I must 1st admit I've not read the book, which apparently is way better than this film adaptation according to the general consensus here at IMDb. I was warned to stay far away from this movie.

But I FINALLY saw it anyway, almost 7 full years after Sienna Miller made entertainment headlines trashing Pittsburgh in an interview while filming there on location. The film wasn't easy to track down, as I found a DVD through an interlibrary loan. I'm glad I watched it, but can't really recommend it.

As indie movies go, I thought it had decent production values, including respected actors (Nolte, Sarsgaard, Suvari & Miller). I was unfamiliar with the work of Jon Foster (but his brother Ben can really bring it at times), and thought he was just OK as the lead. Perhaps a more dynamic young actor would have brought more to the production, but he's not the reason I'm giving this a below-average rating.

The story was decent enough, but it just never really felt like I was watching a movie set in '83. Outside of Sienna's beat up VW Beetle and Sarsgaard's convertible, there was nothing to peg this as "early 80's"! I realize Pittsburgh has had roughly the same look for years, but couldn't they at least have thrown in some more "visuals" or music from that era to bring home it was 1983? The producers could have used more early 80's indie rock during the movie if they couldn't afford the rights for major label material from that era. And that punk club scene looked more like something you'd see in a retro themed inner-city dive in Chicago these days than a packed bar in Pitt. 30 years ago. I'm giving this 1 extra star (4 instead of 3) for having the punk band play a cover of The Replacements' God Damn Job off their '82 EP "Stink". I never, ever thought I'd hear that cut in movie!

This movie is worth a look only if it pops up on IFC or Sundance at some point, but I've never seen it playing there.

I loved the novel Mysteries of Pittsburgh. It took place in familiar surroundings, places I hung out, in a town I loved. It questioned mysteries that I'd questioned myself.

It's not certain if the passage of time or the changes wrought in adaptation brought about my dislike for this movie. After all, I first read the book some 25 years ago. But the film lacks so much in comparison with the book. It has none of the humor, none of the introspection, none of the sense of resolution or at least readiness at the end.

The acting does not help the situation, especially Sienna Miller, who as Jane, is basically a flat line. Art is nearly a flat line, strangely enough; as the lead he is not supposed to be. Sarsgaard's Cleveland attempts to compensate for the affectless performance of his screen-mates by wildly over-emoting. It's a valiant effort that almost works. And Mena Suvari is just pitiful as a sad stereotype that no woman with a shred of self-respect should ever have to play on screen or stage.

I'm sure it doesn't help my assessment that Chabon is one of my favorite writers and Pittsburgh is my beloved home city. But if I were you, I'd give this one a miss. The four stars are for cinematography Nick Nolte, and music, which were decent.

Michael Chabon's 1988 novel " The Mysteries of Pittsburgh" was a novel about coming of age for a young man. The book is a fine account of a summer in the life of Art Bechstein, the son of a mobster who falls for Jane, a young woman, who is in love with another man. There is no doubt in our minds Rawson Marshall Thurber had the best intentions when he decided to adapt, then direct, this beloved work of many for the screen.

The problem seems to be in the way Art comes out in the movie, where he also serves as the narrator as well. The way Mr. Thurber conceived his main character does not resonate with the viewer. It is never quite clear what did Jane and Cleveland see in this bland person to befriend and be part of a group; they are unevenly matched, to say the least.

Cleveland is the most complex character in the novel. He is a bisexual man that is in the equation for the thrills he can get out of his situation with Jane. Art finds out soon enough what Cleveland is all about, but in the end he too is seduced by a guy that is a manipulator of the worse kind. It is also hard to believe, the way Cleveland is presented in the film he is the criminal he is supposed to be. Art, on the other hand, appears to be a closet homosexual, in spite of the sexual relationship he was having with Phlox, something that seems contrived and phony.

Any film in which Peter Sarsgaard appears is worth a look. He is the most lively character in the picture. Mena Suvari shows up as a brunette with such a different look. It is hard to recognize her at first. Ms. Suvari is at her best in the film. Jon Foster is too bland to get anyone's attention. Nick Nolte plays Art's father. Sienna Miller, in spite of her looks, is an enigma in the movie.

One thing that plays well is Theodore Shapiro's fine musical score. It gives the picture some class. Michael Barrett captures the spirit of the city, and its surrounding area in great images.