Trzynascie rozmów o tym samym (2001) Online

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-

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It must be quite something to know about screen writing and sit down to a blank sheet of paper. You can start with images, or characters or situations. You have to choose the type of thread and how you trace it, including the key decision about who you are. These sisters take a different approach, very writerly, very clever. They start with the simple question of happiness in a life and come at it from multiple directions, surrounding and probing it. The characters are secondary to the writer's curiosity, and the 'stories' even more incidental. Sometimes you have a film that works with the viewer to grow a world and ideas; here you simply watch as ideas grown on a page are revealed to you. Quite different, precious, but never close to lifealtering or even viscerally engaging.

The film itself superficially resembles a 'Short Cuts' or 'Things You Can Tell' in that many story lines are interwoven. But the differences are profound. Altman's projects are driven by characters and situations that touch because they ramble. The 'Things You Can Tell' project is similar to this one in that its several components are all about the same idea. But 'Things' uses the device of one woman in many bodies, each with a different actress. In this project, the device is deliberate diversity of the characters, each facet having a discernible face.

I liked it. Its not highly cinematic, rather small theater. Its not the stuff that changes one's imagination. But it is literate, refined, and well woven in terms of the words.

As to the actors and their roles, one thing all these multifaceted projects have is the option for the viewer to select a backbone. As a matter of hardwiring we reflexively choose one thread as foreground and the others as background. For me, the anchor was Beatrice, which probably tells you a lot about me. The resurrection from disillusionment (with the opening of the doll's eye!) was a bit heavy so far as the character, but DuVall as an actor really impressed me. All of these actors played characters with an unrecognized inner life. Some, like Turturro work with more self-referential techniques, but with her it seemed true.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.

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.

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

"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

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')

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.

******SPOILERS****** In dept story about a number of New Yorkers who's lives touch each other during the course of the movie and how it in the end changes their lives forever. Even though the movie seems complicated it has a simple and basic answer to a hard and unfeeling world: That faith and optimism are the best reasons to get through life no matter how difficult it is. The movie moves back and forth in time with Gene English, Alan Arkin, and Troy, Matthew McConaughey, in the bar scene at the start and end of the film.

Gene runs an insurance office that's in danger of being downsized because of a bad rating it got from an research agency. Gene also has problems with his son Ronnie, Alex Burnes, who's a drug addict and is in and out of court for committing act of larceny to support his habit. On top of all that Gene also has a broken marriage and all those things makes him very unhappy and sarcastic with the people that work in his office, especially those who seem to have a better outlook on life then Gene does. When Gene's told by higher ups to cut down on his staff by letting go those who he feels that he can do without Gene cut the most happiest and optimistic person in the office Wade Bowman, William Wise. Wade to Gene's surprise take it a lot easier then he expected him to, which makes Gene almost wish that he would be more like Wade. Later after Gene's told that there was a vice-president slot opened for him to fill he himself was laid-off. What Gene saw in Wade and how Wade later in the movie got back on his feet by not feeling sorry for himself and with, Wade not knowing it, Gene's help Gene's outlook on life changed for the better. Which made him a wiser if less richer person and seemed to help Gene overcome his sarcasm and bitterness that made him almost impossible to get along with.

There's Walker, John Turturro, a collage psychics professor who's cheating on his wife Patricia, Amy Irving, by having an affair with Helen, Barbara Sukowa. Helen is also married and a teacher in the collage where Walker works. When Patricia finds out about Walker's affair she leaves him. Walker also loses Helen when she goes back to her husband to keep him from killing himself after he also found out about her and Walker. Hurt and bitter Walker seems to take out his troubles and frustrations on one of his students Chris Hammond, Rob McElhenney, who ask for help from Walker because of problems that he has at home as well as in school. Being cold and sarcastic toward Hammond's pleas for help and understanding leads Hammond to commit suicide. This has Walker see what his being so self-centered and selfish and thinking only about himself and what's best only for himself can do to all those around him.

Troy is a hot shot DA who just won a big case. After celebrating in a local bar with a couple of drinks Troy hits a young woman Beatrice, Clea Du Vall, with his car and leaves her for dead instead of trying to get help. Troy becomes so overcome with guilt over what he did that his whole outlook on him being a DA and putting people away in jail takes a whole new meaning to him. Troy loses his ability to do his job and wants only to find the women that he left for dead and make up for what he did to her.

