Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

This film tells the story of a group of extended family members getting together for a reunion dinner. Things don't go as well as planned, and relationships fall apart as a result.I honestly don't know what "Days And Nights" is about. There seems to be no real plot. Characters are poorly introduced, and I don't know how they are connected with each other. The first scene is about the dinner, every person talks for a few minutes about what they want but no one is really caring about what is being said. People strangely leave the room one by one. Then in the projector scene is almost the same, as people leave one by one and not connecting - but the whole scene is just bizarre. Thirty minutes into the film, an actress announces that "it doesn't make sense", oh yes the whole film doesn't make sense, you got that right. I watched the film until the end, but it deteriorates increasingly. No one connects with another, and viewers don't care about any of the characters either. It's a family dysfunctional relationship film gone horribly wrong.

Right at the beginning, we hear Peter's voice in off (Camargo's character). I thought what the hell, will this film be narrated by Peter and be all about Camargo's character? Guess what? Neither of the two options. The film didn't care to develop any of these two aspects. The voice in off is just a glimpse into a thought, completely unrelated to the rest of the movie. The whole is just one meaningless quirk that anticipates the broken structure of this film.Adding to this negative first impression above: nothing got knitted together in any meaningful way. The characters meet for Memorial day at a country house. So far, that could be similar to many other films with an ensemble cast. However, no hint is given about how do they relate to each other, or what kind of tensions could develop among them, if any. Not even a subtle hint. They could have a secret that could be reveled at the climax, but no. And the film doesn't even have a proper climax. Things just happen. The film could be about their relationships, but it is not. The characters are boring, instead of transmitting the feeling that they are desperately bored. That contributes significantly to a boring film. Kathy Holmes' character is specially disconnected and unexplained, although I enjoyed her acting. In the same way, the family doctor is just there doing I don't know what. He seems to always be present for some strange reason, behaving like a family member and feeling completely at home. Equally disconnected is any symbolism regarding the bald eagle (a seagull in the original), or anything relating to the native Americans. They were included for no meaningful reason. They appear in and out. I suppose the script writers might have attached some deep meaning to all these pieces in their minds, but they were not combined into a harmonic work. Apparently someone thought it would make the film deep, but it has lots of intentions, that don't get developed. And that upside-down American flag? Also no connection to the story. This film is not a criticism of America, although it points in this direction. The film is a mess.The breaking point for me was at around minute 30, when (Elizabeth) Allison Janney says "Boring, boring, and more boring, it's all so beautifully boring." The audience laughs. An audience laughing at a dramatic scene of a dramatic film? That's the kiss of death. At least I felt that I was not alone. This was maybe the most ridiculous sentence I can remember in any film I have watched. If you have an example that is even worse, let me know, but I don't think it is possible. At this point, I realized that this film was not just kind of boring, but really bad. Nothing could redeem it from its pretentious, boring nothingness.Why they set the film in the 80s still puzzles me. The story does not relate in any way to what was happening back then. There are just a couple of loose hints pointing to the 80s. If you have some sort of 80s nostalgia, this film won't do the trick to kill it.The funny trivia: Peter (Camargo's role) is not a good director in the film, and so is the case of the real director (Camargo).The positive side: the photography was done in good taste and gives you a warm feeling. Most of the cast is first class. The exceptions are clearly Camargo and his real-life wife, who does not fit in the role of an innocent young muse at all, nor would be a fit for any serious dramatic role. She actually would be a better fit in one of those made-for-TV movies as a middle-aged housewife with a cheating husband. You get the idea.I should have paid attention to the 100% negative reviews of this film before I started to watch. But I wrongly thought, how bad can a film with this ensemble cast be? Worse than I imagined. The film is clearly the product of someone not too deep into literature, and who thought that picking a universal work like the Seagull by Chekhov could serve as a basis for a great story if they just added good actors to it. Things are not that easy. Without leading the actors into their characters and without understanding what made the Russian story so powerful, without understanding why its symbolism and its tensions are a portrait of the human condition, you end up with a broken set of images. It looks like a high-school theater project gone wrong.

There are countless adaptations of successful stage plays into films. "Days and Nights" is an earnest attempt to update Anton Chekhov's play "The Seagull." When this play was first produced in 1896, it was considered a flop. But when it was revived by the stage director Konstantin Stanislavsky to open his new Moscow Art Theater in 1898, it was hailed as a masterpiece.The producers of this film clearly had a passion for Chekhov. Music figures prominently in Chekhov's plays, and the music in the film version was also intended to be intrinsic to the characters' lives. The screenwriter's goal was to adapt Chekhov's play to the Reagan era in America of the 1980s. Chekhov was an apolitical playwright, and it was not clear what was intended by inserting one of Reagan's speeches about the Berlin wall as a backdrop for the ennui of the characters. Another curious choice was to incorporate a subtle message about environmental issues. A bald eagle replaces Chekhov's seagull. And the housing developers are encroaching on the rural setting of the play--a detail that appears closer to Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard" than "The Seagull." ************* Spoiler Alerts ***************** The following should not be read by those who have not completed their film viewing:A major change from Chekhov's original play is the depiction of the character of Nina, who is seduced by the well-known writer, Trigorin. In the updated version, the successful filmmaker Peter (Trigorin) plots to run away with Eva (Nina), the young woman who is the love of the life of Eric, the avant-garde writer Konstantin in Chekhov's original play. But before Peter and Eva can meet to leave the lakeside retreat, Peter runs over and kills Eva in a pick-up truck! At the end of the film, there is a sad reunion at the lake three years later. Still haunted by the memories of Eva, the now successful film artist Eric also is present for the family reunion. In Chekhov's play, Nina, who has been jilted by Trigorin, has a final conversation with Konstantin, rejecting him once again. But in the updated version, Eric has a vision of the deceased Nina, then shoots himself, which is the same ending as Chekhov's original play.************* End of Spoiler Alerts ************** The hard-working cast (Allison Janney, William Hurt, Mark Rylance, and others) attempted to inhabit the lives of their characters. But the film adaptation lacked the depth, complexity, and the multi-dimensional nature of Chekhov's characters.One limitation of this film is that it is imperative that the viewers know the original play by Chekhov; it is not a successful stand-alone film. It may be fair to conclude that there was only one Anton Chekhov. No re-written version of his play will ever surpass the original in its seemingly endless insights into human nature.

I can't actually recall an experience like that before. I had an ache where one thinks his heart is and isn't from the opening scene. It was brilliant as to how many stories where being told...not just the obvious, but the undercurrent of painful love amongst everyone. The writing was magnificent, but the changes were brilliant...the Eagle...amazing metaphors. I was absolutely stunned by the actors and their brilliance and reality, especially Katie Holmes with her quiet desperate life and then realization when she may lose it. The painful and complicated love between every character was almost overwhelming but balanced by the humor, which is often the case in real life. The stunning set and beautiful cinematography startles one from the outset with the lake shot, and The Visconti like use of lighting and color was something I have NOT experienced since...well Visconti. The moving camera from window to window initially sets up the vignettes that the entire film revolves around and tells the story. So complicated in subject, so real in presentation. I could spend hours talking about this film and far more than writing about it. What an achievement....what a piece of art....what an accomplishment...the first real FILM I have seen in many many years. Most importantly it will impact and change peoples lives. It did mine.