User reviews

This isn't such a bad movie as it is a slow movie. Outside of that it's perfectly watchable. At movies finish my first thought was 'this is a flick for the one percent'.

This story centers around a 40 year rich playboy who finds himself essentially broke for one week. Does he suffer? No! Does he learn anything about everyday life? No! Bateman as Conrad Valmont just escapes to his well off friends and successfully hides his new status as 'broke' at least for awhile. In the mean time he still lives the privileged life because he has a name associated with wealth and others just cater to him. Plus he is constantly looking inward. In the end nothing really changed him. His only act of altruism is giving a street person a box of cigarettes and replacing cash he stole from a friend. Oh and around all this is a love story!

The photography is lush, dialog is wonderful, the acting is fine. But the plot gets very slow about 40 minutes into the movie and you'll wonder where this is going. It goes no where because the one percent are so insulated from the outside world any change in their lifestyle is a brief inconvenience. He ends up right back where he started with a book he wrote that nobody cared for.

There's nothing wrong, per se, with focusing one's camera and script firmly on the woes and heartaches of the filthy-rich. Indeed, some of the world's most revered film-makers have done so with remarkable success - Woody Allen and Wes Anderson have crafted charming, quirky and emotional films revolving firmly around characters with far too much money and not enough good sense. But creating empathy for hyper-privileged characters is a delicate affair, one that writer-director Peter Glanz - making the move from commercials to movies - more or less fluffs up in The Longest Week. The final film, evidently influenced by Allen, Anderson and copious amounts of offbeat French cinema, struggles to free itself from the quirky artifice that should disguise - and not constitute - the depth of his story and characters.

Conrad Valmont (Jason Bateman) lives a life of leisure and laziness within the comfortable surroundings of a Manhattan hotel belonging to his parents. As a job, he professes to be writing, although he is unlikely to ever complete, his great American novel. His splendid life is rudely disrupted when his parents decide to divorce - and neither father nor mother is willing to keep paying for Conrad's profligate lifestyle. Suddenly, he finds himself out on the street: a situation he temporarily addresses by moving into the swanky apartment belonging to his best friend, Dylan (Billy Crudup). Conrad also winds up making a move on Beatrice (Olivia Wilde), the smart, kooky model who has enjoyed a courtly, mutual flirtation with Dylan for quite some time.

Plot-wise, that's pretty much it. Newly-poor boy meets pretty girl, boy pretends to still be rich, girl falls for it, boy exploits friends (from Dylan to his long-serving, long-suffering butler) to continue his ruse, repeat ad nauseum. It's a narrative that requires considerable skill and sensitivity to pull off, because it could so easily come off as a vapid film glorifying the silly, fickle whims of the rich and fancy. There's no doubt some satire at work here (the title gives a hint as to the length of Conrad's suffering), but it's so blunt that it winds up getting lost in the rest of the film's excesses. In fact, Glanz frequently trades it in for a lot of indie/art-house accoutrements: take, for instance, the way in which it's impossible to quite set a date or time to the film's romanticised version of Manhattan, the almost deliberately French scene in which Conrad and Beatrice dance in a bar in New York, or the Andersonian title cards introducing different segments of the film.

The odd thing is how Glanz both benefits from and wastes his very good cast. On paper, Bateman is perfect for the part of Conrad: he's played a disinherited heir before on TV's Arrested Development, and has bucketloads of personal charm as an actor that could help make Conrad more palatable to audiences. To some extent, that's what Bateman does in practice. The writing keeps him from making Conrad truly sympathetic, but he gets the audience to care a little more when his character meanders into some truly dark places. Even so, it's hard to shake the feeling that - under Glanz's direction - Bateman is miscast. Wilde is charming as the Austen-obsessed Beatrice, but her character really represents little more than a reward for the two men of the story. Crudup, meanwhile, is at his most personable in the film, but Dylan, too, is more an afterthought than a fully-fledged character - both to Conrad and his own creator.

