Breaking Up (1997) User Reviews

Bizarre

[superfox_888 · 4/10 · 4 September 2023]

I'm conflicted about this film.

The two leads have zero chemistry together, which gives their messed-up relationship no credence whatsoever. In real life these two would have never gotten together in the first place. Someone decided two "on their way up" stars should make a movie, and it wasn't a great decision. They do their best, but it fails to carry the movie.

I liked the script though. Sometimes relationships aren't a clean breakup where people just decide that they want to be out. There's indecision, better the devil you know, maybe it's not so bad after all, the uneasy feelings of breaking it off permanently. This film encapsulates all of that. It does feel a bit repetitive for all the breaking up and getting back together, but it's perfectly captured.

Hated the direction! Inexplicable moves from colour to black-and-white, weird camera angles, lighting changes, jumping from one shot to the next. I suppose it was meant to feel jarring and analogous to the relationship being portrayed, but it was super annoying and discombobulating for the viewer. Ultimately this is the thing that made me give this film such a low rating. It felt like the director was trying to be edgy (in a very 90s way) but it did not work at all.

Not a great movie. I wished I liked it a lot more, but unfortunately the pieces just don't fit.

Why does everyone who has a penis have to be a dickhead?

[lastliberal · 6/10 · 2 September 2007]

It's Salma Hayak's birthday and i wanted something to watch. I found this unknown romantic comedy that looked interesting.

Hayak and Russell Crowe have been together for two and a half years. The only time their relationship works is when they are having sex. The rest of the the time they argue until one leaves. They can't understand why it doesn't work, no matter what they try. That's it. 90 minutes of them breaking up and getting back together to have sex and breaking up and getting back together. It was funny and interesting, and, since Salma was not out of my sight for more than 30 seconds the entire movie, it was satisfying. Not prurient, just satisfying.

What was most interesting is the fact that it was directed by Robert Greenwald. I have everything he has directed in the last four years: Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers (2006); Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price (2005); Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (2004); Uncovered: The War on Iraq (2004); and Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War (2003). I have even seen films he has produced, but not directed like "The ACLU Freedom Files". I always thought he did documentaries about things that were wrong with America. I had no idea that he directed movies like "The Burning Bed" or Xanadu. Now I do.

What is the problem ?

[chattome · 4/10 · 11 December 1998]

I struggled to figure out what was it all about but failed. The duel between a man and a woman in love is seen by me as the most exciting genre on Earth however what this movie offered was, with exception for some sequences, awfully boring and senseless. I would rather blame it on script which was raw and weak despite all the credits of the writer. The whole film is one and the same recurrent scene and plot turns urge a huge question mark in respect to normal human logic, patience and reason. It is hard to conceive how our good Lord could share the throne of the world with Devil but human relationships are always understandable. The characters in the movie mentioned a word ‘love' a couple of times but whatever it was in the end the kind of relationship those two people had in the course of the movie gives a clear indication that it was not love even at the beginning - that was all what the bare lust can produce and you could still cheer yourself up with catching the flashes of the seductive Salma's body. For other sort of emotions, watch ‘The whole wide world'.

A very mature and honest Film

[BirdmanT7 · 19 September 2004]

I saw this film a few nights ago on TV and had never even heard of it?To see Selma Hayek and Russel Crow together got me more interested because they are not your typical Hollywood pairing. I read some of the reviews on this film posted here after I saw the film and I am really sorry for you people who trash this film, you are either so spolied and programmed by the fantasy of Hollywood films or just don't get it?. Rarely does film in Hollywood dares to go this deep about two people in a relationship and trial and emotional complexities that don't make any logical sense to any of us who have been in relationships that were hard to let go of.I think this film really appeals to more of a European audience than American, because you the US audience always wants to live in some kind of fantasy world, White Boy meets White Girl they fall in love and live happily ever after. Now, if something different comes along that requires your attention and becomes a little too real then you trash it.

What is even more sad that there is a hardly an audience for this kind of film in the US as it is in Europe. This was originally a play and that is pretty obvious from the fact its based on two people without the side kicks of friends in your usual gimmick movies. Some of the conversations may seem tedious and long at times but for those of you who have been involved in relationships that sometimes don't make sense then you can relate at because you can't make any sense out of human emotions then you would understand it and relate to it. I guess what made this film not as appealing to some like "Harry Met Sally" did is because it didn't have all the little cute scenes that like "Sally" pretending to have a orgasm in a restaurant; that's what sells in a Hollywood film but "Breaking Up" is not such a film and never pretended to be either, it was more honest than any film that deals with relationships than most films ever do in Hollywood and it doesn't have a happy ending either and this is where the US audience needs to GROW UP.

