It's difficult to really determine what this films true intention was at first, but then you realize that this movie is more honest and open then you hope for. It's deep to say the least, it really pulls you in and makes you feel for the characters involved, especially Jeremy Irons Character (past and present). The true price of falsely claiming a work of art is yours isn't the guilt that you didn't write it, its the realization that you could never create it on your own. This movie is inspiring as it is overwhelming, not to be taken into high regard but it was very much worth paying attention to. If you write, if you draw, if you create anything that makes you proud that you did it, share it, if not you will regret it for the rest of your life, that was the true message of this film.
184 Reviews
Could Have Been Better
imdb-1828210 January 2013
The Words is a story within a story within a story. I absolutely loved the story within the story. A masterful telling of an intriguing situation with wonderful acting and believable emotions that, at both levels, tugged at my heart strings. However, the third level added very little, or should I say distracted from the rest. It was meant to put a twist on the story within the story, to make the viewer think and wonder, but it was mostly a distraction, and the acting was far inferior to the other two levels. The producers should have seen this but instead, they took something great and made it good. Another reviewer said somewhere that negative reviews were from people who "didn't get it". That's pretty conceited by them to think that they were the only ones who got it. Trust me, I got it, I just didn't like it. All that being said, it was still worth watching, if only for the two inner layers.
Too much telling, too little showing
i-Shuvo14 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
"The Words" is a movie about a writer writing about a writer who has stolen another writer's work about his life as a writer. It sounds cerebral on paper, but it's not, in practice. It's easy enough to follow, but the narratives are nesting dolls of decreasing value.
The Irons-narrated Paris scenes are by far the most engrossing; the story is about as deep as a supermarket page-turner, but it's easy to believe such a sepia-toned romance would make for a best-seller.
When The Princess Bride, for instance, used the device of the storyteller as narrator, it managed to interrupt and return to its stories playfully and charmingly. This film's layered storytelling lacks the fluidity, grace, or good humour, to pull off its conceit.
It's always dangerous ground to create a fictional work that centers on fictional artists who are revered geniuses of their craft. If you're going to make up a musician, a painter, a writer, then you have to be prepared to show their music, their paintings, their words. When it comes to Jansen's stolen best-seller, the film wisely only shows us obscure flashes of ink-stained manuscript, relying instead on Jeremy Irons' velvet-voiced narration to sell the image in a way that Hammond's stilted prose utterly fails to do.
Though flawed, the film is a promising debut from first-time directors Brian Klugman and Lee Sternthal. Love went into the production -- there's care in the framing and cinematography, the scoring, the recurring visual motifs. A little romance takes the movie a long way.
But its romance can also rankle. Take, for instance, its representation of the struggling writer. There are no sleepless nights in drafty garrets, no dinners of ramen noodles, no piles of unpaid bills. Instead, there are handsomely outfitted New York lofts, tailored blazers and Paris honeymoons, all funded on an office mail clerk's salary, apparently.
In the end, the film's Achilles' heel is an unfortunate one for a serious-minded literary drama about writers - its screenplay.
The Irons-narrated Paris scenes are by far the most engrossing; the story is about as deep as a supermarket page-turner, but it's easy to believe such a sepia-toned romance would make for a best-seller.
When The Princess Bride, for instance, used the device of the storyteller as narrator, it managed to interrupt and return to its stories playfully and charmingly. This film's layered storytelling lacks the fluidity, grace, or good humour, to pull off its conceit.
It's always dangerous ground to create a fictional work that centers on fictional artists who are revered geniuses of their craft. If you're going to make up a musician, a painter, a writer, then you have to be prepared to show their music, their paintings, their words. When it comes to Jansen's stolen best-seller, the film wisely only shows us obscure flashes of ink-stained manuscript, relying instead on Jeremy Irons' velvet-voiced narration to sell the image in a way that Hammond's stilted prose utterly fails to do.
Though flawed, the film is a promising debut from first-time directors Brian Klugman and Lee Sternthal. Love went into the production -- there's care in the framing and cinematography, the scoring, the recurring visual motifs. A little romance takes the movie a long way.
But its romance can also rankle. Take, for instance, its representation of the struggling writer. There are no sleepless nights in drafty garrets, no dinners of ramen noodles, no piles of unpaid bills. Instead, there are handsomely outfitted New York lofts, tailored blazers and Paris honeymoons, all funded on an office mail clerk's salary, apparently.
In the end, the film's Achilles' heel is an unfortunate one for a serious-minded literary drama about writers - its screenplay.
Highly Underrated
chandlerneal8 September 2014
The Words opens with author Clay Hammond (Denis Quaid) giving a reading for his recent best-selling book, The Words. Hammond's reading takes us into the life of his character, Rory Jansen (Bradley Cooper), a young author struggling to publish his books make ends meet.
One night, Jansen discovers an old manuscript hidden in an antique briefcase that his wife Dora (Zoe Saldana) purchased for him on their honeymoon in Paris. He reads the yellowed first-draft of the novel, marveling at the unknown author's talent.
Jansen struggles with what he should do with the masterpiece he's found. Eventually, he decides to type the entire novel on his laptop so he can "feel the words flow" through his own fingers.
When his wife sees the novel on his computer, she—in typical Hollywood fashion—assumes he wrote it and praises him for his depth and creativity before he has a chance to tell her the truth.
From here, the film skips back and forth between the fictional Rory and Dora Jansen, and the story of their creator, Clay Hammond.
Rory publishes the manuscript under his own name and struggles with the repercussions, while in "real life," Hammond flirts with a young college student named Daniella (Olivia Wilde) at his sophisticated book reading. Despite the film's fluctuating story lines, The Words' plot is addictively intriguing and surprisingly easy to follow. My family doesn't often sit down to watch a movie without a magazine or iPad in hand, but this movie kept us all riveted.
It's also worth noting that we had our eyes glued to the screen in the absence of explosions, sex scenes, or significant amounts of humor. The film's mysterious and captivating plot line—along with simple but genuine characters—were enough to hold our attention.
The story expands when the true author of Jansen's novel (Jeremy Irons, the "Old Man") approaches Jansen and reveals his heart-wrenching account of the loss of his manuscript and family. His tale transports us to Paris during World War II, adding another captivating plot line to the already multi-layered story.
In addition to an elevated storyline, the Old Man's account in the movie adds a deeper visual element to the film. A relatively low-budget, low-key film, The Words clearly made the most of its production site in Montreal, Canada. Shots of present-day New York and 1940s Paris are both believable and idealistic, effortlessly transporting viewers from modern day to war time.
As Bradley Cooper's character becomes a liar of extraordinary proportions, I still found myself rooting for him throughout the film. Jansen's shortcomings raise many stimulating questions about truth and integrity, while his struggle for achievement and creativity makes him highly relatable (especially as a writer).
While the movie held my interest the majority of the time, I felt much less invested in the real-life storyline of author Clay Hammond's and student Daniella. The only thing that kept me interested in the seedy, wealthy author and his adoring fan was the question of how they tied in to Rory Jansen's story.
And that is, perhaps, the great mystery of the film—why does Rory Jansen matter to Clay Hammond, and vice versa?
The pursuit of an answer to this question, along with stimulating questions of integrity and consequence are what make The Words a must-see movie for anyone who desires meaningful conversation at the end of a film. It makes us question our motives and beliefs, and it gives a sympathetic face to the "struggling artist" stigma. Considering I'd never heard of the movie until I rented it, I'd say it's highly underrated.
