Add a Review

  • jotix10013 December 2004
    It's rare that a film by an independent filmmaker can pack such a lot in the way of human interaction. Jill Sprecher, inspired by a mugging she suffered, co-wrote the story in which her movie is based, with her sister Karen. Ms. Sprecher shows an insight that is rare in the young directors starting in the business today.

    If you haven't watched the film please stop reading.

    The basic idea for the movie seems to be how interconnected we human beings are. This premise is expanded as we watch how all of the characters we see in the film, in one way, or another, share a moment in their existence where they touch each other's lives without even being aware of the fact. Ms. Sprecher weaves a fine web, as she shows the different situations in the movie.

    Troy, the self-centered lawyer touches Gene's life when both are drinking, for different reasons, at the same bar. Gene is older and wiser; at the time they meet Gene is feeling sorry for himself, having being "downsized" from his job. Troy, being in high spirits, after having won a case in court, looks down to Gene, a man who he perceives as a loser. Troy's own life will go through it's own turmoil after the involuntary accident where he injures a young woman in a deserted street. Instead of helping her, he flees the scene, leaving the girl to what could be a sure death.

    Gene is the center of the story in many ways. We see him as the man in charge of an insurance claims department. There is a man who works for Gene that is the epitome of good naturedness, a real kind person who is always bringing things for everyone in the office. When Gene is asked to reduce costs in his area, he fires Bowman, the man, who according to logic, must be let go first, being the last one hired. We wonder for a moment if this is just a way for Gene to get back at Bowman, because it appears this man irritates him and his coworkers. Bowman, who up to that moment has been so optimistic about things, immediately becomes a sad man.

    Walker, the university professor is unhappily married to Patricia. We watch both as their marriage comes to an end. Walker is carrying on an affair with another woman from work; he ends up living alone in a small room. Not only does he lose his wife, but Helen too, the woman he was having the affair with. His life and Troy's meet, if only briefly when he buys the lawyer's car. Walker is in a way responsible for the death of one of his students who is not doing well in the Physics course.

    Then there is Bea, the young woman who cleans rich people's houses. Together with Dorrie, she fantasizes what it would be like to live in one of those fabulous places. Bea, who almost died when she was a child, is not bitter about her experience. She is a kind soul who is good to everybody, no matter who. Her life and Troy's become entwined in a second without realizing, or knowing him, as his car hits her in the desolate street where she is walking to the house of one of her employers to return the shirt she has just finished resewing for him. After going to her mother's home from the hospital, we see a gradual transformation in Bea. She's still a kind person, but now she has a different attitude toward life and the bad hand she was dealt.

    This film brought to mind Arthur Schnitzler's play "La Ronde" since the idea is basically the same. We humans tend to overlook the relation we have with one another, and how, in some ways, we touch the life of other people, the same way they touch ours.

    The acting is first rate. Ms. Sprecher ought to be congratulated in the way she is able to present her story and get outstanding acting by all the principals and even those in small roles. Alan Arkin, as Gene, is amazing. We see in his face how everything is affecting him at all times. John Turturro gives a complex reading of this university professor. Clea DuVall brings such a luminous aura to Bea, that it's impossible not to feel bad for what has been done to her; she gives a subtle performance. Matthew McConaughey's depiction of Troy is good.

    There are a lot of minor roles by actors of the stature of Shawn Elliott, Frankie Faison, Tia Texada, Rob McElhenney, Barbara Sukowa, and William Wise, who is perfect as Bowman.

    Congratulations are in order to Jill Sprecher who shows a talent for directing real people in real situations. Judging by this effort, she has the potential of going far.
  • What a great film. The ties between these disparate stories are wondrously woven, and the sudden eye-opening twists are amazing. The spare music is a perfect backdrop. The acting is marvelous, with Amy Irving as the neglected wife of the melancholy professor and Alan Arkin playing the driven and lugubrious businessman with lots of problems and. I hardly realized who it was until halfway through the movie. I would compare this movie to other great art movies such as My Dinner With Andre, My Brilliant Career, Days of Heaven. It evoked in me similar emotions. If you are feeling down and want a big lift, I highly recommend this wonderful film. It deserves an 8 out of 10.
  • This is divided into sections each about an aphorism. Lawyer Troy (Matthew McConaughey) is celebrating a win at a bar with his colleagues. Then he hits a pedestrian and decides to drive off. Walker (John Turturro) is a physics professor who is cheating on his wife Patricia (Amy Irving) and she suspects him. Beatrice (Clea DuVall) is a maid but her sweet blissful nature is shaken after getting run over by Troy. Gene (Alan Arkin) is a cynical insurance claims manager with family problems and bitter at his happy co-worker.

