Flannel Pajamas (2006) User Reviews (31)

Littering and Overhead Compartments

[ferguson-6 · 6/10 · 21 January 2007]

Greetings again from the darkness. Having seen the trailer a few times, I had pretty much decided this was not one I would see. Then I saw Roger Ebert raving about it and since he is a movie critic god, it was obvious I needed to see it.

Now I am not going to write the great Mr. Ebert and ask for my money back, but I must admit I am somewhat baffled by his comments. While there are moments of brilliant intimacy, for the most part this movie is just about the arc of 90% of the relationships today. I wish that were more of a compliment, but instead I compare this to "Before Sunset", the obnoxious remake to Richard Linklater's 1994 gem "Before Sunrise". In other words, it is 2 plus hours of listening to two fairly unlikeable people TALK incessantly about themselves and their relationship. This is definitely no "My Dinner With Andre".

Of course, writer/director Jeff Lipskey tosses is many more characters ... probably too many ... to show the complexities within this or any other relationship. Julianne Nicholson and Justin Kirk are the couple and while Ms. Nicholson exudes a camouflaged charm, Mr. Kirk is little more than a smarmy, unable to communicate about anything important dude who is just like most guys. We pretty much dislike him from the opening scene in the café when his self-centeredness is obvious to all but Ms. Nicholson.

I know little of Mr. Lipsky, but I am not sure if his objective was to visualize the issues of most relationships, point out the lack of judgment exhibited by most women when choosing a partner or some other deep philosophical issue. All I know is that the ending was obvious from the inane opening sequence, although there were some very poignant moments in between.

The best part of the film may be the closing credit song "Thursday" by Asobi Soksu. As for Roger Ebert, my opinion of him is not damaged one bit, as what makes watching movies so wonderful is the slight chance that one may hit you where it counts. "Flannel Pajamas" did this for him, but not for me.

Too much, too long

[ClaytonDavis · 5/10 · 20 November 2006]

Flannel Pajamas is the new independent film about the relationship of two individuals who go through the step-by-step analysis from first-time meetings, to eventual physical affection and then emotional exchanges. Unknown writer/director Jeff Lipsky deconstructs the abnormal psyche of two people, Stuart (Justin Kirk) and Nicole (Julianne Nicholson) and shows the viewer intangible sphere of their association.

Admiring the courage of two leading performances would be an understatement. Kirk and Nicholson completely engage themselves in their respective roles. The story begins with Stuart and Nicole meeting on a double date. Flirting, paranoia, dilemma, and heated discussion both fuel each other to more intrigue in the other. After their meeting we begin on their relationship road, and a very bumpy road at that. At first, the two seem like such a perfect match despite their differences. Stuart is a confident, money making man, who gives off the sense of inner-conflict but exceptional at hiding it from the viewer as well as Nicole. Nicole on the other hand, has a cute as a button persona who just happens to be living in an apartment with a communal bathroom. Her yearn for a man with financial and emotional stability is evident and Stuart seems to be the answer for her.

Unfortunately the film's emotional centers aren't really there. Even though you can find a bit of every love/relationship film ever made in this film, some real life issues need not to be shared. Lipsky's heart was in the right place when writing the film but his choices of leading the viewer through the tale were falsified by the fact that this is a love/relationship film. Justin Kirk, best known for his bravura performance in Angels in America, completely wears his role with such confidence and inevitable downfall of Stuart is shown remarkably by Kirk. The meeting with Nicole's Anti-Semitic mother gives Stuart the freedom to stretch out his legs and walk through a film which many will/have not enjoyed and give it a more even potent center.

Julianne Nicholson gives that brave and tortured performance that every actor dreams of. Despite spending half the film in the nude that is not the reason why it is "brave" as some critics like to throw in when someone does spend screen time like that. It's what she does when she's clothed and unclothed and her expression of words, her facial transformations in an instance, and even more, giving Nicole a sensitivity and humanity of sheer velocity. In the coming years, I have a feeling we could be hearing Nicholson's name at some award ceremonies.

Although I'm afraid the performances aren't enough to carry a film like this through to the end. Hallow centers and underdeveloped characters are just too much of an imperfection in portrait already pre-painted a little fuzzy. Engagement is vague but emotion is manifested wonderfully.

