If you're an architect -and I am - this film trots out every negative stereotype you've ever battled in your life and pumps it up to full volume. The architect is the comic villain in this piece: a vain, imperious, pseudo-intellectual, budget-busting, turtleneck wearing wife stealer in the classic Frank Lloyd Wright mode. Of course old FLW also had world-class talent but in my humble opinion he has a lot to answer for with the reputation he saddled generations of future architects with. But I digress. I may have found this film more amusing than most because of the many sly digs at my chosen profession, but it's still a decent comedy.
19 Reviews
No satisfaction for a Parker Posey fan
Sam-953-16928521 August 2017
Any movie with Parker Posey in it deserves a chance. I gave this one a chance. Of all the movies I have seen with her in it, this is the worst. Her character is so typical; there is nothing unusual. The part could have been played by thousands of other actresses.
The movie is about the project of designing and building a home and the interaction among the husband, wife and architect. In the movie, the husband is a successful, logical, practical financial person. She is an artist. They are highly incompatible and constantly disagree. The architect is a typical artist; he claims to consider practicality to be important but that is actually at the bottom of his priorities. He and the project (the house design) amplify the incompatibility between the husband and wife. The architecture might be creative but that is the only creative part of this movie. There is very little romance; the story is not much more than three (or four if you include the builder) people arguing. Even when she announces she is ovulating, there is no romance.
The ending is logical and not a big surprise either; in other words, not creative. And yet, the ending is sudden, as if the writer knew that there was enough material and had to end it somehow.
The movie is about the project of designing and building a home and the interaction among the husband, wife and architect. In the movie, the husband is a successful, logical, practical financial person. She is an artist. They are highly incompatible and constantly disagree. The architect is a typical artist; he claims to consider practicality to be important but that is actually at the bottom of his priorities. He and the project (the house design) amplify the incompatibility between the husband and wife. The architecture might be creative but that is the only creative part of this movie. There is very little romance; the story is not much more than three (or four if you include the builder) people arguing. Even when she announces she is ovulating, there is no romance.
The ending is logical and not a big surprise either; in other words, not creative. And yet, the ending is sudden, as if the writer knew that there was enough material and had to end it somehow.
Building from the scratch
kosmasp15 February 2020
What is a muse? What is an architect? Who defines those words or rather the inhabitants of those words? Mostly oneself is doing the attaching or rather the defining. This movie is off ... beat, off the charts, off building ... and a few other offs thrown in there for good measure.
If that quirky energy sounds like something that is interesting to you, you found an intersting little independent movie. Parker Posey is fun to watch in this as are her other cast mates. It's not genius but it's more than decent and entertaining enough ... you will able to spot where this is heading, but that won't spoil the fun you can have
If that quirky energy sounds like something that is interesting to you, you found an intersting little independent movie. Parker Posey is fun to watch in this as are her other cast mates. It's not genius but it's more than decent and entertaining enough ... you will able to spot where this is heading, but that won't spoil the fun you can have
Rather disappointing
gregor-980-50824519 November 2016
This movie is a comedy in the sense that it's not a drama. There was a certain amount of satire, but for me it was pretty much devoid of humor. Not that I require side-splitting laughter from all comedies... but a slight chuckle once in a while is not too much to expect.
Toward the end, I had given up on finding real entertainment value in it for myself, and was more hoping that it would get better just for the sake of the people who made it, kind of like a cheerleader: "Come on, little movie, you can do it!" (It couldn't).
I have great respect for the creators and artists involved in making independent films, with all the constraints that come with it... I try to keep an open mind. But in the end, a poorly written script kept this movie from really going anywhere. Like, anywhere.
The two-sentence description/"blurb" of the movie, that convinced me to watch it was far more entertaining than the movie itself.
Toward the end, I had given up on finding real entertainment value in it for myself, and was more hoping that it would get better just for the sake of the people who made it, kind of like a cheerleader: "Come on, little movie, you can do it!" (It couldn't).
I have great respect for the creators and artists involved in making independent films, with all the constraints that come with it... I try to keep an open mind. But in the end, a poorly written script kept this movie from really going anywhere. Like, anywhere.
The two-sentence description/"blurb" of the movie, that convinced me to watch it was far more entertaining than the movie itself.
A married couple hire an architect to build their house
wildflower470420 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
A really good story until you get to the end. The resolution of the plot was done quickly and left me unsatisfied.
