Stay Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES PLOT SUMMARY
A thought-provoking and haunting exploration of how reality and dream-states may combine to form complex interactions in the mind of an accident victim. The line between the imagination and reality blurs when an accomplished Psychiatrist takes on a patient that appears to be suicidal.
| Ewan McGregor | Sam Foster |
| Ryan Gosling | Henry Letham |
| Kate Burton | Mrs. Letham |
| Naomi Watts | Lila Culpepper |
| Elizabeth Reaser | Athena |
| Bob Hoskins | Dr. Leon Patterson |
| Janeane Garofalo | Dr. Beth Levy |
| B. D. Wong | Dr. Ren |
| John Tormey | Custodian/Piano Mover #1 |
| José Ramón Rosario | Cabbie/Piano Mover #2 |
| Becky Ann Baker | Paramedic #1/Butch Cook |
| Lisa Kron | Paramedic #2 |
| Gregory Mitchell | Dance Instructor |
| John Dominici | Boy/Young Henry |
| Jessica Hecht | Boy's Mother |
| Marc Forster |
6.80 out of 10 (24 votes)
Visitor Reviews
masterful movie.
posted on 26 Aug 2009i really enjoyed this, saw it on Showtime or HBO. since i have TiVo i really enjoyed replying parts and playing it slow to see the clues of this thriller/surrealistic flick. it is not for everyone, but it is a great story and well made. this is up there with Memento and The Butterfly Effect in my opinion. enjoy and keep your eyes and ears on the film, not a movie you can talk thru. i will have to rent the DVD to see how the made the movie and HOPEFULLY there is discussion what certain scenes meant. i saw twins, and triplets and several times faces of people in a crowd or singular that i am sure had symbolism. the director does some very creative things that had me wanting to watch this over and over. i RARELY re-watch movies. i consider it a waste of time, but this one is incredible. i will look for any other movies by
"this is definitely worth seeing..."
posted on 23 Aug 2009when i saw the trailer for this movie, i thought it was some kind of horror movie. it's nothing like that...it's actually a very good movie. there are really good, fresh ideas here that make this movie work. the ending was a real surprise, and kept me thinking about it for a long while after i saw this movie. this is definitely worth seeing.
Well made movie about the last minute brain activities- Spoiler
posted on 22 Aug 2009Dear Readers....This is a well made but not a superbly done movie...I gave it an 8/10. Lost 1 point for originality and 1 point for the flow...excellent cinematographic notably the repeated scenes with several identical cloned person..similar to the one we saw in KyLie Minogue "Come into my Wirld " MTV....Cool...Main storyline bears similarity with Jacket(Andrien Brody)and "the Other" and Sixth Sense...about a certain man named Henry Letham...suffered grave injury and in the process of dying...and the whole movie was based on the last several minutes of his remaining partial hallucinating..partial delusioning and partial consciousness . It was long believed that the dying process is not as simple as once thought...the brain neural activities remain quite active for sometimes about 8-15 minutes depend on the age....temperature..mode of trauma...etc...and during this phase of critical moments...the brain cell trying to make up what ever function they have to form a vivid and attempted to interpret all the last few brain activities as real as possible.Henry Letham had in mind(brain) about the death of his parents.and possible his girl friend during that grave car accidents...and in the last few minutes..Dr.Sam (Ewan) and Naomi attended him for aide...and the remaining brain function started to incorporate Dr. Sam/Naomi and several by standers characters into his vivid "dreamy" stage...hence the interesting story line with jugged time lines...deja vu phenomenon and the "ability" to predict or perform miracle...Wait till the last minutes....only then the director would reveal the truth to you! Worth a watch...but Jacket is better one...
Intelligence from a Big Studio -- Who Knew????
posted on 18 Aug 2009I went to this film for the visuals --- including the looks of the three lead actors who are all beautiful! I expected it to be silly and bad for the exception of the set design and cinematography. However, I was most surprised to discover that I was watching one of the most thought-provoking and intelligent films I've seen in years! ...and I was seeing it at the mall cinema where DOOM was playing next door! This is an exceptional piece of film work and a tip of the hat to who ever it was at the Big Studio who gave it the "green light" If only more films like this came out from mainstream Hollywood I would "deal" with the mall theaters more often. This film is eye, ear and mind candy. I love it. Particularly enjoyed the use of twin symbology throughout. This is the sort of film I would expect from the likes of David Cronenberg or David Lynch. Refreshing and unique. I actually got to think! One of my faves of the year thus far!
