I got it for a buck at a movie clearance sale and thought, "OK, I think I'm finally ready to give this one a chance." I knew most of the stories surrounding it but had forgotten enough that I hoped to approach it with an open mind. In truth, I went into it with the intent of "rooting for the underdog," as well as thinking, "In an age of CG overkill it'll be fun to watch something highly technical that's done with practical effects and technology." I really thought time would be kind enough to at least make the movie seem quaint.
Yes, visually, it's something else, still, I think. Yes, the sets are pretty remarkable and certain sequences are so flashy they make your eyes cross (in a good way)...the "technique" of the film is as much (or more) a character than any the actors are playing. Some of the flashier bits of the show-stopping musical number in the middle are embarrassing but there's some nice stuff in there too.
But by about 45 minutes in I started getting really bored watching the characters wander around aimlessly while the droning Tom Waits songs floated along (at one point, it seemed anyway, Ms. Garr was so lacking in direction and purpose she just started randomly taking off her top, ha ha). There's a nice quality to some of the songs but for the most part the score seems really under-developed, more like demos in progress than actual music, and the unchanging quality of it doesn't make it seem operatic or impressionistic (as I'd guess it was meant to be), just interminable. Reminded me of the score for the Raggedy Ann and Andy animated film in the way it just keeps going and going , song after song, without much of a change...whew.
By the end of it I couldn't believe the movie had been under 2 hours, seemed more like 2 and a half. I had stopped wondering "did they really do this all on a set?" and was thinking more, "How many more times will Forest have to go after her before we get the inevitable conclusion of Garr returning to him?" (which was a foregone conclusion from frame one...now, had she actually gone off with the more interesting Julia character THAT would've been at least been something DIFFERENT).
And why was the gorgeous Kinski in this again? Oh yeah, to be left by the side of the road by a fat, ugly, annoying, psychotic slob with pretty much no redeeming qualities. Well, it IS supposed to be a fantasy, ha ha.
The only thing left after it was over was the memory of images of neon retina-burning 80's design...something like the effect of Noe's "Enter The Void," and I don't think that's a bad thing...it IS memorable...but the film itself--plot, acting, pacing--seems under-rehearsed and amateurish (or improvised, same thing) and incredibly drab, just like everyone said it was at the time. In fact, it reeks of the kind of runaway self-indulgence that created "New York, New York," "1941" and...well..."The Phantom Menace," ha ha.
It actually would be a great entry into a film class about, "What happens when you give a director complete freedom, money and power." It's not the worst film ever made by a long shot, or even the most expensive disaster. But I have to agree with "the majority" on this one--which I seldom do and sort of HATE to do. Couldn't recommend this one and wouldn't want to see it again.
Nilbog! It's goblin spelled backwards! This is their kingdom!
reply
share