Me and Orson Welles (2010)

Featured Audience Ratings

• Sam B

  
  I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this movie. A lot of this comes from Christian McKay's spot-on role as Orson Welles, with all the self-constructed grandeur that came with him. The rest of the cast, while slightly pushed from the spotlight by McKay, is excellent all around,… More
  I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this movie. A lot of this comes from Christian McKay's spot-on role as Orson Welles, with all the self-constructed grandeur that came with him. The rest of the cast, while slightly pushed from the spotlight by McKay, is excellent all around, with virtually no exceptions. It's also incredibly interesting how Zac Efron, as an actor, is reflected in the character he plays. His character, Richard, claims at the film's beginning that he's only been in school productions, but tries throughout the course of the film to prove himself as a true actor. This movie also happens to be Efron's own attempts to prove himself as a viable lead after being "The Highschool Musical Guy". While I won't say if his character succeeds in the movie, he certainly succeeds at the role - by the end of the movie, I had accepted him as much more than the cheap Disney star he once appeared to be.

• Chris W

  
  Charming. Really charming. Perhaps too charming. It's good though, and pretty entertaining. This is a fictionalized tale built around a real event. The film concerns a young student who happens to luck into getting a bit part in Orson Welles 1937 stage adaptation of Julius… More
  Charming. Really charming. Perhaps too charming. It's good though, and pretty entertaining. This is a fictionalized tale built around a real event. The film concerns a young student who happens to luck into getting a bit part in Orson Welles 1937 stage adaptation of Julius Caesar at the Mercury Theater, a production that was a radical take on the story that some say was more Welles than Shakespeare. The film is a nice little behind the scenes look at theatrical productions, as well as a study of Welles and how difficult he was to work with. There's a some romance involved, but it's not overly sappy, and it's all fairly well played. Efron is decent (which kind of surprised me), but he still needs some work. Also, he looked a bit too "dreamy". At any rate, this is at least a step towards a role that will really test his skills and give him some credibility and hopefully some respect. You know, the kind of role that really turns some one into an actor that people take seriously. Danes is good in her role as the production assistant who has ambitions of getting to the top and will take about any measure necessary to get there. All the other supporting players are good too, but, as you may expect, this film really belongs to one person, and that is Christian McKay. This film is, I believe, his first cinematic effort, though not his first crack at Welles. He's amazing, and does a great job at capturing the look, mannerisms, attitude, and most importantly, the voice, of one of history's greatest arrogant misunderstood geniuses. I liked the production design here, and the end credits are nifty as well. The spirit of the times and the world of theater are nicely captured, and I think this film fits nicely into Linklater's body of work. Give this one a shot. It's not a masterpiece, but it doesn't fail to deliver something that's fun, watchable ,and pretty well made.

• Jennifer X

  
  Orson Welles was known to be difficult to work with as he got older. He was a talented man trapped in an aging body, criminally underappreciated by critics and masses alike. "Me and Orson Welles" superficially peels back the enigma behind the man, as aspiring actor Richard… More
  Orson Welles was known to be difficult to work with as he got older. He was a talented man trapped in an aging body, criminally underappreciated by critics and masses alike. "Me and Orson Welles" superficially peels back the enigma behind the man, as aspiring actor Richard (Zac Efron, "17 Again") takes on a bit part at the Mercury Theater, where Welles (newcomer Christian McKay) himself is directing a production of "Julius Caesar. The film attempts to chronicle the difficulties of working with a superhuman legend, showing shots of the actors waiting around for hours after Welles's rendezvous with his many mistresses and Welles arbitrarily cutting lines and speeches from the show in order to preserve his own star. Oh, and there's also a rather bizarre love triangle going on between Welles, Richard and the young theater manager Sonja (Claire Danes, "Stardust"), just because. McKay tries his hardest, but he's simply not a strong enough actor to take on such a meaty role. He has a couple flashy moments, but none of them come to fruition. As a result, "Me and Orson Welles" falls into the ditch of glitzy, surface-level entertainment, somehow not dramatic enough and not substantial enough to create a story. Someday there will be a better film about Orson Welles, one that manages to fully embrace what the man represented in cinema. It's a shame it wasn't this one.

