Watch Claire in Motion For Free

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

I've just watched this for the second time, not remembering if I had seen it before. It's not the kind of movie that hits you over the head or leaves you gasping. But I believe it's a lot better than many of the reviews here say. First off, I believe Betsy Brandt did a fine acting job. She seemed perfect for the part: controlled and contained while giving small signs that she's full of emotion underneath her calm exterior.One of the reviews here questioned how she leaves her son alone... in my opinion she played a mother who was trusting and almost all the time her son listened to what she told him or asked of him. She is also a math professor so that tells you something. Math/Art - Opposites? I admit there were a couple of times in the film when I thought, if it were me I'd be shouting and carrying on, but that's not her personality. Ultimately that's what she winds up questioning because her husband accuses her, before he's disappeared, of not really looking at him. I think this is the essence of the film: a woman is forced by people and events to confront herself and who she is. I have to agree that the ending was a surprise. I also agree I would have preferred a more specific ending, but this one was part of the writer's and director's vision. Maybe they'll do something similar in which the ending is more satisfying.

This movie starts slow, ends slow and never picks up in between. The story is shallow and there is not one question answered. I would have turned it off but I had to see what happened. I still don't know what happened. What a waste of my time. I can't believe anyone wasted money on this.

First off, the reason so many people hate this movie isn't because it doesn't end with a neat little bow, whatever that means.It's because nobody in this movie acts like a real person.Claire, the main character leaves her middle school or late-elementary school aged son by himself 80% of the time after her husband, his father has disappeared. Did she ever once think that he might just run away? I mean, that'd be pretty emotionally distressing, right? But thank God the script dictates that he doesn't run away, so it's fine.The girl who can laughingly be called the antagonist is a complete cliché. I can't tell you how many times I've seen the young mistress type in a movie or television show. They always have one distinguishing characteristic, but she's got two - and both are stupid. One is that she's an art student. Her "art" is literally light fixtures that look like they were bought at Pottery Barn, and piles of sticks. Her other distinguishing characteristic is that she thinks she knows what's best for Claire and her husband - yet another motivational cliché typical of awful writing.I saw "Rings" the other day, and I have to say, the only thing "Claire in Motion" has over "Rings" is that its lead actress gives a slightly better performance. Slightly.When you're worse than "Rings," you're one of the worst films ever made. I think that's my new bar. There's "Rings," and then there's "Claire in Motion," and then... I'm not sure how you can get worse than that. Maybe "After Last Season" is technically worse, but not by much.

Greetings again from the darkness. A math professor and an art professor are apt to view the world discordantly, but it doesn't mean they aren't capable of a strong personal relationship together. After planting a morning kiss on the cheek of his wife, Paul sets off on a one-man survival hike through the hills and forest. When he doesn't return, the mystery begins. Only it's not really a mystery, and it's certainly not the thriller it seems to be disguised as. Rather, it's a character study of how a rational mind works to make sense of a world that can't always be explained logically.Lisa Robinson and Annie J Howell have co-written and co-directed this story that gives Betsy Brandt a chance to really spread her dramatic acting wings after her time on "Breaking Bad". Here she plays Claire, a math professor, wife, and mother to Connor (Zev Haworth). Being of sound mind and structured thought, Claire immediately starts trying to find the logical reason for the disappearance of her husband. What she discovers is her husband often secretly veered from the structured life she so valued. This leads Claire to an awkward meeting with Allison (Anna Margaret Hollyman), one of his grad students. It turns out Allison and Paul had a pretty close connection over an upcoming art project.By now, you are probably sure you have this movie figured out. Fortunately, the filmmakers ensure it's not as predictable as you might think. It's not a thriller like Gone Girl or Deceived. We watch Claire re-trace Paul's steps on a path unfamiliar to her, and this evolves into a self-realization that she had been sleep-walking through life: doing her job, raising her kid, going home each day. There's a key moment when she's watching an old video of herself and Paul, and he says "look at me". It's at this point she begins to understand – and it's enhanced by a chance meeting in a bar with a former student. Maybe Paul isn't the only missing person.Son Connor probably doesn't get the screen time his character deserves. Like his father, Connor has some secrets of his own. His friends don't know he enjoys knitting, and he intends to keep it that way. It's one more indicator that no matter how close we are to someone, we don't know or share all. Finding and discovering one's self can be a torturous process before it ever reaches enlightenment, and though the story short-changes the process of grief, we do understand not to mindlessly nod when someone says "you know me".