Grade: **1/2/****

A noble attempt to make an adult film about relationships.

[maeander · 5/10 · 17 April 2007]

They tried to make a grown-up film about why people fall in and out of love. They took a chance in a daring way to deal with a fundamentally adult story. They should be congratulated for that. The thing is...they failed.

The biggest problem with this film is the writing and editing. They characters are unsympathetic (needy in a "worst of Woody Allen" way). They tell you what the characters are, but the don't back it up with deeds. They just say the words and you're supposed to believe it. They should have shown it.

Instead, too much time is spent in silent prolonged emptiness that is meant to be profound. Did the editor know what the term pacing means? If every dull scene is prolonged by silence from minute one to minute one-hundred twenty...you lose the meaning of the pause. It's suppose to have a tempo.

The simple act of dropping the first and last five frames of every scene would have made this film almost enjoyable and taken 15 minutes off the running time. One scene where a fully nude Julianne Nicholson stands in front of a row of windows goes on so long that I out of sheer boredom spent the time counting the freckles on her body. I counted 27,342 myself. You are free to do your own count. Counting Julianne Nicholson's freckles (as adorable as they are) doesn't make a film.

If someone knows a good editor, have them take a crack at this picture. They couldn't help but improve it.

I liked this film

[hanrahanpm · 30 December 2006]

Just saw this at Cinema Arts in Huntington NY and I wonder why the negative comments are so nasty. This film is exactly what it claims to be - an independent film, made with limited resources by hardworking actors who give it their all. While all the characters may not be appealing, they are all interesting and have something to say. The younger brother (Jordan), for example, was fascinating. The two leads were excellent and had chemistry that is hard to find in so called major movies. Nicole may have had one or two too many nude scenes, but that's OK. Justin Kirk really caught his character and his dialogue and delivery was excellent. The film could be 20 minutes shorter with tighter editing and might be more enjoyable and have fewer head-scratching scenes. What was the conversation between the mother and the husband in the hospital cafeteria all about and where did it lead to? All in all a six or seven and worth seeing, in my opinion.

The most intimate love story in years, rendered less in the end

[oneloveall · 7/10 · 8 April 2007]

Treat yourself to a cinematic love affair via the extremely personal, impressively detailed romantic drama Flannel Pajamas. In what is surely one of the most perceptive and intelligent scripts to emerge this decade detailing the intense highs and lows of a relationship, viewers are treated to an insiders look at the birth, fruition and eventual apathetic demise into one of the most richly detailed and believable love stories recently released. Credit the realistic script from director Jeff Lipsky, and two stellar, honest and open lead performances from Justin Kirk and Julianne Nicholson for skyrocketing this modest indie production into the history books of romantic cinema.

In detailing the exquisitely realized courtship, Lipsky's script (occasionally clunky and verbose amongst a majority of truthful ranting) taps into both harmonizing and colliding mentalities with equal passion and resonance, coming across as if were actually penned by two extremely intimate lovers. The amazing comfort these two leads bring to the table only helps bring the richly detailed dialog past the point of a petty fictionalization, and almost let's the viewer live vicariously through their most intimate moments in a completely engaging and believable manner. These characters may not be fleshed out to the satisfaction of some viewers and may remain irrelative to even more, yet the objective analysis this filmmaker has dedicated into studying the mechanics behind their vested interest remains unshakable. Of course, most films would be not be complete without some flaws, and for all the sheer integrity invested in portraying the sanctity of this partnership in a truthful light, the small budget feature does become bogged down with subplot's, supporting characters, and a weary conclusion that does not quite know how to finalize itself.

Suffering from your typical "third act syndrome", Flannel Pajamas follows a captivating lover's arc into a final act that betrays the intense honesty and character integrity found throughout for a resolution that feels ambiguous at best, and a closing scene that feels entirely unintuitive. Still, more mature, dialog-driven viewers will be hard pressed to find anything as substantial in the way of an honest love story told in the most human way possible that has come out in recent memory, which more then makes up for a weak conclusion.