• ♥˩ƳИИ &

  
  Cast: Zac Efron, Claire Danes, Christian McKay, Ben Chaplin, Zoe Kazan, Eddie Marsan, Kelly Reilly, James Tupper, Leo Bill, Al Weaver Director: Richard Linklater Summary: After convincing Orson Welles (Christian McKay) to give him a key role in the first Shakespearean play to… More
  Cast: Zac Efron, Claire Danes, Christian McKay, Ben Chaplin, Zoe Kazan, Eddie Marsan, Kelly Reilly, James Tupper, Leo Bill, Al Weaver Director: Richard Linklater Summary: After convincing Orson Welles (Christian McKay) to give him a key role in the first Shakespearean play to run on Broadway, 17-year-old Richard (Zac Efron) finds himself on shaky ground when he clashes with the manipulative director over pretty assistant Sonja (Claire Danes). Sonja's ambition, Richard's desires and Welles's controlling nature all add up to more drama off stage than on for the Mercury Theater's production of "Julius Caesar." My Thoughts: "This is Christian McKay's film. He was fantastic in this film. I enjoyed his performance the most. He had such a strong presence on screen. I also loved Zoe Kazan. She had very limited screen time, but her character was very interesting and stood out for me. I have only seen Zac Efron in one other film, that being '17 again', (I believe that's the name of the film, and hardly a movie to judge one's acting on) and he surprisingly did well in this film. The film is very interesting and has many great characters, with great acting from all. It shows how replaceable you are in the theater world, and just how cruel that world could be. The film is also a great insight on the young Orson Welles. I enjoyed it."

• Conner R

  
  I wasn't crazy about this in the beginning, but it really turned into a great movie. I'm not a big Orson Wells fan, but this really humanizes him and makes the story very real. Zac Efron does a great job playing a truly genuine and decent person, it takes very little time… More
  I wasn't crazy about this in the beginning, but it really turned into a great movie. I'm not a big Orson Wells fan, but this really humanizes him and makes the story very real. Zac Efron does a great job playing a truly genuine and decent person, it takes very little time for you to sympathize with him. The structure of the movie works well, you get to see a very accurate depiction of what it's like behind the scenes of a play. There is a really good lesson in this about acting and just life in general, sometimes you give it your all and it just doesn't work out in the end. However, that doesn't mean life is over.

• Cynthia S

  
  I thought this movie was outstanding...primarily due to the Orson Welles character. My god this actor did one fine job looking like, and acting like, Orson Welles. A very well done, and fine movie overall.

• Lorenzo v

  
  <i>"All's fair in love and theater"</i> A teenager is cast in the Mercury Theatre production of "Julius Caesar" directed by a young Orson Welles in 1937. <center><font size=+2 face="Century… More
  <i>"All's fair in love and theater"</i> A teenager is cast in the Mercury Theatre production of "Julius Caesar" directed by a young Orson Welles in 1937. <center><font size=+2 face="Century Schoolbook"><b><u>REVIEW</u></b></font></center> There are many things to love about ME AND ORSON WELLES, a dip into the past of the USA circa 1937 when despite the Great Depression and the imminence of WW II life upon the wicked stage held the fascination for a group of people determined to become stars. Adapted from the novel by Robert Kaplow by Holly Gent Palmo and Vincent Palmo Jr. and directed by Richard Linklater, this film reminds us of what the movies of the 1940s were like - hazy, musically inclined, optimistic views of the future played out on the streets and backstages of New York. It is not a deep film, but it is delivered by an excellent cast, and if the first half drags a bit, the second half more than makes up for those flaws. The musical score is rich in excerpts from the period popular songs as well as a fine score by Michael J. McEvoy. The cinematography that captures the flavor of the 30s - long shots down on the streets from high buildings, the creaky dank theater mood, and the choice of bathing everything in a slightly umber tone - is mastered by Dick Pope. The cast is uniformly fine, but it is the performance of Christian McKay that, just as Orson Welles dominated the world in the places he stood, proves that McKay is a brilliant actor to watch carefully. It is a very good show, not a great one, but a solid look at the life and colleagues of a great man.