Selma Hayek really gave a great performance in this film, I am not even a fan nor did I ever like any of her films but I really thought she did a great job in this film, and so did Russel Crow. This film would not probably a choice for either of them today but trust me if there was a way to remake this film with two huge stars and add a some side kicks and slap a happy ending to it you, then suddenly people will be raving about it. I think this is a film that only appeals to those who can relate to it and appreciate its for the crazy and insane parts of any intense relationship. There is a line in this film where both characters years later say "..they never really understood why they even broke up?" and I think that was what this film was about; what makes any relationship work? and how do you make any logical sense of it when you are so caught up in it emotionally and how do you come out of it and deal with the pain and misery of loosing someone. Now, if you let go of your expectations then you might be able to appreciate this film for its honesty.

One of the worst movies I've seen!

[Stello · 1/10 · 3 October 2003]

I like Salma Hayek, I like Russell Crowe.. I had never heard of this movie until I noticed it on the TV guide, but seeing who were starring in it, I was expecting some entertainment.. How wrong was I!! :O It turned out to be really, Really bad! Forced dialogue all through the movie, plus I felt the director had been playing with as many different camera techniques as he could think of - ending up making a big mess of waste. Such disappointment..

The only potential bit was the scene where he was taking a bath, getting a mental image of the bodybuilder type she described on the phone.. But it wasn't funny enough to save the movie.

This one's best avoided..

Tedious and talky

[rosscinema · 3/10 · 3 May 2004]

For ninety minutes this film has two characters talk and argue about the troubles that they are having in their relationship and I thought of one thing, if a friend of yours started to complain about their relationship could you listen to them for ninety minutes? Me either, but this film expects you to. Story is about a couple that have been dating for a few years but decide that they should break up and after spending some time apart it doesn't take long before they start calling each other and getting together for great sex. Steve (Russell Crowe) and Monica (Salma Hayek) talk about that they are not together anymore but still hop into bed with one another and then talk and argue until one of them leaves. Later one of them will phone the other up and the whole process starts again with sex, talk, and more arguing.

*****SPOILER ALERT*****

One day Steve shows up at Monica's work and tells her that they should get married and after mulling about it for a short time she accepts. Steve starts dreaming and when he finally wakes up he is at the altar but he is unable to utter the words "I do" and passes out. Monica has had it with him and leaves him for good and even though he doesn't want her to leave there isn't anything he can say to change her mind.

This film is directed by Robert Greenwald who was either handicapped by an extremely thin budget or has no clue how to construct a real film. This was shot in New York City but aside from a taxi with New York printed on the doors you would have been hard pressed to figure out where it's suppose to take place. There isn't one good shot of that beautiful city and instead the films focus remains on the two lead actors and even with their immense talent they just cannot keep the audiences attention on something so trivial and mundane. Glenda Jackson starred in a film called "Stevie" in the 1970's and she had to carry that film herself also and even though I thought she succeeded this is a task that's practically impossible even for the best actors. It all boils down to the material that they are handed and this script is just to dull. Some have said that Crowe and Hayek have no chemistry on screen but I'm not so quick to agree with that because the lines that they are forced to utter is so banal. Greenwald directed this film from the play by Michael Cristofer and I'm not sure what drew his attention to this but the end result is a dull film that is both poorly constructed and repetitious.

Wow . Russell And Salma In The Same Movie ...

[Theo Robertson · 2/10 · 25 November 2003]

... Was my initial reaction but BREAKING UP is a bit of a turkey . To all intents and purposes this is an inferior WHEN HARRY MET SALLY for a younger generation . It`s episodic and never feels convincing , but the worst criticism I have is that the two stars never shine on screen . Maybe if Crowe`s character beat up a few people while all Salma`s scenes revolved lying on top of that body builder in the gym it would have been more watchable ?