A Marriage Drowning in Bile

[tigerfish50 · 3/10 · 29 December 2010]

"Flannel Pajamas" opens with the meeting of Stuart and Nicole at a dinner party. Despite Stuart trumpeting his life philosophy in a narcissistic monologue, romance blooms, and by evening's end the pair are clearly besotted with each other. The film's Indie credentials are established over the next half hour with some fairly explicit love scenes, which add little to either plot or character development. In due course the lovers marry, put on their clothes and start criticizing each other - immediately transforming their bedroom's erotic intimacy into a zone of estrangement. Nicole gripes that Stuart doesn't listen to her and won't talk about his issues - while remaining secretive about her own. With communication and tenderness in short supply, the marriage turns rancid as complaints and evasions take center stage.

A troupe of peripheral characters come and go, priming the audience for plot-lines that never materialize, leaving "Flannel Pajamas" full of loose threads and soggy with irrelevant material. Most viewers will probably have had enough of this tiresome twosome long before the curtain falls.

Good example of the quiet realism of an "indie" movie

[lauralmhs · 6/10 · 17 November 2009]

I just caught this movie last night on IFC. I found it totally engrossing and liked it very much, although I can't quite say why. All I know is that with its quiet realism, this movie was the perfect example of why I prefer "indie"-type movies over blockbuster-type mainstream American films.

To me, this movie had a theme very similar to the recent "500 Days of Summer." Although "500 Days" was more in a comedic vein, in both movies, the male lead - try as he might to get the female lead to love him (or stay in love with him) - ends up getting his heart broken.

Flannel Pajamas is about the quick spark but ultimate disintegration of a relationship. It had no readily recognizable climax; in fact, I spent most of the two hours tensely waiting for one, but the fact that one never materialized only served to underscore that real life often does not contain such obvious turning points. In particular, I kept expecting Stuart to have an emotional meltdown - on the heels of both his brother's suicide and his wife's departure - but that never really happens (although the heart-wrenching scene in Times Square of Stuart watching from the sidelines as a child happily runs into the arms of his waiting father comes pretty close).

Some of the reviews I've read on this site speak of neither character being "likeable." To the contrary, I liked Stuart very much. From the way he is introduced in the opening scenes, I expected not to like him, but by film's end, I was scratching my head as to why any woman would want to leave a man who is handsome, rich, thoroughly in love with her, and eager to please her in every way. In contrast, I found Nicole flaky, utterly selfish and impossible to please. The fact that she whines over Stuart's never actually having said "I do" at their wedding made me want to gag. And the fact that she chided him for never wanting to hold hands anymore - this when he just tenderly takes her hand - made me want to slap her. More significantly, the fact that she would intentionally try to get pregnant despite her prior agreement with Stuart to wait two years is one of the most under-handed things I can imagine taking place in a relationship. Much is made of Nicole's dysfunctional family, a family marked by divorce and abuse. Perhaps this is the root of her inability to maintain a stable relationship. It must be, as I find no fault with the sympathetic Stuart. To me, Stuart is the aggrieved character here; it broke my heart to see him so broken-hearted.

I must say I was baffled by the last scene of Stuart being brought to laughter by the sight of a pinwheel. The movie would have benefited greatly from the opportunity for that final "Aha!" moment, but alas one was not forthcoming.

I'm amazed by how many folks blame the failure of this movie on Justin Kirk

[hollyannie2001 · 1/10 · 13 April 2007]

I was really looking forward to this movie, especially after the amazing montage trailer set to the beautiful "Thursday" by Asobi Seksu. Unfortunately, that song and Justin Kirk are the ONLY good things about this film. From the first scene, this movie fails. The dialogue is terribly, terribly written ("Camels are what I smoke; Bacardi is what I drink; and the unemployment office is where I hang out"???) and nary a character is interesting or believable.