To be perfectly fair, The Longest Week never promises anything like depth. In fact, Glanz makes several pointed comments within the film about Conrad's immutably shallow nature. But, if a film really wants us to accept that its entire plot will do so little to affect its main character (and Conrad does change, albeit in very small ways), the journey has to be worth it. That's where the film falls short. It spends too much time enamoured of its own design and concept. In effect, Glanz transports his characters into a meticulously-crafted, quaintly ageless version of New York, but fails to really make them come to life in a meaningful way.

The Longest Week (2014)

What a strangely almost good movie. It has lots of compelling elements, including Jason Bateman as the nice guy leading man (though here he plays a spoiled rich boy). It's a complex enough story, and a love story, and it's set in lovely Brooklyn (an almost Manhattan). It should work. And second leading man Billy Crudup is terrific—better than Bateman.

So enjoy it for what it is? Sure. But it will kludge along at times, and will get a bit obvious at other times. The women (girlfriends, mainly) are weakly cast (or weakly directed), which doesn't help. But mostly it's a matter of originality—which is missing.

In fact, the whole thing is alike a Woody Allen mashup wannabe. The voice-over will make you think too much of "Vicky Christina Barcelona" and some of the photography of "Manhattan" but in color. (They even cast Allen regular Tony Roberts in a role as, yes, a shrink.) But mostly it's "Annie Hall" redux. In fact, it's almost a remake—girl meets unlikely boy, they have a romance, it goes south, and then boy re-evaluates (with direct stealing of ideas like having the plot reappear as a play, or in this case as a novel). And even if you don't like "Annie Hall" (which I do), you have to admit it came first, and is wonderfully original.

To add insult to injury, the whole set design and shooting style is straight out of Wed Anderson, though toned down to the point of being dull. (Anderson is never dull, at least visually.)

So what is left? Lots of little moments—quaint remarks (skipping over the brazenly sexist stuff that is meant to be funny and is mostly embarrassing, like the soccer practice) and a generally nice flow of events. It's easy to watch even if you aren't enthralled.

Director and writer Peter Glanz is fairly new to the scene, and this movie is a seven day expansion of an earlier indie success, "A Relationship in Four Days." No wonder this one feels about three days too long. See it? Maybe, if you already know you like the cast or the genre. Or maybe just give the Allen films a second try. Worlds apart.

This is truly awful. It's like the producer's kid saw The Royal Tenenbaums and came home from Brown or Yale and was allowed to make his first movie with a studio budget.

Like so many other movies (sorry, "films") now, it's like they said "if we shoot it in NYC nobody will notice how terrible this is!"

At least Jason Bateman is in it, but his agent should be horse-whipped for letting him do this.

This film tells the story of a man with ultra rich parents, who is suddenly broke after his parents cut off his allowance. He puts on a cover up and wins a woman's heart, yet he discovers there is something more to life.

The interaction between Conrad and Dylan is realistic, thigh they both live in a world beyond most people's reach. Their intense competition between each other and yet almost accomplishing nothing is ironic, but I like the joke about the Volvo going back and forth. The romance subplot is very sweet and convincing, I enjoyed watching it.

This is a romantic comedy with a journey of self discovery. It's a pity that the main characters Conrad and Dylan are portrayed to be rather unlikable and arrogant characters who have no clue about the real world. That's because the film is actually enjoyable and rather warm, and if the characters are a bit more likable, people would probably like it more.

I adore Jason Bateman and when I see he's in something, I watch him. I just love his no-nonsense delivery. He never tries to be funny; he reacts to the situation at hand.

He stars in "The Longest Week" from 2014, and like another reviewer here, I'm wondering why Jenny Slate is top-billed. I didn't know who she was until I looked it up.

