The Business of Strangers (2001)

Lame Film

Very predictable with lame screenplay. Disappointing film for such fine actresses. Would NEVER recommend. Just awful, in spite of the cast. Vendor did a great job on getting the product, as promised, to me. Would recommend the vendor, not the film. July 20, 2008

Other reviews missed a crucial point

Most other reviews on this site missed a major point of the film: in the end, it didnt matter whether or not Nick, the male character, raped Paula or any friend of hers. It is decided (by the filmmaker, via Channing's character) that based on the fact that he's a man, and has a smarmy personality to boot, he most likely raped some woman at some time -- and so deserved everything he got, if not more. This is a radical point for a movie to make, and compares only to Mamet's House of Games for a similar theme. I understand the comparison's to In the Company of Men, but in that movie the man who has been lied to by his "friend" is enraged at the betrayal, and pathetically yet controllingly begging his girlfriend to take him back. People who dont realize the difference between men attacking and explointing women, and women defending themselves in a way that doesnt get themselves killed, are pathetic losers. April 18, 2008

Top performances in an intentionally ambiguous BUSINESS OF STRANGERS

STOP HERE and simply read Jeff Shannon's review for Amazon.com.He says it best, so I cannot improve.I can only add.
THE BUSINESS OF STRANGERS is a rich,rich,rich character study that is so ambiguous,that even at the end of this 84 minute thriller/comedy there can be an abundance of possible interpretations,and I dare say that they would all be viable.This film can be viewed over and over again for it's three wonderful and exacting performances from Stockard Channing, Julia Stiles and Frederick Weller (whom I had the pleasure to meet in NYC after his Tony-nominated performance in TAKE ME OUT in '03).In addition, the screenplay and direction of Patrick Stettner is that of a seasoned stage director,allowing the actors to hit their marks and to stay focused on the performances at hand.This is a very intimate film about the struggles and motivations of corporate people and their outward and secret lives.Only Stockard Channing's Julie has any kind of "epiphany".The other two,Paula and Nick....who knows,because that IS the business of strangers.The film builds very slowly and always a little off kilter to keep the viewer guessing where things are heading....very cat and mouse! FASCINATING and at a great price for an evening of fine acting and entertainment. December 24, 2007

Ladykillers beware! :)

Poignant tale of two eager women; one has passed her prime and bears the scares of the still male dominated business world of the early new millennium is aggressively portrayed to a 'T' (as in Tenacious) by Stockard Channing who is chillingly ruthless from frame to frame. The other younger, equally crafty, as well as wickedly sly woman is played by Julia Stiles who no doubt is cast by design to steal the glances of the male audience as well as opposite genders in this story of destructive payback.

Stiles' character is manipulatively calculating as she subtly unfolds a selfish plan to map a path to own success yet who's comeuppance could inevitably be in her near future at the hands of her adversary's lofty rank... or possibly visa-versa given that both become disillusioned by the cardinal sins of greed, envy and last but certainly not least, lust. Gets off the track a bit with the man-humiliation angle which may have went a bit to far but both Channing is stellar and Stiles is something to be reckoned with in this picture in more ways than one as both should be duly commended for their outstanding performances. Comparisons to Neil LaBute's powerful 1997 'In the Company of Men' are inevitable but still stands well on its own. December 9, 2007

Women in the Workplace

I enjoy films that can stand on their own two feet. Films that are unique, unparalleled to others within the same genre. While watching "Business of Strangers" a decently acted film boasting the powerhouse of Stockard Channing and Julia Stiles, I began to see that this film was just a continuation of several other films of the same vein placed together with one dramatic change, the choice of women as protagonists. Now, I am not saying that there is anything wrong with this change; I personally think that Stockard Channing is a force to be reckoned with, while Stiles continues to try to find her true inner talent, but I do have a problem with a blatant "cut-and-past" work coming from ideas that could genuinely be creative. Hear me out on this first, did anyone else - while watching this film, want to revisit a little gem called "Tape"? Or, bear with me on this one, I had a huge impulse to re-watch the film "Company of Men" after this one because there was that exact same sort of broodiness, anti-gender message lit throughout both. Maybe I am seeing these three films in an obscure light, but the similarities seemed unquenched.