But for me, by far the worst thing about the film is the Nicole character. Her actions throughout are incredibly selfish. Who would accept $15,000 from a brand new boyfriend at the very beginning of a relationship? Similarly, she is only too happy (once they are married) to quit her job and blow through thousands of dollars of Stuart's savings to start a catering "business" that we never see any evidence of after a single scene in which she is preparing "her first catering job." She demands a dog even though her husband is allergic and hates them. She essentially leaves her husband because he doesn't want a kid within the first two years of marriage -- a pretty reasonable limitation that he discussed with her and SHE AGREED TO before they were married! Good lord! Throughout this movie, the characters are utterly unreal. She celebrates getting fired from a job. He sits calmly at the table with his mother-in-law and enlists her as an ally not three minutes after her anti-Semitic diatribe. The whole thing is just laughable and interminable. What a waste of time and the $5 rental fee. Ugh.

why it's good

[EMCady · 9/10 · 17 November 2006]

I love this film. That is not to say that it doesn't have flaws. The dialogue, the camera-work, the lighting, all these things sometimes seem clunky and amateurish. However, the goal of the film is to put a romantic relationship under a microscope and portray it as naturally and honestly as possible. In order to achieve that, some things must be sacrificed: secondary characters, production design, revelation of plot.

Audiences often see plot and story as the same. Actually, story is the road along which we travel (i.e. this happens, then this happens, then this...), where as plot equals two seemingly unrelated events that effect each other. Most films have more plot than story. That is to say, they cut to the chase, telling us what THIS has to do with THAT. FP does the opposite. It compresses plot in order to focus as much as possible on it's main character: the relationship. FP is not about the way Nicole and Stuart effect each other, or about the way outside forces effect them, it is simply about the fact that this relationship occurred. It began, eventually it ended, and if that can be portrayed honestly, without pulling punches or cutting to the chase, then why would a film need to be anything more?

FP has been compared to Scenes From A Marriage. After seeing FP I've realized that Bergman is a large presence in SFAM and that may be a problem. Bergman shows us Johan and Marriane from a distance, carefully pointing out their foibles as if to say, "look at how absurd human relationships are." Lipsky never does that. He never judges his characters or analyzes them, he simply puts the camera in their faces and says, "this is what a relationship looks like."

In regard to the ending, I am compelled to mention the most effective ending in film history: Anthony Quinn's epiphany on the beach in La Strada. The end of FP should work the same. We've watched Stuart make one mistake after another and just as he realizes how closely he came to an actual human connection and how foolish he was to let it go, we realize that we've made the same mistakes and there is no simple answer as to how to live our lives. Through this we should find sympathy for Stuart and that makes FP more engaging and complex than many films out there. If FP fails to effect it's audience, well then, at least Mr. Lipsky is film-literate, because not enough working directors are. With all of it's flaws and awkward moments, I can't help but fall for a film that challenges me and refuses to assure me that everything will be alright in the end.

Interesting Sundance film is conversation starter

[bettyesouza · 6/10 · 30 January 2006]

I saw this film at Sundance, and it probably wouldn't have ranked a 6 without the Director/Writer Q&A afterward. This is an interesting film about a couple who embark on a relationship after a successful blind date. We watch the progression of the relationship for about three years, but since this is compressed into two hours, it feels a little choppy. Each character is portrayed with good and bad, so there isn't necessarily a bad guy when things go wrong for this couple. However, I never felt that I quite cared about either of them as much as I would have liked. I think there just wasn't enough time to develop the characters sufficiently. I particularly enjoyed the characters of Nicole's sister and her best friend. They were honest and surprising and helped me to understand Nicole.

The Director said that he hoped the film would appeal to the audience's experiences in relationships, and I think it does that. Look for the common struggles of partners integrating each other enter their lives as well as the challenge of being integrated. Also watch for the selfishness of both characters. As the film ended, I found myself asking "is that it?" You get to draw your own conclusions about what ultimately happens to these two characters, but the Director made a point to note the reconciliation between Stuart and his father that might not have been possible without the relationship.

I think the film is worth seeing, not necessarily for the entertainment, but more for the conversation you will have afterward with whoever sees it with you.

Flannel Pajamas

[km_70 · 3/10 · 27 January 2006]

I really disliked this movie. I gave it a 3 because the story was told well (no obvious plot flaws, it seemed to flow pretty well), I just really didn't like the story that was told or any of the characters in the film. The male lead was so creepy from the beginning. He was so manipulative--it reminded me of 9 1/2 weeks a little. I didn't care for any of the characters so it was hard to sit through the movie. If the aim was to make a movie that made viewers uncomfortable, then it was successful. I was excited to see this movie because it generated good buzz, but it made me question buzz that comes out before anyone sees the movie. How can reviewers give it positive press if they haven't seen it? It seems counterintuitive.