Oh Come On........
posted on 29 Jul 2009First off, I would like to say to all those viewers who are just assuming that those who didn't like it just didn't "get it". I "got it" just fine, and still think for the most part it was a terrible movie. I am a fairly intelligent woman, and will freely admit to having accused others of "not getting it" when they didn't like other thought provoking, artistic type movies. After this movie, I think those people can be pretty confident that they won't ever hear those words from me again. This wasn't a difficult movie to "get", I, and those I watched it with (who also, in case you are wondering, are not unintelligent people) walked away with more of a "who cares" attitude then a "what happened there" one. So, if there are any of you out there thinking "maybe I just didn't get it..." you probably DID and maybe just don't realize that there wasn't a whole lot to get. Don't worry, you aren't stupid, just less pretentious than some others.....
this movie is terrible horrible awful
posted on 27 Jul 2009I feel no need to get into details, but this movie makes no sense what so ever. I can appreciate the ambiance of the film, and the artistic visual quality as well. The so called "plot" or "storyline" is an absolute joke. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but for Christs sake this is just ridiculous. I cant help but laugh out loud at all the guessing at who's dream it is, and what certain things represent. For lack of a better term this movie is complete horse$&%^#. If you like movies that do not make sense and leave you guessing and racking your brain for a logical explanation then God bless you. I personally do not believe this movie has an merit what so ever, and while I do appreciate the altered state of reality it creates I simply do not buy into this garbage. Two words describe this brand of Hollywood trash, artsy fartsy. Over the top ridiculous mess.
would love to be Kevin Lynch
posted on 27 Jul 2009This film could be a student film done by one of the Columbia students it uses as extras. It creates a definite mood of disorientation with its heavy use of camera tricks and soundtrack . . . but moods of disorientation, especially those alien to the plot, are not enough to carry a film. And I absolutely hate films that resolve ridiculous complication and incoherence at the end with "oh, it was all just a dream." Unbearable. I'm angry at myself for watching the film through to completion. I did it because it reminded of Mulholland Drive. In that case, a suspension of disbelief pays off. The film is complex. In this case, such a suspension is worthless. The film is complicated. This is not a new kind of film; this is a high-budgeted student grade film.
Don't bother, it never comes
posted on 25 Jul 2009I'm a big movie fan, I'm not stupid, I 'get' the film, I see the performances, the visuals blah blah blah but I'm sorry I thought this film was absolute rubbish. What a waste of time. Spent 2 hours of my life waiting for something meaningful or some great twist to appear and it just never happened. What an over indulgent, hollow excuse of a film... To be fair I was fairly hopeful. Missed the first 5 minutes so at first thought I had missed some great key to the understanding of the plot. As it progressed I started to realise that I hadn't and everyone else was just as confused as me. The plot floated, trying to switch between some kind of psychological horror to a deeply moving film about the beauty of life. It failed severely on both accounts, and instead became more of a boring, confusing and seriously disappointing excuse for a thriller. I held on right to the end, waiting for something to redeem the film, hoping that it couldn't actually be that bad... I was sadly wrong. The so called 'twist' didn't even begin to scratch the surface. It was so obvious from the onset and that's not necessarily a bad thing, but the construction of this film was so flat. I was left, feeling thoroughly disappointed and slightly empty. Three words: DO NOT BOTHER.
