Datasets:

DDDDZQ

/

imdb_reviews

like 0

Yeah, this movie is pretty is hilariously bad!

tt0368226

Director/writer/actor Tommy Wiseau has created quite a movie experience with this. The Room has become a cult hit and now is shown in theaters where people yell and laugh at the movie, and really the unintentional humor is all this thing has going for it. The acting is just awful, especially from Wiseau, the direction is strange, as is the writing and the awful soap opera synth music. Everything about this movie is laughable, so it's good people have realized this, and Mr. WIseau has made a name for himself in the Ed Wood department.Johnny (Tommy Wiseau) is a successful banker who is engaged to his "beautiful" "future wife" Lisa (Juliette Danielle). She is cheating on Johnny for Johnny's well intentioned best friend Mark (Greg Sestero), who knows the whole situation is wrong. Also in the mix is Denny (Phillip Haldiman), a semi-retarded 18 year old who lives in the same apartment as the other characters. He gets into a pickle with a drug dealer. And Lisa's whiny mother Claudette (Carolyn Minnott) has breast cancer. And Lisa's friend and her boyfriend are making whoopee in Johnny's apartment while they are away. All these great sub-plots...none of which have any outcome on the film. Very strange!Discontinuity is one of the biggest problems with this movie. Many sub-plots are introduced and then immediately dropped, including those mentioned above. Character traits are introduced and then forgotten, like Johnny's dislike for drinking alcohol, which is immediately ignored. Along with scripted discontinuity, there's plenty of bad editing to be found, where characters mouths don't match what they're saying, and where the characters bounce around the screen and inanimate objects move about the room. One character who is never introduced appears and begins yelling at Lisa, and the question pops up, "Who the heck is this guy?" But we never get the luxury of knowing his name. All we know is that he must be friends of theirs or something.This movie is also notorious for it's horrible scriptwriting. Every time anybody sees anyone else they always say in a surprised way "Oh, hi (insert name here)!" This phrase must be used forty times in the movie. In addition strange and bizarre non-phrases are used, such as the ever popular phrase, "Leave your stupid comments in your pocket!" This film is riddled with nonsensical dialogue, and pointless scenes, and that's one thing that makes this such a hilarious film, is it's complete lack of sense.Acting is another aspect that isn't this movie's strong point. Tommy Wiseau is undoubtedly the worst actor in the film, giving a bizarre droopy eyed performance where he not only gives bad readings, but makes some of the ugliest and most stupid faces you could imagine. Greg Sestero is a better actor but still not good. He seems to be a soap opera character, and reading that he has appeared in soap operas that makes sense. Phillip Haldiman's portrayal of Denny is probably second worst in the film. The character is absolutely idiotic and a complete perv, and the acting just makes the character all the more pathetic. Despite this film's weakness (everything about it!), this is really a funny movie if you can appreciate horrible cinema. This thing is just awful start to finish, and it definitely will have you at least smirking through most of it!My rating: BOMB out of ****. 99 mins. R for constant sexuality, language and violence.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368226/reviews-83

ur4195782

title: Yeah, this movie is pretty is hilariously bad! review: Director/writer/actor Tommy Wiseau has created quite a movie experience with this. The Room has become a cult hit and now is shown in theaters where people yell and laugh at the movie, and really the unintentional humor is all this thing has going for it. The acting is just awful, especially from Wiseau, the direction is strange, as is the writing and the awful soap opera synth music. Everything about this movie is laughable, so it's good people have realized this, and Mr. WIseau has made a name for himself in the Ed Wood department.Johnny (Tommy Wiseau) is a successful banker who is engaged to his "beautiful" "future wife" Lisa (Juliette Danielle). She is cheating on Johnny for Johnny's well intentioned best friend Mark (Greg Sestero), who knows the whole situation is wrong. Also in the mix is Denny (Phillip Haldiman), a semi-retarded 18 year old who lives in the same apartment as the other characters. He gets into a pickle with a drug dealer. And Lisa's whiny mother Claudette (Carolyn Minnott) has breast cancer. And Lisa's friend and her boyfriend are making whoopee in Johnny's apartment while they are away. All these great sub-plots...none of which have any outcome on the film. Very strange!Discontinuity is one of the biggest problems with this movie. Many sub-plots are introduced and then immediately dropped, including those mentioned above. Character traits are introduced and then forgotten, like Johnny's dislike for drinking alcohol, which is immediately ignored. Along with scripted discontinuity, there's plenty of bad editing to be found, where characters mouths don't match what they're saying, and where the characters bounce around the screen and inanimate objects move about the room. One character who is never introduced appears and begins yelling at Lisa, and the question pops up, "Who the heck is this guy?" But we never get the luxury of knowing his name. All we know is that he must be friends of theirs or something.This movie is also notorious for it's horrible scriptwriting. Every time anybody sees anyone else they always say in a surprised way "Oh, hi (insert name here)!" This phrase must be used forty times in the movie. In addition strange and bizarre non-phrases are used, such as the ever popular phrase, "Leave your stupid comments in your pocket!" This film is riddled with nonsensical dialogue, and pointless scenes, and that's one thing that makes this such a hilarious film, is it's complete lack of sense.Acting is another aspect that isn't this movie's strong point. Tommy Wiseau is undoubtedly the worst actor in the film, giving a bizarre droopy eyed performance where he not only gives bad readings, but makes some of the ugliest and most stupid faces you could imagine. Greg Sestero is a better actor but still not good. He seems to be a soap opera character, and reading that he has appeared in soap operas that makes sense. Phillip Haldiman's portrayal of Denny is probably second worst in the film. The character is absolutely idiotic and a complete perv, and the acting just makes the character all the more pathetic. Despite this film's weakness (everything about it!), this is really a funny movie if you can appreciate horrible cinema. This thing is just awful start to finish, and it definitely will have you at least smirking through most of it!My rating: BOMB out of ****. 99 mins. R for constant sexuality, language and violence.

Oh Hi Mark.

tt0368226

So, what I took away from this film regarding the plot is this. Johnny is getting married to his girlfriend Lisa, yet she doesn't love him anymore, she has fallen for his best friend Mark. We know they are best friends because every time Mark and Lisa have sex, he says he shouldn't because he's Johnny's best friend, then he proceeds to have sex with Lisa. Everything comes to a climactic halt at Johnny's birthday party and the lies get unraveled. So, for those of you not familiar with the film, let me give you a bit of information regarding the production and the final film itself. Most of the dialogue had to be dubbed, mostly for the lead actor (who is also the writer, director, producer) and most of it is out of sync. All of the cast, never acted before. The actor who plays Mark agreed to play the role 72 hours before filming began. The actor who played Peter, quit the production half way, so a new character was written and given all of Peter's lines. This character is never named, or explained who he is. Now let's look at the subplots, events that happen in the film and the impact they have on the story.Lisa and her mother are discussing the party for Johnny, when Lisa's mother out of the blue says this: "I got the results of the test back. I definitely have breast cancer." "Oh, you'll be fine" was the response from the daughter. The cancer is never spoken of again. One character shaves his beard and other characters decide to dedicate full conversations to it (to fill up time?). Characters are wearing tuxes and then decide to play some football in the middle of the street. I must have missed why they were wearing the tuxes, wedding rehearsal? Characters randomly drop by the house to see if Johnny or Lisa is home, it doesn't matter if they are or not, they leave a minute later and tell the person who answered the door to tell the person they said hi. Denny, a young boy that Johnny helped get a place and paid for, owes a drug dealer some money. After Johnny and Mark take care of the drug dealer, this is never mentioned again. I have no idea what happened to the drug dealer. Denny also apparently wants to watch Lisa and Johnny have sex. Characters missing halfway through, unexplained. The list goes on and on. The first 20 minutes, there are four sex scenes. One of which uses the same shots from the previous sex scene. One couple decide to go into Johnny and Lisa's house to have sex, the don't live there, but they have easy access. Tommy Wiseau, the creator of the film, claims to have intentionally made a black comedy, this is BS. The film was clearly trying to be a serious drama and it fails at that. The acting, is well, terrible. The mother seemed to be the only one 'trying'. Well, maybe Wiseau was trying, I couldn't tell. His most emotional scene was his tantrum at the end, throwing things around and tearing the house apart. He looked like he was sleepwalking while he was doing it. I suggest playing a drinking game while watching this, with friends, not alone. Take a shot every time someone says "I don't want to talk about it", anytime Johnny laughs for no reason, anytime you see a football, anytime roses make an appearance, anytime someone says future wife/husband and of course, anytime something inexplicable happens. You'll be wasted within the first ten minutes.I don't hate the film, I adore it for the absurdity. He tried, failed and is now riding the failing success to the top. The film is considered a cult classic. The 'Citizen Kane' of bad movies and Wiseau is using that to his advantage, smart move. Had he tried to defend the movie, it would have turned into a Showgirls. I wish someone had given me 6 million dollars to make a movie. I would have turned something in better than this. The guy didn't know the difference between 35mm and digital, so he filmed the movie with both cameras side by side. Interesting way to do things, but not showing confidence in your actors there. At least one of them knew what kind of movie it was and split before the film was finished. I would even make a better alley way set. I don't really know what to rate it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368226/reviews-131