A couple hires an architect to build them a house. The wife is an artist and the husband is a financial planner. Their personalities are the opposite of each other. She is spontaneous and he is logical and disciplined.They want something creative, something that isn't a cookie cut design with a two car garage on a parcel in the suburbs. Behind a house they were looking at is a stunning house built circular.It is known as the "Hatch House" They find that architect but to be prudent,they also consider another. They hire the creative architect who had given them the lowest bid who also is the one who designed the house they had admired.
He turns out to be a nightmare. Impractical designs.Overbudget. the couple butt heads. The husband is concerned about the budget and resale value.She thinks the architect is appealing to her artistic spirit but he has his own ambitions. It almost destroyed the marriage. She learns that this is the first commission for the architect-that his father's business partner really designed the "Hatch house" and that the architect is a big phoney.
But I don't get the ending. The couple reconcile. What did they do with the white elephant of a house? Are we to assume the baby is her husband's and not the architects? (she had a one night affair with the architect) How did they couple work it all out?
A couple hires an architect to build them a house. The wife is an artist and the husband is a financial planner. Their personalities are the opposite of each other. She is spontaneous and he is logical and disciplined.They want something creative, something that isn't a cookie cut design with a two car garage on a parcel in the suburbs. Behind a house they were looking at is a stunning house built circular.It is known as the "Hatch House" They find that architect but to be prudent,they also consider another. They hire the creative architect who had given them the lowest bid who also is the one who designed the house they had admired.
He turns out to be a nightmare. Impractical designs.Overbudget. the couple butt heads. The husband is concerned about the budget and resale value.She thinks the architect is appealing to her artistic spirit but he has his own ambitions. It almost destroyed the marriage. She learns that this is the first commission for the architect-that his father's business partner really designed the "Hatch house" and that the architect is a big phoney.
But I don't get the ending. The couple reconcile. What did they do with the white elephant of a house? Are we to assume the baby is her husband's and not the architects? (she had a one night affair with the architect) How did they couple work it all out?
A completely ironic comedy
gsoto-7256524 December 2017
An absolutely ironic film, the architect makes you burst into laughter with exquisitely caricatured characters that act a contemporary and very light version of Madame Bovary. This film will not win an Oscar nor will it be in the selection of best films of the decade, but it is always good to spend an afternoon laughing at corny scenes and stereotyped discourses. The architect ironizes the imposture of the current petty bourgeoisie with its appetite for high culture. The musical reference to A homme et une femme de Lelouch is just one of the winks that this gentle comedy gives to French cinema.
The House of No Mirth
tigerfish5024 February 2017
'The Architect' never reaches the level of either drama or comedy as its sit-com story unfolds with the zest of a soggy blueprint. The plot relates how a pair of prosperous married suburbanites try to paper over their differences by commissioning a pretentious avant-garde architect to design their dream house. In the real world, a village idiot would require only a brief minute with this insufferable narcissist before dismissing him as a fraud. Worse yet, the credulous couple are never fleshed out to anything more substantial than cardboard cut-outs, and their dilemmas become increasingly far-fetched as the film proceeds.
It's tough to watch Parker Posey trudging through this humorless sludge when she's created so many idiosyncratic characters from unconventional material. At this point in her career, she seems better suited for the role of a scheming seductress, than that of an artsy airhead housewife in a lame comedy. The biggest mystery of 'The Architect' is how this sputtering slapstick-sophisticated hybrid vehicle ever got green-lighted.
It's tough to watch Parker Posey trudging through this humorless sludge when she's created so many idiosyncratic characters from unconventional material. At this point in her career, she seems better suited for the role of a scheming seductress, than that of an artsy airhead housewife in a lame comedy. The biggest mystery of 'The Architect' is how this sputtering slapstick-sophisticated hybrid vehicle ever got green-lighted.
A strange mix of the familiar and the offbeat
davejones12 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
This is a movie with a story that, while far from being a cliché, contains elements we've seen before--the most familiar of which is the ostensibly happy suburban couple whose lives are upended by the intrusion of a stranger who causes the couple to realize that they aren't quite as happy as they thought. In the formula, one of the partners almost always welcomes the interloper, while the other is immediately suspicious. That's the case, here.
This film is billed as a comedy, and it has several quite funny moments, but nothing that's going to have you rolling in the aisles. It's consistently amusing. The performances are uniformly excellent, the characters are well drawn, it's got a really strong soundtrack, it's well shot, and seems to have been done on a tight budget--a budget kept low thanks, in part, to some seamless and smart visual effects.