    There are interesting stories and good performances. The cast is amazing. It aspires to be philosophically deep and meaningful. The meandering nature of the story telling leaves me wondering if the movie is actually saying anything. The rotating characters do not allow the tension to build. It needs to rebuild every 15 minutes. I wonder if the movie would be a lot better following one character and dropping the philosophical pretense.
  • My wife and I launched immediately into a conversation about this film before the end credits had even finished rolling. It's the kind of film that makes you want to apply some of its ideas and themes to your own life and experiences.

    At first I was worried. When the film began, I thought it was going to be an episodic experimental piece, with 13 different scenes each dealing with an aspect of happiness. This bothered me, because the first segment of the film left me wanting more of the same story and I would have been disappointed if the screenplay had never come back to it. However, the first few segments that seem at first to be unrelated begin to mesh in a fluid way (but never in a way that feels forced), and what happens in one begins to illuminate the actions and feelings in another.

    Because of it's episodic nature, the actors don't get a lot of room to flesh out their characters, but the performances are still strong. Alan Arkin is especially good (he always is).

    This one comes highly recommended.

    Grade: A-
  • The structure of this film is familiar as we see different stories with characters that in some sort of way are connected to one another. The structure is reminiscent of a John Sayles film but this is top notch writing and character development. Directed by Jill Sprecher who also wrote the script with her sister Karen and has a number of very good actors who help raise the level of the material. The film seems to be about characters who make decisions then have to live with the consequences of their actions. Matthew McConaughey is a lawyer who after winning a big case and celebrating hits a woman (Clea DuVall) with his car and leaves the scene of the crime. John Turturro is a teacher who decides to have an affair. Alan Arkin gives the strongest performance in the film, which is no surprise. He works in an insurance office and must let someone go and decides it will be a man who is always happy. This has always irritated Arkins character. He simply cannot understand how anyone could be happy all the time. Later, he feels guilty about his actions and tries to get him another job at another company. Sprecher does a good job of keeping the script simple without going over the top to satisfy a more shallow audience. This is a film that gets more interesting when viewed on more than one occasion. Definitely a film that can be discussed at great lengths considering the realistic and flawed nature of each character.
  • Imagine! A movie with no car chase, no special effects, no big stars, simple piano music, and no special sets. Just ordinary people struggling with daily life and trying to find the secret of happiness. Four basic stories interweave with each other, all examining the same human issues. Alan Arkin practically walks away with all the acting honors, but there are no weak roles or acting. What a joy to watch a profound movie, simply made.
  • The lawyer Troy (Matthew McConaughey), the actuary Gene (Alan Arkin), the physical science professor Walker (John Turturro) and the housecleaner Beatrice (Clea DuVall) have their lives connected through some sort of event. Troy meets Gene in a bar, hits Beatrice on the street and due to the accident, decides to sell his car to Walker. Through this non-chronological connection line, the viewer participates of their personal dramas, all of them relative to happiness and how unpredictable life is. In a moment, each character has a moment of happiness or expectation of a good event in his life, which is changed later due to some unexpected occurrence. The question is `Can we be happy in a world where our destiny is governed by uncertainties?' This movie is a very bitter and profound story about happiness and unpredictability of life. I saw this movie yesterday on cable television and my vote in IMDB User Rating was seven. However, I intend to see this film again (maybe on DVD) and reevaluate my review. I was not aware of the theme of this complex and almost unpleasant story and maybe my first impression was unfair. The direction and the performance of the cast are outstanding, highlighting the acting of the (always) excellent Alan Arkin.

    Title (Brazil): `Treze Visões' (`Thirteen Visions')
  • 13 Conversations is amazing. I don't say this lightly, but I would count it, perhaps, as one of the best movies I have ever seen. Concise, thoughtful, smart, perfectly woven. I have watched it a few times, and each time, it inspired me and made me think. The dialogue was economic; the shooting exact. The music was brilliant. Casting was terrific, and acting, excellent. The DP and gaffing work were masterful, as the film's colors were so clean and fresh, it made you think it wasn't New York City, but rather, any city -- allowing the story to breathe and blossom. That is a real achievement for a film set in NYC. In short, everything in the film was just as it should be -- fitting its own story perfectly, representing its thoughts, its characters, its themes with seemingly effortless grace and poetry. I am amazed that the Sprecher sisters aren't major household names with six picture studio deals -- they are talented filmmakers with a unique, creative voice. (It is frustrating today that the lowest common denominator of blockbuster fare seem often to be given more money and coverage than filmmakers like the Sprechers who make true gems.) 13 Conversations is intelligent, moving, and beautiful. Definitely a film to make sure to see.
  • "13 Conversations About One Thing" is in the genre of movies that deal with fate/coincidence in a rondelay story-telling technique.