ur1878251

title: Oh Hi Mark. review: So, what I took away from this film regarding the plot is this. Johnny is getting married to his girlfriend Lisa, yet she doesn't love him anymore, she has fallen for his best friend Mark. We know they are best friends because every time Mark and Lisa have sex, he says he shouldn't because he's Johnny's best friend, then he proceeds to have sex with Lisa. Everything comes to a climactic halt at Johnny's birthday party and the lies get unraveled. So, for those of you not familiar with the film, let me give you a bit of information regarding the production and the final film itself. Most of the dialogue had to be dubbed, mostly for the lead actor (who is also the writer, director, producer) and most of it is out of sync. All of the cast, never acted before. The actor who plays Mark agreed to play the role 72 hours before filming began. The actor who played Peter, quit the production half way, so a new character was written and given all of Peter's lines. This character is never named, or explained who he is. Now let's look at the subplots, events that happen in the film and the impact they have on the story.Lisa and her mother are discussing the party for Johnny, when Lisa's mother out of the blue says this: "I got the results of the test back. I definitely have breast cancer." "Oh, you'll be fine" was the response from the daughter. The cancer is never spoken of again. One character shaves his beard and other characters decide to dedicate full conversations to it (to fill up time?). Characters are wearing tuxes and then decide to play some football in the middle of the street. I must have missed why they were wearing the tuxes, wedding rehearsal? Characters randomly drop by the house to see if Johnny or Lisa is home, it doesn't matter if they are or not, they leave a minute later and tell the person who answered the door to tell the person they said hi. Denny, a young boy that Johnny helped get a place and paid for, owes a drug dealer some money. After Johnny and Mark take care of the drug dealer, this is never mentioned again. I have no idea what happened to the drug dealer. Denny also apparently wants to watch Lisa and Johnny have sex. Characters missing halfway through, unexplained. The list goes on and on. The first 20 minutes, there are four sex scenes. One of which uses the same shots from the previous sex scene. One couple decide to go into Johnny and Lisa's house to have sex, the don't live there, but they have easy access. Tommy Wiseau, the creator of the film, claims to have intentionally made a black comedy, this is BS. The film was clearly trying to be a serious drama and it fails at that. The acting, is well, terrible. The mother seemed to be the only one 'trying'. Well, maybe Wiseau was trying, I couldn't tell. His most emotional scene was his tantrum at the end, throwing things around and tearing the house apart. He looked like he was sleepwalking while he was doing it. I suggest playing a drinking game while watching this, with friends, not alone. Take a shot every time someone says "I don't want to talk about it", anytime Johnny laughs for no reason, anytime you see a football, anytime roses make an appearance, anytime someone says future wife/husband and of course, anytime something inexplicable happens. You'll be wasted within the first ten minutes.I don't hate the film, I adore it for the absurdity. He tried, failed and is now riding the failing success to the top. The film is considered a cult classic. The 'Citizen Kane' of bad movies and Wiseau is using that to his advantage, smart move. Had he tried to defend the movie, it would have turned into a Showgirls. I wish someone had given me 6 million dollars to make a movie. I would have turned something in better than this. The guy didn't know the difference between 35mm and digital, so he filmed the movie with both cameras side by side. Interesting way to do things, but not showing confidence in your actors there. At least one of them knew what kind of movie it was and split before the film was finished. I would even make a better alley way set. I don't really know what to rate it.

No Room Available

tt0368226

No, no, no, no, no, no, NO! The Room is not a black comedy as arrogant writer, star, distributor, producer and obviously blind director, Tommy Wiseau would want you to believe. Heck, it doesn't even have a single black person, much less anything but unintentional humor.Could The Room be absolutely the worst movie ever made in a World that gave us: Manos: The Hands of Fate? Eegah? Troll 2? Sharp Teeth? Shark Attack in the Mediterranean? Another Gay Sequel: Gays Gone Wild? A Sound of Thunder? Furry Vengeance? Boat Trip? Basic Instinct 2? Good Luck Chuck? Piranha Part Two: The Spawning? Glitter? Remember Me? Stan Helsing? Leonard: Part 6? Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation? All About Steve? Deathbed: The Bed That Eats? Pieces? Paranormal Activity? The Raspberry Reich? Curtains? Axe? Superman IV: The Quest for Peace? Batman & Robin? The Twilight series? Vampires Suck? Any Howling Sequel? Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines? Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan? Jennifer's Body? Plan 9 From Outer Space? 88 Minutes? Beyond a Reasonable Doubt? Lucky You? Jaws: The Revenge? 2012? Empire of the Ants? The Food of the Gods? Jurassic Park III? Halloween III: Season of the Witch? Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers? Halloween: Resurrection? Grown Ups? Year One? The Toxic Avenger? Either I Spit On Your Grave(s)? Blood Beach? The Last Airbender? The Happening? Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare? TV's Viva Laughlin? Saddam Hussein? Paris Hilton? Keanu Reeves?(Okay, those last four weren't movies, but damn you, World, for those.)Well, I had to ask myself: Is this really a movie? Is this a joke and I got the wrong "film" that people are talking about?Believe it or not, I had to consult with a professional critic and he actually confirmed that this is, in fact, a movie. And that he's seen it. And then I heard a gunshot and a loud thud. His poor, poor children.While he didn't actually die, you'll want to roughly 10 seconds into The Room. Die laughing, perhaps, at its amazing lack of direction and incredibly, there are two men fighting over the director credit: Wiseau (huh. WISEau?) and Sandy Schklair. Hmmm. Would you have fought with Pilate when he claimed to be the murderer of Jesus?In a "movie" (from here on out, that word will be very loosely associated with The Room) that even the dialogue sounds like it was dubbed à la Rumble in the Bronx, even though everyone's speaking English – if you can call it that, you'll quickly learn what NOT to do. Such as the ever so comical "shots" of San Francisco and the unfortunate Golden Gate Bridge which probably would've asked for a cut if this made more than a tenth of a penny.Recently I re-watched and reviewed the brilliant The Big Lebowski, and I stated towards the end that it should be actually studied in film school, if not already. I'll say the same here, but obviously at the other end of the spectrum.You almost feel sorry for the labeled "director" Wiseau, if not for his arrogance – SEE: poster for proof. Ironically, his follow-up was Homeless in America, and if America did have anything to do with it, he would be. But can you really be mad at the guy for this atrocity? Well, if he stayed in the background, and not in more than 75% of screen-time, you might feel some pity.And his writing? It's as if he was a stone-cold foreigner who watched a lot of American Sitcoms of the 1950s and used an English Translating Dictionary to produce the words spoken on screen. Sure, it's hilarious to hear him, or any of them speak, but it's also sad when someone who apparently isn't familiar with the language, culture or modest enough to hire someone to even take a 30-second peek at the screenplay. Personally, I wouldn't jump over to Paris and write a movie on the life and times of the natives using both a French for Dummies guide and my memory of French class in High School nearly two decades back. Is Paris is Burning already taken? Oh.The "movie" follows a confused blonde (duh) named Lisa (Danielle) who unsure of her pending nuptials to Johnny (Wiseau.) Who would be when you're about to marry the love child of Gérard Depardieu and Bob Dylan? So…she sleeps around and shows the camera she's not ashamed of her (probably bought) breasts.That's pretty much the plot. Throw in some laugh-out-loud 15-second subplot of a boy, Denny (Haldiman) who both likes to watch and do daaaangerous narcotics and a mother who looks as confused as George W. Bush without a speech to read.The actors, unbelievably, took this seriously. I would show more compassion for them, but even with a $1,000,000 scholarship to the New York Film Academy, they'd still fail later on.I've been told this is a great midnight movie experience, i.e. the astonishingly superior The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Perhaps. But, even at 99 minutes, it drags and my laughter nearly died, from pure exhaustion, towards the end. Fortunately, the SURPRISE! ending brought me back up to laughing hard.That all said, well…this entire review, I'd still recommend this "movie." How could you miss an opportunity like this? I seriously thought Troll 2 could never ever happen again. Improbably, lightning struck twice. First with a movie that's called Troll 2 that doesn't even involve trolls and now with The Room that's not even about one.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368226/reviews-198