"Stay" until "November"
posted on 25 Jul 2009"November" is "Stay" w/ Less Bank & More Brain (spoilers!) Sorry to do a bit of double spoiling, but if you like these kinds of films then you'll enjoy the journey as much as the destination and if you don't like them the destination will be a disappointment.First, let me say that "Stay" isn't a bad film, if you like films with philosophical plots. If not then you'll probably end up feeling as if you've wasted a couple of hours.On the other hand, if you like philosophical films then watch "Stay" as a warm up to the far superior, lower budget "November". "Stay" and "November" are close to identical in premise / plot as well as the visual style used to reinforce their shared theme. However, of the two, I found "November" to be much more tightly focused and constructed and much more successful as a "mystery" with an existential villain (death)."November" holds up much better on second and subsequent viewings because all of the pieces are coherent once the context is known. Both films offer compelling visual effects. Of the two, "Stay" has the more technically accomplished visuals—no doubt due to its larger budget. But November's superlative construction makes it worth a rewind, where "Stay" proves a bit visually cloying and philosophically preachy. Also, some of Stay's puzzle pieces don't quite fit unless we use theme and parable as a shoehorn, leading me to believe that the big budget led to some fat that the director just couldn't bring himself to trim. (Both films do a good job using medium and character to argue for and against the premise that the eyes are windows to / for the soul. Although blind Bob Hoskins is a bit much!) Considering their subject matter, you might think that it's silly to rate the believability of these two films, but I think that "November" wins hands down as far as contextural plausibility. As did its thematic predecessor "Jacob's Ladder," "November" constructs its forward dream from shards that are readily accessible in the consciousness and memory of its POV character. Thus the action of "November" is really just a complex, fully imagined version of life (including hopes / dreads for the future) flashing before your eyes at the moment of death. This fuels an eerily poignant sense of loss and regret in both the viewer and the character. (Life is like the film: once you figure it out it's already over.) "Stay" takes the splashier, shallower, consciousness swapping, prescient sci-fi route.I don't think that either film did that well at the box office. I credit this to two factors: 1) the average mainstream film-goer doesn't get revved up by intriguing visual effects when these effects don't serve a readily accessible plot; 2) the ultimate outcomes of both films are existential; and existential plots leave your average mainstream film-goer feeling that he has been had.Luckily, both of these box office hobbles are boons to a cult film in the making. "November" deserves a long life on pay-per-view, DVD and cable. And "Stay" might just be granted a reprieve as fodder for comparison and contrast.
great movie
posted on 23 Jul 2009i just saw this movie tonight, and i'll admit i was a bit skeptical in the beginning. i was afraid of a "fight club" style ending, but it turned out to be very original. after seeing it all the way through and analyzing it, i have really come to enjoy it. the filming was amazing and the dialogue, while not making sense initially, really adds something to the film once you've seen the ending. i can't wait to go and see it again to pick up on all the little clues. again, simply a great movie. all the people who say they don't like it, i would suggest seeing it again, because once you understand this movie, you can really appreciate all the effort the film makers put into it.
the unbearable lightness of dreaming
posted on 13 Jul 2009I guess the writing of the film is based on a bunch of different and self-sustaining ideas that eventually don't bind as well as the makers thought they would. Although a great atmosphere manages to make its way to the viewer's eyes and thoughts in many scenes, when judged as a whole, "STAY" probably disappoints or just leaves you a feeling of pointlessness towards the movie and the scenario is relatively weak.What's good is that when you finally figure out what's going on you get that feeling of wanting to explore a little more of the whole idea of the film as it is a rather unusual one and/or a "oh my god i was thinking about making a movie with a similar plot" type of movie. But when analyzing a little thorougher what just went on before your eyes the last one and a half hour you end up in a maze of goofs and storyline dead-ends that don't have strong foundations. Overall it is pretty watchable.
Audiences should Stay
posted on 07 Jul 2009Marc Forster, director of the two critically acclaimed movies Monster's Ball and Finding Neverland, adds another movie to his list of successes through a rather abnormal film. Forster returns to the grimy feel that he gave viewers in Monster's Ball, but is also one that appeals to audience members with action and mystery. Stay stars Ewan McGregor (Star Wars Episode III, Big Fish) as Sam Foster, an Ivy League Psychologist, and Ryan Gosling (The Notebook), as Henry Letham, a suicidal college student. Henry Letham comes to Sam Foster with a goal to kill himself in three days. Sam then searches for a way to prevent Henry from going through with his plan. This psychological thriller leads viewers on a wild goose chase with Sam, who aims toward the goal of preventing Letham's suicide from taking place. Through the theme of suicide, Marc Forster creates a world where the viewer does not know what is real and what is a dream or psychosis. This theme is summed up by one of the characters' saying, "The world is an illusion". The movie's illusions are created when characters disappear and reappear and other key events are repeated, which leads (or leading) to an ultimately psychedelic feel. Forster leads viewers into the mind of depression and suicide through visual elements and sly editing. Watching this movie is almost a reminder of what Ron Howard brought to us in the movie A Beautiful Mind, except that Forster offers a film that seems like it was placed on the fast forward button. The two key actors bring a sense of reality to a film that could be entirely illusion. Both Ewan McGregor and Ryan Gosling use some stellar acting to the table, adding a Grand Canyon full of depth to the film. Gosling is realistic in his role as the depression- wracked Henry Letham. a passive character set to complete the goal of suicide, occasionally going into fits of rage. One unfortunate thing about Stay was that McGregor's psychologist character was not entirely believable. Real psychologists keep confidentiality rather than blabbing to their girlfriend about it. Also, if he were a real psychologist he wouldn't panic about a patient wanting to commit suicide. In spite of this element the acting was excellent and created realism in an expressionist world. Marc Forster proves to audience members that he can create beautiful movies that also satisfy the desire for action. The visual elements are, again, spectacular, and it almost leaves one breathless when watching McGregor and Gosling show their talent. There is no doubt: it is worth being dragged into the world of the depressed and suicidal for this short ride in an illusion called Stay.