Intelligent Indie Flick With a Lot to Offer

[sheckyicecream · 8/10 · 2 February 2007]

Flannel Pajamas was intelligent. The dialogue is exceptionally well written and manages to keep the viewer in the movie - as most good "Indie" flicks often do. It is more of a character/relationship study than anything. These types of movies often get overlooked when it comes to critics or the general public. It is understandable how someone who likes "XXX" with Vin Diesel would hate this movie - opposite ends of the spectrum. Likewise, for those of you that loathe the unimaginative huge budget big-named action films that pollute Hollywood and movie screens across the country, you'll love this one. Flannel Pajamas is a much needed break from the mainstream.

Julianne Nicholson and Justin Kirk have excellent chemistry together, doing a superb job of portraying a couple adapting to modern-day problems that threaten to tear them apart. It comes together as a poignant love story of opposites attracting and making it work.

a laughable movie with criminally underdeveloped characters and cringe-worthy sex scenes

[polster3 · 1/10 · 1 April 2007]

This was one of the worst movies I have seen in recent year. From the get go - in the "magical" romantic diner scene -- I found the dialog unrealistic and ridiculously loquacious -- and the characters immensely unlikeable..... especially him: an obnoxious, rich, arrogant prick!! And there was no character development whatsoever!! It was laughable!! The brother goes from being a good guy who is A) invited to their house for Christmas to B) giving a warm, beautiful toast at the wedding to C) ( stop the presses!! ) all of a sudden OUT OF NOWHERE!!!!! being a crazed suicidal genius?? Where the hell did that come from?? And all the talk about her family's craziness was unfounded as well .... I thought the brother had one of the best times of his life there?? They seemed warm at Christmas, and that one brother in the basement did not seem "morose" at all ( perhaps the director needs a better dictionary )?? Of course, by the time the mother's hilarious-out-of-the-blue classic Jew- hating bit arrived at the film's end, it was already way, way too late.... and speaking of the whole "different faith" marriage bit that the director just throws in there like sloppy seconds .... when was that ever introduced/developed?? That whole angle certainly was no "Bridget Loves Bernie" ... and the sex?? The sex???? Never before have I found sex scenes in movies so loathsome to watch, so naked just for naked's sake just because that's how "real" this movie is.... NEWSFLASH!!!! This movie's characters and dialog were not "real" and the sex therefore just felt like the director throwing it in because he could, and it was awful. Just like this whole stinker...

Awful - just AWFUL...

[cakefarm · 2/10 · 19 November 2006]

The best thing about Flannel Pajamas was the trailer. I was so enticed by the promise of an honest, painfully simple what-do-new-york-couples-fight-about story, i went to an advance showing at the Angelika the day it opened in New York. The audience was thrilled when the director tore through beforehand to let us know he'd come back after the film for Q+A. Two painful hours later, same audience tripped over itself in a mad dash for the door as an usher reminded us that we were invited to stay for Q+A with Jeff Lipsky.

The opening scene is annoying - there's something oddly dated - as if the film is set in the early 90s but most likely that the director is a few years out of touch with popular culture. I am in awe of how poorly written, directed, acted and produced Flannel Pajamas was. I wanted to love Julianne Nicholson as the sensitive Nicole Reilley but the character was so poorly written, so simultaneously underdeveloped and desperate for my empathy that I couldn't even muster up annoyance! Justin Kirk lent an immediate air of seediness to the male lead - Stuart Sawyer - that I'm not sure should have been there. Maybe it was Kirk, but I think it was more likely Mr. Lipsky's inability to direct an overwhelming cast of characters. There are too many characters, too many empty conversations, too many overthought, underfelt scenes, too many words and not enough, not NEARLY enough sentiment.

Rebecca Schull as Nicole's mother is the movie's only redeeming point; she's wonderful.

I wanted to love this movie if that counts for anything. I wouldn't even recommend it for your Netflix queue...

