SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Billie Morin This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Derry Herrera Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

SnoopyStyle A man (Aaron Eckhart) and a woman (Helena Bonham Carter) start flirting at a wedding. She's a last minute bridesmaid who hasn't been that close to the bride Susie (Brianna Brown) for a time. She's married to a cardiologist and he's the bride's brother. They may have a past. A mysterious girl (Nora Zehetner) has a relationship with a guy (Erik Eidem). There's an annoying videographer (Thomas Lennon) and a nosy bridesmaid (Olivia Wilde).I love the pairing of Carter and Eckhart. They are fun and touching. She is brilliant. If the movie is simply them together, I would recommend the heck out of it. Indie director Hans Canosa is using the split screen technique to add visual spice. It's mostly distracting and oddly very static. I want to stay closer to the actors but the split screen puts a certain distance from them. There is a wonderful relationship movie here if Hans forgets about the split screen.

tieman64 Directed by Hans Canosa, "Conversations With Other Women" stars Aaron Eckhart and Helena Bonham Carter as a former couple who meet at a Manhattan wedding. Utilizing split-screens, the film mixes pasts, presents and subjective recollections."Time can't move in two directions," characters say. And later: "The illusion of effortlessness requires a great deal of effort." It's Canosa winking at his own filmic technique, but this aesthetic is, for the most, distracting rather than enlightening. Still, Eckhard and Carter do good work. Our duo shoot dialogue like javelins, their little speeches sketching a relationship in which perceptions, feelings and private delusions shift, reverse and dark back and forth. Man's a fickle things. Happiness too.7/10 – Worth one viewing.

tedg This is a rich mix of things, some successes and some interesting possible failures.It is surely interesting enough to recommend. Independently, it is emotionally affecting, and works on that score as well.Be aware that there is a spoiler coming.The thing that works is the writing. It is amazing. Often a writer faces the challenge of being invisible. There are advantages to this, because the more you add the eye of someone not actually in the story, the less power the dynamics of the story have. This impossible invisibility carries over to the problem of explanatory speaking. When you have a character saying something purely because you as a viewer need to know it, you blow a hole in your boat.The writing here takes that problem and turns it against itself. Usually I would remark that it is a narrative fold placed deep in the narrative. But my regular crew knows that -- it is why this was recommended.There are only two actors. They are unnamed, and credited as "man" and "woman." In a profound display of ignorance, the included DVD interviews with these two actors includes a question about why their characters were unnamed. Both said it was because the story was universal, and so on. But the viewer will see that these two people are actually many souls and many fabricated or desired versions of some of those souls. Each of these souls exists because they are part of a story being told to themselves or the other actor.The writing has us completely out of the noir loop, at least the ordinary one. We are given no background and have to figure things out over time. As the movie develops, we are teased into a single narrative. By the end, we believe we know what we are supposed to: a man meets his ex-wife at the wedding of his sister. They are still attracted to each other and cannot purge that even though they have moved to others. They work at living with this, she as confirming her separation by testing it; he by reinforcing his knots of self-doubt. But they do so by reference to other selves, both past selves from the courtship and marriage and parallel selves they maintain. Check out the rather brilliant title.(There was a child involved.)Against this spine: discovering what the story "is," the writer has created playful dialog that skips around, maintaining multiple perspectives, truths. selves. It is wonderful, and the look of the two actors (especially knowing Helena's background in such films) is wonderful.Another attraction is that the film is mostly a splitscreen experiment. The filmmaker obviously selected the technique -- one would think by watching it -- to register that at any given moment, the speaker is at least two individuals. Sometimes in fact, this is how the screen is used. At other times, it simply follows the two actors in "real" time. Other effects are added to the vocabulary.So the idea of the experiment, and that it was shot quickly and edited on a MacBook, has appeal. But the split-screen needed some more care than it got here, and watching this more than once it becomes clear that the reach of the filmmaker was less than his intuition. I applaud the attempt, but the cinema is something of a mess.The actors are earnest and Carter has that confused look as if there are many souls within confusing her. But they don't master the words at all. They simply deliver them in the by now standard established by Mamet. The rhythm is good, but the actual meaning is lost because they don't know what they are saying. The actors are as confused as the characters.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

pepekwa this isn't one for the action junkie or the easily bored but its a genial, subtle, enjoyable yarn about two people who meet at a wedding and as always happens on these occasions, hook up. Well thats how it appears at the start with the innocent flirting. Eventually you find out the "history" the couple have together and I'm still not clear if they actually were married briefly or not. I saw this on TV so didn't get the whole split-screen effect which people got if they saw the movie so this review may be different from others but there were split-screen flashbacks from when the couple were together 15/20 years ago before and with some good editing, it added an innovative touch to the movie. This had a well written script and kept the audience guessing as to the true nature of the relationship, whether they would actually sleep together in the hotel room and whether Helena Bonham Carter would postpone her trip home. Without sounding too shallow, i think Mrs Tim Burton is about as sexy as a sack of potatoes so having Eckhart fawn all over her like she was gods gift was unconvincing but beauty in eye of beholder and all that. But if you like relationship movies and enjoyed before sunset/sunrise see this.