Bateman plays 40-year-old Conrad Valmont who lives, as he has always lived, in the Valmont Hotel, owned by his parents. One morning the phone wakes him up, informing him that security will be up shortly to escort him and his dog Napoleon out of the hotel. The reason: his parents are divorcing and aren't paying any of his bills any longer.

He is able to get his chauffeur (Barry Primus) to care for Napoleon, but as far as caring for him, he really doesn't know where to go. He does something he never does - takes the subway. On the train he makes eye contact with a beautiful young woman (Olivia Wilde), who gives him her number. Dylan moves in on his friend and rival, a successful artist, Dylan Tate.

Dylan has recently dropped his girlfriend Jocelyn and has met a fabulous woman he thinks that he's in love with. When he attends Dylan's art show, the subway woman is there, and she's the same woman with whom Dylan is in love. He promises Dylan that he will not make a play for her, but he does, and they fall in love.

Beautifully photographed, this is a pleasant film, somewhat humorous, until it nears the end. I don't now if the filmmaker ran out of money, script, or what, but the film has a constant narration for a good ten minutes as scenes are being shown with no dialogue.

Kind of left me flat, despite all of the good acting.

Tony Roberts plays Conrad's therapist, who gives him a low-cost loan. As his chauffeur, Primus plays a man who knows Conrad better than anyone and has real affection for him.

Billy Crudup, whom I saw on stage in Arcadia and who was so marvelous in Stage Beauty, is wonderful, as a friend resigned to the fact that Conrad is a woman-stealing jerk who has been in the research phase of his great novel for years. House's Olivia Wilde (that's how I know her) looks fantastic and is believable as the object of both Conrad's and Dylan's affections.

This should have been better.

I give this movie only a 3 not because it's cinematography, which is quite good, or it's actors, which are very good, but because the concept just kills the movie...

This is a movie so full of it that pretends to tell a story about a rich man, Conrad Valmont, going from pleasure of life, money and fame to loose it all and get the girl of his dreams and pretends to do it introducing the concept of love, possessions, friendship, drama and comedy all at the same time, failing in all aspects at once.

The concept is there, the movie is literally filled with style all over the place, carefully constructed with the tones, the scenery and each line, but in the end, it is incredible shallow, because it tries so hard for us to like Conrad Valmont and the way he is growing up in the story, yet it does it with detached images of himself and a voice-over.

THe most important parts of his life are done with pictures and a voice- over telling us WHAT we should be looking at in that moment.. what we should be feeling...

I have an advice for the director, don't consider your public just dumb and don't fill the movie with pretentious dialog like we can't distinguish an analogy from a concept, just give us the scene and let us use our imagination.

By telling us what to feel and what to think about our main character the movie does itself a great dis-service, it detach it's audience of participation on this characters.

By the time the movie is on the first half, i lost all interest, this is more an exercises in a filming technique with complex words and a cumbersome script that pretends to be intelligent than a movie about any real topic whatsoever.

The movie is not about love, nor growing up or friendship, it's everything and nothing. Tries to give a message and fails miserably, tries to makes us laugh and fails, elaborates complex dialog and a narrative voice-over that ends up generating discomfort to the viewer.

It's funny because Conrad discover he is just a prick and an egotistical person and when I finish watching the movie I think the same about the production team.. They just did a movie using a concept and some specific style just because it's nice and they totally forget about doing a movie with some heart in it.

The result is a movie full of itself with tons of dialog that accounts for nothing and about the worst selection of music I ever listened in a long time.

Go watch any other romantic comedy but this and you should be fine.. AVOID it unless you want to punish yourself and your girl.

I've always liked the three main characters, Bateman, Wilde and Crudup. This is like a Doris Day style comedy with the feel of a more sophisticated script and style, ala Woody Allen. Even has a slightly more serious message than earlier Romantic comedies. Not a bad ride, as far as romantic comedies go. I would recommend it for it's interesting quirks and dialogue.