The movie has an unusual tone--set right from the start by the animated credit sequence. The odd and arresting soundtrack also contributes to the strange tone. I doubt it will get much of a regular release (I saw it at the Vancouver Film Festival) because of its determinedly indy tone.
SPOILER IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH: The script has some problems. The situation is just never pushed far enough, and the sense of jeopardy to the protagonists--the distressed couple--never becomes as dire as it should be. I was never really rooting for them, never feared for their marriage. Not because I didn't believe it could disintegrate, but because I just didn't care that much whether it failed or not. And the resolution is very weak. In the end, it seems the Parker Posey character returns to her husband not because she realizes that her marriage is worth saving, but because the architect turns out to be a fraud. Whatever happened to her complaint that her husband was stifling her? Of course, if that was the writer's intent--to point out that the couple's marriage held together only because of a lack of better alternatives--then I suppose the point is made. But it doesn't exactly leave you with a warm fuzzy feeling that a comedy is supposed to.
This film is billed as a comedy, and it has several quite funny moments, but nothing that's going to have you rolling in the aisles. It's consistently amusing. The performances are uniformly excellent, the characters are well drawn, it's got a really strong soundtrack, it's well shot, and seems to have been done on a tight budget--a budget kept low thanks, in part, to some seamless and smart visual effects.
The movie has an unusual tone--set right from the start by the animated credit sequence. The odd and arresting soundtrack also contributes to the strange tone. I doubt it will get much of a regular release (I saw it at the Vancouver Film Festival) because of its determinedly indy tone.
SPOILER IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH: The script has some problems. The situation is just never pushed far enough, and the sense of jeopardy to the protagonists--the distressed couple--never becomes as dire as it should be. I was never really rooting for them, never feared for their marriage. Not because I didn't believe it could disintegrate, but because I just didn't care that much whether it failed or not. And the resolution is very weak. In the end, it seems the Parker Posey character returns to her husband not because she realizes that her marriage is worth saving, but because the architect turns out to be a fraud. Whatever happened to her complaint that her husband was stifling her? Of course, if that was the writer's intent--to point out that the couple's marriage held together only because of a lack of better alternatives--then I suppose the point is made. But it doesn't exactly leave you with a warm fuzzy feeling that a comedy is supposed to.
A movie without a good script is like a house without a good floorplan
danielwill2 July 2019
If you want to see a movie about building a house, watch "Mr. Blandings Builds his Dream House" which is still more relevant (and funnier) after 70 year than this movie is after three. Blandings shows the strain building can cause on a couple--while being realistic, smart, and very funny.
I teach writing workshops, and this is a script I will show students as an example of what not to do. Don't make characters afterthoughts that go through motions so your plot can happen. Don't have plot holes so big that virtually any person in the audience may think, "Wait, that doesn't make sense, if they'd simply xxx there'd never have been this problem..."
And even a movie that starts with an "idea" should be able to make that idea clear. Here, it's so strained in every possible way that you have to wonder what the original idea was.
Was it that architects are egomaniacal liars? Was it that mismatched couples shouldn't design a house? Was it, perhaps that a client should not sleep with her architect (a time-tested tradition) and possibly have his baby (the last minor issue never being addressed).
If the vision was to stack of lack of logic on top of a dearth of emotion, then they succeeded with flying colors (speaking of colors, I did like the way the CGI house was painted and the mural at the end, but you can simply jump to the end and save yourself from the rest.)
I'm sure everyone involved worked really hard, but without a good script to start with, it's like building a house without a floorplan.
We'll start with the couple who are so completely mismatched from the start there's no reason for them to have gotten together, much less to be together. She's an artist, he's a number's man with no artistic outlook much less imagination. The numbers man would clearly have done more research on the architect than was done in this case, so the entire ending is unbelievable--not that anything else is that believable to begin with.
Then there's the architect so transparent in his motives that a single Google search would have revealed his "secret," not to mention the fact that he'd designed this house 15 years earlier. And a house itself where the entire first floor is devoted to the staircase and disregards not only any practical use, but also windows on the beautiful lake view.
The house they build makes as little sense as the story they built around it. Take the end (please). Why have the characters have changed so drastically as to be unrecognizable? The numbers man is suddenly sensitive to his wife's artistic nature. The wife seems to now have a busy art career while her formerly workaholic husband tends the baby. WHY? We don't see them change, we just see them magically different as if it's suddenly a different movie. That's not a character arc, that's Deus Ex Bulldozer.
