I can't even begin to explain why. I couldn't finish this movie. I was able to sit through Jerry Springer's "Ringmaster". But, not this schlock. I know there have been several related posts, but I just had to flame this movie.
shareHal Hartley, to say the least, is something of an acquired taste. His movies are certainly not for everyone and most critics seem to agree with you on this one. You can see from its rating here, thou, that is has an appreciative following. Hartley films are almost always done with minimal budget and some dialog definately always seems to be ad libbed. Plotlines are sometimes as minimal as the budget but his films are definately Hartley films. You can pick one out of a crowd! and they resonate with some liking their humor, characters and situations - sometimes allegorical.
Comparing it in any way to Ringmaster thou is cruel and unusual (but keep it quiet, I watched that one to the end too).
What do you say to someone like me who considers Henry Fool a masterpiece and Fay Grim a travesty?
--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc
While it's not the worst I've seen, I will admit that I'm having trouble making it through the film.
From reading about the movie here I see it would help if I'd seen the movie "Henry Fool" (which I've never even heard of). I wonder if that would solve the problem or if I'd find it equally ... tedious.
Maybe it's a technique: the movie feels to me as if the actors are very conscious of the camera/audience and are talking *at* us. They speak in a deadpan, detached way, which makes it very hard for me to believe what they say or really care much about them or whatever is going on (which, even with the explanations, I don't think I could explain, since one dreary scene slides effortlessly into another without leaving much of an impression on me at all).
I'm going to make dinner and see if I can get more interested in the second half (not sure if I'm there, but I think I am) of this ... odd ... film.
I'd be interested in reading anything anyone can say regarding the movie's ... nature, or filmmaker's technique ... or ....
[deleted]
I'm surprized at myself for wanting to respond to such silly comments. It is for the commentors' sake that I do so. Before you go out and make comments like this in public, be forwarned - you sound utterly common, homourless and dull. It is your right to have no sense of humour, you have a right to be wrong - but for pete's sake - the least you could do is to be ashamed! You sound proud.
yes, watch jerry springer, make diner, whatever - but if you have a problem with "odd" perhaps you should stick to NBC's prime time line up - why bother watching a film? right?
after all - they make sidewalks for pedestrians, stick to them - stay out of the alleys, stay out of the road.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0444628/board/thread/64933778
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0444628/board/thread/83896586
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0444628/board/thread/81772089
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0444628/board/thread/80413273
It is true - everywhere you go - the least cultivated taste has the greatest (and most common) appetite.
I will not worry that you will find company in your opinions. However, you should not think that your words gain weight by having been echoed by others.
I suppose my words were lost on you. Perhaps I should not have said anything at all.
oh well.
This putdown seems a bit gratuitous. I fail to see how Fay Grim, which I also found vapid, appeals to a more cultivated taste than, say, Henry Fool, which I enjoyed a great deal.
share[deleted]
I love Hal Hartley films. Henry Fool and Fay Grim are two of the best. There has to be another sequel, and I can't wait to see it! To say HH films are an acquired taste is a bit egocentric; he's for some folks and not for others, I say.
shareGeez, all these people who are completely bewildered by Hartley!!! This is a post I did on a thread for "Amateur" quite awhile back. All together now...The deadpan, ironic acting with flipped out dialog is a Hartley trademark. Go see some other of his films and then come back to "Fay Grim" once you absorb all his quirks. But this cut and pasted post might give you some clues....
******************************************
Daveyellis, you're totally missing the point of what a Hal Hartley film is. First off, you never are sposed to take a Hartley film in a totally serious, literal way. You have to understand that practically every minute of any of his movies is complete nonsense. Yet it's nonsense in such a deadpan, straightfaced manor, that it melds into an inspired absurd vision that's as unique as anything you will ever see.
Think of a Hartley film as a subtle opposite of what Zucker and Abraham were doing in the '80s with their broad and obvious "Airplane" movies. Yet so subtle and delicate, it's impossible to pick up the almost subliminal gags right off the bat at first viewing. So they often leave newbys confused.
And understand that no one, not even hopeless Hartley freaks, ever "gets" what he's all about at first. You don't really get Hartley until you've seen one of his movies a few times. So check out "Henry Fool", "No Such Thing", "Simple Men" etc. Then once you start to detect a pattern of his numerous quirks, check out "Amateur" again. It will hit you eventually...
"There's no such thing as adventure, there's no such thing as romance. There's only trouble and desire" -"Simple Men" '92
[deleted]
I must totally agree. This is the second movie, I can't watch till its end... Absolutely waste of time. Grrr... And the music is also an amateour thing, I can do this kind if sound in minutes. No idea, no composing, a big nothing....
share[deleted]
I got the ironic acting, thats great but at least pace the film properly so Im not bored to death
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I just watched this and loved it. I'd seen Henry Fool when I was younger and didn't really appreciate it, but I watched it again last week and enjoyed it. You don't need to see Henry Fool to enjoy this, but it deepens the appreciation.
I'm totally surprised by all the negative posts I've seen, but to each their own. I thought it was an awesome satire and espionage parody, in that it was aloof, but also sustained an incredible rhythm and intrigue throughout. I can only believe that the disappointed posts have more to do with the preconceptions of the viewer, rather than the movie itself.
I don't suppose I'd recommend Henry Fool to those who couldn't get through this, as it's slower paced and more character driven, but these two movies work together in a fantastic way. Amazing stuff.
I assume the original post was merely trolling, but if for some reason it was real I'd just like to ask what it feels like to drift through life in a sea of mindless, attention-deficient, third-grade retardation.
shareIt's not bad just because you don't like the style. And it is, highly stylized. What films do you like so I have some perspective?
"Hey, you know what? It's a weird universe out there, man." -John Crichton
Well, SamedisGirl, he does mention Ringmaster. That means he sat down and watched it with the intention of finding entertainment in some form. I'm wondering if he just has access to some enormous satellite that beams in all sorts of crazy s---.
That's like me saying I really loved Harry & Tonto, but man, what a disappointment The Pest was.
I'm sure the use of an overused and laughable cliche has Hal Hartley whimpering in his winkle-pickers.
sharetotally agree, awful movie. Most of the positive comments reference the author/director and overall story and I agree the script has it's merit, but the acting in this ......... is crap! we are subjected to Posey strutting around exposing her stockings and suspenders, under a black, neck high trench-coat which would generally be great. However, being dragged around by various characters in hotel lobbies, the street, staircases, sidewalks, roof tops, while she seemed incapable of simply standing still or moving under her own power? Pout all you like Parker, but show me you can do more.
share