MovieChat Forums > Salvation Boulevard (2011) Discussion > Painful. Stupid. Pointless.

Painful. Stupid. Pointless.

posted 13 years ago by silver12dp
15 replies | jump to latest

******Sort of spoiler alert (I don't reveal anything that wasn't in the trailer)******

When I went to see this I was hopeful. Based on the incredible cast and meager budget I assumed there was something to this. There was an amazing story, a reason to tell it - a real 'actor's piece'. Perhaps these actors felt George Ratliff is a talented writer and storyteller whose moment in the sun hadn't come and they were going to help loft him to where he belongs? What would draw a bunch of Oscar winners, nominees and James Bond to a 26 day shoot in the middle of nowhere for no pay? After seeing Salvation Boulevard I still have no idea.

I'm not religious, never read the book and have no bias against atheists nor religious people - but somehow this movie even managed to condescend me. Whether it was intended or not there is a supposition at the very beginning of the movie that everyone in the audience is in on the joke and that joke is Jesus. Then it proceeds to make lazy gags and roll its eyes at anyone who ever opened a bible and didn't immediately burst out into laughter. Paint by numbers coloring books are more compelling.

The first ten minutes was interesting. There was actually a well thought adversarial argument between Harris and Brosnan over religion and reason. For team atheist, Ed Harris killed it (in a good way, I love that guy). Pierce Brosnan's pro-religion rebuttal was weak but tolerable (the writer's fault) - and introduced Kinnear, a recent convert to the church. Then there's a scene immediately after where Ed Harris, Pierce Brosnan and Greg Kinnear sit down together to discuss Harris' idea for a new book where the two continue arguing but this time they do it in writing and split the profits. There's absolutely NO reason whatsoever for Kinnear to be in the room - but this is obviously the 'call to action' moment and he's the protagonist, so whatever. Right after Ed Harris gets shot in the face accidentally - an act so stupid and unbelievable it had to be an intentional put-on orchestrated between the two of them for some greater purpose my mind began to wander; Why did they invite Kinnear's character to this meeting? Is he a pawn? Was this going to be a religious version of Trading Places? "What a great idea!" I thought. Stone and Ratliff might be onto something brilliant. Ed Harris and Pierce Brosnan are going to be Mortimer and Randolph and Kinnear is Billy Ray/Louis - and they're going to spend the next hour and a half manipulating Kinnear's character through this impossible situation to see if he chooses faith or reason. The winner gets a dollar (or top billing on the book cover, whatever). So now I'm excited - this movie is going to be an intelligent dissection of the two different fundamental arguments set in a ridiculous fictional setting so we can all get some perspective. I immediately forgave the first 20 minutes of bad filmmaking and settled in for some intellectual/spiritual discourse.

Nope. Couldn't have been any more wrong. What followed was a bunch of lazy tripe, with no point, purpose or clear perspective hashed out by a bunch of people who didn't seem like they really wanted to be there. It was a long, random, meandering collection of poorly written, motivation-free scenes where the protagonist is neither interesting, relatable nor do you care what happens to him. I would've walked out after the rock/minivan/quarry bit but I stayed to see what the director had to say for himself (I saw this at an advance screening at which the Ratliff was present). He spoke afterward. Listening to him was almost as uninspired, unfunny and pointless as his movie. All he really had to say about this atrocity is that he thought the book was for simpletons and he and genius writing partner Doug Stone felt compelled to make it less stupid (I'm paraphrasing here but that's how it came across). If the book was worse than this, I can't imagine anyone actually finished it. It's like I sat through 2 hours of mild condescension to listen to a glass of 2% milk talk about Lorna Doone cookies.

Salvation Boulevard might have been tolerable if it had at least been visually intersting. Instead it was like watching a first year film school student movie where nobody had any idea where to put the camera, had no time for lights and no idea what the polarizer in the matte box kit was for. Usually when they give good actors to a director with no credits they choose a really great DP who can keep him in line and take over if they have to fire him. Seriously, how do you make Marisa Tomei AND Jennifer Connelly hard to look at? Two of the prettiest women on earth and they looked like meth addicted hags you'd walk a wide circle around at the grocery store because you were afraid they were gonna ask for money. Maybe Ratliff chose the DP out of self-preservation rather than as a creative choice? Either way this movie couldn't have looked worse. Literally. If I were a film school teacher and a student brought me this movie and said they wanted to be a DP - I'd tell him/her to try editing.

It's not all bad though. Yul Vazquesz was brilliant. If you're a friend of his, his mom or a casting director you should totally go see this movie. He knocked it out of the park.

Salvation Boulevard is strictly for pompous, pseudo-intellectuals that like to go to art house theaters, endure 2 hours of bad storytelling, then pretend to like it so they can feel intelligent for enjoying something no one else 'understands'. (My sympathies go out to anyone who has to endure the conversation afterward with that person.) Maybe Ratliff started out with a point or a purpose but somewhere along the way that point got lost, rewritten, flushed, burned and peed on. There's absolutely no reason for this movie to exist; there's no perspective, it's neither smart nor funny, none of the characters are believable, relatable, interesting, funny, motivated nor sympathetic. The last scene has a completely incongruous 'A-Ha!' moment that only muddies the water further (if I had to guess, other than the character's names, it's probably the only thing they actually kept from the book).

Perhaps the lesson here is about actors' faith in directors - sadly theirs was grossly misplaced.

[–] Daydream_Machine 13 years ago

Funny, but you lost me during your art house theaters rant. I know it's handy to simplify the world like that, but it surely isn't smart. And Ratliff isn't a no-name. His Joshua was solid and a moderate festival hit (Sundance, for example). I'm gonna check this one out.