• Steven C

  
  totally and utterly charming. one of the only films i have seen that get theater right. it is also a fantastic portrait of orson welles, showcasing how the man could rise and fall with such infamy. christian mckay delivers a powerhouse performance and zac efron and claire danes are… More
  totally and utterly charming. one of the only films i have seen that get theater right. it is also a fantastic portrait of orson welles, showcasing how the man could rise and fall with such infamy. christian mckay delivers a powerhouse performance and zac efron and claire danes are equally light, slight and enjoyable in their well written roles. director richard linklater is a master at any genre and his reflective and personal touch work wonders here. a really solid and enjoyable film all around.

• jay n

  
  Enjoyable period combination coming of age and backstage comedy/drama. Efron acquits himself well, he still has a way to go before he breaks away totally from the teeny boppers but he's trying and will get there if he continues to do interesting material like this. Danes is… More
  Enjoyable period combination coming of age and backstage comedy/drama. Efron acquits himself well, he still has a way to go before he breaks away totally from the teeny boppers but he's trying and will get there if he continues to do interesting material like this. Danes is miscast and that hurts the film a bit but the rest of the cast is good, the period details well presented and the story interesting. However McKay dominates here with an amazingly accurate portrayal of Welles, he owns this movie.

• Rico Z

  
  Picture Once in a while, there comes a movie that is so endearing, engaging and charming, that you wish everyone you know could see it. Me and Orson Welles is one of those films. It has a romanticized quality about it that speaks to those who like a good period piece and who like… More
  Picture Once in a while, there comes a movie that is so endearing, engaging and charming, that you wish everyone you know could see it. Me and Orson Welles is one of those films. It has a romanticized quality about it that speaks to those who like a good period piece and who like seeing good characters do good things in a movie that is--good. The film itself chronicles a week in the life of a young, aspiring actor (Efron) who, after a chance encounter with the infamous Orson Welles, quickly becomes a part of (if not entangled in) a whirlwind production of Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar." The film also showcases the madness experienced by everyone involved in the play due to its crazed--and genius--progenitor, legendary male drama queen, Orson Welles (played a revelatory Christian McKay.) When our naive debutant, Richard, meets the ego-maniacal Welles, he is warned that Orson is full of drama; that he's read and knows "everything": and that he always gets his way. Slowly, but surely, our plucky young protagonist learns that this forewarning is nothing but the truth. As the ruthless and self-centered Welles becomes more deranged in his effort to put a show that will "make them sweat", he alienates his own cast and crew with his melodramatic outburst. However, Welles' short temper and capricious nature is mostly overlooked by his closest colleagues, particularly a young assistant (Danes); who knows that these things must be done in order to get ahead. Surprisingly, and despite the play-within-the-film's heavy subject matter, the movie has a light disposition about it. The balance of humor and drama that it provides is a very harmonious one and the film ends up having a very feel-good vibe. The ins-and-outs of the theater world in 1930s America is given a royal homage that both glamorizes the art-form of theater and still depicts it with honesty and good intent. Very rarely does it meander into cliché or sappy sentimental territory. It simply is a good story that just happens to be told from the perspective of an idealistic 17-year old boy...who just happened to spend a week with Orson Welles. It goes to show that a small, little film like this can truly be a diamond in the rough. A diamond that may go unnoticed or unseen, but doesn't lose its shine despite that few are witness to its greatness. Zac Efron can actually act..Christian McKay is Orson Welles. Claire Danes is in top form. The movie is simply a gem and deserves to be seen by everyone I know. Truly.