One night, Jansen discovers an old manuscript hidden in an antique briefcase that his wife Dora (Zoe Saldana) purchased for him on their honeymoon in Paris. He reads the yellowed first-draft of the novel, marveling at the unknown author's talent.
Jansen struggles with what he should do with the masterpiece he's found. Eventually, he decides to type the entire novel on his laptop so he can "feel the words flow" through his own fingers.
When his wife sees the novel on his computer, she—in typical Hollywood fashion—assumes he wrote it and praises him for his depth and creativity before he has a chance to tell her the truth.
From here, the film skips back and forth between the fictional Rory and Dora Jansen, and the story of their creator, Clay Hammond.
Rory publishes the manuscript under his own name and struggles with the repercussions, while in "real life," Hammond flirts with a young college student named Daniella (Olivia Wilde) at his sophisticated book reading. Despite the film's fluctuating story lines, The Words' plot is addictively intriguing and surprisingly easy to follow. My family doesn't often sit down to watch a movie without a magazine or iPad in hand, but this movie kept us all riveted.
It's also worth noting that we had our eyes glued to the screen in the absence of explosions, sex scenes, or significant amounts of humor. The film's mysterious and captivating plot line—along with simple but genuine characters—were enough to hold our attention.
The story expands when the true author of Jansen's novel (Jeremy Irons, the "Old Man") approaches Jansen and reveals his heart-wrenching account of the loss of his manuscript and family. His tale transports us to Paris during World War II, adding another captivating plot line to the already multi-layered story.
In addition to an elevated storyline, the Old Man's account in the movie adds a deeper visual element to the film. A relatively low-budget, low-key film, The Words clearly made the most of its production site in Montreal, Canada. Shots of present-day New York and 1940s Paris are both believable and idealistic, effortlessly transporting viewers from modern day to war time.
As Bradley Cooper's character becomes a liar of extraordinary proportions, I still found myself rooting for him throughout the film. Jansen's shortcomings raise many stimulating questions about truth and integrity, while his struggle for achievement and creativity makes him highly relatable (especially as a writer).
While the movie held my interest the majority of the time, I felt much less invested in the real-life storyline of author Clay Hammond's and student Daniella. The only thing that kept me interested in the seedy, wealthy author and his adoring fan was the question of how they tied in to Rory Jansen's story.
And that is, perhaps, the great mystery of the film—why does Rory Jansen matter to Clay Hammond, and vice versa?
The pursuit of an answer to this question, along with stimulating questions of integrity and consequence are what make The Words a must-see movie for anyone who desires meaningful conversation at the end of a film. It makes us question our motives and beliefs, and it gives a sympathetic face to the "struggling artist" stigma. Considering I'd never heard of the movie until I rented it, I'd say it's highly underrated.
Intelligently Filmed Story within a Story within a Story
doug_park200118 April 2013
While subdued and a little slow-moving, THE WORDS is a good--and not too heavy-handed--modern morality tale of how one serious act of dishonesty irreversibly affects a writer's entire life and career. The fact that his act would be difficult to ever prove or prosecute only makes things worse in many ways for Rory Jansen. The various additional elements of suspense and romance help to create a unique combination.
Interesting plot-structure: No huge twists or surprises, but everything fits together with slow, subtle tension. The acting ranges from tepid to quite good. Various details are also important; it might be a good idea, for example, to freeze-frame and read the rejection letters that Rory Jansen receives toward the beginning. A lot of people apparently don't like the way THE WORDS ends, but I sure do. Along with "the old man"'s embedded tale, the conversations between best-selling author Clay Hammond and fan/aspiring author Daniella are easily the most engaging aspects of this film.
Anyone with interests in fiction writing, the publishing industry, and/or related subjects will probably find THE WORDS a compelling enough film; those without such interests, however, may find it pretty dull. Even for the latter folks, I would also recommend SHATTERED GLASS (2004), starring Hayden Christensen, which has a similar conflict, a faster pace, and generally better acting.
Interesting plot-structure: No huge twists or surprises, but everything fits together with slow, subtle tension. The acting ranges from tepid to quite good. Various details are also important; it might be a good idea, for example, to freeze-frame and read the rejection letters that Rory Jansen receives toward the beginning. A lot of people apparently don't like the way THE WORDS ends, but I sure do. Along with "the old man"'s embedded tale, the conversations between best-selling author Clay Hammond and fan/aspiring author Daniella are easily the most engaging aspects of this film.
Anyone with interests in fiction writing, the publishing industry, and/or related subjects will probably find THE WORDS a compelling enough film; those without such interests, however, may find it pretty dull. Even for the latter folks, I would also recommend SHATTERED GLASS (2004), starring Hayden Christensen, which has a similar conflict, a faster pace, and generally better acting.
The Words...3 out of 4 Skittles
FilmStallion8 September 2012
The Words is an engaging film, and almost feels more like a book on screen. And like a good book, it quickly reins you in and keeps entertaining until the end. The writer/director team of Brian Klugman & Lee Sternthal is miles away from their script for the forgettable Tron: Legacy. With The Words they take their time by using their catchy story within a story technique to develop their intriguing characters. The Words may not have the heft compared to other favorites for Best Original Screenplay come this Oscar season, but it is respectable feat for the writer/director duo. Bradley Cooper (The Hangover, Limitless) delivers a nice subtle performance as a struggling writer drowning in a sea of desperation. Cooper continues to hack out diverse performances that continue to show his range and win over more fans. He's proving that he is not just Hollywood's latest flavor of the week. The rest of the cast is strong, and headlined by Jeremy Irons (The Man in the Iron Mask, Being Julia) as a broken down old man surprised to see his long lost book on the best-seller list with some young punk's name attached. The Words was dumped into theaters on what is historically known as the worst weekend for movie attendance, and most likely won't garner much of an audience. The film will also have trouble living up to the competition come Oscar season, but it delivers an entertaining and appealing film on the first weekend of fall award season releases.
Jeremy Irons is superb
bbewnylorac16 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
For me, Jeremy Irons is the star here in one of his best roles, as the old man who shines the moral light on the central character Rory Jensen. The camera loves Irons, and the director lets him take his sweet time to tell his amazing story. I think Bradley Cooper, while he is handsome, is wrong for the Jensen role. He was good in the early scenes but seemed too healthy and happy when he was supposed to be absolutely crushed later on. I liked that his character wasn't a total loser, i.e. he was a loving husband and he tried to make amends for his sins, albeit after he was caught out. The women actors in the film, except for the young French actress, were talented but largely wasted and seemed to be more there as eye candy. I liked that the film had a very ambitious, intelligent script. It didn't always hit the mark, but it did make you think, which these days is quite rare in Hollywood.
Surprisingly Amazing Emotional Story
mjblack1310 September 2012
The Words draws you in with its beautiful cinematography and engaged dialog. I was especially impressed with the layers of the presentation. Most films these days will spoon feed you a flat story and leave no room for personal interpretation. The Words layers a complex open-ended plot that demands viewer involvement. I was surprised with the simple surface story presented as each deeper layer was uncovered. Sometimes it came as a subtle hint when other times it hits you straight in the face. The film has the flavor of Memento or Inception; which is refreshing these days. Bradley Cooper surpassed my expectations. I never once saw his type-cast Hangover/Limitless ticks or mannerisms. He was completely in touch with the character and never fell back on default techniques.
Emotions speaking louder than words
TheLittleSongbird19 August 2019
Two of the biggest main selling points in seeing any film are a great concept and a great cast. 'The Words' has both, have not come across a concept this ambitious and intriguing for any film in a long time and when you have a cast that includes Bradley Cooper, Dennis Quaid and Jeremy Irons one cannot help expect great things. It sounds like a treat if you are somebody who loves literature, am very much one of those people.