ur17825945

title: No Room Available review: No, no, no, no, no, no, NO! The Room is not a black comedy as arrogant writer, star, distributor, producer and obviously blind director, Tommy Wiseau would want you to believe. Heck, it doesn't even have a single black person, much less anything but unintentional humor.Could The Room be absolutely the worst movie ever made in a World that gave us: Manos: The Hands of Fate? Eegah? Troll 2? Sharp Teeth? Shark Attack in the Mediterranean? Another Gay Sequel: Gays Gone Wild? A Sound of Thunder? Furry Vengeance? Boat Trip? Basic Instinct 2? Good Luck Chuck? Piranha Part Two: The Spawning? Glitter? Remember Me? Stan Helsing? Leonard: Part 6? Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation? All About Steve? Deathbed: The Bed That Eats? Pieces? Paranormal Activity? The Raspberry Reich? Curtains? Axe? Superman IV: The Quest for Peace? Batman & Robin? The Twilight series? Vampires Suck? Any Howling Sequel? Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines? Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan? Jennifer's Body? Plan 9 From Outer Space? 88 Minutes? Beyond a Reasonable Doubt? Lucky You? Jaws: The Revenge? 2012? Empire of the Ants? The Food of the Gods? Jurassic Park III? Halloween III: Season of the Witch? Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers? Halloween: Resurrection? Grown Ups? Year One? The Toxic Avenger? Either I Spit On Your Grave(s)? Blood Beach? The Last Airbender? The Happening? Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare? TV's Viva Laughlin? Saddam Hussein? Paris Hilton? Keanu Reeves?(Okay, those last four weren't movies, but damn you, World, for those.)Well, I had to ask myself: Is this really a movie? Is this a joke and I got the wrong "film" that people are talking about?Believe it or not, I had to consult with a professional critic and he actually confirmed that this is, in fact, a movie. And that he's seen it. And then I heard a gunshot and a loud thud. His poor, poor children.While he didn't actually die, you'll want to roughly 10 seconds into The Room. Die laughing, perhaps, at its amazing lack of direction and incredibly, there are two men fighting over the director credit: Wiseau (huh. WISEau?) and Sandy Schklair. Hmmm. Would you have fought with Pilate when he claimed to be the murderer of Jesus?In a "movie" (from here on out, that word will be very loosely associated with The Room) that even the dialogue sounds like it was dubbed à la Rumble in the Bronx, even though everyone's speaking English – if you can call it that, you'll quickly learn what NOT to do. Such as the ever so comical "shots" of San Francisco and the unfortunate Golden Gate Bridge which probably would've asked for a cut if this made more than a tenth of a penny.Recently I re-watched and reviewed the brilliant The Big Lebowski, and I stated towards the end that it should be actually studied in film school, if not already. I'll say the same here, but obviously at the other end of the spectrum.You almost feel sorry for the labeled "director" Wiseau, if not for his arrogance – SEE: poster for proof. Ironically, his follow-up was Homeless in America, and if America did have anything to do with it, he would be. But can you really be mad at the guy for this atrocity? Well, if he stayed in the background, and not in more than 75% of screen-time, you might feel some pity.And his writing? It's as if he was a stone-cold foreigner who watched a lot of American Sitcoms of the 1950s and used an English Translating Dictionary to produce the words spoken on screen. Sure, it's hilarious to hear him, or any of them speak, but it's also sad when someone who apparently isn't familiar with the language, culture or modest enough to hire someone to even take a 30-second peek at the screenplay. Personally, I wouldn't jump over to Paris and write a movie on the life and times of the natives using both a French for Dummies guide and my memory of French class in High School nearly two decades back. Is Paris is Burning already taken? Oh.The "movie" follows a confused blonde (duh) named Lisa (Danielle) who unsure of her pending nuptials to Johnny (Wiseau.) Who would be when you're about to marry the love child of Gérard Depardieu and Bob Dylan? So…she sleeps around and shows the camera she's not ashamed of her (probably bought) breasts.That's pretty much the plot. Throw in some laugh-out-loud 15-second subplot of a boy, Denny (Haldiman) who both likes to watch and do daaaangerous narcotics and a mother who looks as confused as George W. Bush without a speech to read.The actors, unbelievably, took this seriously. I would show more compassion for them, but even with a $1,000,000 scholarship to the New York Film Academy, they'd still fail later on.I've been told this is a great midnight movie experience, i.e. the astonishingly superior The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Perhaps. But, even at 99 minutes, it drags and my laughter nearly died, from pure exhaustion, towards the end. Fortunately, the SURPRISE! ending brought me back up to laughing hard.That all said, well…this entire review, I'd still recommend this "movie." How could you miss an opportunity like this? I seriously thought Troll 2 could never ever happen again. Improbably, lightning struck twice. First with a movie that's called Troll 2 that doesn't even involve trolls and now with The Room that's not even about one.

Defies Aristotle's maxim 'A Whole is what has a Beginning, Middle and an End'

tt0368226

One thing I can say after watching 'The Room' is that the Tom Wiseau made absolutely no effort to bring any sort of coherence to his screenplay. This looked like the first draft of the screenplay with no editing or changes done to it at all. I didn't see any beginning to it, the middle was a turkey while the ending was even more frightening.Even Tom cannot explain the bizarre scenes where the male characters play with the ball? Or why Tom is so fascinated with the bridge? Or why did Tom's character Mark feel that Lisa had not had sex with him for a while when two out of the first three scenes were of their love making (which includes probably the scariest scene in film history: two repeated shots of Tom's butt when he is humping). Or why Lisa isn't happy with Tom? Or why was this movie even made? What annoys me is that Tom Wiseau called this a black comedy, when this movie barely is a film. I cannot really categorize this as a feature film as it does not deserve the recognition. I can only suggest a change – rename it as 'The Party' because the last few shots of the party scene is so memorable in its ineptitude and slipshodness that….. I'm speechless.My Rating: 0 / 10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368226/reviews-168

ur14156875

title: Defies Aristotle's maxim 'A Whole is what has a Beginning, Middle and an End' review: One thing I can say after watching 'The Room' is that the Tom Wiseau made absolutely no effort to bring any sort of coherence to his screenplay. This looked like the first draft of the screenplay with no editing or changes done to it at all. I didn't see any beginning to it, the middle was a turkey while the ending was even more frightening.Even Tom cannot explain the bizarre scenes where the male characters play with the ball? Or why Tom is so fascinated with the bridge? Or why did Tom's character Mark feel that Lisa had not had sex with him for a while when two out of the first three scenes were of their love making (which includes probably the scariest scene in film history: two repeated shots of Tom's butt when he is humping). Or why Lisa isn't happy with Tom? Or why was this movie even made? What annoys me is that Tom Wiseau called this a black comedy, when this movie barely is a film. I cannot really categorize this as a feature film as it does not deserve the recognition. I can only suggest a change – rename it as 'The Party' because the last few shots of the party scene is so memorable in its ineptitude and slipshodness that….. I'm speechless.My Rating: 0 / 10

