Who has seen it?
It premiered today (March 21) in NY. I'm very, very interested in comments from fellow members who were able to catch a screening. Thanks in advance.
shareIt was incredibly bad. One of the most boring movies i've ever seen. Love paul auster (as a writer) and everything, but seriously, multiple people walked out halfway through. sorry. i wanted it to be good, too.
the only thing i can compare it too is m. night shyamalan's lady in the water, both for silliness of plot and self-indulgence.
I haven't seen it yet, but it seems you're not alone in your opinion: three reviews have been posted so far (Slant, Variety, Empire) and neither have been positive.
How was the acting? I'm a long-time admirer of Thewlis and Jacob, Imperioli is a terrific presence, and I'm a great advocate of Sophie Auster's music (and beauty).
And to other users here who saw it: I'm interested in your thoughts, too.
At last, the first positive review, from Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat of 'Spirituality and Health'
http://www.spiritualityandpractice.com/films/films.php?id=16658
-
"Over the centuries, the Muse, known as the goddess of creativity, has been depicted as an angel who manifests herself to an artist hard at work. Many of us have experienced her presence as a figure outside of ourselves or as a force within us. In this engagingly fanciful film written and directed by Paul Auster (The Music of Chance), Martin Frost (David Thewlis) retreats to the country home of friends after finishing a novel that took three years to complete. He savors the silence and the solitude until one morning he awakens to find an attractive woman there; she calls herself Claire (Irene Jacob). They have frisky sex, and he is buoyed by her love of his work. She claims to be the niece of the woman who owns the house but Martin later learns she has not been telling the truth about who she is. By the time he questions her about her identity, he is madly in love with her.
Auster calls this drama a philosophical mystery, and it embraces such themes as the creative process, love, and imagination. The closing section of the film veers off into more mystifications, including the presence of another writer (Michael Imperioli) and a stunningly beautiful relative of his (Sophie Auster)."
-
To see two stills from the film, follow the link to the site.
How was the acting? I'm a long-time admirer of Thewlis and Jacob, Imperioli is a terrific presence, and I'm a great advocate of Sophie Auster's music (and beauty).
Imperioli is fantastic, he saves the film. Frankly Thewlis and Jacob look pretty bad in this, probably not their fault, the script is so ludicrous that no actor could have done anything with it. After twenty minutes I thought this was one of the worst things I had ever seen, I have a pretty fair idea when a person would have felt inclined to walk out.
However I am glad I stuck with it as Michael Imperioli's wonderfully comic Jim Fortuna revitalises the film. The first thing I thought was that he looked rather like Paul Auster himself, and being familiar with Auster work, it would be just like him to base the character on the young Paul Auster of Hand to Mouth. They play a silly game called Screwdriver Darts that Fortuna invented, Auster himself tried to invented games when he was a struggling writer.
Due to the nepotistic casting of Sophie Auster I had expected her to be pretty bad, but she confounded my expectations, she was very good. She has a wonderful screen presence and was not deficient as an actress. She also looks like her father, and as his readers will know, Auster likes to use his own life as material for his work.
The film has the same metaphysical concerns as Auster's writing, but it works better in the written form and just doesn't translate well. I also think there is - again like Auster's writing - a strong European influence and I suspect the film will be better received in Europe than in the United States. share