Watching 'The Words', it was an interesting film, well made and mostly well acted with intriguing and heartfelt moments. Part of me felt though that it could and should have been much more, worth watching definitely but very uneven. It is not a waste of potential, as there are things that are done very well and a lot of effort went into it. It is sadly unfortunate that the full potential is nowhere near close to being full lived up to, which is so frustrating and a real shame.
Beginning with the strengths, 'The Words' is a very good-looking film, the photography making for some truly beautiful images and Paris especially of the locations is strikingly captured. The music matches the film's understated tone with a subtle, melancholic edge without tugging at the heart strings too much. Some of the dialogue is truly thought-provoking, with some inspired references, especially that of the Old Man's.
Although the story-within-a-story-within-a-story structure doesn't completely come together, a lot of the inner story elements intrigue and move. The Old Man's, one of the more interesting characters of the film too, past scenes make for the most engrossing story and the one that had my attention the whole time. The acting mostly very good, the acting honours going to Jeremy Irons in a very touching and suitably enigmatic performance as The Old Man. Ben Barnes touches the heart too, while Bradley Cooper tones down the intensity that can be seen in other performances of his and the subtlety is effective. Zoe Saldana is much more than just decoration, there is not a lot to her role but she makes the most of it and does it with charm.
Sadly, 'The Words' is dragged down badly by the "real life" story, to the extent that it nearly but not completely ruins the film. It was very tedious, with more questions than answers, nothing investable and an aimless pace. The romance is full of cheesy dialogue and doesn't really go anywhere, the chemistry more unintentionally creepy than charming. Found Dennis Quaid's performance too underplayed to the point of phoning in and Olivia Wilde's performance and character were just bizarre.
Letting 'The Words' down significantly too was the ending, which was little more than an incomplete damp-squib. Ambiguity can work, but this attempt at it felt less like ambiguity, this actually felt like an ending started being written, then the writer got distracted and completely forgot about concluding it. Despite the whole literary concept, the film tends to over-explain or things are spoken when they could easily have been shown. A lot of effort went into 'The Words', but it did feel like it tried too hard.
In conclusion, interesting and has a fair share of good things, such as the production values, most of the acting and one particular story strand, but very frustrating with one story and the ending spoiling things badly. 6/10
Watching 'The Words', it was an interesting film, well made and mostly well acted with intriguing and heartfelt moments. Part of me felt though that it could and should have been much more, worth watching definitely but very uneven. It is not a waste of potential, as there are things that are done very well and a lot of effort went into it. It is sadly unfortunate that the full potential is nowhere near close to being full lived up to, which is so frustrating and a real shame.
Beginning with the strengths, 'The Words' is a very good-looking film, the photography making for some truly beautiful images and Paris especially of the locations is strikingly captured. The music matches the film's understated tone with a subtle, melancholic edge without tugging at the heart strings too much. Some of the dialogue is truly thought-provoking, with some inspired references, especially that of the Old Man's.
Although the story-within-a-story-within-a-story structure doesn't completely come together, a lot of the inner story elements intrigue and move. The Old Man's, one of the more interesting characters of the film too, past scenes make for the most engrossing story and the one that had my attention the whole time. The acting mostly very good, the acting honours going to Jeremy Irons in a very touching and suitably enigmatic performance as The Old Man. Ben Barnes touches the heart too, while Bradley Cooper tones down the intensity that can be seen in other performances of his and the subtlety is effective. Zoe Saldana is much more than just decoration, there is not a lot to her role but she makes the most of it and does it with charm.
Sadly, 'The Words' is dragged down badly by the "real life" story, to the extent that it nearly but not completely ruins the film. It was very tedious, with more questions than answers, nothing investable and an aimless pace. The romance is full of cheesy dialogue and doesn't really go anywhere, the chemistry more unintentionally creepy than charming. Found Dennis Quaid's performance too underplayed to the point of phoning in and Olivia Wilde's performance and character were just bizarre.
Letting 'The Words' down significantly too was the ending, which was little more than an incomplete damp-squib. Ambiguity can work, but this attempt at it felt less like ambiguity, this actually felt like an ending started being written, then the writer got distracted and completely forgot about concluding it. Despite the whole literary concept, the film tends to over-explain or things are spoken when they could easily have been shown. A lot of effort went into 'The Words', but it did feel like it tried too hard.
In conclusion, interesting and has a fair share of good things, such as the production values, most of the acting and one particular story strand, but very frustrating with one story and the ending spoiling things badly. 6/10
Story telling at its finest
jesse-goulding18 December 2012
Absent of cheesy one liners, cgi explosions and presumably never ending car chases it was not surprising to see the lack of respect this movie has received. It is telling of our culture to pass by a story, full of such raw, human, emotion, with dis-contempt and frailty.
'The Words' is a movie about life, mistakes and the pain we can all feel inside, and it is this ability to relate that makes it so powerful. It gives me hope, along with a select other few, that cinematic story telling has not simply been reduced to the next ex-cia to shoot up the town, or romantic comedy with the same stale happily ever after ending.
It is real, and comes with the all of the uncertainty and heartbreak of life.
'The Words' is a movie about life, mistakes and the pain we can all feel inside, and it is this ability to relate that makes it so powerful. It gives me hope, along with a select other few, that cinematic story telling has not simply been reduced to the next ex-cia to shoot up the town, or romantic comedy with the same stale happily ever after ending.
It is real, and comes with the all of the uncertainty and heartbreak of life.
Interesting Concept...Okay Delivery
dragora11611 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Interesting concept for the plot, but mired in screenplay editing and, surprisingly, some weak acting.
Not sure if I'm spoiling anything, but:
The movie starts with the author at the reading of his book. The plot of his book is that another author steals the work of an unknown writer, becoming famous, and then meeting an older gentleman (the actual writer). Lots of rich soil to harvest many, many themes from, both moral and psychological.
Sounds great, but...I'm not quite sure if it's the writing, the directing, the screenplay editing, the movie editing, or a combination of all of these, but this is not the best opus from a group of seriously good, if not great, actors. It seemed that the first forty minutes was just a warm-up, because the acting was far superior in the second half of the movie.
Normally, Bradley Cooper is wonderful at playing the small stuff that makes a person humanly interesting. Not here. Dennis Quaid, at the reading of his own novel, is monotone; not very engaging when you're trying to sell a story (both his book & this movie). Even Jeremy Irons, an acting icon, doesn't deliver in the beginning. An example that may be a bit cliché, but it's about facial expression: you know when film characters reminisce, they look off into the distance as if they are peering deeply into the rich haze of their past? Here he seems like he's just looking at something across the way. But, like I said, much improved in the second half.
Zoe Saldana is charming; strong, yet vulnerable. But the real kudos go to Ben Barnes (Jeremy Irons's character as a young man) and Nora Arnezeder. During these segments the movie shines. Beautifully acted as well as filmed. A story you can sink your teeth into: meaty; one that moves you. This is the story stolen by Cooper's character. But then when the movie cuts back to Quaid and his audience, or to Irons and Cooper, the story doesn't seem to have registered with them at all; at least not until much later.
And the writing has something to do with it. When a movie plot hinges around characters that are writers, the screenplay better be damn good. This one hits with World War II-era Paris, but misses with modern New York. The lovely Olivia Wilde is an example. And her character is supposed to be lovely, and smart, and seductive. But here she comes off as a little creepy; a little stalker-ish.