    This is the more intellectual version of Tom Tykwer's German movies or as less violent than "Amores Perros."

    Writers/director the Sprecher sisters take a very different approach to human nature than in their sardonic "Clockwatchers," helped by intense performances by Matthew McConaughey and Alan Arkin and especially Clea DuVall who visibly change before our eyes as they are affected by chance slowly and fitfully playing out its hand around them.

    The chapter headings are a bit precious. I couldn't actually tell what order the story was being told to us, backwards, sideways, forwards? Or is the point that doesn't matter for happiness? We're cogs in The Great Mandella anyway, each touching the other in unknown ways?

    (originally written 6/16/2002)
  • This is most definitely not my first choice of genres, but still I thought this film was pretty good. The film is a little slow, but it's quite interesting in the end. The characters in the film are really quite interesting and even at the end of the film I wanted to know what else happened to the characters.

    The acting was good on all accounts, Matthew McConaughey, John Tuturro, Clea DuVall and Alan Arkin all did a fantastic jobs and I really liked all of their characters quite a bit.

    Even though, I liked the film I wouldn't recommend this to everyone. It's pretty much just a movie about a bunch of people and the things that happen in their lives. I kind of found the movie to be a lot like "Playing By Heart", so if you liked that film, you may like this film. I hope you enjoy the film. Thanks for reading,

    -Chris
  • Enchorde24 October 2009
    Warning: Spoilers
    Recap: A few people in New York with their own trouble seem to have nothing in common but does think about the same questions. Does luck exist? What is fate? And foremost: What is happiness and how do I get it? By some chance encounters these people meet and their life intertwines, and unknown to themselves they are integral in the other's lives. Cause and effect

    Comments: A very odd movie. The pace of the story is slow and it gets quite deep sometimes. It's philosophical and trivial at the same time, and to put the dot over the I, not told in chronological order. Watching this I felt a little conflicted. It was too slow to keep my interest totally and I started lose concentration, thinking about something else to do while watching. But at the same time it was intriguing enough that I couldn't pull myself from the screen. It was an odd feeling.

    The thing that kept me in the end was the out of sequence order of the scenes and how the people met and the impact they had on each other. My interest wasn't so much in the story that was told, but more in solving the puzzle of what happened when and to what effect.

    It's a different movie, certainly not one of the main stream pictures. Nice to see then that it attracted some main stream star names, most notably Matthew McConaughey, but also Clea DuVall, John Turturro and Alan Arkin. Good performances all around, and that was important as the story depends on each one of them to be believable in their own little misery. If one of them would have stepped out of line everything would have crumbled.

    This is a movie to watch if you want something else, something new compared to the box office hit movies. A movie that you need to work a little for the entertainment and not be spoon fed all the way. Something to watch when you are alert and perhaps with company that you can discuss with during and afterwards. If you don't like movies like that, stay away.

    6/10
  • This film uses similar structure to more recent films, such as "Crash" (not as good) and "Tales of the City" (excellent). It is basically like the "three degrees of separation" idea, in that people, whether they intend to or not, have an affect on others, and their actions resonate in unpredictable ways.

    Clea Duvall is "Bea" who along with her girlfriend run a house-cleaning service in NYC. She and her friend are barely surviving on wages, while they reflect on those whose expensive apartments and penthouses they clean. Bea develops a crush on an architect which comes to bear later in the story.

    The academics, is the second category here. John Turturro as Professor Walker, a brilliant, yet suppressed physics professor. He has an affair and his wife (well-portrayed by Amy Irving) becomes fed up.

    The attorneys, third segment of story, encompasses Matthew McConaughey as "Troy", a slick and successful Assistant D.A. who at first is arrogant, self-assured, and impermeable to life. He thinks, until he is affected by a random accident.

