AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Console best movie i've ever seen.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Geoffrey DeLeons I'd like to give this movie a 7, instead of a 6, but I was severely distracted by one question: Why is everyone Jewish? If I found myself watching a movie of a summer camp full of people who were all, say, Catholics, I would be compelled to wonder what the reason the screenwriter had in mind: This question is never answered in A Walk On The Moon. Otherwise, this is a very pedestrian, very typically "Hollywood out-of-touch" treatment of what could have been vital, transforming scenes and dynamic dialogue.I suppose my main complaint with A Walk On The Moon is that we never get to fully meet the characters, so that when they experience inter-personal conflict and pain, it is hard to gather empathy. Neither the characters, nor the relationships there-of, are adequately illustrated. Also, Julie Kavner's voice is bad enough when she talks face-to-face. Over a megaphone, it is pure hell.

MarieGabrielle This film is the basic story of 1969, Marty and Pearl Kantrowitz a couple who married young and have two children, on vacation in upstate NY. Anything north of the city is "upstate" and they take vacation near the well known "Nevele" and Concord Hotels, only at a more down at heel bungalow campground.The atmosphere of the Catskills bungalow and the rather tacky but fun atmosphere is realistic. Tovah Feldshuh as Lillian is excellent, she realizes something is amiss with Pearl and lets her son know, calling him in Brooklyn.The Moon walk itself is secondary to the actual story of America in the turbulent 1960's, Woodstock, and social unrest, but the story is not heavy handed.Nor is it a complete miss like the faint hearted "1969" film with Robert Downey Jr., which attempts to address the same time period in America, and misses the point. Entirely.Pearl Kantrowitz, well portrayed by Diane Lane feels something is missing, she has married too young, and subsequently meets Walker Jerome, a hippie who is known as the "Blouse man" (announced over the intercom by Julie Kavner's unmistakable voice ), when he brings his bus of clothing and jewelry to the camp site. Viggo Mortensen as Walker Jerome, is believable as a young man who eventually gets involved with Pearl, hoping for more.The story rings true because it is simple, but believable and even sad. The affair with him, the ultimate fact that she realizes her life is passing by, but she does love her husband and children as well. and its time to say good bye to lofty dreams. There is a decent soundtrack including Joni Mitchell, and many other gems from that era. Liev Schreiber as Marty Kantrowitz is sympathetic and funny, attempting to dance to Jimi Hendrix at the end of the film.The story is memorable without cheap sentiment, and a rare thing we see from Hollywood deserves praise. It is not a cheap romantic comedy with over the top actors, just a believable vignette which will touch you as the audience.During the credits I noticed it was produced by Dustin Hoffman as well as Tony Goldwyn. Well done. 9/10.

Dev Alok I am writing this review as a non-American. I have watched other movies about wives betraying their husbands and have liked them. For example I liked Unfaithful also featuring Diane Lane. This particular movie however, I felt was depicting the process of betrayal in very unnatural way. Main character Pearl decides to have an extra marital affair and even when caught does not show the emotions that I would expect from a character like hers. She decides to leave at night while her mother-in- law is asking her not to go. Mother-in-law finds out that she is having an affair but does very little about it. Daughter finds out that her mother is sleeping with another man and she shows her anger for mere two minutes. Husband finds out that wife is screwing another man and he just throws the milk and drives car fast. At the end all are fine. I personally feel that even in American family in 1969 this is not what happens after an extra marital affair. This movie almost seemed like the director was telling the audience that this is how you should behave after having an affair. Very unconvincing story-line.

myschrec I was 20 in 1969. I wasn't at Woodstock. I was on a Road Trip from New York to Denver and then SF - finding myself - selfishly, just like the people in this movie. The movie encapsulated many experiences in that one summer. Looking back, it took me several years to experience what was covered in this movie. For me, that occurred between 1967 and 1972 -- between Sgt Pepper and Jackson Browne -- between Chicago and Berkeley -- from college, through marriage and divorce, to California freedom. I remember being the guy whose wife needed and found someone else. I remember being the young free spirit dating the divorcée -- or the almost divorcée. Yes, these could have happened to anyone else at any other time. And generational conflicts that marked 1969 - rebellion, loose morals, iconoclasm, etc - did occur at other times in history. But this movie accurately portrayed what I did experience: listening to those songs, attending those kinds of concerts, dating those kinds of girls, just being young, free and ... yes ... selfish. I learned a lot from those experiences. And this movie did an excellent job presenting many of those conflicts, moral choices and learning experiences.