"Sometimes you're your own worst enemy." Conrad (Bateman) is forty and still living off his parents. He has no ambition in life and is content living in a hotel that he doesn't have to pay for. When his friend introduces him to his newest girlfriend, Beatrice (Wilde), Conrad falls in love. When his parents decide to separate Conrad is cut off and now he has no job, no place to live and is in love with his best friends girl. I am a huge Jason Bateman fan so I was excited to watch this. While I can't say this is a bad movie I can say it was a little slow and somewhat generic. It may be because I watch so many movies but about 15 minutes in I predicted what would happen, and I was right. That said, the movie isn't terrible but I was hoping for something a little better. Overall, not terrible but pretty predictable, generic and slow moving. I expected something better with Jason Bateman and Olivia Wilde. I give this a B-.

It's like they couldn't d code whether to rip off woody Allen or Wes Anderson. The bits don't work either.

I've waited a long time to see a film like this. A simple story, beautifully shot with an enchanting soundtrack. Like others, I'm now completely turned off by the big budget, green screen, CGI 'blockbusters' that now seem to infest our theatres (cinemas), and was delighted to just sit back and let this quiet little story wash over me.

The neo-retro cinematography turned New York into Paris and the design had the men smart and dapper and the women beautifully Hepburnesque, I loved it all and it was only topped by the husky piano jazz soundtrack.

I won't go into the acting, depth of plot and character, who's films it resembles or whatever subliminal message was supposed to be projected, others have very kindly furnished that information. Suffice to say the leads were all impossibly good looking (of they were, they're actors) but not as good as their surroundings, New York has never looked so enticing.

So, this film won't win any awards for supreme cleverness or anything but if you're after something to romance your eyes and ears then you'll find its 80 minutes time well spent.

The first time I saw this, I am not sure I could get through it. Maybe I didn't. But I usually finish movies I don't like. Anyhoo. I watched it again today. And it must have fit some mood but I totally adored it. Now it is not my favorite and maybe it should really only be a 6 but I am feeling generous. It is humid, I have a headache and am tired so a movie about not much but a general idea seems perfectly fitting.

Don't get me wrong. This isn't a terrible movie. It's beautifully filmed and well acted, but it's just ultimately unsatisfying. I didn't mind passing an evening watching on Amazon Prime, but I wouldn't have been happy if I'd spent money for it in a theater.

The movie starts out with Bateman, as Conrad, laying out his privileged upper class problems to his therapist - played by Tony Roberts! And if that wasn't enough, the soundtrack launches into some New Orleans Jazz to remove any doubt who they're playing homage to here.

Of course, Jason Bateman's handsome and well spoken character would certainly be the *villain* in any Manhattan-era Woody Allen films, but that's just one of this movie's many problems.

Stylistically, the movie is unabashedly influenced by Wes Anderson. Roberts becomes the narrator, and the movie is divided into storybook style chapters, with occasional amusing cutaways.

On the other hand, the plot is lifted from another movie; namely, "A New Leaf" (1971), written and directed by Elaine May, and starring Walter Mathau. Mathau plays a spoiled rich playboy who has burned through his entire inheritance, and now must find a way to.get through life broke, which is basically the same plot as this movie. May's version is a classic. This, not so much.

Both Allen and Anderson have a real genius for portraying deeply flawed characters in a sympathetic way, and that's where this movie falls short. Jason Bateman is inherently likable, but at some point, you realize you're giving him credit for other characters he's played. As Conrad, he's shallow, self-centered, whiny, and just basically annoying.

Without giving away any spoilers, if you're expecting any great self-realization or epiphany, you'll be disappointed. The movie just meanders its way to one of the absolute laziest endings I've ever scene. Indeed, a critical plot point comes and goes so quickly that I initially missed it, and had to go back because I was totally confused.

To call "The Longest Week" a delight would be an overstatement. To call it average would be unjust. The movie is a Wodehousian romance which features terrific visuals in almost every frame. That's right... Almost every frame is picture perfect like this is a Wes Anderson film. At the same time, the dialogues and the story are entirely "Allenesque". If you liked Fading Gigolo - an attempt to recreate Allenesque filmmaking - you will fall in love with The Longest Week.