Why, Tommy? WHYYYY? 2%

tt0368226

The world, it would appear, is divided into two groups - those who have seen this movie and those who haven't. As someone who has now forever crossed that divide, allow me to impart some wisdom. Stay on that side! Whatever you think you know about Tommy Wiseau's insane debut effort, multiply it by a thousand. Nothing can fully prepare you for the utter chaos, the sheer ineptitude of what appears on screen that it forces people like me to reassess what a bad movie truly is. Don't get me wrong, I've seen terrible movies before including "Sharknado 2: The Second One" this very week. But Wiseau has crafted an almost unique film, one that will silence any argument about which is the worst film ever made by mentioning the title alone. It will, I suspect, never be beaten.Writer, producer, director and lead actor Wiseau plays Johnny, a successful banker living in San Francisco with his vampish future-wife (never fiancée) Lisa (Juilette Danielle). Alongside them is Denny (Philip Haldiman), a one-time teenage tearaway who acts as a surrogate son for Johnny and Lisa. One day, Lisa decides that she is bored of life with Johnny and starts to have an affair with Johnny's best friend Mark (Greg Sestero), much to the disapproval of many other periphery characters including Lisa's mum (Carolyn Minnott), psychologist friend Peter (Kyle Vogt) and Lisa's equally slutty friend Michelle (Robyn Paris). When the truth finally emerges, none of them will ever be the same again. Most of them, I suspect, will leave California for good and pretend that their time on set was some sort of twisted nightmare.Even without Wiseau's bizarrely charismatic presence, "The Room" would still be considered as one of the worst pieces of so-called entertainment it has ever been my misfortune to watch. Dialogue consists of mainly people saying what a great guy Johnny is, how sexy Lisa looks, everybody greeting each other with the phrase "Oh, hey *character name*" EVERY SINGLE TIME and serious conversations about breast cancer and drug addiction ending with another phrase, "Don't worry about it." In truth, the dialogue is the least of the film's problems because very little of it makes any sense. For example, when Mark tells Johnny about a girl he knew who was attacked and put into hospital, Johnny laughs. Why? Actually, Johnny spends a lot of time in the first half laughing at random moments before dragging the male cast into an alley in tuxedos for an impromptu throw-about with an American football. Danielle is probably the best of the cast because at least she's trying - the rest of them display as much passion, emotion and humanity as a shop window dummy. Sestero is so astonishingly wooden, it takes your breath away until the party scene towards the end when a random man we've never seen before apparently called Steven (Greg Ellery) delivers lines as though he can see his wife and family being held at gun-point off-screen.But the film belongs to Wiseau, looking like the bastard love-child of Kiss's Gene Simmons conceived in a wind tunnel. His accent is unfathomable, his blatantly ego-centric screenplay is nauseating and his frequent love-scenes are ridiculously unsexy. His performance is as hilarious as his direction is inept (I loved his "You're tearing me apart, Lisa!" moment, the only time he actually tries to convey emotion of any sort). Even his soundtrack (which, admittedly, he's not directly responsible for) is equally boresome. The track "You're My Rose" by Kitra Williams is the first time I've heard any song when the chorus fails to match the melody at any point. I understand that "The Room" was financed entirely from Wiseau's own pockets to the tune of $6 million. If I didn't know that most of the crew and cast were fired and replaced at least once (and sometimes twice) then I'd struggle to know where the money went. But at least Wiseau has managed to secure himself something for his considerable outlay - a place in history as the most deluded, determined and dangerous man in Hollywood. "The Room" will long be remembered as the worst movie ever made and if that was Wiseau's intention (as he'd let us believe it was) then job done. However, I suspect that "The Room" is actually a parable about the risks of making a movie alone with no experience or understanding of film making. Or everyday life.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368226/reviews-277

ur3035115

title: Why, Tommy? WHYYYY? 2% review: The world, it would appear, is divided into two groups - those who have seen this movie and those who haven't. As someone who has now forever crossed that divide, allow me to impart some wisdom. Stay on that side! Whatever you think you know about Tommy Wiseau's insane debut effort, multiply it by a thousand. Nothing can fully prepare you for the utter chaos, the sheer ineptitude of what appears on screen that it forces people like me to reassess what a bad movie truly is. Don't get me wrong, I've seen terrible movies before including "Sharknado 2: The Second One" this very week. But Wiseau has crafted an almost unique film, one that will silence any argument about which is the worst film ever made by mentioning the title alone. It will, I suspect, never be beaten.Writer, producer, director and lead actor Wiseau plays Johnny, a successful banker living in San Francisco with his vampish future-wife (never fiancée) Lisa (Juilette Danielle). Alongside them is Denny (Philip Haldiman), a one-time teenage tearaway who acts as a surrogate son for Johnny and Lisa. One day, Lisa decides that she is bored of life with Johnny and starts to have an affair with Johnny's best friend Mark (Greg Sestero), much to the disapproval of many other periphery characters including Lisa's mum (Carolyn Minnott), psychologist friend Peter (Kyle Vogt) and Lisa's equally slutty friend Michelle (Robyn Paris). When the truth finally emerges, none of them will ever be the same again. Most of them, I suspect, will leave California for good and pretend that their time on set was some sort of twisted nightmare.Even without Wiseau's bizarrely charismatic presence, "The Room" would still be considered as one of the worst pieces of so-called entertainment it has ever been my misfortune to watch. Dialogue consists of mainly people saying what a great guy Johnny is, how sexy Lisa looks, everybody greeting each other with the phrase "Oh, hey *character name*" EVERY SINGLE TIME and serious conversations about breast cancer and drug addiction ending with another phrase, "Don't worry about it." In truth, the dialogue is the least of the film's problems because very little of it makes any sense. For example, when Mark tells Johnny about a girl he knew who was attacked and put into hospital, Johnny laughs. Why? Actually, Johnny spends a lot of time in the first half laughing at random moments before dragging the male cast into an alley in tuxedos for an impromptu throw-about with an American football. Danielle is probably the best of the cast because at least she's trying - the rest of them display as much passion, emotion and humanity as a shop window dummy. Sestero is so astonishingly wooden, it takes your breath away until the party scene towards the end when a random man we've never seen before apparently called Steven (Greg Ellery) delivers lines as though he can see his wife and family being held at gun-point off-screen.But the film belongs to Wiseau, looking like the bastard love-child of Kiss's Gene Simmons conceived in a wind tunnel. His accent is unfathomable, his blatantly ego-centric screenplay is nauseating and his frequent love-scenes are ridiculously unsexy. His performance is as hilarious as his direction is inept (I loved his "You're tearing me apart, Lisa!" moment, the only time he actually tries to convey emotion of any sort). Even his soundtrack (which, admittedly, he's not directly responsible for) is equally boresome. The track "You're My Rose" by Kitra Williams is the first time I've heard any song when the chorus fails to match the melody at any point. I understand that "The Room" was financed entirely from Wiseau's own pockets to the tune of $6 million. If I didn't know that most of the crew and cast were fired and replaced at least once (and sometimes twice) then I'd struggle to know where the money went. But at least Wiseau has managed to secure himself something for his considerable outlay - a place in history as the most deluded, determined and dangerous man in Hollywood. "The Room" will long be remembered as the worst movie ever made and if that was Wiseau's intention (as he'd let us believe it was) then job done. However, I suspect that "The Room" is actually a parable about the risks of making a movie alone with no experience or understanding of film making. Or everyday life.

This movie is "Tearing me apart!"

