leplatypus Well, i should try for a spot of Hollywood screenwriter, as this movie is just full of absurdities that it's hard to believe that people believe in it. To put it simply, a clean and young graduate is anxious with his future. So far, it's OK as classic did it before ("the graduate" for example). To bite the life, he hangs up with a free couple during his summer break. Still nothing to blame as this age is indeed for this kind of experience. But, then, crash: the father is Pittsburg's Maffia Don: Why ?? Is it again the problem to be respectable? In all cases, Nolte is a poor godfather and all the clichés are abused. Worst, this triangular friendship evolves not into a threesome but in another homosexuality struck! Even if he "does" Sienna, he finally discovers that he prefers his boyfriend and ready to live as a couple of thugs!!! Well, all this homo silly stories by straight people is like having a debate about feminism with only men: it's just unbelievable. However, Sarsgaard is always good for this misfit character and Sienna is sympathetic with her gentle, soft, smiling spirit. And it was good to come back to Pittsburg and unlike "Flashdance", this time we have a taste of its rural beauty.

Twins65 I must 1st admit I've not read the book, which apparently is way better than this film adaptation according to the general consensus here at IMDb. I was warned to stay far away from this movie.But I FINALLY saw it anyway, almost 7 full years after Sienna Miller made entertainment headlines trashing Pittsburgh in an interview while filming there on location. The film wasn't easy to track down, as I found a DVD through an interlibrary loan. I'm glad I watched it, but can't really recommend it.As indie movies go, I thought it had decent production values, including respected actors (Nolte, Sarsgaard, Suvari & Miller). I was unfamiliar with the work of Jon Foster (but his brother Ben can really bring it at times), and thought he was just OK as the lead. Perhaps a more dynamic young actor would have brought more to the production, but he's not the reason I'm giving this a below-average rating.The story was decent enough, but it just never really felt like I was watching a movie set in '83. Outside of Sienna's beat up VW Beetle and Sarsgaard's convertible, there was nothing to peg this as "early 80's"! I realize Pittsburgh has had roughly the same look for years, but couldn't they at least have thrown in some more "visuals" or music from that era to bring home it was 1983? The producers could have used more early 80's indie rock during the movie if they couldn't afford the rights for major label material from that era. And that punk club scene looked more like something you'd see in a retro themed inner-city dive in Chicago these days than a packed bar in Pitt. 30 years ago. I'm giving this 1 extra star (4 instead of 3) for having the punk band play a cover of The Replacements' God Damn Job off their '82 EP "Stink". I never, ever thought I'd hear that cut in movie! This movie is worth a look only if it pops up on IFC or Sundance at some point, but I've never seen it playing there.

chatfieldbatham This was a beautiful but ultimately confusing film.There is an impressive cast of photogenic and talented actors, but the editing seems to have left parts of the story, which would explain its progression, out.As a result, the story of the 'last' summer for the character played by Foster, it is only partly believable, and the poignancy that one can sense was aimed at, is missed.There is good acting by the main actors, but the lines provided and the editing leave a lot to be desired.It is worth seeing, but ultimately leads to a mix of emotions at the end, and not ones intended by the director.

jotix100 Michael Chabon's 1988 novel " The Mysteries of Pittsburgh" was a novel about coming of age for a young man. The book is a fine account of a summer in the life of Art Bechstein, the son of a mobster who falls for Jane, a young woman, who is in love with another man. There is no doubt in our minds Rawson Marshall Thurber had the best intentions when he decided to adapt, then direct, this beloved work of many for the screen.The problem seems to be in the way Art comes out in the movie, where he also serves as the narrator as well. The way Mr. Thurber conceived his main character does not resonate with the viewer. It is never quite clear what did Jane and Cleveland see in this bland person to befriend and be part of a group; they are unevenly matched, to say the least.Cleveland is the most complex character in the novel. He is a bisexual man that is in the equation for the thrills he can get out of his situation with Jane. Art finds out soon enough what Cleveland is all about, but in the end he too is seduced by a guy that is a manipulator of the worse kind. It is also hard to believe, the way Cleveland is presented in the film he is the criminal he is supposed to be. Art, on the other hand, appears to be a closet homosexual, in spite of the sexual relationship he was having with Phlox, something that seems contrived and phony.Any film in which Peter Sarsgaard appears is worth a look. He is the most lively character in the picture. Mena Suvari shows up as a brunette with such a different look. It is hard to recognize her at first. Ms. Suvari is at her best in the film. Jon Foster is too bland to get anyone's attention. Nick Nolte plays Art's father. Sienna Miller, in spite of her looks, is an enigma in the movie.One thing that plays well is Theodore Shapiro's fine musical score. It gives the picture some class. Michael Barrett captures the spirit of the city, and its surrounding area in great images.