Entertaining and joyful love movie

[K-D · 7/10 · 14 January 2002]

Russel Crowe and Salma Hayek does a great job in this film playing two difficult roles. It`s not often you see a film with only two people speaking in it. But Crowe and Hayek doesn`t have any problems with this.

*spoiler* (maybe)

I think the film was entertaining the whole way. Normally it would become boring in the length with all the switching those two between; at first they are toghether, they brake up, they come back together again, they brake up again... but it isn`t boring at all. The movie keeps you at the screen all the way.

*spoiler end*

I just love Russel Crowe after I watched Gladiator. He`s a great actor. I just can`t wait for his movies in the future. Salma Hayek isn`t so bad either...

A good an entertaining movie...

This Is HORRID!

[FiendishDramaturgy · 1/10 · 31 May 2007]

Salma Hayek is quirky and delightful in this work, but let me ask you a question: With a title like Breaking Up, did you really expect them to work it out? WHO in their right mind would want to be with a man like Crowe!?! All too often, his characters are rude, crude, abusive, and psychotic. It leads me to believe he plays these roles so often because there is something inside him, which identifies with this type of man. Indeed. News reports would tend to corroborate this opinion.

The story is dull and uneventful, and the execution is pretty lame. Again, Hayek was great, but she can't do a "couples" movie alone and have it work. Crowe just plain sucks as an actor.

This is a crapfest, and as such, rates a NOTHING from...

the Fiend :.

Refreshing

[puck_claes · 7/10 · 3 September 2001]

What a fine and refreshing movie. But there is more to it than this. It is a well-made film about a very common and credible situation. It shows us both sides of an ending affair and makes you feel sympathy for each character. Only two players, Salma Hayek and Russell Crowe, to play the game and carry the story to the end. They do well.

The story doesn't go on straight. There are twists in the presentation, cuttings, slow-motion - movie-stills, split-screens, showing off a lot of the pinches of film-making. None of this ever going heavy. It all just fits in, and I like it. Enjoy it. I will again.

Senseless and discombobulated

[djunchan · 1/10 · 12 July 2003]

The story was not compelling at all. I found myself noticing all of the inconsistencies instead. The one that really bothered me is when Salma Hyak is moving out after the wedding fiasco. I don't know a single person who would pack their stuff without tying their hair. I'm supposed to be sympathising, but instead I find them petty and senseless, and all I notice is her perfectly parted hair while she's packing.

If it holds my interest like that, it's can't be good. I would have loved a better accent from Russell Crowe, or no accent at all. That was something that kept grating on me because of points in the film where I totally lost interest.

You are never led understand why their motivations really make sense, or why their feelings are so capricious and petty. Ultimately, you end up with two frustrating people in a pointless relationship that is a circle of hope and failure over and over again.

The fact that the ending left it open for them to get back together was also disturbing. It shows what vapid morons the characters are if they couldn't realise they were right for each other all along and now have to drag their innocent spouses and offspring into divorces. I can't root for people who keep doing the wrong thing, hurting each other, then possibly hurting innocent people who trusted them.

In fact, they're to awful, perhaps they do deserve each other before they ruin their families any more than they would. I wanted to identify with this movie, but I just couldn't because I am not a clod.

Excellent portrait of a relationship

[laura-stuker · 9/10 · 10 January 2001]

This is not a mainstream movie. This is the film of a play. And its excellent. I rented it because of the cast. I couldn't turn it off because of their truly awesome performances.

Monica is in love with Steve. Steve is in love with Monica. The only problem is, they don't know why. They don't know what questions to ask, of themselves or each other. They struggle with expressing what they believe is honesty. They wound one another raging against unmet expectations they've never admitted, thinking that such admissions would be contrary to their love. They're both too young to handle the intensity of their emotions, to understand what's happening.

This film is billed as a comedy. As a comedy, it fails miserably. Watch it instead as a tragedy, and you'll fall in love with it.

Some spoilers!!

[Mickey Knox · 5/10 · 13 November 2000]

(some spoilers) Boy and girl together. Girl leaves boy. Girl comes back. Girl and boy make love. Girl breaks up with boy. Boy begs girl to come back. Girl comes back. Boy and girl make love. Boy breaks up with girl. Girl begs boy to come back. Boy comes back. Boy and girl make love. Girl breaks up with boy. Boy asks girl to marry him. Girl accepts. (!!??!!) Boy and girl in front of the minister. Boy faints. Girl breaks up with boy. Forever.