tt0368226

This is a movie filled with friendship, betrayal, lust and sports. All compacted into a masterpiece of a film with unique characters and so much emotions. Yeah, this is probably my first time using sarcasm in this review, mainly because this whole movie seemed like a giant ball of sarcasm. Tommy Wiseau is either a genius (well someone that knew what he was doing) and wanted to go in a black comedy direction or a hack of a director that really tried to make a serious drama. Like he knew the main drive of this movie is himself playing Johnny with the most corny and awful acting ever. What shocked me the most about this movie is how he was able to raise 6 million dollars for this so called movie. He probably pocked just about all of it, seeing how this movie seems like something made from a shoe string budget of less than 2 grand. During a interview Tommy Wiseau mentioned that he intentionally made a bad movie on purpose that would stand out from the rest. In my opinion it can go both ways. Watching this movie is like watching the movie "I Am a Sex Addict" except even worse, but better at the same time, if that makes sense. This is a movie you just have to go with, without taking it seriously in order to get a bit of entertainment out of for all the wrong reason. This movie came out in 2003, but looks like something from the 60's. Everything and everyone in this movie is just super awkward, especially with the interactions amongst one another. I just recently saw this movie called "Joe" which is actually a good movie and I can see the similarity between the characters Joe and Johnny to a certain degree. Both are the good-intentioned characters that tries to take care of a youngster, except Johnny throughout the whole movie with the plot and all tries to prove how much of a good guy he is and how everyone is scummy. He however comes across as those supposed nice guys that gets annoying really quickly, except he is so freaking weird and odd that actually makes him unique in a sense. Tommy or Johnny is someone that oozes with some much cheese and grease that it makes everything he says and does hysterical in a sense. There are cheesy and greasy characters in other movies before, but for this case it just didn't seem intentional. Especially see how Tommy Wiseau seems to be a bit on the narcissistic side without taking things too seriously. This is a movie that you just have to watch with a crowd to get the most effect out of. Because this is a movie that the audiences can participate with and makes it their own and recite phrases while having fun with it. This also has probably the worst sex scenes I have ever seen in a movie so far and the super cheesy and melodramatic music playing the in background makes it all cringe-worthy. It's just something very very very difficult to watch. The cinematography is awful, the acting is equally as awful (it seemed like the actors and actresses knew how bad this movie is thus couldn't take it seriously), the plot and characters is inconsistent, doesn't make any sense and just plain downright dumb. Just don't take anything in this movie seriously and watch it with a crowd and play along with it, you just might have a good time with this. Cause I will probably never ever watch this movie by myself ever. I give this movie a 4.5 by combining the score of this movie as a movie and from the entertainment you can get by roasting it and playing along with a crowd.4.5/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368226/reviews-266

ur22171966

title: This movie is "Tearing me apart!" review: This is a movie filled with friendship, betrayal, lust and sports. All compacted into a masterpiece of a film with unique characters and so much emotions. Yeah, this is probably my first time using sarcasm in this review, mainly because this whole movie seemed like a giant ball of sarcasm. Tommy Wiseau is either a genius (well someone that knew what he was doing) and wanted to go in a black comedy direction or a hack of a director that really tried to make a serious drama. Like he knew the main drive of this movie is himself playing Johnny with the most corny and awful acting ever. What shocked me the most about this movie is how he was able to raise 6 million dollars for this so called movie. He probably pocked just about all of it, seeing how this movie seems like something made from a shoe string budget of less than 2 grand. During a interview Tommy Wiseau mentioned that he intentionally made a bad movie on purpose that would stand out from the rest. In my opinion it can go both ways. Watching this movie is like watching the movie "I Am a Sex Addict" except even worse, but better at the same time, if that makes sense. This is a movie you just have to go with, without taking it seriously in order to get a bit of entertainment out of for all the wrong reason. This movie came out in 2003, but looks like something from the 60's. Everything and everyone in this movie is just super awkward, especially with the interactions amongst one another. I just recently saw this movie called "Joe" which is actually a good movie and I can see the similarity between the characters Joe and Johnny to a certain degree. Both are the good-intentioned characters that tries to take care of a youngster, except Johnny throughout the whole movie with the plot and all tries to prove how much of a good guy he is and how everyone is scummy. He however comes across as those supposed nice guys that gets annoying really quickly, except he is so freaking weird and odd that actually makes him unique in a sense. Tommy or Johnny is someone that oozes with some much cheese and grease that it makes everything he says and does hysterical in a sense. There are cheesy and greasy characters in other movies before, but for this case it just didn't seem intentional. Especially see how Tommy Wiseau seems to be a bit on the narcissistic side without taking things too seriously. This is a movie that you just have to watch with a crowd to get the most effect out of. Because this is a movie that the audiences can participate with and makes it their own and recite phrases while having fun with it. This also has probably the worst sex scenes I have ever seen in a movie so far and the super cheesy and melodramatic music playing the in background makes it all cringe-worthy. It's just something very very very difficult to watch. The cinematography is awful, the acting is equally as awful (it seemed like the actors and actresses knew how bad this movie is thus couldn't take it seriously), the plot and characters is inconsistent, doesn't make any sense and just plain downright dumb. Just don't take anything in this movie seriously and watch it with a crowd and play along with it, you just might have a good time with this. Cause I will probably never ever watch this movie by myself ever. I give this movie a 4.5 by combining the score of this movie as a movie and from the entertainment you can get by roasting it and playing along with a crowd.4.5/10

Cult movie for the wrong reasons.

tt0368226

Oh, I had a hard time giving it a 1, however, the movie is incompetent in the production aspect as well as the plot, acting, score... Well, you get the idea. I found about "The Room" in the Prince Charles Cinema in London because the place has a big poster of it. Then, curiosity became obsession and I did research about everything that had to do it. No curiosity, maybe, morbid intentions.It is laughable for the wrong reasons but it is cult entertainment for sure. It made me roar in laughter and could not believe how bad was it. So, you may wanna give it a chance in order to witness that what people say about it, is REAL!Tommy Wiseau may be an underestimated genius for scenes such as the rooftop scene, the fight during a party, the tedious love scenes, ail of Danny's participations, and more... Oh well, THIS IS a true cult movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368226/reviews-294

ur2843647

title: Cult movie for the wrong reasons. review: Oh, I had a hard time giving it a 1, however, the movie is incompetent in the production aspect as well as the plot, acting, score... Well, you get the idea. I found about "The Room" in the Prince Charles Cinema in London because the place has a big poster of it. Then, curiosity became obsession and I did research about everything that had to do it. No curiosity, maybe, morbid intentions.It is laughable for the wrong reasons but it is cult entertainment for sure. It made me roar in laughter and could not believe how bad was it. So, you may wanna give it a chance in order to witness that what people say about it, is REAL!Tommy Wiseau may be an underestimated genius for scenes such as the rooftop scene, the fight during a party, the tedious love scenes, ail of Danny's participations, and more... Oh well, THIS IS a true cult movie.

keep this in mind: people who award this a '10' are not being serious oh hi Mark

tt0368226

Tommy Wiseau may be a genius somewhere inside of his mind. I would still be interested to see it leap out at us unsuspecting viewers. For now, we have The Room on our hands, one of those real marvels of bad movie-making. It's a hilarious kind of bad movie, where one can see that the actors are trying, for better or worse (no, usually for the worse) to act in a serious capacity in their characters. The Room was written as a play first, and it shows: scenes in rooms, scenes on a rooftop (and what a view, ho-ho), scenes in a field somewhere throwing around a football, and back to the Room again. And now it's being touted by its maker as being a 'comedy'. This is called 'after-the-fact' thinking. It was made as a drama, in all sincerity, and now it's a matter of saving face, it becoming a midnight movie, a riot. It's worth it.Watch it with friends if you can't watch it with a packed audience. It's that kind of bad movie, where one can marvel at how Wiseau managed to eff-up continuity, where actors are supposed to be in a scene, repeating things they just said, saying things that are inconsistent with things said before, characters who disappear for stretches and reappear as if they were just there in the room the whole time. I admire a filmmaker who can do something this wretched, since it shows that somewhere inside of this guy is a voice of an artist. Bad, misguided, and perhaps just untalented. But who is Ed Wood if not an untalented artist who had a lot of ideas and a lack of skills and where-with-all to do it? Oh, and did I mention the film takes place in San Francisco? This point is hammered in so much you expect for Bullitt to roll over the hill at some point and run over one of the kids playing football. I could attempt to go further and describe the plot, but is there any aside from these several words: Johnny (Wiseau) has a fiancé he loves, she's cheating on him with his best friend, and neither of them can commit to letting Johnny go. Nothing else happens except many scenes of talking; someone may have mentioned a chamber drama in comparison to The Room, and it's not far off. I imagine Wiseau is a big fan of Ingmar Bergman, specifically Cries & Whispers (red walls, anyone?), and if so, more power to him. That it's often so bad as to be unwatchable, when not crying-buckets-of-tears hysterical in its laughter-quota, should also be noted with that.And one more thing that needs to be said about Tommy boy: he's not a good actor. This is something crucial - he is an easy target for us folks who watch bad movies searching for the next bad actor around the corner. He's so awful not simply because of his lack of emotion in scenes, but how over-emotional he gets when, say, he channels James Dean, or at the end when he (in an act ala Orson Welles in Citizen Kane) tears apart the house at the end. When he enters on the screen it's like an 80's hair-metal cover band is missing its roadie, and he's still in training. He may be inept as a director, and writer, and casting agent, and especially at those sex scenes (good God, someone resurrected BoyZ 2 Men!), but seeing him in the titular lead role is about enough to drive most sensible human beings out of the theater in droves, or shut off the DVD and ask netflix if it was a mistaken delivery.For the rest of us, however painful it can get, The Room is an entertaining debacle, poorly produced and all the funnier for it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368226/reviews-87