There is another difference between the flashbacks and the present. The flashback characters have less proselytising. Back in the present, when every little thing that your character is feeling, thinking, or learning, is spoken out loud, it almost seems unnecessary to show emotion and thought through facial expressions, body language, gestures, or looks.
There are definitely exceptions, and this an excellent effort. But it takes a lot to balance the passion of directing your own writing with the distance needed to tell a story successfully. And it usually lies with the trimming of the fat. That's why authors need editors.
Again, a potentially great concept, but with okay delivery.
Not sure if I'm spoiling anything, but:
The movie starts with the author at the reading of his book. The plot of his book is that another author steals the work of an unknown writer, becoming famous, and then meeting an older gentleman (the actual writer). Lots of rich soil to harvest many, many themes from, both moral and psychological.
Sounds great, but...I'm not quite sure if it's the writing, the directing, the screenplay editing, the movie editing, or a combination of all of these, but this is not the best opus from a group of seriously good, if not great, actors. It seemed that the first forty minutes was just a warm-up, because the acting was far superior in the second half of the movie.
Normally, Bradley Cooper is wonderful at playing the small stuff that makes a person humanly interesting. Not here. Dennis Quaid, at the reading of his own novel, is monotone; not very engaging when you're trying to sell a story (both his book & this movie). Even Jeremy Irons, an acting icon, doesn't deliver in the beginning. An example that may be a bit cliché, but it's about facial expression: you know when film characters reminisce, they look off into the distance as if they are peering deeply into the rich haze of their past? Here he seems like he's just looking at something across the way. But, like I said, much improved in the second half.
Zoe Saldana is charming; strong, yet vulnerable. But the real kudos go to Ben Barnes (Jeremy Irons's character as a young man) and Nora Arnezeder. During these segments the movie shines. Beautifully acted as well as filmed. A story you can sink your teeth into: meaty; one that moves you. This is the story stolen by Cooper's character. But then when the movie cuts back to Quaid and his audience, or to Irons and Cooper, the story doesn't seem to have registered with them at all; at least not until much later.
And the writing has something to do with it. When a movie plot hinges around characters that are writers, the screenplay better be damn good. This one hits with World War II-era Paris, but misses with modern New York. The lovely Olivia Wilde is an example. And her character is supposed to be lovely, and smart, and seductive. But here she comes off as a little creepy; a little stalker-ish.
There is another difference between the flashbacks and the present. The flashback characters have less proselytising. Back in the present, when every little thing that your character is feeling, thinking, or learning, is spoken out loud, it almost seems unnecessary to show emotion and thought through facial expressions, body language, gestures, or looks.
There are definitely exceptions, and this an excellent effort. But it takes a lot to balance the passion of directing your own writing with the distance needed to tell a story successfully. And it usually lies with the trimming of the fat. That's why authors need editors.
Again, a potentially great concept, but with okay delivery.
"The Words" is amazing!
rdcarmichael-524-27871712 December 2012
I am not sure what Hollywood considers a good movie but I know this is an excellent film. The story is told with such elegance and fluidity that it is a joy to watch. I am buying this movie for my personal collection to make sure that I watch a film, from time to time, that reminds me of art in its highest form. The actors are brilliant, the direction is genius, photography is captivating and the scriptwriting is unparalleled. I completely loved this movie.
Though it was not a blockbuster hit bringing in hundreds of millions, it did earn back its original investment costs and nearly that figure again.
Just when you think you know how it's going to go - the movie bends then twists into another path. Just brilliant!!!
Though it was not a blockbuster hit bringing in hundreds of millions, it did earn back its original investment costs and nearly that figure again.
Just when you think you know how it's going to go - the movie bends then twists into another path. Just brilliant!!!
original drama
antoniotierno22 September 2012
This movie's a clever and entertaining yarn that gets to bear close scrutiny. There's a compelling performance by Jeremy Irons as a fictional writer and a good one(though not excellent) by Bradley Coooper. As in a lot of Hollywood movies set in the world of letters, the connection to the real world of authors and publishers feels weak however, as regards the subject of plagiarism, the movie is portentously effective in handling themes like theft, identity, fiction and reality. One of the many questions it conjures is whether the screenplay is a deliberate attempt to illustrate Clay's mediocrity. The storytelling itself is more interesting than the plot and the finale leaves a little to be desired but on the whole it works.
Contains many fine performances
Gordon-1125 December 2012
This film is about a young struggling writer who makes it big with a manuscript that he did not write.
"The Words" tells the tale of a struggling writer who has to face moral choices after stealing a manuscript. Bradley Cooper carries the role well, and he portrays the internal struggle very well. It is a welcomed change that Bradley Cooper portrays a serious and emotionally tormented role. The scene of his attempt to rectify things in the greenhouse is haunting. Zoe Saldana shines as well as the supportive wife, her plethora of emotions is so natural and convincing. They make a good on screen couple. The Bradley Cooper subplot is quite predictable, but the connection between Bradley Cooper and Dennis Quaid is not immediately apparent. This extra layer gives "The Words" more depth. I think "The Words" has many fine performances, and deserves to be seen.
"The Words" tells the tale of a struggling writer who has to face moral choices after stealing a manuscript. Bradley Cooper carries the role well, and he portrays the internal struggle very well. It is a welcomed change that Bradley Cooper portrays a serious and emotionally tormented role. The scene of his attempt to rectify things in the greenhouse is haunting. Zoe Saldana shines as well as the supportive wife, her plethora of emotions is so natural and convincing. They make a good on screen couple. The Bradley Cooper subplot is quite predictable, but the connection between Bradley Cooper and Dennis Quaid is not immediately apparent. This extra layer gives "The Words" more depth. I think "The Words" has many fine performances, and deserves to be seen.
Engaging but Ambiguous
paigewithnoble22 September 2012
When I saw the trailer for The Words, it definitely sparked my interest. I wasn't all that excited about the cast, however. The stars—Bradley Cooper, Dennis Quaid, and Zoe Saldana—are not exactly my favorite actors. But this dramatic film surprised me in more ways than one.
The story is basically a story within a story—kind of like Inception. The main plot line follows Rory Jansen, a young man struggling to find himself as a writer—that is, until he finds a story he didn't write and gets it published. That story comes from an older man who was stationed in Paris during WWII. And who's telling the story about what happened to Rory when he meets the old man he stole the story from? None other than Dennis Quaid, who is also portrayed as a writer in the film.
I will say that I thought Rory's struggle to find himself as a writer was portrayed pretty well through the screen writing and by Cooper's acting. There's something very relatable about a person not knowing if he is who he wants to be. I could relate to his struggle as a writer, being a wanna-be writer myself, but I thought there was something more universal to the theme—don't we all get lost sometimes? I'm sure there's a time in everyone's life where we all lose sight of who we are, or who we want to be. This is a major theme presented in The Words, which is a big part of why I could relate to the film.
I applaud the makeup artist for Rory's character. There's a particular scene in which Rory was up in the middle of the night trying to write. Rory looked more like a person who might have been sitting next to me in the theater and less like an actor—you could see his pimples and his reddening eyes. It wasn't like in other scenes, or other films, in which the actor has flawless skin and a seemingly perfect complexion. I think Rory's lack of makeup during this scene made him seem more life-like. And I think the fact that he looked like the average human while he was writing symbolized that the only time Rory was truly himself was when he was writing, when he was at home with the words—which, I think, is a huge part of this film.
