Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Bergorks If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

lannaheim Gee, Ellen Barkin looks like hell (it's all makeup; she's not THAT old), Patti D'Arbanville (about whom Cat Stevens wrote his song) -- yes, folks, we all do grow old. I don't know why people gave this such a low rating, but, without having read any of the reviews, I am here to say that while the plot is kind of ridiculous, the portrayal of old age is not. Dementia is miserable for the people who have to deal with those who are undergoing it. And this film does depict it in a Hollywood way. It's worse in real life, for those who don't have money to afford -- any of it.Okay, I just lost my mouse, so I am going to submit this without further comment. Except to say I am surprised that this film was not more popular -- oh, and OF COURSE to make the connection (I never had a doubt) between Roy Lichtenstein and the director. No one else would be able to use that "Happy Tears" logo, and the plot certainly made sense to a person who understood the difficulty of being the child -- wunderkind -- of a Very Famous Artist.Dementia is always depressing, so I think Lichtenstein did a good job. If I still had my mouse, I'd look up how Roy died, see if he went the way his son depicts...

Richard_vmt Happy Tears is definitely worth seeing. I had some reservations about it but I will start with the positives. The film begins with the Posey Parker character, Jayne, an icy rich woman commanding her way in Manhattan. But just as we are getting used to this, the scene switches to Pittsburgh where she is visiting her lowbrow family, a stark contrast. Before we know it we are involved with her dastardly but winning Father, Jayne's sister, Laura, who is caring for him and his sleep-in girl friend who is masquerading as a nurse. The purpose of the visit is to make arrangements for him. He is incontinent. The sisters become reacquainted around the task of cleaning feces off his body.The most striking performance is Ellen Barkin's character Shelley, the old man's "nurse". Wearing a stethoscope around her neck does nothing to disguise the fact she is an aging crack whore who is living symbiotically with the old man. Everything about this characterization is larger than life. While Jayne takes exception to her, she isn't very designing. In fact she is too innocent to be evil in any way. When in the end there is largess, the sisters plant her rightful share in a coat which she slips in to snatch. Shelley and the old man lend the film a lot of humor and humanity.What I found disturbing was the character of Jayne, as it is represented. It is not a question of acting but writing. While she seems to approach everything from a conservative angle, she herself is nothing like conservative. In fact, during her visit she has a sexual episode on LSD with a teenage boy. It seems really quite a stretch that any woman in her 30's would go this way, especially with the teen answering to the question what the drug she is asked to swallow is: "Does it matter?" Questions like that would flow naturally from the mouth of a serial killer. This leads to pregnancy, while her husband has expressed a wish not to have children. Although her wealthy husband has been peripheral to the film to the point of being non-existent, still we know enough not to be surprised when his resistance to children turns to "Happy Tears," a phrase which he actually uses.But none of this adds up. We are disposed to like Jayne and yet for no reason at all she makes him the unwitting father of another man's child. It would make more sense in terms of motivation if their marriage had been sexless. But then of course he would know he is not the father. I had the disturbing thought, could he be denying what he knew? But this is not in the film. What is there is simply an inconsistency created by the slapdash addition of disparate elements into the brew. Chalk it up to out of control woman.Buried treasure incidentally is discovered in the backyard in a late-night bulldozer session which we are supposed to believe would be plausible in Pittsburgh (--or, for that matter, in California.) I suppose this is an attempt to rub shoulders with some of the glory of King of California (an enormously better film). While on the subject of unreality, this is yet another film where joints are always accepted and the micro-mini skirt is still the norm. In short, it may be an Indie, but it never left Hollywoodland.

napierslogs "Happy Tears" is an independent, fairly simple, dysfunctional family drama. Two grown sisters move back home to take care of their ailing father. The sisters of course have their own problems on top of dealing with their father who is in denial of his situation and very much trying to live as the patriarch of dysfunctionality.Many movies have told this type of story, and these filmmakers attempted to make their mark and do something better or at least different. But I was turned off by it. They were going for a dream-like feel with dream-like colours and imagery and of course actual dreams mixed in. I found it all very weird and made it hard for me to get into the film.The title relates to the laughs and tears that occur. The problem is there are no laughs, and although the characters were well written I wasn't drawn into them so I didn't feel what they were feeling - just uncomfortable.I appreciated the actors they cast, and the effort that they made to make this film new and good, but I have to recommend "The Savages" (2007) over this.

rzajac "Happy Tears" is sort of odd: It draws you in, and you comfortably watch the whole thing. Then, after it ends, you realize it suffers from "chick flick" syndrome, almost as bad as the worst of the genre.It really has poor story structure. It seems to be moving along, but really it's just floating along on a stream of trenchant dialog and beautiful graphics and editing, and some great acting. But it ends on a happy-go-lucky, that seems rather undeserved and subsequently trite. All kinds of dramatic elements get dropped, and others enter without decent leading development.In short, if you like narrative integrity, skip it.