Not bad, not great

[michael1_4 · 5/10 · 16 October 2007]

This movie tries and I liked it for that. I just don't think it succeeded. For instance one of my favorite movies of this type is Before Sunrise (and Before Sunset by the way) so I'm not turned off by talky relationship movies, but this one just doesn't seem to go anywhere. Both characters are authentic, although both a little strange. Usually strange is good in movies because it makes the characters unique and sometimes as the viewer you also share one of the characters strange quirks and that makes you identify with them, although here they are just strange for the sake of being strange I think. I wasn't even turned off that it didn't have a happy ending because that is fine as long as there's something to be taken away, some piece of knowledge or understanding I guess you could say, but this movie had neither. Both characters seemed interesting enough, just in search of a plot. He's careful with his money, but because of that has some, she's not responsible with hers, and because of that is broke. (She also doesn't seem real appreciative when he pays for her debts which made me not like her too much). He seems like a nice enough logical guy but like her mother says in one scene he is too sensitive. She goes against her friend's advice and marries him which made me like her more because she seemed to have a mind of her own, but then half way through the movie seems to lose all interest in him and decides to not to try and work it out. In the end he is left in the apartment by himself and really nothing is learned here for either of them. Like I said they were both interesting enough, just the plot was no good.

literate New Yorker's scenes from a marriage

[jim-314 · 9/10 · 23 August 2007]

A remarkable movie. This very New York "scenes from a marriage" traces the trajectory of a relationship from horny, starry-eyed romance to abandonment and desolation. It's funny, clever, romantic, sexually frank, emotionally raw, and painfully believable in ways that we forget movies can be (because we so seldom see movies that are). The dialogue is fast, slick, surprising, literate, and delivered with awesome skill by all the actors. Scripts like this must be what actors live for. Every performance is a gem, and the secondary characters are delineated as memorably as the leads (special kudos to Jamie Harold as the charismatic nut-case brother, and Chelsea Altman as the heroine's poisonous best friend). Scene after scene left me grinning with admiration for the writer and the performers, but if I had to pick one highlight it just might be the sparring match between the young husband Stuart (Justin Kirk), and his mother-in-law Elizabeth (Rebecca Schull) in the hospital cafeteria, about three quarters into the movie. Watch for it. If you let these characters under your skin, the movie will leave you aching in the end. The last few shots are more wrenching than any I've seen in a long while. Not to be missed, especially if you love sharp writing and great ensemble acting. I hadn't even heard of this movie until recently, and few recent movies to spin through my disk player have surprised, delighted, and moved me like this one. The movie is an extra special treat if you know NY City.

Another breakup

[pliberati · 8 October 2007]

This movie reminded me so much of "The Breakup". Take away the funny characters in that movie and add down to earth problems of work expectancies and the couples boredom in their relationship as it plays out in Flannel Pajamas. There is nudity in the first half of the movie, but as their relationship matures and as the husband can't see the small subtleties and their is no more nude scenes, just another breakup.

I liked this movie better than the breakup because it handles the relationship and the breakup in a very realistic way. There are no smartypants here, no grand reunion of the couple, just the will of one of them to get things to work. Nothing that this charming actor can do.

Overlong, Talky, Relationship Film Misses the Mark

[filmguyCI · 5/10 · 1 January 2007]

Film follows the relationship between two thirty something New Yorkers through their first date, courtship, marriage, and eventual breakup. Interesting concept but this film is in dire need of an editor.

Film begins with a blind date at a diner where the two main characters meet. I was looking forward to experiencing the initial awkwardness of the first date; the small talk and uncomfortable moments which would then gradually transform into two people connecting on a more intimate level. Instead, the film starts mid date at the diner with the main characters and their friends who are distracting and don't need to be there. To make matters worse, Stuart (Justin Kirk) comes off as arrogant, and a bit smarmy. Nicole (Julianne Nicholson)is a mousy, dull young woman who appears to lack confidence. If you don't like the characters, who cares whether they like each other? A subsequent scene has Stuart in the rain lying his jacket between the curb and the cab so Nicole doesn't get wet, then leaves it there. This comes off more stupid than charming.

As the film progresses, Justin Kirk as Stuart does begin to tone things down and the character starts to become more likable as the couple's relationship develops. But then, Nicole begins to become more selfish, childish, and immature. Nicole's change in her feelings toward Stuart seems to come somewhat out of the blue. All this results in an ending that is a downer and a bit puzzling. The actors do what they can, but the writing, directing, and editing let them down.