Why is Jenny Slate top-billed when the story is clearly about Jason Bateman's philandering character? And why is Jenny Slate even in the movie? You could replace her character with anyone else, and you'd hardly notice any difference. I saw this at a preview screening. I hope the filmmakers realize it and change the billings.

The Longest Week has great visuals, good dialogue and soothing sounds (the soundtrack's totally piano and jazz). The film is also 80 minutes long, and yes, I for one was wanting more as the film was in some ways enchanting.

If you like Wes Anderson films, give it a shot for its beauty! Not a Wes Anderson fan? C'mon! Olivia Wilde is in the movie and she's drop dead gorgeous!

The Longest Week is a lesson that it's possible to have ideas, a great cast, a good script and then put it all up on screen and miss - dreadfully.

The Longest Week comes with a healthy dose of frustration as we delve into the incredibly narcissistic world that our three main protagonists live in. It borrows from the New York film book but is too much in love with the world it wants to send up and we fall, not for the characters, but asleep.

This film is not a mess - it looks great, the acting is great, the constant narration is annoying, but more than that is a vast sense of alienation between the screen and the viewer - it's an unbridgeable abyss caused by a palpable sense of ennui and boredom.

All in all, the next film will work - this goes from charm to smarmy to boring very fast and never gets us to care one jot.

Conrad (Jason Bateman) was just a child when his well-heeled parents dropped him off at their hotel to be raised by the servants, and left for France. Today, twenty years later, he enjoys a life of luxury and comfort, without worrying about work and the like. But after receiving the news of his parents' divorce, he is thrown out of the place, with no money in his pocket. Conrad moves in with an old friend and falls in love with the woman of his dreams. Everything seems to be going well, until he finds out who she is with.

Despite the fact that I love romantic comedies, sugar water, and the couple Olivia Wilde and Jason Bateman, the film is very bland, odorless, colorless (cold and dull colors of the New York winter), boring, slow, slightly musical, icy, I won, but I didn't attached, not captivated, not involved, will be influenced by Woody Allen's arrogant literary/psychoanalytic references, I don't admire either professionally or for his disgusting attitudes... "Love is like communism, great idea that never works."

Probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

Conrad (Jason Bateman) has been one of the luckiest people on the planet. His parents own a stately hotel in Manhattan, the Valmont, where "Connie" has lived his whole life. Nested in the penthouse, life is an endless string of women and parties. The claim is that he is a writer in the "developing stages" of a book. But, alas, Poor Yorick! His parents decide on a divorce and neither wants to pay for Conrad's current lifestyle. Thus, he is soon "hotel-less and homeless". Its a shock, with Conrad having to leave his dog Napoleon in the hands of a longtime hotel employee. Thus, he ends up bunking with a male pal, Dylan (Billy Crudup) who is perhaps Connie's only true friend. Almost at once, Dylan tells Conrad that he has broken up with a longtime girlfriend and has his eye on a beautiful fashion model, Beatrice (Olivia Wilde). Bea has been setting boundaries for Dylan's pursuit, though she does seem interested in the man. Wouldn't one know, when the three of them get together that Conrad develops a crush on Beatrice, too? With his more aggressive style, this juvenile, penniless little rich boy makes more time in a few days than Dylan has in weeks, all behind Dylan's back! Will this new romance last? This is an unusual film, urban, witty, and interesting. The sharp dialogue will make those who like words over action stunts very happy. Then, too, Bateman, Wilde, Crudup, Tony Roberts and the rest of the acting crew are most wonderful as well. although it would have been nice to see Crudup more. With great sets, costumes, and direction, The Longest Week has its charm and fun. Alas, the ending was unsatisfying for this viewer but others might not find it so. Even so, this notable flick will help film fans who delight in something other than superheroes quite gleeful.