    The insurance adjusters, another group, and the more amusing segment. Sardonic Alan Arkin again delivers as "Gene", running a department for 20-30 years, hating his job and resenting those who "whistle while they work". He is redeemed as a character however, in that he tries to be a good father, has been through an ego-deflating divorce, and bails his son, an addict, out of prison time and again. Frankie Faison is also a good character here, as "Dick Lacey" another part of Arkin's group who sees the pointlessness of the insurance profession.

    Each character in one way or another affects the other. Like ripples, subtly. Professor Walker, realizing the futility of the affair, questions one of his students why he wants to be a doctor. This leads to later results, which I won't divulge.

    Arkin fires a man he at first resents, then pities. Bea (Duvall) at first a happy rather naive character, changes after an accident. Troy (McConaughey) at first denies his reality, then comes to terms with it under a stark realization.

    This film, written by Jill Sprecher and her sister was written after she in real life, had an injury resulting from an accident. It is an interesting and human story. This is also in the rare category of films which the story will stay with you. You will recall its theme, as it comes through in day-to day life.

    "The mind is its own place, it can make heaven of hell, or hell heaven" (Milton) Highly recommended. 10/10
  • ctomvelu128 November 2010
    A Robert Altman-style film, but written and directed by women. Several characters ponder what happiness means as they slog through their daily lives. The cast is impeccable, and includes Clea Duvall, Matthew Mc., John Turturro and Alan Arkin, who steals the show amid a very large cast. He plays an embittered, divorced middle manager well past retirement age with a junkie son. On a whim, Arkin commits an irresponsible act that will come back to haunt him. Duvall is an accident victim whose life can never be the same. If you like Altman movies, in all probability you will like this one. All others, beware. No wild car chases, explosions or shoot-outs here.
  • hubcap1825 June 2006
    I just don't quite "get" this film, nor do I see where all the positive reviews came from. I decided to check out this film because I like Clea DuVall's work (The Faculty, Identity, and Girl, Interrupted) and the premise sounded kind of interesting. Alan Arkin gives a good performance, but he can't save this film. The film is comprised of vignettes focus on four basic groups of characters: lawyers, office workers, cleaning ladies, and College professors and students. But almost nothing exciting or remarkable happens in this film, nothing that really made me wonder what would happen next or how this film would turn out. All I wanted was for this film to finally end, but I fell asleep before then and had to use the scene selection. Overall, this was a pretty dull viewing experience.
  • In `13 Conversations About One Thing,' the `one thing' that everyone keeps having conversations about is whether or not happiness is possible in a world that seems to be made up of little more than a series of random events haphazardly strung together. Just as everything seems to be going your way, an unexpected and unforeseen `event' may knock you completely off course, thereby depriving you of that `happiness' you felt, moments before, lay just within your grasp. This view of life seems to be rather popular among filmmakers this year, having also been explored in some depth in the sci-fi thriller `Signs' this summer. `13 Conversations' takes a more low-keyed approach, providing a series of interlocking vignettes from everyday life that, when pieced together, provide a possible answer to life's ultimate question.

    Writers Karen and Jill Sprecher (the latter also directed the film) have fashioned a complex narrative involving a number of characters whose paths cross in bizarre and often shocking ways. In fact, the film is rather unique in that the structure actually BECOMES the theme, as we discover that events that seem random to us - and indeed to the characters - at the outset actually come together to form a meaningful pattern. As one character says at the end of the film, life really only makes sense when we take the time to look back on it, for it is only from that perspective that we are able to discern the overarching pattern and meaning of it all.

    All of the many characters in the film are struggling not only to define happiness but to attain a measure of it for themselves in a world in which they are made to feel like mere helpless pawns, blown about by the whims of `fortune,' `luck,' `chance,' `fate,' whatever one wants to call the `power' that seems to determine the courses our lives end up taking. Matthew McConaughey plays a handsome and successful public defender who feels that he has achieved happiness in his career only to have it ripped from him when he runs over a young woman at a corner and leaves the scene of the crime. The woman herself (Clea Duvall), before the accident, is a sincere believer in a higher power that watches over us and guides us along the path it most wants us to take. Yet, after the accident, she loses that belief, coming instead to see life as a chaotic jumble of chance circumstances, devoid of meaning and purpose. John Turturro plays a college professor suffering from the classic symptoms of major midlife crisis. He abandons his wife (Amy Irving), conducts a meaningless affair with a coworker, and finds no relevance or fulfillment in his teaching job or in the students he could be guiding and helping. As a Physics teacher, he knows that the universe is NOT random, that it does, in fact, operate within a series of finely proscribed natural laws. Perhaps this is why he is the one character who actually tries to buck `fate' and to take proactive measures to change the course of his life. The problem is that the course change brings him no more satisfaction than did his previous life path. Perhaps, most fascinating of all is Alan Arkin, a businessman so unhappy with his own life that he takes pleasure in ruining the life of a co-worker who seems somehow to have attained the happiness that has eluded the rest of us.