The ending, without giving anything away, is very ambiguous, to say the least. In my opinion, I do think this kind of story calls for an ending like this, no matter how annoying it may be to some viewers.
As previously mentioned, I'm not a huge fan of the stars in this film. But their performances in The Words proved to me that they can act. Since I'm so used to seeing Bradley Cooper in comedy films, I was skeptical as to whether or not he could pull off the part of a serious writer. But he did, and he did it well. I was also impressed with Dennis Quaid's performance as Clay. In my writing classes, I've always been told, "Show, don't tell." I think, perhaps, some films call for the same kind of acting. Toward the end of the film, Quaid expresses great struggle through his acting. The viewer can tell what he's wrestling with—and not because he told us in dialogue, but because he showed us with his facial expressions and emotions.
I must mention Ben Barnes who played the role of the young version of the old man. I don't think Barnes is a very well-known actor (yet), but I can see him emerging as the next Joseph Gordon Levitt (the British version) if he gets a few more major films under his belt. I thought his emotional expression was very raw and unhinged. Barnes can really let loose if he needs to, and I think that's what his role called for at times. All that to say, I was very impressed with this actor whom I haven't seen much of before.
There are TONS of Hemingway references in this film. And this probably just comes down to personal taste, but I couldn't stand it. I strongly dislike Hemingway so I cringed any time I saw something in this film that had anything to do with the man.
The old man who Rory stole the story from was unnamed! I just recently read a young adult novel in which the narrator was unnamed. This frustrates me. If a character is vital to the story, I want to know his or her name! There's a character named Daniella in the film whom I strongly disliked—not just because of her personality but because her character was very stagnant. I felt like the only point to her character was to draw out the plot line from another character—Clay, who narrated part of the story. And yes, the plot line is obviously important, but I felt like the writers could have done something more with Daniella's character so that it wouldn't feel like she was awkward and useless.
I would recommend The Words to anyone who wants to be a writer—there are a lot of lessons to be learned from this film. Also, if you're a fan of multiple story lines in one film—kind of like Inception—you would probably enjoy The Words.
The story is basically a story within a story—kind of like Inception. The main plot line follows Rory Jansen, a young man struggling to find himself as a writer—that is, until he finds a story he didn't write and gets it published. That story comes from an older man who was stationed in Paris during WWII. And who's telling the story about what happened to Rory when he meets the old man he stole the story from? None other than Dennis Quaid, who is also portrayed as a writer in the film.
I will say that I thought Rory's struggle to find himself as a writer was portrayed pretty well through the screen writing and by Cooper's acting. There's something very relatable about a person not knowing if he is who he wants to be. I could relate to his struggle as a writer, being a wanna-be writer myself, but I thought there was something more universal to the theme—don't we all get lost sometimes? I'm sure there's a time in everyone's life where we all lose sight of who we are, or who we want to be. This is a major theme presented in The Words, which is a big part of why I could relate to the film.
I applaud the makeup artist for Rory's character. There's a particular scene in which Rory was up in the middle of the night trying to write. Rory looked more like a person who might have been sitting next to me in the theater and less like an actor—you could see his pimples and his reddening eyes. It wasn't like in other scenes, or other films, in which the actor has flawless skin and a seemingly perfect complexion. I think Rory's lack of makeup during this scene made him seem more life-like. And I think the fact that he looked like the average human while he was writing symbolized that the only time Rory was truly himself was when he was writing, when he was at home with the words—which, I think, is a huge part of this film.
The ending, without giving anything away, is very ambiguous, to say the least. In my opinion, I do think this kind of story calls for an ending like this, no matter how annoying it may be to some viewers.
As previously mentioned, I'm not a huge fan of the stars in this film. But their performances in The Words proved to me that they can act. Since I'm so used to seeing Bradley Cooper in comedy films, I was skeptical as to whether or not he could pull off the part of a serious writer. But he did, and he did it well. I was also impressed with Dennis Quaid's performance as Clay. In my writing classes, I've always been told, "Show, don't tell." I think, perhaps, some films call for the same kind of acting. Toward the end of the film, Quaid expresses great struggle through his acting. The viewer can tell what he's wrestling with—and not because he told us in dialogue, but because he showed us with his facial expressions and emotions.
I must mention Ben Barnes who played the role of the young version of the old man. I don't think Barnes is a very well-known actor (yet), but I can see him emerging as the next Joseph Gordon Levitt (the British version) if he gets a few more major films under his belt. I thought his emotional expression was very raw and unhinged. Barnes can really let loose if he needs to, and I think that's what his role called for at times. All that to say, I was very impressed with this actor whom I haven't seen much of before.
There are TONS of Hemingway references in this film. And this probably just comes down to personal taste, but I couldn't stand it. I strongly dislike Hemingway so I cringed any time I saw something in this film that had anything to do with the man.
The old man who Rory stole the story from was unnamed! I just recently read a young adult novel in which the narrator was unnamed. This frustrates me. If a character is vital to the story, I want to know his or her name! There's a character named Daniella in the film whom I strongly disliked—not just because of her personality but because her character was very stagnant. I felt like the only point to her character was to draw out the plot line from another character—Clay, who narrated part of the story. And yes, the plot line is obviously important, but I felt like the writers could have done something more with Daniella's character so that it wouldn't feel like she was awkward and useless.
I would recommend The Words to anyone who wants to be a writer—there are a lot of lessons to be learned from this film. Also, if you're a fan of multiple story lines in one film—kind of like Inception—you would probably enjoy The Words.
Well done, but weak ending
siderite29 April 2014
The plot of the movie is not about writing, that is only a nice background to make us feel connected to the characters. The real issue discussed is how we deal with the consequences of our actions. I really don't think what the lead was much of a deal, but he did. Others felt that even more - see Saldana's character (is it me or all her roles lately are self obsessed bitchy women?).
Anyway, just look at the cast and you will see that this film is worth seeing. The film is well done and it makes you feel things, which is, after all, the most important measure of success for a work of art. However the ending is kind of weak. It is not, as Quaid's characters says, about redemption, a moral of a story or something like that. Instead it is leaving the thinking to the viewer. However the emotions of the characters in the end feel theatrical and spoil the rest a bit, which is great.
My conclusion is that you should watch this film, but not expect too much. An interesting idea, well done with good actors that play great.
Anyway, just look at the cast and you will see that this film is worth seeing. The film is well done and it makes you feel things, which is, after all, the most important measure of success for a work of art. However the ending is kind of weak. It is not, as Quaid's characters says, about redemption, a moral of a story or something like that. Instead it is leaving the thinking to the viewer. However the emotions of the characters in the end feel theatrical and spoil the rest a bit, which is great.
My conclusion is that you should watch this film, but not expect too much. An interesting idea, well done with good actors that play great.
I needed more, I expected more. I was entertained
dpazdernik211 September 2012
At the end I simply wanted more of an explanation. I wanted some closure that would have connected the brilliance of the old man's novel which could have ultimately directly affected me.
Perhaps, have me question my life more in depth, or even give an unorthodox inspiration for me (& viewers) to write such a great work of fiction (in the perpetual process).
I think to a certain extent we all pass through from what's real and fiction. The Words was a good story illustrating that I just hated how predictable the ending was in comparison to what at times were masterful scenes and story telling coming together so beautifully.
Perhaps, have me question my life more in depth, or even give an unorthodox inspiration for me (& viewers) to write such a great work of fiction (in the perpetual process).
I think to a certain extent we all pass through from what's real and fiction. The Words was a good story illustrating that I just hated how predictable the ending was in comparison to what at times were masterful scenes and story telling coming together so beautifully.