beautifully shot, beautifully executed masterpiece
posted on 23 Jun 2009Watched this film at home after avoiding it like the plague due to critics. As others have said, every review I see on here so far that rates this film poorly seems to have missed the ending. It can be tricky to piece together, but it is SO worth it. For those of you that are confused at the end, the special features section of the DVD has a short film that makes the whole thing clear. Go watch that, and then come back here for the spoilers: *****************SPOILERS************ Only the first and last scenes in the film are reality. Henry (Ryan Gosling) has just been the driver in an accident. His parents and girlfriend have been killed. He's dazed and critically injured. Two bystanders come up to help: a doctor (Ewan McGreggor) and a nurse (Naomi Watts). They have never met each other or the victim until this moment. Henry tells them he blames himself, and they try to explain to him that it wasn't his fault (a tire blew out). Despite this, Henry continues to struggle with guilt. He's also in shock from his major injuries and is close to death. The whole rest of the film is his near death experience and his hallucination as his body is slowly dying and he goes in and out of consciousness. The doctor becomes a psychiatrist trying to help him with guilt. The nurse is coaxing him to "STAY with us," telling him there's too much beauty in the world to let go. All the other bystanders at the accident and the random things they say also appear in his dream. Sounds from the accident are in the background throughout. The crux of this movie is that he is deciding whether he should stay in this world or depart to the next -- To Be Or Not To Be – i.e. the Hamlet reference. His surname "Letham" is even an ANAGRAM for Hamlet! Bob Hoskins really *IS* his father (he's dead in the car). For those who don't understand the repeated scenes - this vision is playing out in his *dying* brain. That's why the story gets more and more confused as we near the end.One other thing - a lot of you keep questioning McGreggor's "weird flood pants." Notice that they are rolled up on the bridge because of the rainstorm. He's wearing them throughout the film because that's the only outfit Gosling's character sees as McGreggor kneels beside him to help, so it just becomes part of his hallucination. It's actually just a cool little hint at the ending.
Worth renting, but not great
posted on 23 Jun 2009I guess this was a decent enough film, but it was far from perfect. It was very well acted, especially on Gosling's part. He almost reminded me of Jake Gyllenhaal in Donnie Darko. MacGreggor was pretty good as well, but not nearly as good as he has been in the past. The plot was OK, I guess, but the director ruined any surprises it may have had in store. To avoid spoilers I'll just say this: Some very obvious and intrusive symbolism, as well as the way the camera showed certain people/objects, revealed much of the outcome long before it should have. For that reason I was pretty disappointed with the ending, though there were some great visuals. Last but not least, I wish that they would have focused more on MacGreggor's character near the end. We see a lot of him, but I wish they could have gone more into what he was thinking and feeling. To sum up, I guess this one's worth renting, but I wouldn't spend too much on it.5.5/10
Awful
posted on 21 Jun 2009This film is really confusing and plot less. I find it insulting when people on this site claim those who didn't enjoy STAY are 'Dim-Witted'. I think the actuality this film cost as much as it did and reaped so little at the box-office is a testament to how univolving this crap is. It makes no sense and is pretentious beyond belief. You guys can pontificate all you want about the merits and masterful movie-making, but ultimately this is an empty film with very little to say. What's the point of making a film when so few people will actually watch it. Surely studios should be thinking about the audience before they do anything. If the aim was to make a small 'art' film then why'd this cost $50 million? Rupert Murdoch's gone crazy!
Stay Of Execution
posted on 20 Jun 2009Stay is a wonderful movie to watch, by which I mean, it is a wonderful movie to look at. Cinematography is superb, the entire film seems distant and surreal, a feeling reinforced by the haunting, chilly blue/gray wash. Art direction is equally inspired. The architecture and interior design are eye-popping - this is certainly a well-endowed university/hospital! Add to this the clever, (if not painfully and blatantly clever), camera moves where people, settings, and situations morph into one another - and you have a film that is eager to delight the eye.