• Eric B

  
  Of course, everyone says the same thing about "Me and Orson Welles": Christian McKay's bravado performance as Welles is fantastic. And it is. Oscar-nomination level, even. The film is also expertly directed, and its sets and costumes beautifully capture the '30s… More
  Of course, everyone says the same thing about "Me and Orson Welles": Christian McKay's bravado performance as Welles is fantastic. And it is. Oscar-nomination level, even. The film is also expertly directed, and its sets and costumes beautifully capture the '30s era. On the other hand, Zac Efron is an obvious weak link (partly excused by his character being *written* as somewhat of an inept amateur) and the plot takes a sour turn which, admittedly, didn't satisfy my own craving for a more feel-good tale. There's also the mixed blessing of Zoe Kazan (granddaughter of director Elia), who is utterly charming but underused in a small role that, arguably, had more potential appeal than Claire Danes' central part. I enjoyed this film more than expected, but it could have been still better.

• Walter M

  
  "Me and Orson Welles" starts on November 5, 1937 as 17-year old Richard Samuels(Zac Efron) rides the train down to New York City. His first stop is a music store where he meets Gretta(Zoe Kazan), an aspiring writer. Later, he makes his way to the Mercury Theater and… More
  "Me and Orson Welles" starts on November 5, 1937 as 17-year old Richard Samuels(Zac Efron) rides the train down to New York City. His first stop is a music store where he meets Gretta(Zoe Kazan), an aspiring writer. Later, he makes his way to the Mercury Theater and casually inserts himself into the menagerie loitering in front. Surprisingly, he impresses Orson Welles(Christian McKay) with his drum playing and is cast in a small part in his modern dress version of "Julius Caesar." In the meantime, Richard skips school and keeps to the background, answering phones with Sonja Jones(Claire Danes) who hears David Selznick is in town to cast a new movie. "Me and Orson Welles" is a lively and entertaining film that does a neat job of capturing the period in breezy fashion, even the sexism. However, including the wager is a bit too crass.(As depicted, the machismo of the players does inadvertantly shatter some stereotypes.) That's not to mention the performances, including Eddie Marsan who is very good, cast against type as John Houseman. First and foremost, Christian McKay IS Orson Welles in all of his womanizing, egomaniacal, blustering and brilliant glory. All of these characteristics are important to this story but only the last is relevant to history. As Welles, here balancing precariously between art and commerce, wonders how he will top this, there is enough foreshadowing not on that count, but on what comes after his biggest triumph which he could not have foreseen. For example, he might not think too highly of John Gielgud here but he casts him decades later in "The Chimes of Midnight." And is there really a close connection between Welles and the novel of "The Magnificent Ambersons" or is that just apocryphal? I don't have any answers for that question since "Me and Orson Welles" is really a movie with no endings, and plenty of beginnings, as Zac Efron shows a good deal of promise.

• Jeff T

  
  Incredibly sweet, lovingly directed and unfortunately a little listless, this backstage story of a teenager's crazy week in Orson Welles' Mercury Theatre production of CAESAR is almost deligthful. If the movie had been all about Orson, then Christian McKay's knockout… More
  Incredibly sweet, lovingly directed and unfortunately a little listless, this backstage story of a teenager's crazy week in Orson Welles' Mercury Theatre production of CAESAR is almost deligthful. If the movie had been all about Orson, then Christian McKay's knockout performance would be enough to make it a must-see. And see it for him, definitely. But the movie is actually about Zac Efron, and he's simply not compelling enough to make up for the lackluster screenplay that strands him time and time again. McKay on the other hand makes every not-quite-great-enough line sound like the best line of the year. It's a terrific performance in a very likeable movie that probably is mostly for us theatre folk...