The wife who lost the manuscript
robert-temple-12 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This powerful and emotional film appears to be inspired by the terrible true story of what happened to Ernest Hemingway in 1922, and which contributed to the breakup of his first marriage and, some might say, the wreckage of his later life and his eventual suicide. I feel the tragedy of Hemingway's suicide particularly acutely because I received one of the last letters he ever sent. I wrote to him as a teenager when he was in the Mayo Clinic (because I was able to find its address and this had been announced in the newspapers), and he wrote back to me. The letter was dictated to a nurse, who wrote the text by hand, but Hemingway added his unmistakable, bold and florid signature at the bottom. His letter was extremely courteous and generous, but it contained the haunting phrase: 'When I leave here tomorrow ' His treatment for depression had been unsuccessful, and it was not long before he ended his personal torment with his hunting rifle. What can have caused this? His father had killed himself, and at least one other family member had done so also. But the roots of everything seem to me to go back to 1922. He and his first wife Hadley were living happily, if in extreme poverty (eating pigeons which he caught in the park), in Paris, and 'Hem' had published very little. He had finished his first novel and several stories. They had a chance to have a break at Lausanne in Switzerland, and Hadley was to join Hem there. Without telling him, she gathered up all of his unpublished material including his novel and put it in a small suitcase to take with her, thinking he might want to work on it in Switzerland. She cannot have been very bright, because she took (1) the original handwritten manuscripts, (2) the typed copies, and (3) the carbon copies of everything, leaving nothing behind. She then lost the suitcase on the train. This story is recounted in Hemingway's posthumous memoir A MOVEABLE FEAST, which he did not dare to publish in his lifetime, presumably because he did not wish to upset his son by Hadley. Hem thus lost his first novel and all his unpublished stories. The destruction of all of his work, and the shattering realization of how stupid his wife really was, sowed the seeds of the dissolution of all he held dear. Of course there were other factors, the strange sexual dynamics described in the posthumous novel THE GARDEN OF EDEN, and the man-eater Pauline Pfeiffer who made sure she became the second Mrs. Hemingway after being Hadley's 'best friend'. I often walk past the house where Hem and Pauline had their flat in the Rue Ferou in Paris (long before Man Ray lived in the same small street). But it was leaving the novel on the train that ruined everything, in my opinion, and it was not until 1926 that Hem managed to publish his ostensibly 'first' novel, THE SUN ALSO RISES, which caused such a sensation and made him famous. There is little doubt in my mind that this is what the producers and authors of THE WORDS have used as the inspiration of their own tale, which concerns the loss of the manuscript of a novel by a wife on a train from Paris, with all the terrible consequences which result, including the destruction of the marriage. Just in case we all need reminding, the film has several scenes where the first edition of THE SUN ALSO RISES (in impeccably accurate dust jacket) is reverently handled by the young American author of the lost novel, and he and his young wife also live in Paris in great poverty. The other married couple central to the story, living in the present, also visit one of Hemingway's Paris residences to pay tribute to him. (In fact it is not one of the real ones, as I am familiar with all those. The plaque to Hemingway in the film may also be made specially for the film. But the idea is sound.) For the first portion of this film, the theme appears to be literary plagiarism. It is only later that the true theme becomes dominant and apparent, namely the lost manuscript left by the wife on the train. This is because the action takes place in 'the past' (the author of the novel and his wife in Paris) and in 'the present', where another aspiring author finds the lost novel in a briefcase which his wife has bought for him in a brocante shop on a visit to Paris, and publishes it as his own work. Alas, the subject of 'alleged plagiarism' (I have to be careful of my words) is all too painful to me as well, since one of my closest friends is Michael Baigent, who unsuccessfully sued Dan Brown concerning THE DA VINCI CODE, though I tried to persuade him not to, and seeing the financial ruin this brought upon him has been intensely distressing. This film mingles both themes in an extremely dramatic and upsetting double-tale where tragedy lurks around every corner, and all suffer. All the performances, the direction and script by the pair Brian Klugman and Lee Sternthal, the cinematography and the mood are all exquisitely sensitive and thoughtful. Jeremy Irons is marvellously convincing as an old man, Dennis Quaid is gut-wrenching as a man haunted by his regrets, Brad Coooper, Olivia Wilde, Zoe Saldana, and the beautiful Nora Arnezeder are all superb as the main players in this film, which will be difficult for anyone who sees it ever to forget. The film is a modern classic, with a lingering aftertaste of melancholy, and important messages for all who value words. Ultimately, the tragedy expressed by the old man is that he cared more about the words than about the wife who lost them, and by doing so, he lost both.
A truly beautiful unique film.
Shopaholic3515 February 2014
This movie far surpassed my expectations. I had been holding off watching it as I thought it was a movie you had to be in the right mood to watch but it actually turned out to be a uniquely engaging film. Everything was beautifully done from the screenplay to the cast performances and the overall product of the film.
There were moments this movie brought a tear to my eye and genuinely drew my attention in. It was a such a lovely idea that I am extremely happy I took the time to watch it. I never had that much patience for Bradley Cooper as an actor but he was excellent and it changed my opinion of him.
A truly great film that is not as it first seems.
There were moments this movie brought a tear to my eye and genuinely drew my attention in. It was a such a lovely idea that I am extremely happy I took the time to watch it. I never had that much patience for Bradley Cooper as an actor but he was excellent and it changed my opinion of him.
A truly great film that is not as it first seems.
A story about morals
maaa_sara14 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I think this movie is a masterpiece and a breath of fresh air in film storytelling and personally I think this is the best movie of 2012.
Bradley Cooper has been applauded for his performance in Silver Linings Playbook witch was great, but his performance in this movie is equally good. Added with the performance of Dennis Quaid, Jeremy Irons, Olivia Wilde and Ben Barnes makes this a great cast.
Almost everyone that i have spoken to that have seen this movie have their own little twists on the story and how it comes together. The important part is not that all agrees on every little detail of the story. I think it's good that the movie let us fill the small gaps that we think are missing and personally I get more attached to the story this way.
The complex story within a story setup asks a lot from the actors, screenwriters and director to get it all together in 97 minutes. Even the last scenes are open to interpretations. So like many great books it leaves you wondering.
I don't think this is a film mainly about plagiarism. It is a moral story about having made choices that you are not proud of and living with them. It is about striving to be the best that you can be and accepting who you are even if you fall short. The plagiarism is just a tool for the story to unfold.
Spoilers coming up! I think an underlying point in the film is that its not enough to be a good writer, you also need to have a name or a brand that sells books. The book market is a tough market to break trough in and is dominated by big publishers and well known writers. By publishing Window Tears Clay made a name of himself and that name helped him to get his own books published. To the outside world he was a success, but to himself he was a failure because it was another mans words that made his name. Meaning his own books may have sold because of the name on the front page, and not because of the words written inside.
The old man said he was afraid of ever going as deep as when he wrote Window Tears and that his mistake was that he cared more for his words than anything else. By writing the book called The Words Clay proved to himself that he was a brilliant writer. But by doing so he let his wife know the truth about what he did a long time ago and in a way he suffered the same faith as the old man.
This I think explains the ending in the film when Clay clapped his hands and sighted with relief as if Daniella was exactly right when she said his marriage was finished if his wife ever found out the truth. This also explains why the timing of their separation coincided with the release of his latest book. One of the things that bothered me was the ending scenes. Why did Clay and his wife get separated at this time of his life? He still wears his wedding ring, he has a picture of here in his newest book, and couldn't go through with it with Daniella. All this tells me that Clay still very much loves his wife.