The problem is that this is the only part of you that is delighted. I won't give away the gadget, such as it is, but I will say that the nature of the gadget necessitates a distance from the protagonists, all the key players are held at arm's length, even the tormented Henry. Everyone we meet in Stay has gone through some sort of catastrophic event, and yet, we feel no sympathy at all. This is because we never get to know them; all we're really aware of is the deliberate confusion. The movie is staggeringly slow; it is rather like watching exotic and beautiful tropical fish swirling lazily in a tank - if one of them eats another - who cares?
Ryan Gosling is very good as Henry, but one wonders why he would reprise his role from the splendid film, United States Of Leland, so blatantly, seems risky. A really terrific cast is given almost nothing to do, Naomi Watts, Elizabeth Reaser, Bob Hoskins, and Janeane Garofalo appear - and I use the word advisedly - give us the benefit of their recognizable faces, and disappear. Ewan McGregor, a fine actor, makes the most of the limitations inherent in his role by giving a panicked performance worthy of a trapped Hitchcock hero.
Director Marc Foster gave us the brilliant Monster's Ball, where character and stunning imagery propelled every frame. His Finding Neverland had appeal, but certainly did not occupy the same rarified atmosphere. In Stay, something very, very different is going on. Character does not drive action, action, or lack thereof, drives character.
Beautiful to watch, fairly interesting gizmo providing the big reveal, the "aha moment." Ultimately it reminded me of the old joke, "You've got a right to think your wife is being unfaithful if you move from New York to California and realize one day you have the same mailman."
A (trite) examination of one man's journey through purgatory
posted on 17 Jun 2009I'm amazed that there are people out there who didn't "get" this movie. The entire movie is explicitly explained in the last few minutes. If you didn't get it, then just watch the last five minutes again, where the scriptwriter basically bashes you over the head with the answers to all the prior symbolism.I was not disappointed by the ending; nor was I surprised.Anyone who's read An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge or seen Lost Highway or Jacob's Ladder (two much better movies about this subject) will immediately recognize all the symbolic elements, see the "shocking" twist coming from miles away, and will feel somewhat cheated by the somewhat played-out script. I mean, really, once David Lynch weighs in on the topic, what more really needs be said? The biggest problem with this movie (besides the lack of originality) is that it both underestimated and overestimated its audience, at the same time. The geniuses were offended that it was so easy to see through, while the dummies (no offense intended) were offended that there was symbolism at all. And, of course, some people will always hate surrealism, calling it "cheap" or "it was all just a dream", when it's about exploring one's subconsciousness, not dreaming.All in all, a rather nicely shot movie, but not nearly so beautiful, original, or revolutionary as the younger IMDb members would have you believe.
Not a Tarantino film?
posted on 13 Jun 2009i am not an artistic type. maybe i'm weird, but when i watch a movie, i expect to be told a story and i want it to be a good one. i do NOT expect to be wondering what that story was after the movie is over. apparently, i'm slow, because i've talked to many people who liked pulp fiction. i may have liked it, too, but i never understood that scenes were replayed from a different character's perspective. therefore, i was just lost all the time. i have since tried to watch at least one other Tarantino (sp?) film (28 grams)and gave up on that one in about 12 minutes. it's one thing to be confused about characters' motives or actions in a movie, but it's another to have to try to figure out whether one is being told the story in the present or the past or if it's something else entirely. the only reason i'm typing this right now was that, after watching the movie, i was convinced that it was Tarantino yet again messing with me and had to confirm it. i didn't, but i still don't understand what i just watched. can anyone help me understand it and/or is there anyone out there that understands where i'm coming from?
Unequal
posted on 30 Aug 2009Not too many things to write on this movie. It surely is clever and meant to make us come in contact with relatively unexplored artistically parts of our psyche but 1. It is, I think, badly directed. Like the "Constant Gardener", it takes a clever and interesting scenario and expands it to a 1 hour and a half video clip. The rhythm of the movie (awful editing) is ridiculous and subtracts from the dramatic density. A comparison with the rhythm of a film like the Machinist helps to make this point come out better. 2. The visual style is generally OK and at times superb but again does not seem to be an organic part of the narrative of the film: it seems just "forced" on it at certain moments. 3. As for the acting I believe protagonists do relatively well, but cannot say the same thing for McGregor (but maybe I am wrong about this, have to see the film once more). All in all an interesting film but very unequal and arguably destroyed by the video clip-type editing which gives entirely the wrong rhythm.