Beatrice the woman who Troy ran over is a sweet and quiet girl who works as a cleaning lady and whatever free time she has goes to church to sing in the church quire. Beatrice always believed that people are good and feels that there are miracles in the world. In a lot of ways Beatrice didn't grow up and develop the cynicism that most people develop by seeing the world for what it or what we feel it is: A cold and unforgiving place. Beatrice loses that child-like belief after her accident and later, which to Beatrice was even worse, after she was released from the hospital. It was then that a person that she worked for accused Beatrice of stealing his expensive watch which to his shock and embarrassment she showed him where she put it, in his dresser draw.

Hurt and depressed by losing her faith in all that's good in the world and in peoples goodness one cold afternoon Beatrice just wanted to step off the sidewalk, and into the dangerous city traffic, and end it all. It's then when she saw a man across the street looking at her with a smile on his face, and as if he read her mind subconsciously, telling her that there's still good in the world and that her life is unique and worth living and not to foolishly throw it away. Like a miracle this man restored her faith and got Beatrice out of her depression that almost drove her to kill herself.

Wade Bowman who always saw the good and positive side of life no matter how bad things got for him and not only uplifted himself but also uplifted everyone else, no matter how down and out they were, who came in contact with him had me thinking. This made me start to wonder who just was that man who's smile cut through all the cold and selfishness that gave Beatrice back her faith in human values and goodness. This when she thought that it was no longer true and valid after what she went through? I just wonder who that man was?

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

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.

After watching this film i was amazed that i loved a movie so much that had so little action and was based almost entirely on dialogues, metaphors and combined stories. Although it followed some trends and styles used in films like Crash and Pulp Fiction, 2 of my favorites and also Magnolia which i loved, and in the indie sense and the way it was done, similar to 2 days in the valley which wasn't nearly as good as this. The performances in this film were great, Arkin outshined the cast, giving one of his best performances ever. John Turturro was the next best, in a very memorable performance almost as good as the miracles he performed in stuff like Quiz Show and Barton Fink. He is great here again, also Clea Duvall and Matt McConaughey were very good as well. All in all this is a must see for anybody interested in good films. 10/10

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.

One thing I can say for certain about the folks who love this movie: they've never taken a college physics class!

Above all, an indie film like this has to be *true.* Drop in a scene that plays false, and you risk losing the viewer for good. It's a testament to what's good about this film that it manages to survive some absolutely terrible chunks.

To say that John Turturro's scenes as a college physics professor are unbelievable (if you've ever studied physics) is a massive understatement. In fact, to say that they bear no relationship whatsoever to anything that might conceivably happen in a college physics classroom is still an understatement. Moving from acceleration to entropy in the middle of a lecture? C'mon. And his final rant about the nature of physics expresses a mindset *exactly opposite* the attitude any actual physics professor would have. (It is, however, the mindset you'd expect a physics professor to have if you were a screenwriter who not only had no idea what physics was actually about, but were too lazy to have your script vetted by someone who did.) This storyline, if excerpted, would be a C- student film. Making a C- student film starring John Turturro and Amy Irving -- that's a triumph of awful screenwriting.

I don't know whether it's Matthew McConaughey himself or just Jill Sprecher's direction, but he gives one of the worst, least subtle performances of the last few years. Did I ever really believe him in either his on-top-of-the-world or down-in-the-dumps mode? Not for an instant. Of the thousands of human beings I've ever known, has anyone telegraphed their emotions so obviously? No.

Little things, too. Are they any college professors who still smoke? Would Turturro's obsessive-compulsive neat-freak have an affair with the one in a hundred who did? Would rich people tolerate their housekeepers smoking in their homes (as Tia Texada's character does)? If there's an indie film God, He's in the details, and so many of the details in this film are thoughtlessly wrong (or, in many cases, forced into wrongness for some desired effect).

What's good? Alan Arkin is terrific. His storyline (thankfully, the predominant one) is a little cartoonish and credulity-stretching, but it works great at the level of fable. Clea DuVall is always worth looking at, though her character transformation, like McConoughey's, is rather too broad. The movie dares to tackle the big issues of Happiness and Fate / Luck (the conversations are really about two things, it seems to me), and can't help being thought-provoking -- even if most of the talk strikes me as being merely pseudo-profound.

And finally, of course, some of us are suckers for this sort of story structure (which, Magnolia comparisons notwithstanding, was actually perfected by Philip K. Dick in early novels like THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE). The casual interweaving of the four separate stories is very nicely done.

6/10 and not recommended if you're not a fan of this story structure . . . 7/10 if you are, or if you're a big Alan Arkin fan (and you should be, on both counts!).