ur0453068

title: keep this in mind: people who award this a '10' are not being serious oh hi Mark review: Tommy Wiseau may be a genius somewhere inside of his mind. I would still be interested to see it leap out at us unsuspecting viewers. For now, we have The Room on our hands, one of those real marvels of bad movie-making. It's a hilarious kind of bad movie, where one can see that the actors are trying, for better or worse (no, usually for the worse) to act in a serious capacity in their characters. The Room was written as a play first, and it shows: scenes in rooms, scenes on a rooftop (and what a view, ho-ho), scenes in a field somewhere throwing around a football, and back to the Room again. And now it's being touted by its maker as being a 'comedy'. This is called 'after-the-fact' thinking. It was made as a drama, in all sincerity, and now it's a matter of saving face, it becoming a midnight movie, a riot. It's worth it.Watch it with friends if you can't watch it with a packed audience. It's that kind of bad movie, where one can marvel at how Wiseau managed to eff-up continuity, where actors are supposed to be in a scene, repeating things they just said, saying things that are inconsistent with things said before, characters who disappear for stretches and reappear as if they were just there in the room the whole time. I admire a filmmaker who can do something this wretched, since it shows that somewhere inside of this guy is a voice of an artist. Bad, misguided, and perhaps just untalented. But who is Ed Wood if not an untalented artist who had a lot of ideas and a lack of skills and where-with-all to do it? Oh, and did I mention the film takes place in San Francisco? This point is hammered in so much you expect for Bullitt to roll over the hill at some point and run over one of the kids playing football. I could attempt to go further and describe the plot, but is there any aside from these several words: Johnny (Wiseau) has a fiancé he loves, she's cheating on him with his best friend, and neither of them can commit to letting Johnny go. Nothing else happens except many scenes of talking; someone may have mentioned a chamber drama in comparison to The Room, and it's not far off. I imagine Wiseau is a big fan of Ingmar Bergman, specifically Cries & Whispers (red walls, anyone?), and if so, more power to him. That it's often so bad as to be unwatchable, when not crying-buckets-of-tears hysterical in its laughter-quota, should also be noted with that.And one more thing that needs to be said about Tommy boy: he's not a good actor. This is something crucial - he is an easy target for us folks who watch bad movies searching for the next bad actor around the corner. He's so awful not simply because of his lack of emotion in scenes, but how over-emotional he gets when, say, he channels James Dean, or at the end when he (in an act ala Orson Welles in Citizen Kane) tears apart the house at the end. When he enters on the screen it's like an 80's hair-metal cover band is missing its roadie, and he's still in training. He may be inept as a director, and writer, and casting agent, and especially at those sex scenes (good God, someone resurrected BoyZ 2 Men!), but seeing him in the titular lead role is about enough to drive most sensible human beings out of the theater in droves, or shut off the DVD and ask netflix if it was a mistaken delivery.For the rest of us, however painful it can get, The Room is an entertaining debacle, poorly produced and all the funnier for it.

This is the classic. This is the masterpiece. This is THE ROOM.

tt0368226

Watching 'The Room', which, by the way, has an incredibly pointless title, has always been different every time. At first, I dismissed it saying that it was laughably bad (which it still is today). As I watched again and again, I slowly got more and more intrigued by its symbolism. Imagine : A weird, tall man with a creepy accent and girly, long, curly black hair. An incredibly and unabashedly unfaithful fiancée. A friend whose friendship is questionable due to his actions of betrayal. An innocent-looking kid who gets involved with things much darker for anyone's taste. The fiancée's ever-inquisitive yet moral mother. These are not just the complex characters of 'The Room', but a small part in everyone's mind.I read somewhere that Tommy Wiseau used to be a psychologist, and so it would seem only natural for him to make a film of this nature, with disturbingly complex characters, and the small, seemingly irrelevant but impactful situations they are put in. Johnny's weird accent, Denny's random perversions, Lisa's utter lack of shame, and Mark's true innocence, are not just the characteristics of the characters, but they are all part of one's MIND.After I watched 'The Room' many times, I realized why the characters always acted and reacted weirdly. I understood the seemingly pointless scenes and what they ACTUALLY meant. The film is a surreal account of one's inner MIND.Thank you, Tommy Wiseau, for this cruelly misunderstood masterpiece of a film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368226/reviews-240

ur46304483

title: This is the classic. This is the masterpiece. This is THE ROOM. review: Watching 'The Room', which, by the way, has an incredibly pointless title, has always been different every time. At first, I dismissed it saying that it was laughably bad (which it still is today). As I watched again and again, I slowly got more and more intrigued by its symbolism. Imagine : A weird, tall man with a creepy accent and girly, long, curly black hair. An incredibly and unabashedly unfaithful fiancée. A friend whose friendship is questionable due to his actions of betrayal. An innocent-looking kid who gets involved with things much darker for anyone's taste. The fiancée's ever-inquisitive yet moral mother. These are not just the complex characters of 'The Room', but a small part in everyone's mind.I read somewhere that Tommy Wiseau used to be a psychologist, and so it would seem only natural for him to make a film of this nature, with disturbingly complex characters, and the small, seemingly irrelevant but impactful situations they are put in. Johnny's weird accent, Denny's random perversions, Lisa's utter lack of shame, and Mark's true innocence, are not just the characteristics of the characters, but they are all part of one's MIND.After I watched 'The Room' many times, I realized why the characters always acted and reacted weirdly. I understood the seemingly pointless scenes and what they ACTUALLY meant. The film is a surreal account of one's inner MIND.Thank you, Tommy Wiseau, for this cruelly misunderstood masterpiece of a film.

Funny, but mostly boring

tt0368226

Infamously terrible film. I must admit, it's funny, but, man, is it repetitive and boring. Wiseau, who speaks English with a heavy European accent, plays a thoroughly nice and possibly retarded man who is about to marry his longtime girlfriend, Lisa. Unfortunately, Lisa is cheating on him with his best friend Mark. That's pretty much the entire plot of the movie. For 99 minutes, Wiseau stumbles around saying, "Oh hai!" to everyone he comes into contact with. Whenever he leaves Mark and Lisa alone in a room together, they start screwing. Their friends and relatives keep trying to convince Lisa to break it off with him, though none of them are good enough friends to just outright tell poor Wiseau. A couple of subplots get introduced, like Lisa's mother's cancer or Wiseau's young protégé's dealings with drugs, but they get dropped because the affair is just so damned interesting. The movie's sort of interesting psychologically, though pretty simplistic: Wiseau obviously based the script on his own insecurities (whether a woman ever cheated on him or not), and the film basically contemplates why he either can't get or can't keep a chick. Look up the funny moments on Youtube, but leave the actual film for the braver viewers amongst us.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368226/reviews-106

ur0391152

title: Funny, but mostly boring review: Infamously terrible film. I must admit, it's funny, but, man, is it repetitive and boring. Wiseau, who speaks English with a heavy European accent, plays a thoroughly nice and possibly retarded man who is about to marry his longtime girlfriend, Lisa. Unfortunately, Lisa is cheating on him with his best friend Mark. That's pretty much the entire plot of the movie. For 99 minutes, Wiseau stumbles around saying, "Oh hai!" to everyone he comes into contact with. Whenever he leaves Mark and Lisa alone in a room together, they start screwing. Their friends and relatives keep trying to convince Lisa to break it off with him, though none of them are good enough friends to just outright tell poor Wiseau. A couple of subplots get introduced, like Lisa's mother's cancer or Wiseau's young protégé's dealings with drugs, but they get dropped because the affair is just so damned interesting. The movie's sort of interesting psychologically, though pretty simplistic: Wiseau obviously based the script on his own insecurities (whether a woman ever cheated on him or not), and the film basically contemplates why he either can't get or can't keep a chick. Look up the funny moments on Youtube, but leave the actual film for the braver viewers amongst us.