This is BREAKING UP. Good points: for the actors, Salma Hayek and Russel Crowe - very convincing in difficult roles. And also the idea of making a movie only with 2 actors. Bad points: the rest. Especially the story, most of the times pathetic and unbelieveble.

Vote: 5

The trials of breaking up -- repeatedly

[theprovinces · 14 October 2003]

I flipped through this film (shot in 1995) one day on cable, since I'm not a big fan of either of the stars, but a couple days later(it was on again) felt compelled to watch and found it engaging, if disturbingly credible and real. It's probably the kind of movie that will appeal to those who've experienced similar situations -- the break-up that lasts longer than the relationship.

I think Greenwald (director) and the writer Michael Christofer have a very good grip on understanding the emotional highs and lows of a relationship that's turbulent: There's much to admire about the person, but ultimately something isn't right, hence the many (failed) attempts at breaking up.

**Potential Spoiler** Still, there are those who might view this (as some other commentators have) as more of a "true love" type of story -- I believe (paraphrasing here) someone said something about they know they're each others true love. I disagree. I think there is a super strong physical and emotional bond that draws them together (even in the final scene) but perhaps they've realized that what they had wasn't strong enough to sustain a long-term commitment in a family situation.

I wouldn't recommend this movie for everyone. If you can't relate to it, it might be annoying and repetitive, but if you've gone through the multiple break-up situation, the desperate attempts to "make it work" when it's hopeless, the being drawn back to each other, the whispery breathy phone calls after weeks of separation, the hopefulness that "this time it will be different" (and it never is), you will definitely "get" this movie more.

There are comedic moments and **SPOILER** but it ends in a non-Hollywood way and much of what they go through is fairly devasting (or seemingly so at the moment).

Ummmmm...what?

[LePiu · 4/10 · 25 February 1999]

I was really surprised by the lack of any identifiable emotion this movie instilled in me. I think I kept waiting for that magic moment when all the tension, in the form at times of boredom, would break into a mad stirring of passion...or something other than boredom. I don't want to blame this on the actors, since I didn't really see anything wrong with them, but the script had all the strength of a wet grocery sack. It seemed to have potential, and the camera work was well done, but I just never caught on to whatever I was supposed to care about.

Russell Crowe saves this movie

[guigelaar · 4/10 · 10 January 2002]

Personally, I rented this movie because Russell Crowe starred in it before he got huge. That fact was the only thing that saved this movie. Granted, it was a good story and the casting was wonderful, however, at the end of a movie, one is not supposed to be left with questions. What were their last names? What grade did she teach? What was it he did? What city were they in? Basic questions should be answered in the beginning. I can see asking yourself at the end, "Why did their relationship turn the way it did?" Of course, you should almost have an answer for that too. Film makers definitely do not want to leave you with the question, "Why did I rent this movie?" but this movie would achieve that if it hadn't been for the young, mostly shirtless, incredible actor, Russell Crowe.

Stultifyingly boring

[woodybrown20 · 1/10 · 7 August 2001]

The most dull film ever made. Completely devoid of any wit, charm or even plot. Uniquely depressing, wretched, uninspired, dragging, useless, sleep-provoking, irritating; I think I have already made my point.

I love Salma Hayek but . . . .

[nsnolan55 · 3/10 · 19 August 2005]

The guidelines of this website state that the minimum length for comments is 10 lines of text. My last three paragraphs is all I wanted to say. So here goes:

Salma is one of my favorite actresses, she has great talent, while Russell Crowe is my least favorite actor next to Tom Cruise. I decided to watch the movie in spite of Crowe. I saw him on James Limpton and he was such a pompous ass, totally in love with himself. I've never understood why he's considered a great actor. He has, though, been in some good movies.

What I did like about this movie (besides watching Salma) was the style and editing. I liked the way the director filmed the sex, the arguments, the trashing of the apartments and the black and white thing.

Perhaps I would have enjoyed this movie if it hadn't reminded me of a couple of stupid relationships I had a million years ago.

But the characters in this movie should just stick to having great sex and quit wasting time trying to communicate with each other in any other manner.

They annoyed me so much I wanted to smack 'em!

I am sorry I wasted my time watching this movie and I advise you not to waste yours.