Lots and lots of dialog here and unnecessary scenes that don't move the story. Also, several unnecessary characters and plot lines are introduced but fail to have much significance. Decent supporting performances, however, especially by Rebecca Schull as Nicole's mom. Also a surprising amount of nudity by both lead characters which was tastefully done.

"Flannel Pajamas" does have some important things to say about the difficulty in sustaining relationships today, especially with so many outside influences such as family, friends, and careers. Still, I'm not convinced that investing two hours in these characters was quite worth it.

Raw, annoying, and intruding

[krywolff · 8/10 · 21 November 2007]

I hated the characters. I didn't take sides with either of them because they were both very easy to dislike. This made the movie strange to me. In other movies, sometimes I have came across feeling sympathetic for the bad guy, or even rooting for them, but in this movie I just wanted the two leads to quit being so annoying.

Then it hit me. The reason it was so annoying is because it reminded me of personal experiences and people I interact with everyday. The movie ended up being very realistic once I gave it a chance... and I'll admit, it took me over 1.5 hours before I gave it that chance.

Once it was over, I appreciated my life. It touches on subjects that we have all faced and most of all, it touched on feelings we have all had.

As much as I hated it, I also loved it. If you like to give movies a chance and you have 2 hours of time with lots of patience, I'd recommend giving it a try.

Taking naturalism too far -warning: may contain SPOILERS

[jblum315 · 1/10 · 26 February 2008]

I hated this movie right from the beginning. I had no sense of why these two people would be attracted to each other - I thought they were both physically unattractive and totally self-centered. I could not believe that any independent young woman would accept $15,000 from a man that she hardly knows - and then I see that aha! she's not so independent; she rejoices in getting fired; because she's found a sucker who will take care of her. Never mind that they never seem to agree about anything. This marriage was doomed before it even happened. Actually I think the best line in the movie was when she tells her friend that the bridegroom never said "I do." That pretty much sums it up. They should have both said "I don't." The sexual groping (of which there was a bit too much) was unconvincing. I felt really sorry for both of them, but I didn't like them or anyone else in the movie except for his father who seemed like a decent guy who was maybe in the wrong movie.

A recipe for loneliness

[JohnDeSando · 14 March 2007]

The deconstruction of modern romance, marriage, and divorce is never pretty, as many of us who have lived the scenario can attest. Jeff Lipsky's engrossing Flannel Pajamas entertains with incisive dialogue but depressing circumstances—the romantic meeting of a couple, Stuart (Justin Kirk) and Nicole (Julianne Nicholson) and the disintegration of their marriage, not through tragic death or infidelity, but the nagging character flaws that erode like raindrops on a wooden water pump.

Comparison in style could be made with Richard Linklater's Before Sunrise/Sunset series, an example of European-type chatty cinema between two lovers whose fate is not to be lifetime partners, but who have as much promise for longevity as any other cinematic couple, or real life duo for that matter. Lipsky reveals through a series of vignettes such as Christmas with the in-laws or visitation from the manic brother the inability of each partner to adjust to the eccentricities of family and friends, who cannot be dismissed or expunged from any life, much less from intelligent urbanites with strong ties to their childhood.

Verisimilitude is the strength of Flannel Pajamas and its weakness. An American audience used to quick cuts and exciting action may not warm to scene after scene of mundane dialogue, the weight of which is in the details of failure to listen or to adjust to another's rhythms. As in most Western tragic circumstances, especially drama, hubris wins the day. Pride in this drama hides behind glib talk and sexual longing, both of which fade and should cede to sacrifice and support. All the characters face is self-centeredness, a recipe for loneliness if ever there was one.

