Brigid O Sullivan (wisewebwoman) I didn't expect much from this DVD picked up in a remainder bin. I was in for a delightful surprise.Based on a stage play by David Grieg, the story draws together the main theme of Leo Waters, played with nuance and emotional subtlety by Anthony Paglia, the architect and his design of a building project several years ago and his subsequent disconnection from it, reflected in the disconnection from his wife, Julia (Isabella Rosellini) who is completely underused, and his children.The film begins with Leo's son, Martin, dropping out from college. Martin is troubled, furtive and secretive.Viola Davis is the activist in the projects, eager to tear down the buildings and get the area cleaned up who butts heads with Leo.Hayden Panatierre plays the teenage daughter just coming into her own sexuality and experimenting in bars and stranger hookups unbeknownst to her parents. An excellent performance.How all these threads come together, and in some cases come apart, is the heart of the movie. The audience is expected to think and draw their own conclusions and the ending is very satisfying, an emotional confrontation between a father and son.The cast are flawless as is the script and the quick incisive simultaneous snapshots of different scenes move the story arc forward.8 out of 10. Not to be missed.

John Holden When I read the synopsis and saw that it was made from a play I wondered "How will they work into a story about a project the requisite themes of repressed women, depressed women, teenage angst, and a guy struggling w/ homosexuality but then giving in?" They do that, and so much more. Here's how: A white male architect built a project some years earlier. It's falling apart (maybe) and is dangerous.A black woman lives there with her unwed-mother daughter. Her other daughter is an honor student and lives elsewhere. The woman heads up a group to destroy the project. Her 5-year-old son was depressed and stepped off a building to his death years earlier. The honor student comes to visit; mom gives her some homemade cake; the daughter throws it away later.The architect's son comes home from college, makes some comments about his sisters sn*tch (his word) and his dad's lechery; then he goes to the project where he meets a gay black kid. They flirt; the son is repelled; but he gets some beer and comes back; they walk around the project at night through gang members selling drugs. The gang members don't taunt them. After much dialogue about gay things, they have (explicit) sex on a rooftop.The 15-year-old daughter is beautiful, has a nice body, seems stable. But she's depressed because she has to go to the mall with her parents. Maybe she also has too many clothes or shoes. Or her breasts are too big.She lies that she's in college, goes to a bar, gets picked up, gets scared, is saved by a ~35-year-old delivery guy; they ride around all night in the delivery truck, she comes on to him, he says no and takes her home.The architect's wife is depressed - her BMW is too new, her custom house too clean and neat, her maid too careful, she has too much money - it's hard to tell. She starts breaking flower pots in the back yard at night and stares into space. The architect puts cigarette ashes on a saucer; she breaks the saucer; he gives her a neck rub; she asks for a divorce.The black kid steps off the roof - perhaps he didn't realize that being gay meant being gay? The son goes out to the project. The architect goes out for a different reason. None of the gang members bother them, even though they've been threatening others. They meet on the rooftop.

grbell Apart from seeing his Blue Velvet starlet in a perfect role for her age group, the movie makes you ask questions. This movie really makes people look at cause and effect. It doesn't place blame, rather shows implications of well intentioned, ignorant motivations. As a viewer, you may have to do some soul searching in order to fully enjoy the movie. The meaning of each scene as it is broken up, is a definite plus. At first I was put off by the back and forth breakup of the shots but soon began to conform to the format. I liked the performances of all the actors. It was nice to see Rosselini in her usual subdued role and equally effective. To see the lead actor in a spectacular role I might suggest Lantana!

transient-2 Imagine yourself on a riverbank prodding mud with a stick; the dirt is unsettled, stirs in the water, settles down again. In this film we're introduced to a number of characters who cross paths, and whose conflicts overlap on occasion before settling to a passive resolution.The confrontation between the architect of a dilapidated housing project and a dissatisfied resident forms the central vein in a network of sadly uninteresting stories.There is no surprise, and no insight brought to the representation of a young girl who in alienation craves affection; nor to the truck driver who doesn't want to ruin her first time; nor to the teenage boy accepting he's gay, nor to the grieving mother in the projects and finally, there is no insight into the proud man who doesn't want to admit his ego blinds him. Here we find a few people we've all seen before. They barely talk to each other and - unlike real people - when they do talk they say exactly what you'd expect them to say. Don't be tricked into thinking this film is asking any kind of question about family or race. If that's true, what's the question? The pretentious and two-dimensional nature of this writing is most transparent in the final scene wherein the architect and his son meet on a rooftop in the projects. Finally they have something to talk about: through my actions I have been the architect of someone's suffering, but there was no indication that I should have done anything differently - like father like son? Well, here the film ends abruptly, safe, risk-free. Not taking risks in your writing is not especially clever, let's not make a point of it.And unlike any number of films where stronger character sketches guide the narrative, time is linear in this picture; you won't see events intertwining or taking place simultaneously, nothing is revealed as cause or effect. "Crash", to which this film has been compared, and "American Beauty" had engaging narrative formats that compelled you to unravel a mystery. A director is an architect of sorts, and the director of this film is just like the architect he depicts - he's merely housing people in a flat, familiar, boring rectangle. There's no drama or vision, so we have to ask: what's the function?