see how a radio show, cigar smoke and all is handled. We see some backstage goings-on, with sudden changes in script and props, and, of course, a few temperaments by some of the stars in the play. The play Wells is doing is Caesar, a modern version (no togas).

But, it is Christian McKay who steals the show as well he should bearing the Orson Wells name. At times, he has a cadence like John Larroquette and I enjoyed that very much. I had to keep looking at him to make sure he wasn't Larroquette in some make-up made to look like Wells. It wasn't. It was McKay.

Zac Efron can act and he did very good. The rest of the cast were good, but Ben Chaplin (as George Coulouris) stands out.

All in all a very enjoyable movie.

Violence: No. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: No F-bombs. Many JCs, SOBs mostly by McKay as Wells.

A beautifully crafted film

[agmoldham · 8/10 · 8 December 2009]

I have seen a couple of good reviews of Me and Orson Welles, so decided to go and see whether they were merited. I'm pleased to report that the film certainly impressed me.

The film focuses on the rehearsals and opening of the play Caesar starring Orson Welles in 1937. Nominally Zac Efron plays the lead as Richard Samuels who is almost 18 and yearning to become an actor. A chance encounter with Orson Welles outside the Mercury theatre leads to Richard being cast as Lucius. Welles was one of those larger than life characters who had so much talent that they could get away with having a rather inflated ego.

This is the first time I have seen Zac Efron on screen and I have got to say he played the role of the star struck teenager very nicely. The character is full of dreams and it certainly resonates long after the film has finished.

If Christian McKay does not get a supporting actor Oscar nomination for his Orson Welles portrayal it will be a travesty. He is quite simply superb. I've always found Claire Danes very engaging and she is also very good in this as are a number of the supporting cast including Ben Chaplin and Zoe Kazan.

If you are after traditional blockbuster fare from your movies then you are probably well advised to skip Me and Orson, but if you like an intelligent film that is well scripted, well directed (by Richard Linklater) and well acted then it's a must see.

Orson steals the show!...

[ajs-10 · 7/10 · 19 December 2010]

This is a film about a play, or should I say the putting on of a performance of a play. The play in question is Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare and the man directing and starring in it is none other than Orson Welles. For me, the actor playing the part of Welles, Christian McKay, totally steals the show, but more of my thoughts later, here's a brief summary first (summary haters please wait in the wings while I write the next paragraph).

The setting is New York in the year 1937 where student and aspiring actor Richard Samuels lands himself a small part in Welles's production of Caesar. He immediately strikes up a friendship with director's assistant, Sonja Jones. We are taken through all the trials and tribulations of rehearsals leading up to opening night. Welles is a bit of a philanderer and Sonja is ambitious and the two are seen to be drawn together, much to the dismay of Richard. As opening night approaches the tension builds and Richard takes some advice from Joseph Cotton, another cast member. He is advised to 'fight for her', but is it too late?... I guess I'd better leave my summary here, don't want to give the game away do I.

This film was made on a small island between Britain and Ireland in the middle of the Irish Sea called the Isle of Man (apologies to those that already know this). As such, I find it remarkable that it felt like 1930's New York! Full marks to the production team on this one. As I said at the beginning, for me, the standout performance came from Christian McKay as Orson Welles (Brutus in the play). He really nailed the part, most excellent work! I guess I have to give honourable mentions to; Zac Efron as Richard Samuels (Lucius), Claire Danes as Sonja Jones, Ben Chaplin as George Coulouris (Mark Antony) and Zoe Kazan as Gretta Adler.

For me, apart from the performance of Christian McKay and the showing of the play, which was excellent, I didn't really get a lot from this film. The rest of it was kind of OK, but nothing great. I didn't find the relationship between Richard and Sonja believable and that made the rest of the story fall kind of flat (for me). It's still worth a viewing, but don't expect great things. Recommended (with reservations).

My score: 6.7/10

Coming of age in a hurry

[Red-125 · 8/10 · 6 August 2010]

Me and Orson Welles (2008), directed by Richard Linklater, is a fantasy about a fantastic event--the famed Mercury Theatre production of "Julius Caesar," directed by Orson Welles in 1937.

In the 21st Century, setting Shakespeare's plays in modern dress has become a cliché. More than 70 years ago, however, Welles' production, with its clear references to fascism, was bold and daring. It made theater history, and propelled Welles into the limelight.

Teen heartthrob Zac Efron plays Richard Samuels, who is chosen by Welles for the small role of Lucius in the production. Zoe Kazan plays Gretta Adler, a young woman whom Richard meets in the New York Public Library. Claire Danes is Sonja Jones, Welles' assistant, who is rising in the theater world through a combination of intelligence, beauty, devotion to Welles, and her willingness to get into bed with anyone who can help her career.

Effron is outgoing and attractive, Kazan is shy and attractive, and Danes again shows why she was able to captivate TV audiences in "My So-Called Life," and then move on to immense Hollywood success. (Those who know "My So-Called Life" can recognize some of the interesting techniques that Danes developed then, and has since perfected.)