I don't think Clay ever revealed to his publisher or his wife that he didn't write his first success that was Window Tears. He probably thought long and hard on telling the truth and the outside pressure became to strong when presented with the opportunity to achieve his life dream. Clay never really wanted to reach success this way and when he understood the consequences of his actions it was already too late because some things you cannot change.
On the surface this seems like a simple plot about plagiarism but for the one that invests in the story and wants to go deeper into the material and engage, it really is a wonderful story and a well executed film about passion, morals and life. Thats why this film gets my highest recommendation.
Bradley Cooper has been applauded for his performance in Silver Linings Playbook witch was great, but his performance in this movie is equally good. Added with the performance of Dennis Quaid, Jeremy Irons, Olivia Wilde and Ben Barnes makes this a great cast.
Almost everyone that i have spoken to that have seen this movie have their own little twists on the story and how it comes together. The important part is not that all agrees on every little detail of the story. I think it's good that the movie let us fill the small gaps that we think are missing and personally I get more attached to the story this way.
The complex story within a story setup asks a lot from the actors, screenwriters and director to get it all together in 97 minutes. Even the last scenes are open to interpretations. So like many great books it leaves you wondering.
I don't think this is a film mainly about plagiarism. It is a moral story about having made choices that you are not proud of and living with them. It is about striving to be the best that you can be and accepting who you are even if you fall short. The plagiarism is just a tool for the story to unfold.
Spoilers coming up! I think an underlying point in the film is that its not enough to be a good writer, you also need to have a name or a brand that sells books. The book market is a tough market to break trough in and is dominated by big publishers and well known writers. By publishing Window Tears Clay made a name of himself and that name helped him to get his own books published. To the outside world he was a success, but to himself he was a failure because it was another mans words that made his name. Meaning his own books may have sold because of the name on the front page, and not because of the words written inside.
The old man said he was afraid of ever going as deep as when he wrote Window Tears and that his mistake was that he cared more for his words than anything else. By writing the book called The Words Clay proved to himself that he was a brilliant writer. But by doing so he let his wife know the truth about what he did a long time ago and in a way he suffered the same faith as the old man.
This I think explains the ending in the film when Clay clapped his hands and sighted with relief as if Daniella was exactly right when she said his marriage was finished if his wife ever found out the truth. This also explains why the timing of their separation coincided with the release of his latest book. One of the things that bothered me was the ending scenes. Why did Clay and his wife get separated at this time of his life? He still wears his wedding ring, he has a picture of here in his newest book, and couldn't go through with it with Daniella. All this tells me that Clay still very much loves his wife.
I don't think Clay ever revealed to his publisher or his wife that he didn't write his first success that was Window Tears. He probably thought long and hard on telling the truth and the outside pressure became to strong when presented with the opportunity to achieve his life dream. Clay never really wanted to reach success this way and when he understood the consequences of his actions it was already too late because some things you cannot change.
On the surface this seems like a simple plot about plagiarism but for the one that invests in the story and wants to go deeper into the material and engage, it really is a wonderful story and a well executed film about passion, morals and life. Thats why this film gets my highest recommendation.
You took those words now you take the pain that goes along with them
kapelusznik189 February 2014
***SPOILERS*** What is a story within a story movie about a struggling writer Rory Jansen, Bradley Cooper, who comes up with a best seller that he found in a battered suitcase in a Paris gift shop while on his honeymoon with his wife Dora,Zoe Saldana. It's when Rory gets the book, "Window Tears", published and it becomes a best seller that his troubles starts. It turns out that the parson who in fact did write the story only known as "the Old Man", Jeremy Irons, comes out of hiding, for the last 50 or so years, and makes life a living hell for him. In that he not Jeremy wrote the book that was based on his life.
What's so surprising about all this is that it's told by writer Clay Hammond, Dennis Quaid, who we suspect is really using another name in "his" book of being Rory Jensen! The confusion goes on until the final minutes of the movie as Hammond tells his story about the life and times of Rory Jenson to a girl that he just met Daniella, Olivia Wlde, who's soon to realize his secret identity of Rory Jansen! As for the "Old Man" he's completely out of it throughout the entire film in his greenhouse where by growing plants and flowers as he tries to forget his past that Rory or better yet Hammoond dug up with the book that he wrote!
Strang confusing but interesting movie that leaves you hanging in the end to just what the hell is going on in it about love found love lost and finally love forgotten in the case of the "Old Man" who now becomes the main obsession in Rory or Hammond's life. A life filled with lies and make believe that brings him to the conclusion that he's not the great writer that he and the literary world thinks he is. It's when the "Old Man" who's heart couldn't take it, the book that he wrote that was stolen right from under his nose, anymore and suddenly died that both Hammond, or the fictitious Rory Jansen, finally got his act together and continued his life as the great American writer that he knows in his heart of hearts that he isn't. Like the "Old Man" who's life by them was completely destroyed wanted him to.
What's so surprising about all this is that it's told by writer Clay Hammond, Dennis Quaid, who we suspect is really using another name in "his" book of being Rory Jensen! The confusion goes on until the final minutes of the movie as Hammond tells his story about the life and times of Rory Jenson to a girl that he just met Daniella, Olivia Wlde, who's soon to realize his secret identity of Rory Jansen! As for the "Old Man" he's completely out of it throughout the entire film in his greenhouse where by growing plants and flowers as he tries to forget his past that Rory or better yet Hammoond dug up with the book that he wrote!
Strang confusing but interesting movie that leaves you hanging in the end to just what the hell is going on in it about love found love lost and finally love forgotten in the case of the "Old Man" who now becomes the main obsession in Rory or Hammond's life. A life filled with lies and make believe that brings him to the conclusion that he's not the great writer that he and the literary world thinks he is. It's when the "Old Man" who's heart couldn't take it, the book that he wrote that was stolen right from under his nose, anymore and suddenly died that both Hammond, or the fictitious Rory Jansen, finally got his act together and continued his life as the great American writer that he knows in his heart of hearts that he isn't. Like the "Old Man" who's life by them was completely destroyed wanted him to.
Four generations of stellar actors!
rtaron20 December 2012
This is such an under-rated movie and it is so sad that it will not be seen by more people.
Bradley Cooper has a great career ahead as a producer, he was very smart to make this project. The four generations of great actors were so well- chosen, each one the sexiest man alive I'm sure at one time or another. For me it was Dennis Quaid, and I saw more of the old Dennis Quaid in this movie than in a very long time. Bradley Cooper is the third generation actor in this piece and he really shows his acting chops. He's not just a pretty face! The pretty face is now Ben Barnes and what a great face it is. He is perfect as the young 'old man' in Paris after the war.
I almost never like stories within a story, now do I like stories about authors or actors, they always seem so navel-gazing, but this movie trumps all of those problems in such an amazing excellent way.
Watch this movie, you won't be sorry.
Bradley Cooper has a great career ahead as a producer, he was very smart to make this project. The four generations of great actors were so well- chosen, each one the sexiest man alive I'm sure at one time or another. For me it was Dennis Quaid, and I saw more of the old Dennis Quaid in this movie than in a very long time. Bradley Cooper is the third generation actor in this piece and he really shows his acting chops. He's not just a pretty face! The pretty face is now Ben Barnes and what a great face it is. He is perfect as the young 'old man' in Paris after the war.
I almost never like stories within a story, now do I like stories about authors or actors, they always seem so navel-gazing, but this movie trumps all of those problems in such an amazing excellent way.