So, go watch "Mr. Blandings Builds his Dreamhouse," a movie that lives up to the potential of its subject with characters, relationships, charm, and humor that actually makes you laugh.
I teach writing workshops, and this is a script I will show students as an example of what not to do. Don't make characters afterthoughts that go through motions so your plot can happen. Don't have plot holes so big that virtually any person in the audience may think, "Wait, that doesn't make sense, if they'd simply xxx there'd never have been this problem..."
And even a movie that starts with an "idea" should be able to make that idea clear. Here, it's so strained in every possible way that you have to wonder what the original idea was.
Was it that architects are egomaniacal liars? Was it that mismatched couples shouldn't design a house? Was it, perhaps that a client should not sleep with her architect (a time-tested tradition) and possibly have his baby (the last minor issue never being addressed).
If the vision was to stack of lack of logic on top of a dearth of emotion, then they succeeded with flying colors (speaking of colors, I did like the way the CGI house was painted and the mural at the end, but you can simply jump to the end and save yourself from the rest.)
I'm sure everyone involved worked really hard, but without a good script to start with, it's like building a house without a floorplan.
We'll start with the couple who are so completely mismatched from the start there's no reason for them to have gotten together, much less to be together. She's an artist, he's a number's man with no artistic outlook much less imagination. The numbers man would clearly have done more research on the architect than was done in this case, so the entire ending is unbelievable--not that anything else is that believable to begin with.
Then there's the architect so transparent in his motives that a single Google search would have revealed his "secret," not to mention the fact that he'd designed this house 15 years earlier. And a house itself where the entire first floor is devoted to the staircase and disregards not only any practical use, but also windows on the beautiful lake view.
The house they build makes as little sense as the story they built around it. Take the end (please). Why have the characters have changed so drastically as to be unrecognizable? The numbers man is suddenly sensitive to his wife's artistic nature. The wife seems to now have a busy art career while her formerly workaholic husband tends the baby. WHY? We don't see them change, we just see them magically different as if it's suddenly a different movie. That's not a character arc, that's Deus Ex Bulldozer.
So, go watch "Mr. Blandings Builds his Dreamhouse," a movie that lives up to the potential of its subject with characters, relationships, charm, and humor that actually makes you laugh.
Please, to all......hire a continuity editor!
xoqpaj25 November 2016
Absolutely bugs the @#$% outta me when any movie has obvious problems in this area. This movie is the worst I've ever seen with this issue!
Watch as the robe is removed, and then change of cameras shows her with robe on.
Watch as salads are removed in a huff from dinner and last leaf is attempted to be picked up by fork, but doesn't work so fingers are used...but camera change shows leaf entering mouth via fork!
Sure, most don't care but this is a small thing to fix to make your movies so much better!
Other than that, pretty cool and offbeat movie.
Watch as the robe is removed, and then change of cameras shows her with robe on.
Watch as salads are removed in a huff from dinner and last leaf is attempted to be picked up by fork, but doesn't work so fingers are used...but camera change shows leaf entering mouth via fork!
Sure, most don't care but this is a small thing to fix to make your movies so much better!
Other than that, pretty cool and offbeat movie.
Would have preferred not to.
paulcreeden26 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
A wasted wealth of talent on a script more suited to dark suspense than dark comedy. It succeeds at neither really. Parker Posey reverts to quirk, while Eric McCormack seems to be struggling just to get through it. James Frain, a natural as vampire or demon, seems out of place in his role as a fey seducer. This is one of the few films I have seen which felt like a total waste of my time at its ending. It isn't even interestingly edited or filmed. Jonathan Parker's "Bartleby" (2001) was brilliant, perhaps even prophetic. This film is simply cable TV fodder.
This movie is creatively unique!
silverpinkcity6 September 2022
Why the bad reviews? I like this weird quirky intelligent off-beat movie. It's just so...unique! If you're the sort of person who wants stuff to be just like everything else...so it fits into some sort of oatmeal movie algorithm...than you probably won't care for this. But I found it refreshingly different...and yes, funny (in a weird offbeat way).
I suppose the movie gives architects a bad name. But my husband is a millworker who works with architects all the time, and he complains about their "artistic visions" that are not anchored in practicality. So maybe that's one reason I appreciate this little-known gem of a picture.