• Cameron J

  
  It's "Training Day" for thatre geeks and if you step back and think about it, I pretty much just nailed it. It's about an up-and-comer who's dreams are plagued by this teacher who knows what he's doing, but is so corrupt by his power that he is harsh,… More
  It's "Training Day" for thatre geeks and if you step back and think about it, I pretty much just nailed it. It's about an up-and-comer who's dreams are plagued by this teacher who knows what he's doing, but is so corrupt by his power that he is harsh, unforgiving, promiscuious and vulgar. I actually don't mind that last part. I just had to mention that, because if this film teaches you nothing else, then it's that Orson Welles was about as profane as he was profound. Well, actually, I guess that goes hand-in-hand with the real message of this film: Orson Welles was a bit of a jerk. Hey, as long as he kept making great films or at least be well-known enough to be used as a device for the making of a great film, then I don't care if he was the real inspiration for the Hannibal Lecter character, which he may have been, considering how he ended up. Look out for "Hannibal Rising Cholesterol Levels" soon, but right now, let no "moe" (Watch the film - and I mean "watch the film - and you'll get it) be said that this is a deeply charming and engagingly memorable work of art... or at least the Orson Welles part of the story is. This is a film that does so much right, except something that you cannot afford to mess up: Create a powerhouse of a supporting character without fleshing out a balancing lead well enough. Now, the writers got so ridiculously lucky that McKay and Efron could work well enough with eachother so that McKay to not completely drown out our true lead, because the script should have been interested in said lead a little more and should have been interested in his romantic subplot... at all. The Richard Samuels story is a messily covered one once it leaves the theatre setting, because the writers and director Richard Linklater seem much more interested in Orson Welles' side of the story. Now, that's not to say that you can blame them, because the theatre segments, in concept alone, are easily the highest points of a film that consists almost entirely of high points, but you can blame the filmmakers for hardly even trying to flesh out the real star of the show, a sad fact made clear as day within seconds into this film, where they offer us almost nothing in terms of development for Zac Efron's Richard Samuels character. Well, ladies and gentlemen, it only gets worse from there, once the love story comes into play and is lazily forced into the story in a fashion so messy that it feels completely forgettable or at best, expendable, which it shouldn't, because it ends up playing such a major part in the grand scheme. I'm not saying that I didn't enjoy the romantic subplot thoroughly, because I did, but the lack of interest that went into making it is easily the lowest note this film hits, which - Jumpin' Jackie Earl Haley - is saying borderline nothing, because everything about this film is so good, but it's still something to say, nevertheless. Really, what hurts this film the most is the script, because so much of the dialogue and even some of the plot points are rather generic and if this film was to be taken on by anyone less than Linklater, it very easily could have been a hollow, but as it stands, Linklater injects such life, passion and entertainment value into this film and makes it look effortless. There can be no film without plot nor conflict, but when you get down to the bare bones, this is film looking to be smart, but wildly enjoyable fun without any pretense, and when you're making a period piece about theatre, let alone an Orson Welles theatre, that is a concept you just cannot even consider jumping into while half-cocked. In comes Richard Linklater - who understands the period and art house genres almost as well as he undertstands crafting entertainment value - to absorb the life of a charming time lost and revive it in a fashion that's true to the time, yet not dated for our taste in fun, which is impressive enough when you don't consider how easily things could have gone wrong. Of course, you can't simply revive the charm and spirit of a period with tone alone (Ha-ha, rhyme). The production designs in this film cannot recieve enough praise, as they're so slick, authentic and lively that it tosses you right into this lost world. Not to mention that the cinematography boasts such a glow and slickness that complements the environment razor-sharply. As for the screenplay, for all you know, I've panned it, but really, although it features the biggest flaws of the film, it primarily boasts some of the greatest strengths. The dialogue - rather generic though, it may be - still has plenty of snap, as well as crackle and let us not the pop, but no matter how much charm is in the concept, the dialogue still could have remained hollow were it not for a factor you know we can't even dream of not discussing: the acting. This film is packed with characters, many of which are similar and the performers play their roles as such with distinctiveness and charisma so electric that whether they're standing alone or working off of each other, everyone plays their own key part in setting the entertainment value and are incredibly colorful and memorable. Even Claire Danes is memorable, in spite of her forgettable subplot, which is still quite enjoyable, but couldn't have been so without her sharp charisma and chemistry with Efron that has you constantly wondering what will happen next, even if the writers don't care too much. Still, the supporting performance to end all supporting performances is Christian McKay, who gives us a surrealistically awe-inspiring portrayal of the greatest of the late greats: Mr. Orson Welles. It's not enough that McKay looks the part, but he entirely transforms into the legend, adopting his mannerisms and characteristics so strikingly authentically thay you're glued to the screen every time he graces it with his powerful presence. However, it's not just the authenticity of McKay's portrayal of Welles that captivates you, for although he was a true person, Welles is a character in this story and McKay is so careful to play his layered, somewhat antagonistic role in a manner that's both compelling and fits Welles' personality, but never to where you look at him and only see Orson Welles, instead of a piece of the puzzle. Still, no matter how great and show-stealing McKay is, this is Zac Efron's story and although his character could be fleshed-out a bit more, Efron is still given enough material and emits enough charisma for you to believe him as a lead capable of carrying this film when McKay is absent, even if he feels miscast... based only on his name. Seriously, he looks as much like a Richard as I look like a Javier. In the end, in spite of its rather uneven focus, "Me and Orson Welles" remains a deeply fascinating and wildly entertaining study on theatre life under the late, great Orson Welles, made extra lively by the dazzling production, handsome visual style, Linklater's charming direction and the massive cast of colorful, memorable talents, headed by a slickly charismatic Zac Efron and a masterful portrayal of a masterful legend by Christian McKay. 3.5/5 - Solid