Yes, I loved this movie and gave it a 10/10. I noticed that writers of the bad reviews for this movie fall into two categories 1) this movie was too intellectual 2) not intellectual enough. For the few who wrote about how this movie failed at its attempt to convey its message or was too "oversimplified" I suggest you relegate (yes relegate) yourself to reading Hume, Schopenhauer, and Rawls in between your yoga lessons and trips to the organic grocery store. For the other group, it's understandable to not want to sit through a movie about the challenges in life. Many want to go the movies to escape and see a story. I have no problem with that... if I payed 10 bucks and didn't know I was walking into a philosophy lecture I'd be mad too. This movie is not for everybody.

However, let's not overlook the fact that the film masterfully accomplishes what it set out to do, which is to explore the way people live, their pursuit of happiness, and how both internal and external forces affect their outlook. Alan Arkin is magnificent and the technique of opening each sequence with a quote was nice as well (though originally done in Hannah and Her Sisters I do believe).

See this film and talk about it afterwards. To me there are two definitions of a great film: 1) you have to talk about it afterwards 2) one you can't bear the thought of not seeing again. This film fit both.

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.

1st watched 10/14/2004 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Jill Sprecher): Depressing drama about bad things happening to OK people. I believe this is the 'one thing' they were referring to in the title but it probably would take a 2nd viewing to determine what that 'one thing' is. I'm usually a sucker for off-the-wall unique stories that don't really end up anywhere but with this one you're left shaking your head almost from the beginning to the end and you figure with a unique title like this we ought to be able to figure what that 1 thing was and what the 13 conversations are. Well, this is not the case, at least not for me. We basically start the movie with John Turturro's story of being a late to home husband with a bruise on his eye that came from some encounter a few days before then we're brisked off to McConaughey's piece about a positive man who runs into some bad luck following a sermon he gives to a man at the bar about him not ever being unhappy. The rest of the stories interweave into each other before it's all done, which is an interesting concept, but it's been done much better in other films. Alan Arkin's the man at the bar and his story is confusing, to say the least. He's a mean boss who can't stand happy people. His daughter ends up being intertwined into another story and another story is about a couple of women who clean houses for a living and one of them gets into an accident that changes her life for the worse. Sorry about the rambling, but I thought I should give others all the information and see if they can come up with anything. Good luck if you choose to view this and let me know if you could figure out more than I did.

This movie isn't about anything. Jill Sprecher tried to wax philosophic about alienation and about how people are so detached while also copping Tarantino's interweaving. The style contradicted the substance. WHat little substance there was. Though alan arkin and john turturro were really good, it was almost sad to watch them struggle to make this godawful piece of writing into good acting. there is only so much to be made out of utter slop. Also of note: there is not a single conversation or interaction in the whole movie. Each is a monologue where an actor bounces trite lines off of an obligatory sounding board of a character (Turturro's doctor, McConaughey's friend, Arkin's office buddy, etc...)

I'm giving this a solid ten even though it features a physics professor who seems to have little grasp on the subject beyond junior high level. At one point he angrily tells a student that there are "no if's in physics," possibly inspired by Tom Hanks' great line "There's no crying in baseball!" from A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN.

The laws of physics are not set in stone. If they were, there would be no need to do further research and publish new textbooks. We could have "the" physics textbook like we have one times table.

The First Law of Thermodynamics, the Conservation of Matter, had to be completely rewritten after the dawning of the atomic age. Students who had been forced to memorize this word for word had to memorize a revised version.

Other than that, this is one of those movies that I get more out of every time I see it. And the older I get, the more I realize it's truth.

If I had to put the topic of the conversations in one word it would be Change. Each of the characters have to cope with changes in their lives, some for the good and some for the bad. If there's anyone who can't identify with that, I don't know what planet they're living on.

The way that characters meet up with one another by "chance" makes me wonder if the makers of CRASH are also fans of this movie.

This is one of those movies that makes me thankful for home video. We have two nice big multiplexes in our area. But if you have eighteen screens and sixteen are tied up with big budget special effects spectacles (many of which, I note from the IMDb, have grossly underperformed this summer) there's not room for personal independent films.

Nice work. I look forward to the film's makers' next project.

How wonderful to see a movie about real people attempting to live real lives. I loved the performances, how the characters and stories intersected and intertwined, and how a film done in such an understated manner could become so powerful. 13 Conversations will stay with you a long time. I loved the film and I highly recommend it.