    `13 Conversations About One Thing' is definitely a movie that grows on you. Like `Go' a few years back, the makers of this film respect the intelligence of their audience. They gather the strands of their story slowly, thereby allowing us to make connections and to eventually come up with the theme on our own. As the film's director, Jill Sprecher never hurries us along. In fact, much of the profundity of the screenplay is brought out by the elegiac, lyrical tone she establishes throughout. The quiet, unhurried pacing of the scenes puts the audience into a reflective state of mind that helps us see beneath the deceptively simple surface of the film's action.

    McConaughey, Duvall, Turturro and Irving are all outstanding in this film, but it is Arkin who soars in the key role of the disgruntled businessman. His sad-faced, understated portrayal of a man so caught up in petty bitterness that he will willfully destroy a harmless fellow human being to make himself feel a bit less miserable is shattering in its brilliance. He has truly never been better. Ditto for the other actors, for this is a great ensemble cast, even though most of the performers never appear in any scenes together.

    `13 Conversations About One Thing' is a film that feels like it has REALLY BEEN THOUGHT OUT ahead of time, not thrown together in haphazard fashion as so many other films appear to be. And that, given the theme of the film, is exactly the point.
  • Watching this film feels very natural. That is a credit to the cast and the writer. You can't, for even a second, not believe these people are real and walking around the real world at any given moment. Alan Arkin was outstanding as usual.

    I just felt that the tiny bit of closure - or a better word, redemption - that these characters stumbled onto, was too understated. I also felt that perhaps that was the intention of the film-makers to begin with. But I think in the end, it took away from the film as a whole. Maybe it's because we're conditioned to want larger, more dramatic pay-off. I'm not sure.

    Still a good film, 7 out of 10.
  • Alan196218 November 2005
    Warning: Spoilers
    Having had a two-month opportunity to catch up with some films I've missed during my 43 years, I place this film at the top. The cause of the opportunity: I became unemployed for my first time. The scene where "Gene" gives the pink slip to "Smiley" is a virtual replica of how I was let go. This film is "The Search for Intelligent Signs in the Universe" without a feminist agenda, or any explicit agenda. It is lyrical, and haunting. Jill Sprecher's director's commentary is extremely helpful. She suffered a mugging in her own life and underwent brain surgery as a result. Upon seeing the film I found it quite plausible that only a severe, jolting trauma (a'la Harrison Ford in "Regarding Henry") could thrust a storyteller's perception toward the precision of these insights.
  • With all the potential of becoming a great movie, 13 conversations came up to the plate and struck out. The movie tells 4 different stories, each in different time frames with the goal of showing that the stories connect to form something greater (at least that's what I think was the directors intent). Each story was not a symbol for something, or did not add a piece to the puzzle; just some random tale that coincidentally intertwines with the other stories being told.

    In reading other reviews, it is obvious that even fans of the movie do not understand the meaning of this movie. I am not sure that the director understands the meaning of this movie. There is only one possible reason for this. The movie has no meaning, just random stories, about random people that live ordinary lives. The people only connect or intertwine here and there, and even the way they do connect is of no significance whatsoever. The stories do not combine to form something greater.

    Perhaps they should have skipped a theatrical release for 13 conversations and put it on day time television with all the other soap opera's, where it would have fit right in.
  • JoeytheBrit24 May 2007
    It's always pleasing to unexpectedly stumble across an intelligent and thought-provoking film such as this. Essentially a study on both the fickle nature of happiness and our (mis)understanding of it, and of the random manner in which complete strangers can alter the path of a person's life with neither being aware of the fact, 13 Conversations interweaves the tales of a handful of characters with deceptive ease and no little skill. Not only does the film smoothly pull all the strands together, it also does so by telling a tale that is not chronologically linear, but which overlaps in the same way that its characters' lives overlaps.