The highest honors in the film, however, belong to Christian McKay, who portrays Welles, and who stars as Brutus in the production. He has an uncanny resemblance to Welles, and his acting in the movie captures the qualities for which Welles was famous--incredible talent and incredible egotism.

Me and Orson Welles is not a truly great or classic film, but it's not fluff, and it's a perfect choice if you want to see an interesting movie about interesting people. The production values are very high, the sets capture New York City in the 1930's, and the acting is wonderful.

We saw this movie on a hotel flat-screen TV . It would probably work better on a large screen, but the small screen version worked well enough. It's definitely a movie worth finding and seeing.

Well-produced but predictable

[justbob1982 · 7/10 · 9 April 2021]

Version I saw: LoveFilm DVD rental Actors: 7/10 Plot/script: 6/10 Photography/visual style: 7/10 Music/score: 7/10 Overall: 7/10

At the time of writing, one of the films vying for awards in 2021 is Mank, a movie about those who struggled for recognition around the domineering persona of one Orson Welles. In 2008, Richard Linklater created another such film.

Me and Orson Welles stars teen heartthrob Zac Efron (fresh from High School Musical stardom), former teen heartthrob Claire Danes (Romeo + Juliet, Princess Mononoke) and Zoe Kazan, and yet the title role was given to a total newcomer, Christian McKay.

Linklater is one of the most varied directors around. His core is a set of films obout the everyday, life-defining events from which ordinary lives are constructed. The Before trilogy laid the groundwork that culminated in (for me) the apotheosis of Boyhood, and arguably Slackers is in this category too. Alongside those, though, he has turned his hand to science fiction, comedy, music, crime drama, rotoscoped animation... an incredible variety of genres and media. Linklater knows film, so of course he knows Welles.

Orson Welles holds a privileged position in the annals of cinema history. Citizen Kane is often voted by critics and filmmakers as the best film of all time, and yet it is only one of a handful of Welles classics that redefined the medium. And yet, Me and Orson Welles is not one of those "films about films" that Hollywood loves. Or rather, not exactly.

This film takes us back to Welles' theatre days; he was a legend of stage as well as screen. Zac Efron plays Richard Samuels, a young hopeful caught up in the Welles whirlwind. Orson builds him up, gives him a prominent role in the play he is producing... but all while undermining and dimishing others, so that our hero Richard seems overdue a fall.

I am revealing very little of the plot there, because much of it plays out as you would expect. Everything revolves around, and is ultimately consumed by, Welles' whirlwind ego. And it takes a while to happen too; by the end, I felt little sympathy for Richard, when he faces the same fate as others around him, and yet somehow failed to predict when we, the audience, saw it coming a mile off.

This is not to say the film is bad. The 1930s were a vibrant era for New York, and the film does a great job of bringing this vibrancy to life, in its costume design, set design, music and more. The leads have bags of charisma too, and sell their parts well. We know (and knew) what Efron and Danes can do, and they do not disappoint.

McKay too fits the bill. Welles has been portrayed on screen many times, but often they amount to nothing more than impression. McKay's delivery of Holly Gent and Vincent Palmo Jr.'s debut script is something more. In this film, the narcissist Welles is the arch-manipulator. His mastery of the thespian arts is such that he can make anyone believe anything, and uses it ruthlessly to his advantage. Even when he seems sincere in praise or condemnation, it could just be more dissembly from the master of lies.

I enjoyed the film. If it is a bit lightweight, it is at least light in a good way, tripping through that middle section where not much happens. It gets off to a spicy, snappy start, and continues intelligently with a sharp smartness that reminded me a little of Aaron Sorkin's work.

I feel like Me and Orson Welles is one of those films that flatters to deceive. As producer as well as director, Linklater has put together a slick production, with excellence in most departments. The ultimate point is not a facile one either: theatre is taken as an exemplar of all the collaborative creative industries, as prone as they are to domination by a prima donna. I am just not sure the film says anything you couldn't already have worked out for yourself...

For my full review, see my independent review on Blogspot, Cinema Inferno.

Me and Orson Welles

[jboothmillard · 4/10 · 24 June 2011]