A great movie, but not for everyone

[mike_usagisan · 10/10 · 25 October 2000]

I watched this movie for the first time last night and was completely blown away. I read somewhere that it came from a stage play, and you definitely get the feeling for that. So all of those of you who can't sit through movies like The Big Kahuna or Glengarry Glen Ross because "nothing happens", don't bother trying to watch this - you'll be bored. But for those of you who want to watch a movie about something, that will actually deal with it, rather than pander to the lowest common denominator, you might want to give this movie a shot.

One reason I liked it so much is that I like a healthy dose of symbolism in my movies, and this movie has it in spades. A lot of the complaints that I've seen about this movie is that the movie never tells us what is keeping these two characters apart. (There may be spoilers ahead.) Well, the answer, it seems to me, is that these characters symbolize men and women in love, not just individual characters. Men are often seeking independence and individuality while women are often looking for reassurance of love. (Yes, those were two big stereotypes, but the reason they are stereotypes is because you see them so often in reality.) And the fact that the two characters go out to interview people on the street about how to stay in relationships, I get the feeling that the movie is trying to broaden its horizon beyond these two characters.

The other reason I liked this movie is that it recognizes that real love, that passionate feeling that controls your actions whether you want it to or not, is so intense that it has a tendency to both pull people together and tear them apart. I especially liked the way it brought in the philosophies of Marx, Einstein and Freud to give the movie's ideas context from history, science and psychology.

The final thing that caught my attention was the way the the movie tried to make a universal statement about love vs. happiness (because they aren't the same thing), and the best way to make it through this muddled life may not have anything to do with either, even if it is dull. I found the whole thing very fascinating and insightful.

And if that hasn't completely scared you off, it is an incredibly funny and touching movie. I laughed as I recognized my own reactions to relationships brought to life in front of me. The performances are wonderful. Russell Crowe is one of the best actors working now, and Salma shows that she has a real talent waiting to come out to play. So, if you're still with me and this sounds like something that will appeal to your particular tastes, you might want to give it a chance.

Not an easy watch.

[jhsteel · 14 February 2002]

I found this movie rather uncomfortable viewing and I wondered why the two protagonists were a couple in the first place. There was a lot of confrontation and restless, irritable behaviour and this rubbed off on me. The theatrical origin is clear, as it is in such films as Two Girls and a Guy, and the atmosphere is claustrophobic - this may be intentional. I bought this movie because I wanted to see Russell Crowe's work outwith Gladiator and LA Confidential, and this character is definitely different. Russell plays an American and I think he gave a good performance, as did Salma Hayek. See this film for the sake of the stars or if you need to deal with your anger about breaking up, but it is not a relaxing experience.

never in your face , yet it SPEAKS.

[maverickaj · 10/10 · 10 October 2004]

when i rented this film , i expected very little from the movie , the title seemed intriguing enough for me to rent it ...what i got was a well made film about a couple in love or maybe more about their breaking up ...it reminded me of when harry met sally at times , but must say this seems so much more close to real life . some nice humorous scenes are like icing on the cake ... they love each other , everything's right but the eternal doubt , so subtly put in one of the scenes ** SPOILERS ** where russel crowe's character asks ' what do u mean by IF we marry ?'...one of the best scenes ** SPOILERS*** is when steve (russel crowe) gets set to leave in the middle of the night ...its funny yet at the same time it reveals an important aspect of any relationship ...the insecurity ...the insecurity of what if this wont work and the whole sequence is beautifully treated . a movie worth watching especially if you can relate it to it ....true to life. i especially liked the subtlety with which it sends out messages to the viewers , never in your face . yet it speaks. well written movie with a lot of maturity and depth .

Inventive, quirky film with high aspirations for itself

[Sydni_64 · 30 January 2001]

I have always thought that we should fall in love with people for their dreams, and for their efforts to fulfill those dreams--not for their accomplishments. Love a man because he's a brilliant actor and aspires to greatness--not because he can take you to the Oscars when he's nominated for Best Actor.