    Perhaps the only flaw is that a disproportionate amount of screen time is given to Alan Arkin's character at a cost to the others. John Turturro's professor and Matthew McConnaughy's yuppie lawyer in particular seem to be the casualties of this, but it has to be said that Arkin gives a masterful performance and carries his part of the film with ease. The dialogue is sometimes a little too clever for its own good – we get a sense of people making speeches to each other rather than holding conversations on occasion – but, having said that, what the characters have to see is always interesting and absorbing. A very good film, worthy of its high rating.
  • =G=19 November 2002
    "Thirteen..." is a pieced together, planar, circumflex, Magnoliaesque bunch of interleaved stories about people with varying levels of happiness, fulfillment, experience, achievement, etc.: A kind of superficial overview of the human condition of some city dwellers which feebly deals with happiness.

    The film is a technically and artistically excellent production with a fine cast. However, it's preachy, stagey, chock full of trite little pearls of wisdom, and annoying little phrases to introduce each scene, something which serves only to yanks us back to reality after we've worked to make a difficult buy-in...etc. The story is mechanical and herky-jerky with too much busy-work and too little time for story dynamics and character depth. A quick look at the stats on this site would suggest this is a good watch for less mature audiences...young adults, perhaps. (B-)

    Note - I need at least 20 inches of personal space. Sounds pretty stupid, huh?
  • My wife and I launched immediately into a conversation about this film before the end credits had even finished rolling. It's the kind of film that makes you want to apply some of its ideas and themes to your own life and experiences. At first I was worried. When the film began, I thought it was going to be an episodic experimental piece, with 13 different scenes each dealing with an aspect of happiness. This bothered me, because the first segment of the film left me wanting more of the same story and I would have been disappointed if the screenplay had never come back to it. However, the first few segments that seem at first to be unrelated begin to mesh in a fluid way (but never in a way that feels forced), and what happens in one begins to illuminate the actions and feelings in another.

    Because of it's episodic nature, the actors don't get a lot of room to flesh out their characters, but the performances are still strong. Alan Arkin is especially good (he always is).

    This one comes highly recommended.

    Grade: A-
  • although i was intrigued by the idea of this film i was not intrigued by the film itself i found most of the characters unrounded and the dialogue varied between vague and flat trying to follow the various plots was difficult as there was no "line" to hold onto and each time a character apppeared there was no time frame reference to where they were in relation to the last time they were seen.. good musical score but ultimately frustrating as the message doesn't quite reach the watcher..
  • i'd just like to say that this film is one of the best films i've seen in a long time. this is a film for people who like to read books. it had me thinking

    for a long time after i saw it. i'm planning to see it again if it's still in the theatres. SEE THIS MOVIE!
  • The title is not very accurate. There is some dialogue in the film, but not more than usual in drama - actually a bit less. That's a pity. People are confronted by twists of fate, so I would have liked to hear them comment more on it, share more of their thoughts and reflections.

    Movies today have an exaggerated fear of words. There's a lot of one-liners instead of dialogue. But Shakespeare was not wrong, words words words bear meaning, explore characters, make food for thoughts. It demands excellence from the writer - whether the dialogue is high-brow or not - and maybe that's what's mostly missing.

    In this film, the underdeveloped conversations leave the characters a bit superficial, their souls still closed to us, even when disaster strikes them. A pity, since there are some interesting people - like the DA with a conscience doing a sort of Raskolnikov thing, the middle-aged man unable to take any initiative in his life, and others. I'm sure they have more to say, than they do.

    Still, the film on the whole is a pleasant poem, where the lines have been mixed around but the meaning remains crystal clear. I'd say that's the one thing: meaning. It is, isn't it?
  • jackasstrange10 November 2013
    Warning: Spoilers
    Highly inspired in Inãrritu's Amores Perros, Thirteen conversations about one thing follows the same non-linear narrative which made the first an absolutely masterpiece of the post-modern cinema. But yes, it don't has a third of the quality of Amores Perros. First of all, the lack of depth in the drama: the subject explored here, the happiness, barely turns into 'The Thing', which the title refers to. It's way too shallow. The characters stories looks like fairy tails that met each other in the end, instead of a story that leads the characters to met each other. Forced in my opinion. Also, the hell is the motivation of the girl to try suicide throwing herself in front of a car? She could've jumped from some building(actually, it's what most people do).

    But what bothers me a little bit more than the unconvincing and somewhat forced plot,was the interpretation of the actors. Apart from a somewhat good performance by Alan Arkim, the rest of the cast either overacted or underacted. This alone would change the film(to worse) even if the plot were so good as the one in Amores Perros.

    It's not worth a watch. 5.7/10
An error has occured. Please try again.