MovieChat Forums > Mindwalk (1991) Discussion > You know what the problem with this movi...

You know what the problem with this movie was?

posted 16 years ago by JimLoneWolf
5 replies | jump to latest

Complete absence of character development.

These people were all "types" rather than human beings. The Waking Life comparisons on another thread are dead-on, and as far as I'm concerned Waking Life mopped the floor with this.

I was actually interested in seeing this because I find metaphysical concepts interesting, but aside from about 3 scenes, this stuff just felt old hat. The Liv Ullman character bugged the HELL out of me, and a big part of that was her tendency to look directly DOWN at the cue cards in far too many scenes. I mean, can't you hold them behind the camera or something? Watching a great actress continually avert her eyes groundward to read some overwritten monologue gets REAL OLD, REAL FAST.

But getting back to "character," this thing really did feel like a poor man's My Dinner With Andre...because in MDWA you actually gave a shat about the PEOPLE as well as the ideas. Waking Life didn't have that problem because noone stuck around for very long...but MAN did this leave me underwhelmed.

And John Heard...COME ON man! You're a good actor, you've done great work in The Sopranos, you're a reliable character actor. But you were ALL WRONG in this part.

Honestly, Sam Waterston walked away with this thing, he really did. He was the only character I considered a human being, and his description of what a politician "really" does (pick 3 key issues and mark time on the rest) strikes me as dead-on. I think this is the best project I've seen him in, Serial Mom aside. :)

Literally one other good scene: when they sit in the chapel discussing how "electron sharing" is taking place, meaning everyone is always touching everyone (and everything) else at the same time.

Otherwise, skip this and see Waking Life and MDWA.

[–] dont_b_so_BBC 12 years ago

But does Waking Life and MDWA explain Systems Theory to you?

What? You didn't realize that was the whole point of this movie?

If you care enough to go around telling people you don't care... you obviously care.

[–] Owlwise 10 years ago

The characters are supposed to be "types" -- not unlike the figures in a Medieval play like "Everyman" for example. Yet there's just enough offered about each one that the viewer can fill in much of the rest, especially if you're of the same generation as those who made the film. For me, it works as a midlife film as much as a philosophical discussion of systems theory, because all 3 characters are trying to figure out what to do next, where their lives are going, or should be going. The becomes more apparent with each viewing, as the viewer gets older. I first ssaw it 20 years ago; and in watching it several times over the intervening years, I feel as if I know the characters, because I can see so many of my own thoughts & concerns in them.

I agree that it's somewhat amateurish ... but in the root sense of the word, in that it was clearly made for love, not money. I'm not sure that a more polished film would have been quite as engaging for me, to be honest.

In the end, of course, it all comes down to whether the film strikes a chord with you or not. It does for me.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Owlwise 10 years ago

I can understand your reaction to its filmmaking quality, and I certainly won't insult you with any garbage about "not getting it" or any of that nonsense. I can only say that in my case, I was in just the right frame of mind & at just the right time in my life for the film to strike a deeply resonant chord -- and I suppose that says as much about what I brought to the film, as it does about what the film brought to me. :)

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]