Nothing but admiration for the cast but this was a terrible vehicle for them without exception. It reminded me of one of the more recent Woody Allen films In tone and plot. It was billed as a comedy but there was nothing remotely comedic about it. It wasn't even cute. The use of a narrator just came across as lazy storytelling.

Typical playboy movie. What guy wouldn't wanna be a rich single bachelor, with beautiful lady friends. I enjoyed the plot, ALL the character actors and actresses. Only way I see someone not liking this is ppl who wanted movie to move a little faster or more outlandish jokes. I would think someone wouldn't dislike the movie simply because it wasn't relatable because that's the whole point.

In short movie is good. Biting on few movies like lost in Paris or about a boy, but good non the less.

Without Olivia Wilde, this would be absolutely unwatchable. It wants to be Goddardian and early Woody Allenesk, but it's lack of character development and its weak dialogue not to mention it being devoid of any philosophical or social commentary take it nowhere. Perhaps if Crudup had had the lead and Batemen wasn't cast at all, the acting would have made it more compelling?

Cant believe I just discovered this. Fan of Bateman and Wilde. Really enjoyed it. Slow paced, good acting, cool soundtrack. I'd watch it again.

'THE LONGEST WEEK': Three Stars (Out of Five)

Romantic comedy flick starring Jason Bateman, Billy Crudup, Olivia Wilde and Jenny Slate. The cast is billed in reverse order, in the film's opening credits and marketing (for some bizarre reason), giving Slate top billing even though she's barely in it. The movie was directed and co-written (with Juan Iglesias) by first time feature filmmaker Peter Glanz. It tells the story of a spoiled 'man child', who is suddenly cut off from his parents' fortune. He moves in with his best friend and then falls in love with his girlfriend. Considering the talented cast involved, I found the movie to be pretty disappointing.

Bateman plays Conrad Valmont; an unemployed writer who constantly tells people he's in the 'gathering stages' of writing a novel. He's almost 40 and is still living off his parents' wealth; having never had a real job of his own. He spends most of his time at his parents' successful Manhattan hotel; sleeping with lots of beautiful young women there. When his parents suddenly separate, they also decide to evict Conrad and cut him off from all their funding. Conrad then moves in with his best (and only) friend Dylan Tate (Crudup). Due to his obsession with pretty women, Conrad finds himself drawn to Dylan's model girlfriend, Beatrice Fairbanks (Wilde). The two begin a passionate affair together, behind Dylan's back.

The movie was finished in 2012 and finally released recently, in a small amount of theaters, two years later. After seeing the film, I can see why. It's definitely a miscalculation, and that's putting it pretty nicely. The movie wants to be witty and insightful, but it fails. It often borrows a lot from filmmakers like Wes Anderson and Woody Allen, as well, to no avail. I always enjoy watching Jason Bateman, and he's still pretty amusing here; but ultimately he's wasted. So is all of the rest of the talented cast. The movie has some good ideas, it keeps trying to work out, but it's never very funny or involving. Glanz definitely still has a lot to learn about filmmaking.

Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5es95jIdgR4

I don't think there's anything particularly special about this movie. It does have some meaning behind it but not enough to warranty an afterthought or something you can dive deep into. The film is about a character study of the main protagonist; it's a character study film under the guise of a romance; and it being more character driven makes me think it would have been more enjoyable as a book. The story isn't that complex, basically a cheating scandal involving a 40yr old spoilt rich man with the mindset of a juvenile and no actual grasp of reality. We then get to witness him go through "the longest week" and despite him ending up right back where he started with his cosset lifestyle, he was more aware and mature about being born with a silver spoon, less self centered too. I'm a sucker for romance which is what lured me to watch and that's what I liked most about it, but it's not one of those movies that stick with you after. It's just one of those... a Saturday afternoon watch when there's nothing else better on tv or your weekend plans.