Watch this movie, you won't be sorry.
Emotionally expressing with confusion
Floated219 January 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The Words is a storytelling drama based within the reality of storytelling within a story. It has received below to average reviews, and was a box office underachievement. Through the film, it appears to goes nowhere other than to take a left turn from disappointment into total mess in the final thirty minutes which are weighed down with false drama and ambiguous character motivations that I just wanted someone to get hit by a truck. The Words takes a few turns and becomes somewhat uninteresting once The old man appears. The film turns into another story and becomes tiresome when he gets into his "story".
What we realize is the basic of the plot which is Clay Hammond (Dennis Quaid) whom is a successful author that is reading passages from his latest novel to a rapt audience that includes Daniella (Olivia Wilde). The story he tells is that of Rory Jansen (Bradley Cooper) and his wife Dora (Zoe Saldana). Rory wants to be a writer. Further into the story, Rory faces rejection from publishers, dismissal by his father (J.K. Simmons), and begins to think that he may have to give up on his dream. As Rory whines, walks out of dinners, and generally bemoans the fact that he may not watch his dreams comes true, he stumbles upon a manuscript in a French briefcase and his life is forever changed. The stories within that case are mesmerizing. And Rory decides to take them as his own. Then their original author (Jeremy Irons) shows up. Their appears to be theories suggesting the Old man was not real, and that Clay (Dennis Quaid) simply made up the story of the Old man in his novel (as the plagiarism plot) to have something more to write. The film may be confusing at times, but it still isn't too good. Though this films, are for a specific audience.
What we realize is the basic of the plot which is Clay Hammond (Dennis Quaid) whom is a successful author that is reading passages from his latest novel to a rapt audience that includes Daniella (Olivia Wilde). The story he tells is that of Rory Jansen (Bradley Cooper) and his wife Dora (Zoe Saldana). Rory wants to be a writer. Further into the story, Rory faces rejection from publishers, dismissal by his father (J.K. Simmons), and begins to think that he may have to give up on his dream. As Rory whines, walks out of dinners, and generally bemoans the fact that he may not watch his dreams comes true, he stumbles upon a manuscript in a French briefcase and his life is forever changed. The stories within that case are mesmerizing. And Rory decides to take them as his own. Then their original author (Jeremy Irons) shows up. Their appears to be theories suggesting the Old man was not real, and that Clay (Dennis Quaid) simply made up the story of the Old man in his novel (as the plagiarism plot) to have something more to write. The film may be confusing at times, but it still isn't too good. Though this films, are for a specific audience.
Here are the words: contrived and excruciating
beautox15 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I have a strong stomach for food and movies; If it's cooked I can eat it and if it's entertaining well i can watch it. However this movie came close to me walking out on it.The only thing that kept me in my seat was the popcorn and air conditioning. Where do I start on this silliness called The Words?" First of all, the protagonist and his wife are whiny, self-centered types.He whines because he can't get a book published; she whines because he isn't all kissy-face while he's writing his opus. Oh by the way, here's something that you see in so many other movies, and it appears here: when he is unemployed, they rent a giant New York City loft apartment using what money? Of course when he gets a job in the mailroom of a publishing firm, they can afford to honeymoon in Paris, furnish the loft and keep the misses in fashion even when she is cooking in their first class kitchen.Unbelievable!The plot then plods along with more contrivances and soon pontifications on something, i'm still trying to figure out what the point is. And finally what could have been the finale, a meeting between the plagiarist and the true author of the best seller. Do we get confrontation? No.Do we get forgiveness? No.What do we get? Pointless blah, blah, blah. I gave up making sense of this movie in the first fifteen minutes; be warned,find some other thing to pass your time than this mess.
Very interesting story about writers and their words.
TxMike17 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The DVD has an extra that I found as compelling as the movie itself. It turns out writer/director Brian Klugman (nephew of Jack Klugman) and star Bradley Cooper (who also acted as producer) were close friends since growing up together in Philadelphia. They have had this story on their personal radars since around 1999. There always was an intention to turn it into a movie, and Cooper remembers regretting that he would not have a chance to be in it (too young, not well-know yet). But as fate would have it, and the passage of time, they made this movie and Bradley Cooper stars in it. Quite a good movie, too.
The story begins with Dennis Quaid as popular and successful author Clay Hammond showing up at an event of his, to read from his latest book. The book was about an author who was so far unsuccessful selling his work. He was married, happily, but he was becoming discouraged and still occasionally borrowing money from his dad to pay the rent.
The story dissolves as Clay speaks to show Bradley Cooper as Rory Jansen and Zoe Saldana as his wife Dora, getting into a car in the pouring rain, and Jeremy Irons simply as 'The Old Man ' is watching them from near the exit of the building. Rory is now a successful author, but The Old Man knows his secret. Because Rory's successful book, a touching story set in post-war France was written by the Old Man, the manuscript was lost when a leather satchel with it was accidentally left on the train by his young wife all those years ago. And in current time Rory found it in an antique shop in Paris, the yellowed type-written manuscript was hidden inside. Rory could never come up with such a touching story, nor the beautiful words, he simply re-typed it word-for-word and sold it as his own creation.
Had it not been for the Old Man now living in New York, and happening to see the book in a store window, then reading it, Rory's secret might have never been exposed. But when it was there was much anguish to deal with, both within himself and with his wife.
SPOILERS: So what we are seeing is three movies folded into one. The story of the young couple in Paris in the late 1940s, and the story he wrote of their life. The story of Rory and his dealing with the manuscript he discovered. And Clay telling the story, which by the end we figure is actually about his own life, that he became a famous author by publishing a manuscript that he found. And the overall moral is that each of us runs up against things in our lives that may not be ideal, but somehow we have to get past it and deal with it. The Old Man didn't want anything, no money nor public admission by Rory, just that Rory needed to live with the burden that someone else's WORDS made him successful.
The story begins with Dennis Quaid as popular and successful author Clay Hammond showing up at an event of his, to read from his latest book. The book was about an author who was so far unsuccessful selling his work. He was married, happily, but he was becoming discouraged and still occasionally borrowing money from his dad to pay the rent.
The story dissolves as Clay speaks to show Bradley Cooper as Rory Jansen and Zoe Saldana as his wife Dora, getting into a car in the pouring rain, and Jeremy Irons simply as 'The Old Man ' is watching them from near the exit of the building. Rory is now a successful author, but The Old Man knows his secret. Because Rory's successful book, a touching story set in post-war France was written by the Old Man, the manuscript was lost when a leather satchel with it was accidentally left on the train by his young wife all those years ago. And in current time Rory found it in an antique shop in Paris, the yellowed type-written manuscript was hidden inside. Rory could never come up with such a touching story, nor the beautiful words, he simply re-typed it word-for-word and sold it as his own creation.
Had it not been for the Old Man now living in New York, and happening to see the book in a store window, then reading it, Rory's secret might have never been exposed. But when it was there was much anguish to deal with, both within himself and with his wife.
SPOILERS: So what we are seeing is three movies folded into one. The story of the young couple in Paris in the late 1940s, and the story he wrote of their life. The story of Rory and his dealing with the manuscript he discovered. And Clay telling the story, which by the end we figure is actually about his own life, that he became a famous author by publishing a manuscript that he found. And the overall moral is that each of us runs up against things in our lives that may not be ideal, but somehow we have to get past it and deal with it. The Old Man didn't want anything, no money nor public admission by Rory, just that Rory needed to live with the burden that someone else's WORDS made him successful.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