With that said, how did I feel about this film? My first thought dealt with the randomness of the character interaction. The fearfulness of Channing's Julie Styron seemed unprecedented, and when we witnessed her with clients, the decision to take her forward was laughable. Was she as good as she seemed, or was she just playing the corporate field to better her advantage? The other question that came to mind was her coincidental neurosis dealing with the sporadic meeting with her boss. There was nothing, outside of moving the plot forward, which would have indicated these sudden laps of shame in her profession. The drop-in of Julia Styles suddenly meeting in the same business setting (having never met before), missing a plane together, and coincidentally ending up at the same bar sharing drinks and eventually inner secrets, just flabbergasted me. Why would these two ever meet up in a typical setting? While I don't want to think that this was just a film about the imagination of Channing, it did make you question and use the word "why". Typically I like this mind-boggling element in films, but in "Business of Strangers", it just didn't work. There was no "tell" in this film, and that tugged at me the wrong way in this film. The eerie patience that was demanded of the viewer left us with no moment of satisfaction. There was quite a bit of wait, but no payoff at the end. On one hand we have a very self-centered woman, career bent, but possibly not happy with her choices, and yet on the other we have a care-free young lady, experimental in nature, ready to change the world one person at a time. It seemed too forced, too stereotypical - too manipulative. I needed more similarities; I needed more shock to really bring these two strangers together. This tried to be a darker rendition of "The Odd Couple" with drinking, rape, and random revenge. Force enough onto a character (or characters), the audience begins to believe that it is a Hollywood feature, and you meaning imperatively finds itself lost in the trenches.

Let's move forward. Acting. In "Business of Strangers" it wasn't bad, but it wasn't the greatest that I have seen of Stiles or Channing. Their chemistry was decent, but it didn't compare to that of those characters in "Tape" or "Company of Men". This was obviously a stage film, meaning that it was a small play that had the unique opportunity to see the other side of a film camera. It was a boring premise, which is one reason I feel so fooled by this film, which was followed up by my second pet peeve of this film, it never tackled any real issues. Who were these two characters that we so dutifully were thrust into their lives? What makes them tick? What is their past? What is their future? Most importantly, at least with this film, what makes them connect? Unlike other films brought from the stage, "Business of Strangers" answers none of the above. Perhaps it is my male view on a very personal female film, but this was released to general audiences, so the appeal had to be broad. It was not emotional, it was not sad, nor was it victorious at the end. While I do not think rape is a minute problem in America, I do feel that I needed more with Channing and Stiles. Was she lying about the incident? Was she just trying to get Channing to release something from within? I wanted answers, I was pining inside for them, but the never arrived. Unlike "Shape of Things" (another film that I feel fits within the genre), there was just something missing. It was as if a big chunk of the film was misplaced. Fred Weller did a decent job, but his motive was missing. That, my friends, is the biggest element forgotten in this film. Motive.

Director Patrick Stettner did his job by bringing the characters together in, albeit, random events. He set the stage with surprisingly the darkest of corners and hidden hotel rooms. There was even a moment of unneeded tension in a scene (while I felt it wasn't needed) that was done with some bit of grace, but he continued to forget the element mentioned above ... motive. There was no reason to answer the question "why", when our characters were taking unmotivated photographs, when they were about to commit murder, or when they were talking to each other like they had known each other for years. There was no reason for director Stettner to get us from point A to point B, so in my opinion, he moved the action along through a series for unconnected points. Sure, the acting was meaty, but the words that they spoke merely were attached to a script which eventually had to have and ending. For a little over and hour, I watched good actors read through a bad script. Again, if there was more creativity in the motion of Stettner's work, then maybe I would have felt better by the ending, but I wasn't sitting on the edge of my seat, the characters didn't have me questioning the validity of my own life, nor was I ready to gush Niagara Falls over the body of work. By the end, I felt bland, as if I just watched a feminist remake of "In the Company of Men" or "Tape".

Overall, I wish I could say that I can suggest this film, but I cannot. The acting, with enough said above, you should realize that these are two great actors working through an abominable script. The story was pieced together probably overnight without much thought going into the entire process. It was dark, but the tones were miscommunicated as we tried to grapple with the idea that these two people had never met before but spoke as if they were best friends. Coupled with dialog that would make kindergarteners chuckle, "Business of Strangers" was a film packed with missed possibilities. If you are looking for either a redemption film or a film about coping with your tough job, may I suggest anything outside of this film. Mamet's vision of business is phenomenal, while I repeat more about Linklater's "Tape", will show you how a concept, done correctly, makes for a powerful film.

Grade: ** out of ***** July 2, 2007

More reviews at Amazon.com ...