What do you say when the lead actor says that he hopes you enjoy the film? Not an easy answer...

tt1302067

You know I'm going to feel really bad writing this review. Yogi Bear is a movie that was totally meant for kids and not to mention that I got to meet Dan Aykroyd during his promotion of the film and he said he hoped that everyone would enjoy the film and that this meant a lot to him. Now normally I say that if it's a kid's film, it's a kid's film, it was meant for a specific audience. But my problem is that this was too basic even for a kid's movie. I don't care if a kid's movie is predictable, but Yogi Bear seemed lazy and didn't want to try to be entertaining. All the adults in the film were total idiots, now granted this is a movie about a talking bear, but seriously, why can't we have normal people in movies like this? Remember Home Alone? Where the burglars were stupid but also could be intimidating at the same time and actually seemed real? We don't get that any more and the characters were just so lame and I felt like they were trying to teach a kindergarten class with their voices and body language. I think this movie was doomed from the get go because no one thought the film out and were only thinking of the money.The city Mayor is losing money and he needs to find some place losing money so he can earn it, so he picks Jellystone Park. When he comes to visit Ranger Smith and Jones he says if they do not get enough money then Jellystone will be shut down. Ranger Smith then tells Yogi and Boo Boo about the closing of Jellystone. Yogi then tells Smith that he has an idea to raise money and that is a firework show. So the next day they are all putting up invitations so that everybody can enjoy how wonderful Jellystone is. The Mayor tells Ranger Jones that is he were to make this firework show turn into a nightmare then he would make him the head ranger of Jellystone. So Smith tells Yogi and Boo Boo but mostly Yogi to stay out of the way. So then Jones finds out that Yogi can mess things up and encourages him to do his own act. Then Yogi messes it up when hes water skiing and he lights himself on fire and hits the fireworks and making them go all over the crowd. Jellystone closes and Smith is relocated to a park the size of 3 cars. Yogi realizes what he did and leaves but then Boo Boo finds him and convinces him to find Smith and save the park.Like I said I feel really bad giving this film a low rating, but this is not a family film in my opinion. This is totally 100% a kid's film and the age range I would say is very low, maybe for 6 or below. The animation was decent enough and Dan and Justin actually did the voices pretty well, I wouldn't deny the film that. But I used to watch the cartoon as a child on the Cartoon Network, there is a certain camp value with being hand drawn. I don't think Hannah Barbara meant for their cartoons to be turned into CGI. I think with the success of Alvin and the Chipmunks, a trend is starting with turning childhood classic cartoons into CGI adaptations with adult leads who are beyond stupid and villains who you wish were around in the real world because if they were, crime would be down very much considering how easily they could get caught. I apologize to Mr. Aykroyd because I know that he said he put his heart into this, but maybe he's the only one who did and that was the problem because this film really can't be enjoyed by everyone, I'd even say for my future kids, I would want them to watch something a little more intelligent.3/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1302067/reviews-17

ur1293485

title: What do you say when the lead actor says that he hopes you enjoy the film? Not an easy answer... review: You know I'm going to feel really bad writing this review. Yogi Bear is a movie that was totally meant for kids and not to mention that I got to meet Dan Aykroyd during his promotion of the film and he said he hoped that everyone would enjoy the film and that this meant a lot to him. Now normally I say that if it's a kid's film, it's a kid's film, it was meant for a specific audience. But my problem is that this was too basic even for a kid's movie. I don't care if a kid's movie is predictable, but Yogi Bear seemed lazy and didn't want to try to be entertaining. All the adults in the film were total idiots, now granted this is a movie about a talking bear, but seriously, why can't we have normal people in movies like this? Remember Home Alone? Where the burglars were stupid but also could be intimidating at the same time and actually seemed real? We don't get that any more and the characters were just so lame and I felt like they were trying to teach a kindergarten class with their voices and body language. I think this movie was doomed from the get go because no one thought the film out and were only thinking of the money.The city Mayor is losing money and he needs to find some place losing money so he can earn it, so he picks Jellystone Park. When he comes to visit Ranger Smith and Jones he says if they do not get enough money then Jellystone will be shut down. Ranger Smith then tells Yogi and Boo Boo about the closing of Jellystone. Yogi then tells Smith that he has an idea to raise money and that is a firework show. So the next day they are all putting up invitations so that everybody can enjoy how wonderful Jellystone is. The Mayor tells Ranger Jones that is he were to make this firework show turn into a nightmare then he would make him the head ranger of Jellystone. So Smith tells Yogi and Boo Boo but mostly Yogi to stay out of the way. So then Jones finds out that Yogi can mess things up and encourages him to do his own act. Then Yogi messes it up when hes water skiing and he lights himself on fire and hits the fireworks and making them go all over the crowd. Jellystone closes and Smith is relocated to a park the size of 3 cars. Yogi realizes what he did and leaves but then Boo Boo finds him and convinces him to find Smith and save the park.Like I said I feel really bad giving this film a low rating, but this is not a family film in my opinion. This is totally 100% a kid's film and the age range I would say is very low, maybe for 6 or below. The animation was decent enough and Dan and Justin actually did the voices pretty well, I wouldn't deny the film that. But I used to watch the cartoon as a child on the Cartoon Network, there is a certain camp value with being hand drawn. I don't think Hannah Barbara meant for their cartoons to be turned into CGI. I think with the success of Alvin and the Chipmunks, a trend is starting with turning childhood classic cartoons into CGI adaptations with adult leads who are beyond stupid and villains who you wish were around in the real world because if they were, crime would be down very much considering how easily they could get caught. I apologize to Mr. Aykroyd because I know that he said he put his heart into this, but maybe he's the only one who did and that was the problem because this film really can't be enjoyed by everyone, I'd even say for my future kids, I would want them to watch something a little more intelligent.3/10

Ursa minor.

tt1302067

Yogi Bear and his sidekick Boo Boo help Ranger Smith to foil a greedy politician's plan to exploit Jellystone Park for profit.This real-life/CGI adaptation of the classic Hanna Barbera cartoon is a real boo-boo: it's rarely funny, the story is trite, the characters are irritating, and Anna Faris hasn't been cute or sexy since she went blonde and had her face messed about with. The effects and voice talent are, for the most part, passable, but never exceptional.That leaves the amusing frog-mouthed turtle as the only really worthwhile thing about the whole film, and when a film's greatest asset is a comical digital reptile that only appears in a small fraction of the action, then it's time to pack away the pic-a-nic baskets for good.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1302067/reviews-94

ur0945066

title: Ursa minor. review: Yogi Bear and his sidekick Boo Boo help Ranger Smith to foil a greedy politician's plan to exploit Jellystone Park for profit.This real-life/CGI adaptation of the classic Hanna Barbera cartoon is a real boo-boo: it's rarely funny, the story is trite, the characters are irritating, and Anna Faris hasn't been cute or sexy since she went blonde and had her face messed about with. The effects and voice talent are, for the most part, passable, but never exceptional.That leaves the amusing frog-mouthed turtle as the only really worthwhile thing about the whole film, and when a film's greatest asset is a comical digital reptile that only appears in a small fraction of the action, then it's time to pack away the pic-a-nic baskets for good.