• Chihoe H

  
  I watched it because of Claire Danes and liked it because of her. She is a brilliant actress, no matter the role she inhabits. Decent performances across the board, but Christian McKay as Orson Welles is the stand out. There really is no reason why this film is rated the way I did,… More
  I watched it because of Claire Danes and liked it because of her. She is a brilliant actress, no matter the role she inhabits. Decent performances across the board, but Christian McKay as Orson Welles is the stand out. There really is no reason why this film is rated the way I did, since the directing, production and editing seemed to work well for the film, but it lacked something - a spark of sorts. Unquestionably, the story nicely portrayed a boy's coming of age, and only got progressively better as it opened us to Welles' vision of the play of Julius Caesar.

• Hal M

  
  Directed by Richard Linklater, the guy who did Slacker! And features Christian McKay's fantastic impersonation of Welles--fully worth the admission price. At least if you've seen Citizen Kane and/or know Welles. Otherwise...not real appealing to a broad audience. The… More
  Directed by Richard Linklater, the guy who did Slacker! And features Christian McKay's fantastic impersonation of Welles--fully worth the admission price. At least if you've seen Citizen Kane and/or know Welles. Otherwise...not real appealing to a broad audience. The rest of the acting is just serviceable. Some young twit brought up through the Disney Studios development system, named Zach Efron, is given a lot of screen time and top billing. He doesn't ruin it but he can't really act...we tolerate him as a kind of well-groomed blank the 'tween females think is "cute". The estimated production cost was about $25 mill. The box office receipts only about $1.1 mill domestic, equivalent international. Meaning this picture was a huge flop financially and may have really harmed Linklater's career. It obviously helped actor McKay's though, he's in big demand now. Good for him. Imagine of all the acting challenges you could ever have put to you: BE ORSON WELLES! And he nails it. Ma-an.

• Christopher H

  
  One would assume that a film portraying one of the most influential directors in the history of the cinema would unquestionably be an epic masterpiece. Unfortunately, those expectations fall extremely short. In fact, Me & Orson Welles was little more than a flop.

• Andrew F

  
  Nothing really special. Most of the scenes felt forced. But Christian McKay was wonderful.

• Lesley N

  
  So-so Richard LInklater drama about Orson Welles in the 1930's, just before he made it big, and Zac Efron who gets a part in his theatre production of Caesar. It passed the time.

• Marcus W

  
  Credit to Efron for trying something new, sadly he still spends most of the film dancing or doing stupid things (the scene with the matches makes no sense). He gets through the film by knowing when to flash his grin and when to look upset. The film itself, while gorgeous to look at,… More
  Credit to Efron for trying something new, sadly he still spends most of the film dancing or doing stupid things (the scene with the matches makes no sense). He gets through the film by knowing when to flash his grin and when to look upset. The film itself, while gorgeous to look at, has nothing going on beneath the surface. There's no plot or character arcs. You can guess the play will open on time and be a success, and lo and behold... it's not a film I disliked, it just was so very nothing.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings