Me and Orson Welles (2009)

I love this movie so much

This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

During the viewing of this sweet nostalgic look at backstage life, I wondered how anybody came up with the funding for it! Nobody gets thrown out of a window, no cars explode, there are no scenes of bloody carnage, and there's not even one cute dog. But there is a romanticized slice of honest Americana, a look back at the theatre rehearsals that lead up to a revolutionary production of Julius Caesar, one directed by the 22 year old Orson Welles; framing the tale is also a coming-of-age romance between young Zac Efron and one of two young women he meets as he is hired by Welles to play a bit part in the play--for those with some knowledge of the Mercury Theatre, its fascinating to see a spot-on impersonation of young Joseph Cotten played by Joseph Tupper, but the entire joy of the film is meeting Orson himself in the person of Christian McKay, who seems imbued with the spirit of the man in an uncanny revelatory performance, worth all 107 minutes of the film. This is a film for folks interested in theatre or the cinema, and will doubtless be lost on those in search of realistic action adventures--there's just a hint of early Woody Allen in the film, too--and my hope is that someone is already looking for a another, more complex look at the Boy Genius starring McKay.

Christian McKay really captures the essence of Orson Welles in this lovingly made film. You really can't call it a biopic, since it covers only a brief period of the man's life, but to see and hear this man play Welles is to see him in real life. Zac Efron does his usual good job playing the starry-eyed youth who is about to get an unpleasant dose of reality. The period stuff is first-rate and really gives you a feel that this is 1937 when you watch it. There is a rich selection of vintage 1930s music, all seemingly correct for the period. The supporting cast are all first-rate as well, and the film's color is bathed in a rich, warm glow that adds to the feel of the piece. This is a worthwhile film for students of theater as well as of cinema.

Okay, start with one of the most interesting and influential characters in film. Make a film that has him in it. Take one of the most interesting and theatrical productions in theater, present it is as film and make the same film about its inception including chaos, the various seductions of the players and some presentation of his bellicose leadership. Hang the thing on a story of callow discovery and you may have something. But alas, this almost succeeds on every score and it makes us unhappy because from the first we expect something worthy. We expect to be immersed somehow. "Cradle will Rock" succeeded in that respect where this did not.One problem is there is no sense of the inner composition in Welles' mind. Sure we find he is oafish, appetite driven, needlessly obnoxious. But for each of these, there should be some window into what matters, what we came for. It sure wasn't hearing about a kid's screwups.The impression fostered throughout is that some combination of accident, unsophisticated audience and dedicated cast/crew made the production a success. I saw this with "Hamlet 2" and as bad as that was, it was better in key ways. Above all, it tried.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

Monotone is the best suited word to describe it. I love every other Linklater film and I've been postponing to watch this film because I don't think "Junior", played by Effron, is much of an actor. Well, I was right, the kid overacts, delivers some of his lines as if he's reading from the script as they're shooting it and even reacts before the right moment. In this scene, where the character played by Kelly Reilly kisses him on the cheek, the kid literally reacts to the kiss before it is even landed. But the problem with this film is not the teenage idol. I don't understand why a brilliant writer such as Richard Linklater would choose to direct someone else's script, specially a particularly horrible one. This film is an insult to New York period films post Mad Men; the characters act - or overact - as if they are on a play the entire time. I don't know whose fault it is, but I doubt it was Linklater's who usually goes for the natural performances, sometimes even improvs. Unless you're a 12 year-old teenage girl who never heard of Orson Welles, you have nothing to take from this, not even entertainment.