Watch Me and Orson Welles For Free

One of my all time favorites.

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

I admire anyone who can sit through more than eight minutes of this stupid, pretentious movie. Everything about it screams "Look at me!", and when a movie's own pretensions can overshadow as flamboyant a character as Orson Welles, something is terribly wrong.It's just one "Look at me!" moment after another. "Look at me! I'm the real 1930s New York City!" (that's the cheesy, heavily sepia-ed Hollywood backlot set talking) Then: "Look at me! I'm Zac Efron, making a REAL MOVIE! and I can play a mean drum roll! and sing a Wheaties jingle! and flirt with an ugly girl!" Then: "Look at me! I may be an unknown British stage actor, but I *AM* Orson Welles!"That's when I gagged and ejected the DVD. I'll spare myself yet another appearance of the persistently obnoxious Claire Danes.Viewers who think this movie is an authentic look at Welles, or an authentic look at Depression-era New York theatre, or an authentic ANYTHING, have had their minds crippled by watching way too much phony Hollywood garbage - which is exactly what this movie is.

It's 1937. On a trip to NYC, high school student Richard Samuels (Zac Efron) befriends artistic Gretta Adler (Zoe Kazan). Then he accidentally run into Orson Welles (Christian McKay) at the Mercury Theatre. Orson offers him the role of Lucius in his Julius Caesar. Orson is a dictator and Sonja Jones (Claire Danes) takes him under her wings.Zac Efron starts off completely self assured. I think it would better if he starts off unsure with Gretta and Sonja. He should be more like a green youngster that the movie wants him to start off as. He is too much of a big movie star right from the start. Other than that, these are great performances from everybody especially Christian McKay. Director Richard Linklater allows the actors to flourish in this.

Monotone is the best suited word to describe it. I love every other Linklater film and I've been postponing to watch this film because I don't think "Junior", played by Effron, is much of an actor. Well, I was right, the kid overacts, delivers some of his lines as if he's reading from the script as they're shooting it and even reacts before the right moment. In this scene, where the character played by Kelly Reilly kisses him on the cheek, the kid literally reacts to the kiss before it is even landed. But the problem with this film is not the teenage idol. I don't understand why a brilliant writer such as Richard Linklater would choose to direct someone else's script, specially a particularly horrible one. This film is an insult to New York period films post Mad Men; the characters act - or overact - as if they are on a play the entire time. I don't know whose fault it is, but I doubt it was Linklater's who usually goes for the natural performances, sometimes even improvs. Unless you're a 12 year-old teenage girl who never heard of Orson Welles, you have nothing to take from this, not even entertainment.

When thinking about this film, the one thing that comes to mind is the scene talking about the short story - where nothing happened. I was looking forward to this movie, after all the rave reviews about it, and though it was not the worst film I've ever seen, it's definitely nowhere near the top. I spent the entire thing bored, waiting for something that wasn't monotonous to happen, and it never did. Although well acted, I had little interest in the characters or plot lines. Perhaps it's due to a lack of knowledge or understanding of Orson Welles' career, on my part, but I would not recommend this to other people.