Great visuals, story delivers no surprises

Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

I'm a bit of a sucker for NYC based dramas, having liked Woody Allen's work since 90's. This is no Woody Allen movie, but quite good nonetheless.The acting is good all the way, the script too. It's interesting, the dialogue is never boring. The intertwined story lines don't feel forced.Like someone else here stated, I'm not sure if Isabel's story is the most interesting here, even tho she's clearly in focus most of the time. Ms. Banks is good here, and her career has gone up since this movie for a good reason.The most interesting character here is probably her to-be husband Jonathan (James Marsden) who battles with a serious dilemma. It's at the same time one of the most interesting aspects of this movie, but also a bit of a problem. It's difficult not to write about it without giving anything away, but in the finale was slightly questionable. Stop reading here if you don't want to be spoiled.In the end Isabel breaks up with Jonathan, but it's not quite clear if she does it because he was cheating on her, or because he was gay/bisexual - or both. She's just shocked to see him kissing a guy and in the next scene they've separated already. We don't get a better resolution for the relationship.It's a good movie anyway. Recommended. I hadn't heard of this before, but it caught my eye on Netflix and I don't regret the time spent.

Overall the director gives the viewer a taste of each of the lives of the characters in the film. The basis of the film seems to focus on the idea of what is real, and what the characters want to be real and the same for what is fake. The lead, Diana, and her numerous appearances in the film, not just her physical appearance, play an opposition to the significance of Benjamin Stone and his impact that go hand in hand with his identity. Overall all a well done piece for the story that was presented, keeping a viewer absorbed with wanting to find the truth. The acting was above par for the most part. Jesee Bradford does a fine job of keeping himself in confusion as well as the audience. And Glenn Close, well shes Gleen Close, enough said, an excellent performance by and excellent actress. The one comment still in question is the usage of split screens for some scenes. Is this really a necessity for the film?

I understand a lot of the criticisms I've read so far of this film. I can see how the characters might bug some people with their self-absorption. But for me, the movie had a central pillar of integrity because it was originally a play, and I thought the writing gave it intelligent coherence. For me, there always was a point.What most struck me about the film from the get-go with Diana Lee's scene (Glenn Close) teaching the master acting class was the notion that we've all become cel phone-talking, latte-drinking, status conscious zombies afraid to bust out and take a damn risk. I thought the director sort of layered this idea on top of the film in a way that I imagined Crash tried, unsuccessfully, to do. The result was, as some have noted, not a plot driven movie but a character-based one, one in which we are not surprised by much, but, again as someone else pointed out, the point is the characters' reactions to each other. I really gravitated to this idea that we have sold our souls to ambition, our future, and feeling secure in it. This idea has particular resonance for me. In their own ways, living like this dehumanized the characters. This was particularly obvious for the fiancé, Jonathan.Elizabeth Banks looks remarkably like another actress these days, not Parker Posey, but someone else -- Julia Stiles or Kirsten Dunst. I thought the entire cast was pretty decent and interesting. Isabella Rosellini's scene was excellent – she captured that subtly bullying personality perfectly.Unlike a lot of others, I actually thought Glenn Close was a little flat in her scenes away from the theater. Maybe she was supposed to be.Roger Ebert's review had some weird grammatical or spelling and sense mistakes.Rightly or wrongly the notion that corporations have won and have won us really grabbed me while watching Heights. This was one of those quiet movies. I don't mean quiet film as in understated, but literally a quiet movie/sound script. It's one of those dvds you can fall asleep to. It's so soothing, no loud noises, slow, nice, tinkling soundtrack, everyone's voices are soft. It wasn't boring. I watched it once, then started it over and fell asleep to it the second time.

I thought they should have called this movie "Whites" instead of "Heights". Godawful...the kind of film that makes people hate New Yorkers. People who are so self obsessed and think their lives are so important...give me a break. Such a lily white cast that Glenn Close was the most ethnic character in it, this film was crying out for someone real to come in and steal it...and so they introduce, get this, a character even whiter than the rest of the cast (I thought he was an albino at first)who's supposed to be Welsh!I'm still trying to decipher that accent! Intellectually dishonest...this movie is the kind of film that's able to fool so many people into thinking it's worthwhile because it has the trappings of something more ambitious. Better to fill the theaters with MI5-10 than with this pretentious crap...must have been a better play because you can't fall off the floor.