Other than that, I just found it very watchable. It's so easy to get into...not boring in any part...and the acting is great. The dialogue seems fresh...not cliche. Parker Posey has always possessed a lot of energy and it definitely comes in handy here. James Frain (as the visionary architect with the huge ego) is absolutely amazing.
The couple's frayed marriage is believable, since the two people are so incredibly different. She is highly creative (you can tell by her vivid accessories, never ending style of coats, and messy "craft" room).
He is very logical and practical, involved in some financial career and worried about having enough "storage space" in the new home the couple is building.
Then in waltzes The Architect...this highly egotistical modernist who immediately sweeps the wife off her feet...creatively speaking, anyway.
I definitely recommend this unique movie. I feel the writing is very intelligent, and that is not easy to find in this day and age. I would have given the movie a "10", but the ending is a little wonky.
I suppose the movie gives architects a bad name. But my husband is a millworker who works with architects all the time, and he complains about their "artistic visions" that are not anchored in practicality. So maybe that's one reason I appreciate this little-known gem of a picture.
Other than that, I just found it very watchable. It's so easy to get into...not boring in any part...and the acting is great. The dialogue seems fresh...not cliche. Parker Posey has always possessed a lot of energy and it definitely comes in handy here. James Frain (as the visionary architect with the huge ego) is absolutely amazing.
The couple's frayed marriage is believable, since the two people are so incredibly different. She is highly creative (you can tell by her vivid accessories, never ending style of coats, and messy "craft" room).
He is very logical and practical, involved in some financial career and worried about having enough "storage space" in the new home the couple is building.
Then in waltzes The Architect...this highly egotistical modernist who immediately sweeps the wife off her feet...creatively speaking, anyway.
I definitely recommend this unique movie. I feel the writing is very intelligent, and that is not easy to find in this day and age. I would have given the movie a "10", but the ending is a little wonky.
The film is very simple, limited, and disrespectful especially with architects
lynnyzr1 August 2017
The film could be the typical simple story of a couple in crisis if it wouldn't be entitle The architect. It could have been another film for the weekend, but all the characters where very limited in their story, and as a result a cliché. The business man was all about practicality not passion, the opposite of the artist: passion not practicality. The builder was a big man that thinks only on materials and cost, meanwhile the architect was an imperative man of only form not functionality neither economy of material and energy. With architects, I know that you could have all sorts of ideas and ways of solving one same problem; but at least one, is going to be a balance between efficiency, beauty and functionality. I also know that most of them are stubborn and well trained in the business of selling and idea that could or not be what you wanted, but you'll love it anyway. What an architect will never do is to become a shadow of a person in order of constructing a building while betraying architecture, for two important reasons: they love architecture above all; and their passion is to create a nice design that could endure through generations and allow them to feel that they have contributed somehow to our societies and cities. This film shows anything but a real architect and it is disrespectful to the responsibilities they take every day creating spaces where we could meet, chat, sit down and enjoy a sunset, hospitals or just homes. And also with the hours they spend trying to design the space that their clients need and desire.
Everything was rushed--no substance, plot, character-little even of the philosophy it peddles
edmundgrieg-8038826 April 2018
There are two characters in this movie. The husband needed to be fleshed out, or he was just an annoying one-dimensional sideshow. There was also a baby that came along and was ignored. There was a twist at the end. Even the obvious romance was glossed over. If the film was not gonna give us anything else, that would have sufficed. No. One shag and they don't talk until the end. When the twist all happens in two minutes. I didn't have a problem with the things the architect says, but this isn't a message about art either, because that was also not given time. Just a bit more footage would have made it at least make sense. Surely savaged by the editor, to make it quippy and funny, when it didn't need to be.
Horribly senseless film
dieulepere13 November 2017
This had got yo be one of the worst movies of the year. James Frain wasn't funny. He actually turned my stomach he was so bad. Granted, the role he was given was a ridiculously written character but he did absolutely nothing to try to bring the character to life in any way. There was do much more that could have been done with this film. As it stands it was a poor 21st century remake of "The Money Pit" but with no stars with any talent and little future based on this ridiculous farce. Bleck.
Was There a Purpose?
westsideschl29 December 2018
Poor quality DVD with no menu & no subtitles w/hollow sounding audio. It was like a cheaply made high school stage play.
Not quite sure of the purpose/plot/theme to this. A couple w/lots of money buy a rundown house w/a great quiet view near Seattle (used to be true 'till Amazon congested the place w/lemmings following the money) and hire an architect to turn it into their dream house. Lots of disagreement/arguing as to design. Eventually it's a design based on a half cut Nautilus shell (I have an almost identical one - very cool), but not too practical. Predictable.
