Very disappointing...

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Hungry Hearts is a phrase play on words. It is a potent combination of words. The film showcases the blurred sense of what is conceived as normal in modern society. Normal as in interpersonal relationships, honesty, frankness, the depth of knowing one another, as well as in self awareness. The personal freedom, freedom of choices, what is considered to be an informed choice. How long can a partner respect the choices of the loved one? What is love and at what point does it start to turn into crippling obsession or mental illness. When the heart is hungry it clouds the senses. "Its a phase mum, it will pass." If you are in it you can't see the full spectrum of it. A spectator can. A wise grandmother whose heart is not hungry anymore, can feel the real responsibility of bringing up a child of a selfless point of you. It is not about you or your partner, it is about that new person that has been brought into this world hungry!

This is a brilliant, simple movie that sinks its claws into your chest midway and squeezes tight till the end. The story is original and very timely. I am not surprised it was a book first. It's not pap for the masses. No car chases. It has real danger, real horror, powerlessness, not knowing what to do, how to fix things. It has a real hero, a surprising one, and a tough, digestible, clear, honest ending. Impressive use of camera angles to distort weight perception and create the sense of claustrophobia in the characters' apartment. The acting is impeccable with the grandmother character as a superb standout. Interesting how it showed how difficult it is to take advice and put it into concrete action when one is caught up in a manipulative situation.

The movie started out promising with a "meet cute" in a toilet, but the purported "stink" of that opening scene was actually a metaphor for the entire film. Despite valiant efforts by the two leads, the script and direction were so far fetched and over the top that no amount of good acting could save this piece of schlock. Weird camera angles that come and go for no apparent reason, an absurd wedding montage accompanied by the entirety of "Flashdance", again for no apparent reason, a house in Westchester filled with deer heads, again for no apparent reason...and the list could go on for pages. Roberta Maxwell's performance is a hoot for all the wrong reasons...like she has watched too many demonic possession films. And, no, she is not demonically possessed in the movie. The use of horror movie sound effects and strings to underscore the supposed tension actually brought laughs from the audience. And this is not a funny movie. What this film was doing in the Tribeca Film Festival is beyond me; and, yes, I understand that it did well at Venice. But...ugh. I'm guessing we won't see this film released on these shores.

------------SPOILERS--------------------------- First scene: She enters in a bathroom in a movie theater set according to the sound the door does when she slams it. NO. It's not done on purpose!! It's called horrible set designer, horrible sound team!! They are stock in a toilets where he just had a poo that smells bad. That's how they meet. That's how we are supposed to establish a connection with the characters. OK. But all we can think of during this sequence shot is: WHEN THE HELL WILL YOU WASH YOUR HANDS, PIG??? But the director liked this take and said "it's OK, who cares? it'a detail!!" So they keep this take in spite the importance of this scene. And that's how everybody on the set must have act to abort this film "it's OK, who cares? it's just a detail!!" well ...i, I care!! because unfortunately I PAID TO SEE THIS Catastrophe!!!!! -The Director: Which one? The one who wasn't there or the one who was asleep or the one who thought that's enough to stick your camera to an actor's face to be called a director???? THERE IS SIMPLY NO STAGING IN THIS FILM. None. Nothing. Void. Absolute Nothingness. It is static, lazy, apathetic, i love Kiarostami and Cassavetes but here i was hoping that some TRANSFORMERS break a wall, that some AVENGER rip off half of the earth so that something happens, because a moving disaster is always better than a static disaster!!! It has the drama material for a short film and it makes a lame long long long long long 1h45 film. If you want to watch tiny innovations that makes a one room film a great film, watch UN AIR DE FAMILLE by Cédric Klapisch. -The actress is good but what can she do alone with Mister Apathy being the wheel? -The music: Flashdance!! out of the blue? why? for what? because "who cares?!!" remember? It was the crew leitmotiv while shooting. She is a vegan. He gives their baby meat behind her back. She enters, sees that and ... and some Hitchcock string waving from the sixties pop up in the middle of the silence!! THANKS DUDE TO TELL ME WHERE AND WHEN TO WORRY!! The fact is, the staging didn't made a suspense about her discovering that, so the strings are like a cannonball to say hello. A Pathetic attempt by the music to save the absence of staging. The sound: dreadful during the first scene then OK. -Finally: The message of the film: slightly dangerous: man has no balls anymore, they are sissy unable to protect there kids, it was better before???? And the final shot: a sunset after one a of the character's death, why? because the director hasn't been lazy enough? Because he has to deliver the lamest cliché ever for no meaning?? Or just to say one more time "who cares about this film? about this story? hey!! sunset!! isn't it nice?" ... ???? WTF?????????????????