Window Theory (2005) User Reviews

Silly and Pointless Peter Pan's Complex

[claudio_carvalho · 5/10 · 20 September 2007]

In Los Angeles, the twenty-five years old reckless wolf playboy Ethan Humphries (Corey Large) lives in night-clubs scoring women supported by his parents, without working or studying. When his high-school friend Bradley (Luke Kirby) accidentally tells him that his former best friend Jeff (Luke Flynn) will get married in a couple of days, Ethan immediately travels to his hometown. He meets Brad, who is studying in the medical school, and the shy Sean (Tom Lenk), who is studying psychology, and recalls his glorious high school days, but his friends do not tell the name of the bride to him. While meeting Jeff in a bar in the night, Ethan finds that his fiancée is his former high-school sweetheart Stephanie (Jennifer O'Dell). After meeting Stephanie, Ethan questions whether he is still in love with she, or only recalling a passion from his past.

I tried to like "Window Theory", but unfortunately this silly and pointless story of a man with Peter Pan's complex does not work. First, it is not possible to feel any empathy for the lead characters: Ethan is an aimless man that has not grown-up that sees women like object and does not respect even his best friend; Stephanie is a slut, sleeping with Ethan two days before her wedding; and Jeff is a man without personality, inviting his boss to be his best man and easily forgetting his responsibilities and commitment. The title has no connection with the plot and the conclusion has no moral, lesson or redemption. I like brainless teen movie, but the forgettable "Window Theory" is not a good film. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "O Casamento da Minha Namorada" ("The Wedding of My Girlfriend")

Some theories are pretty much rubbish, as are movies, and this film comes close, despite some very attractive performers

[inkblot11 · 3/10 · 12 March 2009]

Ethan (Corey Large, very handsome) bar hops in the Los Angeles area and is, in general, a womanizer. However, he learns that one of his best pals from high school, Brad (Luke Kirby) is about to take the plunge and get married. Wondering how the two of them now have such different agendas, Ethan travels back to his hometown and reconnects with Brad. These gents, along with other old male friends, rehash the past and go out on the town. But, Ethan is slow to learn one important fact. Brad is marrying Ethan's old high school flame, Stephanie (Jennifer O'Dell). When this comes to light, Ethan rushes to meet Steph again and see if she is truly in love with Brad, who has turned into something of a stuffed shirt. Wouldn't she still prefer a handsome, independent guy like Ethan? I watched this film as I was sorting through mail and paying bills and its a good thing, for it has many deficiencies and would hardly do for a "good view for two". However, it is not the fault of the cast, Large, O'Dell, Kirby and others, for these young "lookers" are pretty engaging. Also, the scenery and costuming are good, too, and the film's production values are high. It's downfall is its ending, which is very disappointing and vague, and its "theory". The film's premise is that one should meet the love of one's life before age 24, at least if you are a woman, because after that, the "window" of opportunity starts to shut and becomes smaller with each passing year. Ho, ho, ho, what a great thought! If you adore romantic comedy, especially with good-looking actors, you might want to give this one a try. But, truly, it is not just a theory of mine that few will embrace this one mightily, it is pretty much of a fact.

Made in High School

[Richard_vmt · 5/10 · 30 March 2008]

This is about a playboy type whose ego gets in the way when he discovers his best friend is marrying his former high school girlfriend. The entire story falls flat for anyone who went beyond high school because it is all about the inviolability of those allegiances and the heroes they raised. I found it impossible to like him. He resorts to his fists twice in the film simply because someone disagrees with him. All characters in this film including the women systematically include "fucking" in every sentence. Take away the nice homes and the trendy night spots, the recent showers and good grooming, and wouldn't you have a bunch of coughing, spitting, farting, possibly pimple-y-faced losers? The film did convey a sense of bravado, which is always a pleasure, but the excessive loyalty seemed servile. What was supposed to be a comedy turned into a long groaning attempt to overcome a mole hill in the road of social development.

All through the film I diligently tried unsuccessfully to find it amusing on the basis of its description as a romantic comedy, but only in the final moments did it occur to me the film makers might have been trying for social realism, eg., Saturday Night and Sunday Morning or Alfie. To paraphrase the words of Lloyd Bentsen: 'Mr. Putschoegl, you are no Tony Richardson.'

