I just saw this movie at it's non-festival premiere which took place in my hometown and I wanted to know how this did so well at Sundance and in the Berlin Festival? I felt this was just a bad movie plain and simple. Does anyone disagree?
share[deleted]
I completely disagree. Though I can understand that some films just don't appeal to everyone, I found everything just heartbreakingly moving. The acting captured what I at least believed to be each character's range and depth, the cinematography was visually beautiful in a minimalistic sense, and the music, also, added yet another level. However, I know that my view is not the same as everyone in the world, so I'd like to hear what your personal opinion is.
shareI just saw this film last night in Mill Valley and was very moved by it. There were many layers of subtle cultural and emotional complexity which I feel were beautifully captured by Ira Sachs on many levels - music, editing, screenplay, casting, on and on. I was shocked to see that the weighted rating on imdb was so low, because this is a worthwhile film that will appeal to a broad range of people -- albeit not everyone. It's one of the few films I think would be worth a second viewing. I agree that the first 20 minutes or so are a little hard to get into, but they are masterfully executed all the same. By the middle of the film, the weight of the multiple significances had captured my attention as the plot played out.
Also, I thought the sex scenes were fine. The sexually and emotional tension throughout the film was wild.
BTW, I thought Darren Burrows was very good. He was always delightful on Northern Exposure and I hope he'll be making many more films. Rip Torn was brilliant as usual and the lead actress was appropriately disquieting. I initially thought she was a shoplifter or meth addict or something.
If you want to just have a great, fun time watching a film, check out Serenity.
I completely disagree. Though I can understand that some films just don't appeal to everyone, I found everything just heartbreakingly moving. The acting captured what I at least believed to be each character's range and depth, the cinematography was visually beautiful in a minimalistic sense, and the music, also, added yet another level. However, I know that my view is not the same as everyone in the world, so I'd like to hear what your personal opinion is.I completely disagree with your disagreement.
I have to admit that the middle of the film didn't hold my attention. I think a great strength of the film, however, was that it was a 'living' film. It could be called a simple love story between a son and his father's girlfriend, but the beauty of this film was in the story's background. This backgound included the father's life as a musician in Memphis, the domestic life of the family ...etc. All the details of this background were convincing. Look at the vivid picture we get of the Memphis music scene and its nightlife, yet none of these details were particularly relevant to the love story.
I hate the term "living" film. If I wanted a "living" film, I'd tape myself arguing with my girlfriend. Movies that don't have a kind of urgency and innate power to them are worthless to me. Rip Torn chortling and being hilariously tacky was more or less the only thing that kept me awake, while the other actors were flat as the female lead's chest.
shareI am in your boat. I have a lot of patience for movies in general; but, this film simply did not offer me anything worth the sitting through. It was not odious--simply dull. I couldn't recommend it to anyone.
shareI agree completely. Did not hold much of my interest because I didn't care for the people at all.
shareRip Torn's performance surged.
Also, if you can't tell the direction is well done in this movie, then just stop discussing film altogether. Sachs went to great lengths to keep the actors on the sides of the screen, rather than toward the middle. An odd, brilliant stroke that you won't see in many films.
Moreover, the film stock wasn't supposed to look great. The look of the film was intentionally muted. Probably to characterize the female lead, who is supposed to be a repressed individual.
There's a difference between being a good director and relying on outrageous gimmicks to tell your story for you.
shareI don't think this is a greatest film ever made or the worse. I thought it succeeded in a few key impressive areas:
Altogether I thought the film captured alienation in families and intimate couples quite effectively.
a) It captured alienation between father and son ,,, although I didn't find Michael's derogatory public speech about his father totally plausable -- because Michael was so inert that I didn't believe his character could come up with such pointed and great language on a spontaneous basis.
b) It captured accurately the cultural alienation of a Russian woman living in middle America. I thought the opening scenes where she circulates that party alone getting progressively more drunk were very well done.
c) It captured well how totally alienating and miserable it is to be in an intimate relationship when you are not happy. The last scene in the car when she finally breaks into tears was very believable to me. I've been in that situation. It's pure hell. Claustrophobia. Few films capture that so well.
The other thing I thought the film did well was to show the effect of an abusive screamer (Rip Torn) on those around him.
The film is quite okay and the commments that damn its slow pace, etc. are over the top.
Well, I have to say, it is slow, and it lacks the stylistic flourishes, humour and quirkiness that directors like Jarmusch (and even Truffaut) use to hold your attention. Which is why a lot of people didn't like it, I guess. That and the unremitting misery.
Regarding Michael, he was an English professor. That makes him a person used to handling language, and used to addressing large groups of people. So I didn't think his party speech was implausibly eloquent. (In fact it sounded kind of stilted and uncertain to me, rather than "pointed and great")
I believe the Rip Torn character was based on Ira Sachs' own father, incidentally, which gives the whole Oedipal side of things another twist, I guess.
World According to Bush - Killing American embryos for scientific purposes is murder. Killing innocent Arabs for political purposes is business as usual.
I just saw this "drama", & asked myself the same question. Incoherent BS most of the time. Would be a perfect advert for Sominex sleeping pills!! Tired, dull, morose, and finally- unbeleivable. I have a pet peeve about dramas that show no viable reactions, when characters are faced w/ provocative situations. Near the end, the Rip Torn character obviously realizes his Russian girlfriend is "involved" with his son, Michael. Yet he says nothing, shows no reaction, and minimal emotion. Michael's wife senses something is going on, yet she neither reacts, questions, or gives comment. Exactly what world do these characters live in, where you suspect an affair between your husband/gf, yet give no indication that it matters? These implausible scenarios that often creep up in this type of drama- completely ruin any premise one may have about the story. This outcome, along w/ the wooden acting of the Russian woman, until the ending that is, leaves me cold. You get the impression that the movie is more interested in proving how "artsy" it is, rather than advancing the story. You can't present a vision of reality throughout a movie, then at the most critical moment, revert to unrealistic reactions. A TOTAL waste of time!
share[deleted]