One of the worst movies I've ever seen

[shelkara · 1/10 · 15 September 2007]

After a long hideous week at the office, I went to my friend's house for dinner on a Friday night, looking forward to a relaxing night of good friends and good food. She told me she'd rented a couple movies. I'd seen the other one, so we decided to watch Flannel Pajamas. Two hours later, we had to deal with the sad fact that we'd just wasted those 2 precious hours of our lives. This film is badly acted, even more badly written, and badly directed. The movie opens awkwardly--Stuart and Nicole are set up on a double date and fall in love "instantly." Stuart's dialog in this scene is incredibly corny and unrealistic. I turned to my friend and said, "If a guy said this stuff to me on our first date, I'd start looking around for the candid camera." But Nicole seems to lap it up. Later on, as their relationship is just starting to form, she accepts $15,000 from him to pay off her student loans after he offered it in the smarmiest and most condescending way possible. It was just utterly unbelievable, and the acting and writing of the romantic/sex scenes is so awkward that it makes for truly bizarre viewing experience.

The sex scenes are almost comical in their gratuitous explicitness (is that a word? you know what I mean.) It was definitely nudity for nudity's sake, and the two leads have no chemistry, so the scenes were completely, completely unerotic. After a while, it got to be so much that my friends and I started playing a drinking game -- a shot of tequila for every body part. The sex scenes abruptly stop when they get married (you know, because when you get married, you just stop having sex and life turns into an episode of thirty-something), which was lucky for us, or else I might have been very hung over this morning.

Horrible movie. I felt sorry for all involved. And yet, they have only themselves to blame. If you're looking for a romantic comedy to cozy up to on a quiet night, almost anything else would be better than this, I'm sorry to say.

extremely disappointed

[jillianrose87 · 2/10 · 15 January 2007]

I am a HUGE Stephanie March and a fan of Julianne Nicholson as well, so when i first heard about this movie almost 18 months ago i was excited to say the least. Last week while i was visiting family in NY, we stopped by this little indie theater to see what was playing. and there it was--the poster i'd been waiting to see! even more remarkably, the theater on Long Island was the only theater in the country that was showing flannel pajamas (it had only been released a week earlier)...and I just happened to be there. needless to say i was psyched; little did i know.

stephanie march was absolutely beautiful (as always), for the five minutes she was on the screen. the other 179 minutes of the movie, however, was a slow torture. nothing happened! My hyper-active aunt took a nap, and my cousin played games on her cell phone. the movie could have easily been an hour shorter without losing anything.

bottom line: this movie was poorly scripted, extremely drawn out and had next to no plot.

One of best films of New Millennium

[Klickberg · 8/10 · 4 April 2007]

Jeff Lipsky's touching, poignant, and strikingly honest portrayal of a young couple's long-term relationship—from the initial meeting during a tempestuous blind date to their highly libidinous courtship to their marriage and ultimate downfall—engenders a film that, for once, is truly deserving of the comparison to the inimitable work of John Cassavetes and Mike Leigh.

Quiet (no music that I can remember, less the title credits and the absolutely fantastic original song from the trailer that was tacked on to the end credits), stark, and extremely naturalistic in its execution, FLANNEL PAJAMAS is one of those truly adult films in line with the ilk of Mike Nichols' CLOSER, in which there is no room for clichés, no time for hackneyed aphorisms, and only an earnest reality presented in a forum that is always vivifying, sometimes humorous, and wholly infused with the utmost humanity.

Surprisingly BAD

[[e-mail] · 5/10 · 2 August 2007]

I rented this based on good reviews from the likes of Ebert and I agree with another reviewer here...this movie fails to deliver and Ebert, I want my money back.

Justin Kirk is always delicious and rich and gives passionate performances...here I was like UGH, shut up. Same with Julianne Nicholson. I disliked every single character in this movie. This is not the wonderful actors' faults. No, this is a Jeff Lipsky problem. This is apparently a semi-autobiographical story and it perhaps director is too close to subject matter and doesn't see the major flaws in the story he has written here. HUGE holes...I imagine Jeff writing some of these scenes from memory (as I have done in my writing) and failed to step away...look at it with new naked eyes and say...hmmm, lots of holes here because drama and movies are not real life...real life needs filling out to be put on screen.

I am really shocked how un-fleshed-out these characters all are...how unlikable they all are and how this movie got Justin K to appear to be not a great actor.

I recommend this movie for writers and actors so that they may witness writing and performance that is not great, not horrible but terribly flawed...see if you can figure out how this movie could have been better...S**t, it could have been brilliant.