That philosophy informs my opinion of this movie. It sets out many lofty goals for itself. It wants to demonstrate and lay out for examination the entire plight of heterosexual love/lust. It wants two actors to carry an entire movie virtually by themselves, playing against each other, giving the film a stifled, claustrophobic feeling--where the viewer feels just like Steve and Monica. You love the movie, but you feel breathless and spent, like you've given too much. It wants to tell a story using live on-the-street interviews, black-and-white still photography, slow-mo vignettes, traditional Hollywood-styled cinematography, and a split-screen interview of Steve and Monica post-relationship. It wants to use music and sound to resonate with the storyline. My favorite ten minutes of the film center around the "carrot scene," where Steve criticizes Monica for putting carrots in the pasta. The action stops and moves to b&w stills, with the sounds of their argument carrying over. This technique highlights the alienation that Steve and Monica feel from themselves and their own relationship. Even in the most heated, passionate argument, it's as if they're just going through the motions.

Like I said, this film wants to do a lot of things, and it doesn't succeed at all of them. For instance, it doesn't really pull off its attempt at using Freud, Einstein, and Marx to lend some credence to its own conclusions (or inconclusions) about love. Some people say they never do become very attached to Steve and Monica--indeed, as people, the characters kind of suck. I would not want either one of them for a friend. That does not mean that they do not deserve to be loved, however--they very much deserve each other, that much is clear. So, I bawl like a baby every time I watch this. (I've seen it about 6 or so times). And I love this movie for the greatness it strives toward. I would rather watch a film that fails at its grand project than a little movie that has low expectations and meets them. Big whoop, right? More than this, Breaking Up features two brilliant performances by Russell Crowe and Salma Hayek, who are both quite easy on the eye, and look great together. Salma's fiery spirit is quite a cinematic match for Russell's own undercurrent of simmering violence (even if Steve is a bit whimpy for my tastes). I love this film. Technically, there is so much going on--the director had so many great ideas, so many dreams, and you see them right there, in the movie. I can't think of another Hollywood movie with such a major confluence of established styles and innovative techniques. Brilliant.

Buy this film. It is absolutely worth it, and fans of Russell and/or Salma should know that there are some beautifully-shot, utterly sensuous and compelling love scenes in this film. Those two have *chemistry*.

Beautiful!

[farid98 · 8/10 · 25 July 2005]

Geat movie. Salma and Russell really shine together, and the dialog is amazingly good and really hits the spot.

The two main characters spend a lot of time talking about relationships, but it never gets cheesy - quite the opposite. Its real, its insightful, and it vividly portrays the complex emotions that go into relationships and the conflicting feelings that make them so exasperating and yet so irresistible.

And of course Salma is absolutely a treat to the eyes.

If you've been in love, and if you've ever felt the pain of parting - even temporarily - you'll just fall in love with this move.

A must see.

BREAKING UP BUT NOT BREAKING AWAY

[Kfirst · 7 April 2002]

The first time I rented this movie, it seemed a bit annoying because of all the arguing, etc., but it entertained me enough to give it a second look and I ended up buying it. It speaks to the need in all human beings to love and be loved and all those weird things we say and do to somehow keep it from happening to us. I felt like I was in the front row of an off-broadway play and admired the characters so much for having to learn all that dialogue and have no other actors to share the load. My favorite scene is the middle of the night at Monica's place when Steve is quietly trying to leave and the ensuing conversation they have. The very last scene was open to the viewer's own feeling - we know they were each other's one true love but we had to decide what their future held (Personally, I think they ran in to each other in New York - in a taxi - after their children had grown and their first marriages were over and lived happily ever after - unmarried, of course!) Great acting by Salma Hayak and Russell Crowe.

A few technical flaws along the way, but all in all the way the music played with the scenes, a good dose of humor, and the realistic love scenes pretty much rounded out the on again/off again true love relationship Monica & Steve aspired to. *** out of ****

A sharp and witty film about the one that got away.

[xyumaboy · 9/10 · 12 August 2000]

This extremely well written and acted movie is a little treasure that I discovered on the "not rented very much" section of the video store. It follows the relationship of two commitment phobic people who were madly in love with each other but are always looking for a reason not to be happy. Alternatingly absolutely hysterical and poignant, this movie is a must see for all who enjoy a well done realistic romantic comedy (as opposed to an unrealistic one such as Runaway Bride). Certainly not least, Salma Hayak is absolutely gorgeous, sexy, and funny and Russell Crowe shows why he will be a heavyweight in the industry for a long time. You will see why he was robbed of the Best Actor Oscar last year for the Insider after viewing. 9++ Enjoy.