Aristides-2 Some thoughts on this dog of a movie: Cary Grant and George Clooney, both of whom could act charmingly on screen never attempted to carry a film just with that quality. Mr Franco, you don't have the restraint, judgment or charm of Grant or Clooney. Give acting via characterization a try. Poor Ms. Heard, seemingly a naif, is to be believed to be a crime reporter for the NY Times? More likely that she is a children's book reviewer limited to books for ages 3 and under. Also highly laughable was the amount of free time she had while on the Times' nickel. Cynthia Nixon had what can be described as a thankless role; that of a slavishly loyal agent who still 'believes' in Franco's cosmic talent even after he's caught publicly in a massive lie. And we're to believe that a major publisher would still back this liar after such a damaging disclosure? The straw that broke the dromedary's back for me re screenplay however was when the barely-in-control father (Ed Harris), looking like a bum, was somehow able to find out the address of a N.Y. Times reporter and tape a post-it to 'her door'. Enough. I surrender. I turn off the player and go watch a real movie, "Chicken With Plums" in this instance.

Attila Tormus I like the balance in "The Adderall Diaries" as well as performances of the director Pamela Romanowsky and artists (James Franco and Ed Harris). The balance of between different way of seeing. We all may storytellers and we like telling the stories how we perceive and/or how we want to see the truth. We may sometime get closer the truth or we may create our own truth. The movie perfectly depicts this by keeping another well-created family story in the background. The story-telling way of the movie gives freedom to the audience without applying or imposing one way. Very successful direction and James Franco plays perfectly. No need to say how Ed Harris has been a shiny masterpiece. Thank to all.

tamara-abikhalil When I heard there was a movie about a struggling writer and a murder trial, I couldn't wait to have my pop corn ready and my DVD on. Oh how wrong I was. Being a movie lover, I NEVER stop a movie before it's over, no matter how bad it is. Well I stopped this one around 50 minutes into it (if it was going to get better it would've). Aside from the impersonal and bad improvising-like script, Amber Heard gave such an apathetic performance, through which all I could think about was GET YOUR DAMN HAIR OFF YOUR FACE. There was no attachment whatsoever to any of the characters, the "love story" between Heard and Franco was more of a porn/badly done 50 shades of gray bdsm relationship; I mean half an hour into the movie and more than 5 sex scenes and no interesting storyline yet. The abused/drug addict couple has been such a cliché that we honestly do not need new ones. All in all the story had such a potential that both the actors and the director failed to develop to make it interesting.The abused kid who transfers his hatred onto any case that seems identical to his past is TOO deja vu. My advice: don't bother watching. All you will end up seeing is a cascade of drug use, bad sex scenes and meaningless script (that's ironic for a movie about a writer).

dinterpreting I can usually tell if I'll like a film in the first 5 minutes. This film had me at minute 1. All the actors are excellent. The themes are thought provoking, something I think just about everyone can relate to. We all have different memories of our childhood. One sister or brother remembers it one way, you another, and the parents yet another. I have found that over time I want to strengthen my memories, or at least have them be justified and validated. Perhaps we each begin justifying and validating our memories to fit a certain story. How often do our memories paint us in a better light and someone else in a less admirable position. Can we be unbiased in our memories?