Last seen movies:
Howl 8/10
Stake Land 7/10
Transformers: Dark of the Moon 3.5/10

[–] silver12dp 13 years ago

You should totally check it out. I'm just going to thank my lucky stars I don't have to discuss it with you afterward.

[–] WVfilmfem 12 years ago

I just finished watching this film. Your review/syopsis/analysis is right on!
Thank you for taking the time to post this. I wouldn't have spent even a fraction trying to articulate my disappointment with this film. So glad you were able to do it.

[–] cinesimon 12 years ago

What an arrogant poseur you are

[–] HumanTheONLyRace 12 years ago

Then it proceeds to make lazy gags and roll its eyes at anyone who ever opened a bible and didn't immediately burst out into laughter.

If you think about it, that's the underlying point of this film, to make fun of people who blindly follow a book. So, I find it quite STUPID to complain about the main focus of the movie.

It was a long, random, meandering collection of poorly written, motivation-free scenes where the protagonist is neither interesting, relatable nor do you care what happens to him.

Wow...just wow. Random? So your saying someone's idea was random? Well *beep*, how about we just call every movie random, even your menstrual cycle post.

Salvation Boulevard might have been tolerable if it had at least been visually intersting. Instead it was like watching a first year film school student movie where nobody had any idea where to put the camera, had no time for lights and no idea what the polarizer in the matte box kit was for. Usually when they give good actors to a director with no credits they choose a really great DP who can keep him in line and take over if they have to fire him.

Your just annoying, the cinematography was fine, this movie's main focus was to make it's over all point of how the average drone of a human being is blind not make an artsy film. If every film were artsy, gosh, the movies we see would suck even more than a lot already do.

eriously, how do you make Marisa Tomei AND Jennifer Connelly hard to look at? Two of the prettiest women on earth and they looked like meth addicted hags you'd walk a wide circle around at the grocery store because you were afraid they were gonna ask for money.

Heh about those two, that's your opinion, since this board is for opinions, I'll make mine. They aren't two of the prettiest women on the earth, or probably in their zip code.

There's absolutely no reason for this movie to exist; there's no perspective, it's neither smart nor funny, none of the characters are believable, relatable, interesting, funny, motivated nor sympathetic.

More than many movies out there, in all of history, id say this movie has a logical reason to exist. I think its great to show the types of people being betrayed how the really act.

You say the characters aren't believable or relatable? I differ, I've seen women who go to church every day, fight over nonsense, and being more specific religious points. AND WTF ARE YOU? We live in a world were people think killing in the name of their religion is logical. Jeff's character, IF YOU PAY ATTENTION TO ANYTHING GOING ON OUTSIDE OF YOUR WORLD, is a great example of how relegion can harm others.

You didn't feel for the main character when he was lied to by a preacher, someone who many blindly believe and has a lot of power, you didn't feel for him when he told the truth, but no one believed him, even as he had a witness. I just watched The insider, look it up, a movie were a man loses everything for coming clean. Our judicial system is so *beep* if you have not the millions your *beep*

Either your a religious person, who lies about not being religious and hates the truth behind this well done satire or your really just ignorant, which is the same as the first reason I gave.

~Kutebare Iku Ze

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cinesimon 12 years ago

You spent all that effort on telling people you hate arthouse films and those who go to the films shown there(this film could hardly be called such; showing your complete ignorance on the subject), and that you didn't like this film.
Goody for you!
Grow up, you overblown, childish poseur.

[–] HumanTheONLyRace 12 years ago

Please specify the poseur. ^^

[–] Hancockenstein 12 years ago

you wrote alot. so what's the polarizer in the matte box kit for?

[–] HumanTheONLyRace 12 years ago

None of your responses make any sense!

[–] bentheholy 12 years ago

Salvation Boulevard is strictly for pompous pseudo-intellectuals? I suppose someone has to say this about every film listed on imdb: "Soul Plane 2 is strictly for pompous, pseudo-intellectuals who like to go to art house theaters, endure an hour and a half of bad storytelling, then pretend to like it so they can feel intelligent for enjoying something that no one else 'understands.'"

Anyway, Salvation Boulevard is not an arthouse film, it's a straightforward dark comedy. I don't think it deserved such a wordy review. It was an OK movie. I thought that the portrayal of evangelicals was shallow, but it didn't really seem meant to be philosophical, despite the subject matter. It was reasonably entertaining. The cinematography seemed pretty standard to me.

One thing, though did anybody else find it hard to visualize Greg Kinnear as a deadhead? He just looks responsible, like a dad. I can't imagine him otherwise, maybe because of Little Miss Sunshine.

[–] debniak 12 years ago

Agreed. Kinnear was miscast... not believable in that character. Otherwise, I thought it was just a mildly funny and silly movie. Certainly nothing to be taken so dreadfully serious as the OP seemed to do.

[–] glub 11 years ago

My thoughts exactly. What a horrible waste of talent!

[–] titans_58 11 years ago

I am watching it now and half way through and it's a irritating movie with all those church goers blindly following the domino effect words from the pasture. But this does run true because people in real life do get so brainwashed in these types of churches and they start believing anything that the pastures says on that stage. Yes I said stage because for those big churches it has become a stage and not just the front of a church. This movie even though I do not like it is showing the side of of what these big money making churches do to ones mind. This movie proves how organized religion can seriously go astray and it becomes a business using religion and people.As for Pierce Brosnan not sure what he was thinking when accepting this roll and it seems he just keeps going down hill in his acting career when at one time he was on top of it all same for Ed Harries as little as he was in it and that goes for the rest of the other known acters.

[–] Prismark10 10 years ago

I think Brosnan is at the stage of his career when he can do character parts especially if there is good talent about. There were two Oscar winners in this film and two other Oscar nominees.

Its that man again!!