And the moral of the story is...
thebadgeresss17 September 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Normally I don't judge a movie, when the protagonists act wrong, but this here... Oh my...
How on earth could that woman stay with her disgusting, unsexy, stupid, selfish, superficial husband? The architect was kind of weird but at least somehow loveable.
She should just have turned away from both of them.
With an ending like that - what's the moral behind?
Trust the broker, let him be the worst influence on your child and do childish paintings on houses?
2 stars because James Frain is great like always.
But even he could not turn a very poor script into a good movie.
My advise: stay away from this nonsense!
This movie is funny, quirky and intelligent - and definitely, different!
nmerczel19 November 2016
First, the bad (to get that out of the way). The characters in this movie are very cliché. Most people in real life are a combination of characteristics (say, creative and practical), not so these people. They are extreme.
Also - the ending of this movie is quite unsatisfying. I kept expecting....more. There was this build up, build up, build up....and then...fizzle, as though the writer just wanted to be "done with it all."
Now, the good! I laughed! This movie is weird and quirky (with the look, feel and sound of an independent film)..and FUNNY! However, it's not funny in the usual slap-sticky, juvenile or vulgar way that so many comedies TRY to be funny these days. It's actually funny in an INTELLIGENT way - imagine that!
In fact, the movie has a more "adult" feel then most current movies which seem geared for the under 25 age group. (I always wondered what happened to Parker Posey)!
In the movie, the couple hires an architect to design their new waterfront home. Bear in mind, the couple's marriage seems fine (mostly, except you do see some "handwriting on the wall indicating lingering problems) Until....well, THE ARCHITECT enters into their lives.
The architect is an odd off-beat character who has plenty of his OWN artistic ideas (thereby raising the cost of the project every time he opens his mouth). The wife, in the movie, is enthralled. Her more practical husband? Not so much, thus setting the stage for those marital problems we saw coming.
Most of the humor in this movie lies squarely with the character of the architecture and his overly artistic and impractical view of architecture and the world at large. Anybody who has such extreme views plays well in a comedic sense, and this guy is no exception.
For the most part, the writing and acting in this movie are quite good (especially for a movie I had never heard of before). As I said, though, unfortunately, the ending is a bit lackluster (oh well).
My advice? This movie is fun (and interesting) to watch ONCE, just because it is so unique and...weirdly funny! Although I must admit, I would not buy this movie - unless, maybe, I could find it really cheap.
Also - the ending of this movie is quite unsatisfying. I kept expecting....more. There was this build up, build up, build up....and then...fizzle, as though the writer just wanted to be "done with it all."
Now, the good! I laughed! This movie is weird and quirky (with the look, feel and sound of an independent film)..and FUNNY! However, it's not funny in the usual slap-sticky, juvenile or vulgar way that so many comedies TRY to be funny these days. It's actually funny in an INTELLIGENT way - imagine that!
In fact, the movie has a more "adult" feel then most current movies which seem geared for the under 25 age group. (I always wondered what happened to Parker Posey)!
In the movie, the couple hires an architect to design their new waterfront home. Bear in mind, the couple's marriage seems fine (mostly, except you do see some "handwriting on the wall indicating lingering problems) Until....well, THE ARCHITECT enters into their lives.
The architect is an odd off-beat character who has plenty of his OWN artistic ideas (thereby raising the cost of the project every time he opens his mouth). The wife, in the movie, is enthralled. Her more practical husband? Not so much, thus setting the stage for those marital problems we saw coming.
Most of the humor in this movie lies squarely with the character of the architecture and his overly artistic and impractical view of architecture and the world at large. Anybody who has such extreme views plays well in a comedic sense, and this guy is no exception.
For the most part, the writing and acting in this movie are quite good (especially for a movie I had never heard of before). As I said, though, unfortunately, the ending is a bit lackluster (oh well).
My advice? This movie is fun (and interesting) to watch ONCE, just because it is so unique and...weirdly funny! Although I must admit, I would not buy this movie - unless, maybe, I could find it really cheap.
Ending to this movie
beckymcg-332995 March 2017
I like this movie, the characters and the actors portraying them. I've watched this movie many times and at the very end, when hubby and baby are passing by a smallish house and he stops, looks and grabs a flyer; what is the meaning behind this ending? Maybe it's obvious, but I don't know, so would love opinions!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