From director Richard Linklater (Waking Life, School of Rock, A Scanner Darkly), I heard of this film not being rated very well by the critics, but there was a lot of praise for the actor playing the title role of the famous Citizen Kane and The Third Man star, so I had to watch. Basically set in 1937, Richard Samuels (High School Musical's Zac Efron) is the high school student who has a day trip in New York City, and there he meets and becomes friends with Gretta Adler (Zoe Kazan) and they both share of love for the creative arts. Richard also finds the Mercury Theatre and meets actor Orson Welles (BAFTA nominated Christian McKay), and after a quick improvisational audition he manages to get a part in his new play, a modern retelling of William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. He will acting alongside Orson, and other Mercury players such as Joseph Cotten (James Tupper) and George Coulouris (Ben Chaplin), and onlooking is producer John Houseman (Eddie Marsan), but of course Orson is the great unofficial dictator of the production. Whatever Orson wants he gets, he has the power to fire anyone and everyone and he wants the perfect show, but he doesn't believe in all conventions, and he does not have a fixed opening night. He realises that his name will be triumphed or ruined with the result of the show, and Richard acting the part of Lucius along with everyone else, including leading lady Sonja Jones (Claire Danes) aka The Ice Queen, is making sure he follows the "master". Sonja is the woman that all the men are afraid to ask out, being so close to Orson, but Richard takes up the challenge and seems to get rather far that they go out and get closer, but he cannot get away from the bluster of Orson. Eventually it comes to the opening night, Richard was originally fired but is allowed back for the opening night, and the audience give high praise for the production, but in the end Richard is forced to leave after finding out he was only required for the opening night, but he does gain a new girlfriend. Also starring Kelly Reilly as Muriel Brassler, Leo Bill as Norman Lloyd and Al Weaver as Sam Leve. Efron is obviously a little cheesy but he is alright in this, Danes does well with her time as well, but of course the one who steals the show is the magnificent uncanny looks and charismatic voice of McKay playing the established actor, the story is not bad, but you do feel it could have been a little better in some of the scripting and apart from McKay it all feels a little bland, not a terrible period drama. Okay!

I Was Smitten By It Overall

[eric262003 · 9/10 · 14 December 2010]

I have to say, this was one of the more brilliant obscure films that I've seen in a very long time. The plot couldn't be more fun to watch. This is the story of a 17 year old student named Richard (Zac Efron) who lives in New York City in the year 1937. He's become a bit overwhelmed with his school work so he tries to get away from it to pursue a career in theater. He wanted to be the best actor ever like the great Orson Welles (Christian McKay). At around this time, Welles' desire is to get his Mercury Theater Company kicking with a production of William Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar", an accomplishment deemed ultra-complex even by the inflated head of Welles himself. But Richard stuns the headstrong Welles and his faithful assistant, Sonja "The Ice Queen" Jones (Claire Danes) and successfully lands a part in the production. Sonja wants nothing but star power, while the Theater wants this production to go off without a hitch with Welles in charge. Richard on the other hand, wants to fulfill his dreams in every way that he could.

One of the best directors of our time and the most under-rated is the great Richard Linklater. What makes this man so great is his method to let the movies communicate with the audience. Most of his stories center on aspiring young individuals who embark on a journey only to get lambasted for their efforts However not in a way that will crush their spirits, but to give them a valuable lesson in life. The good quality of the films Linklater makes is that he gives you a feeling of comfort and inner warmth. Linklater's films are always intelligent, but never hard to comprehend and are almost always have optimism incorporated in his stories.

From this movie, I have found some very interesting observations. I feel that Linklater was able to successfully portray Orson Welles in a very neutral perspective. He never sugar-coated him as some great person, nor did he portray him as an overly tyrannical power-abuser. Granted sure Welles was conceited (and McKay plays this personality to almost perfection), but at the same time, his talent has no boarders to cross. And even though Welles has succeed a lot in life, like everyone else, he had his share of failures too. In many ways Linklater is a part of us as a society. Most of us are overlooked by others, if you're high in power you'll be treated like royalty, if your below them, you're going to get little if any notice at all. But Linklater never lets that run his life, instead, he just goes what's written on his agenda. Most of his films give you the impression how difficult love is in our world and never glorifies upon it.

The period of time this movie was made couldn't have been more accurate then in "Me and Orson Welles". Set in the Great Depression sets the tone of the economic instability people today are encountering. This movie symbolizes meaning with performers playing off complex characters and succeed on many levels.

I would suggest you give this movie a look. You just have to appreciate a great drama, stunning performances by a stellar cast, and the appreciation of theater work and the early days of young Orson Welles. Overall a wonderful film that succeeds on all levels.

Drama worth watching

[vivekmittal514 · 7/10 · 9 December 2009]

This movie is about a boy (Richard) who got bored of his lectures in the school and wanted to do something for real. The story revolves the real world experiences which changed Richards life from an ambition to become a renowned actor to a writer. Richard got a chance in a play lead by Orson Welles. Orson Welles is depicted as an arrogant, confident, convincing leader who controls the whole the play. All the other actors were just happy to be working with Orson Welles. Richard fall in love with Sonja and spent time with her. But when he fights for her against Orson Welles his life took a new turn. In the end the whole episode gave Richard an idea of writing a novel on a famous personality. Its a drama worth watching. I liked the acting of Christian McKay (Orson Welles) and Claire Danes(Sonja). Zac Efron reminded me of Leonardo DiCaprio.

barely watchable

[debfrutiger · 1/10 · 29 August 2010]

How did this movie get positive reviews from ANY serious critic or IMDb user....seriously? Badly acted, poorly written, annoying and inappropriate overuse of period music throughout, glib tone...was there actually a director?...I want my money back! I can't believe I paid money to see this- they should have paid me! A big fat waste of my time! If I have anything nice to say about any part of this film, which does account for the score of 1 that I did give this movie, it is that is is mercifully finally over. Why I felt compelled to suffer through to the very end is a mystery...I think actually the movie was so BAD that people didn't even watch the whole thing or waste time writing an excruciatingly painful 10 line review...