What A Painful Way To Lose Your Money

[Geeseherder · 1/10 · 11 March 2005]

After reading the L.A. Times review by Carina whatshername that roasted this thing as sophomoric and ham-handed, I thought I'd give it a try, as she is usually off the mark with her pretentious, Went-To-Film-School-And-Wish-I-Were-A-Director self important ranting. Well, for once she was right. Film school cinematography at best due to uneven lighting and plenty of soft focus that wasn't intentional. Ham-handed the acting truly was. The lead character, Ethan, was an awful stereotype of the prom king who comes home from L.A. for a visit, yet who hasn't grown up. Plus, his falling in and out of a classic Canadian accent, which was a signal of sorts as to why films made in Canada are often so bad, was the least of his acting inabilities. His ex-girlfriend, who is marrying his ex-best friend, was another exercise in casting a beautiful person who has the emotional range of a turtle. The other characters ran the bad movie gamut from stereotypical to annoying. The brainy sidekick who is under his parents thumb in going to med school who needs to break free. The nerd who was strangely played as gay yet pined after girls (who would have been much better played as gay, but then Ethan's pseudo-macho party-boy character would have had to beat him up). The ex-best friend who gets the girl is a joke as well. The attempt here is to portray him as a corporate sellout by having his boss (played one-dimensionally by Paul Johansson of One Tree Hill) show up in town to do some kind of special project with him. He and Ethan don't seem to have ever really liked each other, and you don't really care anyway because both characters are so shallow and annoying you are just hoping for the comet to hit them all and improve the movie. Whoever wrote this at least has the comfort of knowing they can only get better from here talent-wise. As for the ending you ask, well there isn't one. Somewhere in the middle of this disaster, Ethan and the ex-girl of course sleep together, which leads us to believe that they will have an end-of-the-film declaration of love for each other at the wedding. Nope. There is no wedding because there is no end to the film. We just get a shot of the three immature boys walking down the street after a night of drinking. It was an attempt at a deep and meaningful denouement that would reflect a triumph of film-making. You can only imagine how badly it failed.

worst movie of the year!

[webbsoner1 · 1/10 · 9 March 2005]

easily the worst movie of the year. as this brainless swingers ripoff lard of a movie tries to invade your theaters(no distributor yet)stay clear from this as it will rob u of 90 minutes u will never get back not even that hot chick jennifer odell can even warrant a rental. shows you that you do not need talent,skill,vision,creativity, in this case much of anything to make a film. JUsst money! people! stay clear of this like the plague. the plot is beyond TV standard with no true moments,fake poignancy stupid boring characters no sense as to why this movie was made.c'mon why is this drivel being made. we need real art to be continued to be made. this will make you want to watch swingers a 100 times to forget this thing ever existed.

how do the worst scripts become movies?

[exodus_999 · 1/10 · 7 February 2006]

i wouldn't even give it one star out of five. how many movies do you watch where you actually hate the main character? i can't even begin to list the things that were wrong with this movie. why do production companies pick such awful scripts to make a movie with? thousands of scripts are given each year, and of those thousands, around 10% are actually made into movies. can it be that the other 90% were WORSE than 'window theory'? how is that possible. awful script, horrible dialogue, no chemistry between any of the characters, lines are delivered like kids in a bad high school play, the music doesn't fit with any of the scenes, even the wardrobe was terrible! it hurt to force myself to watch the rest of this movie to see if anything was salvageable... but no. no doubt the worst movie i've ever seen. lets hope people don't watch this movie, otherwise these actors will never get work again.

Apparently ANYONE can make a movie...

[beckyispretty · 1/10 · 16 May 2005]

This was bad folks.... Very bad. There are no other adjectives I could possibly conjure up to describe it. I found myself getting restless and bored after the first 20 minutes. Apparently the writers never even read the most basic of screen writing books... (Ahem Syd Field anyone? Go to your local B&N and check it out please...) The plot was as thin as water, the acting worse than an elementary school play, the cinematography so-so, and the lack of direction apparent. What's even more sad is that if you look at all the "key players" involved in the shoot (director, DP, writers, and even most of the actors) they CONTINUE to make films together. Please, for the love of god, STOP! To me, this is proof that about anyone with a little financial backing can make a movie. Then again if you look closely the lead actor's "daddy" produced it. There's hope left for Hollywood yet. No reputable names are attached to this stinky thing.

Really good

[homeoh9 · 10/10 · 4 December 2005]

I actually really enjoyed this film, it was a lot deeper than people gave it credit for. It seemed very true to life to me. Friends, girls, the way everyone talked very realistic. Everyone should also keep in mind that this was low budget, it looked absolutely amazing what a great looking film. They obviously know how to make films. They have more to do and I think people who do look deeper are going to enjoy it and see that it is deeper. Ethan I thought was great a joker, who did care just trying to grow up, and people do FAR worse things than him, he just missed his friends, only an idiot would give this movie a 1. It is not going to win an Oscar but who cares. I would even like to see a sequel see what happened to the characters.

Funny

[devonmann33 · 10/10 · 16 March 2006]

Hello All,

I enjoyed this film I saw it when I was in England. The people I was with also liked it, i do not think they got some of the humor but were excited to see Errol Flynn's Grandson in the film. I hope other people rent the film and give it a shot. I wish you all the best. I also recently watched the other film done by these lads, much different then this one but showing very good Range, a bit of a complex plot but great twist, I am looking forward to the Errol Flynn project as well as the Toxic film as well. Great young film makers and it is good to see. I also thought the location of Window Theory was gorgeous almost worth renting just to look at the locations. I understand that this is supposed to be Washington State but is actually in Vancouver, Canada home of the 2010 Olympics have yet to go but is now on the top of my list.