My 384th Review: Good for small kids - ours loved it

tt1302067

This is really best for the under nines. Our kids loved it. It does have a certain charm to it. Whether it really lives up to the expectations of a cultural icon is another matter.The plot is simple: mayor is bad, Yogi and the Ranger good. They need to save Jellystone Park. Throw in some romance, lots of stupid one liners, and physical CGI etc; and what you get is some good slapstick that the kids will enjoy.All in all, if you've got young kids and you want to watch a comedy together you could do much worse than this - it's easy to follow, it has all the right touches, and the CGI bears and Bill Murray make it all work well.It's a little too long for really young kids but the 5-8 year olds will enjoy this - it's silly without resorting to crude, and all in all it may not smarter than your average film, but it's fun.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1302067/reviews-53

ur2419668

title: My 384th Review: Good for small kids - ours loved it review: This is really best for the under nines. Our kids loved it. It does have a certain charm to it. Whether it really lives up to the expectations of a cultural icon is another matter.The plot is simple: mayor is bad, Yogi and the Ranger good. They need to save Jellystone Park. Throw in some romance, lots of stupid one liners, and physical CGI etc; and what you get is some good slapstick that the kids will enjoy.All in all, if you've got young kids and you want to watch a comedy together you could do much worse than this - it's easy to follow, it has all the right touches, and the CGI bears and Bill Murray make it all work well.It's a little too long for really young kids but the 5-8 year olds will enjoy this - it's silly without resorting to crude, and all in all it may not smarter than your average film, but it's fun.

better than i expected

tt1302067

i liked this movie much more than i had anticipated.i thought it would be fairly lame,but it was actually pretty good.kids and adults should both enjoy it.there.s nothing offencive about so it's good clean fun for the whole family.there's some funny moments,and it has a warmth and charm to it.it moves along at a good clip and it's less than eighty minutes without the end credits.one thing i found hard to get used was the voice of Dan Akroyd as Yogi.it doesn't quite sound right,but eventually that didn't bother me as much.the voice of Justin Timberlake,on the other hand worked perfectly for Boo Boo.on the whole,a pretty good movie.for me,Yogi Bear is a 7/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1302067/reviews-59

ur11423174

title: better than i expected review: i liked this movie much more than i had anticipated.i thought it would be fairly lame,but it was actually pretty good.kids and adults should both enjoy it.there.s nothing offencive about so it's good clean fun for the whole family.there's some funny moments,and it has a warmth and charm to it.it moves along at a good clip and it's less than eighty minutes without the end credits.one thing i found hard to get used was the voice of Dan Akroyd as Yogi.it doesn't quite sound right,but eventually that didn't bother me as much.the voice of Justin Timberlake,on the other hand worked perfectly for Boo Boo.on the whole,a pretty good movie.for me,Yogi Bear is a 7/10

Good

tt1302067

Take a deep breath when you enter the cinema to see this one because it's downright breathtaking. At the end of the day, it's a fun, entertaining blockbuster, and that's really all it needed to be. I love this movie, which is hilarious! My favorite character is Yogi Bear. Yogi catches his cape on fire at one point. Yogi proves he is "smarter than the average bear." My only problems with the film are most present in the latter half. The first 45 minutes is a lot of fun and is rather cleverly made. I wasn't really sure if I'd like the movie. I thoroughly enjoyed this film, Lots of time on character development, and the intricacies that make you really care for a plot and its characters. 7/10.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1302067/reviews-101

ur54692175

title: Good review: Take a deep breath when you enter the cinema to see this one because it's downright breathtaking. At the end of the day, it's a fun, entertaining blockbuster, and that's really all it needed to be. I love this movie, which is hilarious! My favorite character is Yogi Bear. Yogi catches his cape on fire at one point. Yogi proves he is "smarter than the average bear." My only problems with the film are most present in the latter half. The first 45 minutes is a lot of fun and is rather cleverly made. I wasn't really sure if I'd like the movie. I thoroughly enjoyed this film, Lots of time on character development, and the intricacies that make you really care for a plot and its characters. 7/10.

Hardly any laughs, but adventurous at times.

tt1302067

Another classic cartoon character comes to the big screen, there was Popeye, Scooby Doo, Garfield, and now there is the mischievous picnic basket stealing bear named Yogi.Now the CGI animation of Yogi and Boo Boo is pretty good, and the voice talents of Dan Ackroyd and Justin Timberlake is also good. But Tom Cavanagh as Ranger Smith is not funny, he comes across trying way to hard, it looked like he was telling the audience "I'm funny, please laugh at me". Anna Faris starts out as a dull character at the beginning, but she gets better as the movie goes on. And T.J. Miller is just wasting his talent here. But it does have good share of adventure at times. But I think the little kids will enjoy more than adults.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1302067/reviews-14

ur4593705

title: Hardly any laughs, but adventurous at times. review: Another classic cartoon character comes to the big screen, there was Popeye, Scooby Doo, Garfield, and now there is the mischievous picnic basket stealing bear named Yogi.Now the CGI animation of Yogi and Boo Boo is pretty good, and the voice talents of Dan Ackroyd and Justin Timberlake is also good. But Tom Cavanagh as Ranger Smith is not funny, he comes across trying way to hard, it looked like he was telling the audience "I'm funny, please laugh at me". Anna Faris starts out as a dull character at the beginning, but she gets better as the movie goes on. And T.J. Miller is just wasting his talent here. But it does have good share of adventure at times. But I think the little kids will enjoy more than adults.

Forcefully cute and goofy

tt1302067

I've never been much of a fan of Hanna Barbera cartoons. Outside of the older Tom and Jerry cartoons, I pretty much keep my distance from them. With the success of the Scooby Doo films though, you knew some more were bound to follow. Movies like Space Jam, Looney Tunes: Back in Action, and the Garfield movies probably triggered interest just to keep up with the competition. While it's interesting that we haven't seen the likes of Magilla Gorilla, Huckleberry Hound, or Snagglepuss jump from animation to live-action just yet, it does look like The Jetsons, Jonny Quest, and Hong Kong Phooey are on the cards and due for release by 2012. In the meantime though, we have Yogi Bear to deal with.The movie starts off exactly how you'd expect it to; Yogi attempting to steal pic-a-nic baskets and Ranger Smith scolding him. But a threat presents itself in the mayor wanting to start logging Jellystone to turn a profit on a bankrupt town and also give him a running start for his campaign as governor. So of course Ranger Smith steps in to try and save the park himself with Yogi accidentally ruining his efforts. As a defeated Ranger Smith is transferred to another park, Yogi decides to stop being a smarter than average bear and just be average. With a little pep talk from Boo Boo, Yogi reunites with Ranger Smith to try and save Jellystone before it's leveled and gone forever before it can celebrate its 100th birthday.I probably shouldn't have expected much from the story since it's based on a cartoon that initially only lasted seven minutes or so in its prime, but it still seems weak in its execution. The movie pushes you to the brink of tolerating such hokey tripe. As if drudging through the story that is incredibly unlikely and banks on a one in a million miracle to save the location of beloved cartoon characters isn't enough, their ridiculous inventions, scatterbrained ideas, and irritating dance routines will make you want to jump off a cliff and hopefully land on something jagged to bring you the sweet satisfaction and quieting comfort of serenity away from a horrid film. The dialogue isn't much better either: "Faster than the speed of sandwich." Ugh, seriously? It makes you want to kick a bear square in the nuts just to get some sort of retribution.The voice cast for Yogi and Boo Boo is a bit out of left field. Dan Aykroyd and Justin Timberlake sound off at times, especially Timberlake. In shorter strings of dialogue between the two talking bears it isn't too bad, but it's incredibly noticeable when they talk for longer periods of time; Timberlake especially. It's like his voice fluctuated sporadically for no reason at all at times. While it's respectable to try and do your own take on a classic character, it didn't really feel like the Yogi Bear and Boo Boo that you know. It felt like a refurbished version of them, which may have been the point.The special effects in this are vital to making the entire movie work. When the talking bears are just walking around the park talking to humans, they look fine and are as believable as two talking bears in the woods can be. But things get really terrible in the second half of the movie around the time they get on the raft in the rapids and go over the waterfall. Just picture this: CG characters in front of a green screen. It's truly awful; like a turd in motion as it swirls down the toilet bowl.While it does partially feel like a seven minute cartoon storyline stretched to last an hour and twelve minutes, Yogi Bear still suffers from being highly predictable, incredibly corny, and downright simple. The movie is practically anything but funny and charming while the cast comes off as awkward and overbearing. At least the film has the decency to keep the pain and anguish short and sweet as the movie is only about as long as Cloverfield. If you must see this though do yourself a favor, run swiftly into a brick wall before it begins so you'll wake up from your unconscious state around the time the credits are rolling. Or just watch that fanmade alternate ending floating around that parodies The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. You'll be set either way.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1302067/reviews-69

ur5811408

title: Forcefully cute and goofy review: I've never been much of a fan of Hanna Barbera cartoons. Outside of the older Tom and Jerry cartoons, I pretty much keep my distance from them. With the success of the Scooby Doo films though, you knew some more were bound to follow. Movies like Space Jam, Looney Tunes: Back in Action, and the Garfield movies probably triggered interest just to keep up with the competition. While it's interesting that we haven't seen the likes of Magilla Gorilla, Huckleberry Hound, or Snagglepuss jump from animation to live-action just yet, it does look like The Jetsons, Jonny Quest, and Hong Kong Phooey are on the cards and due for release by 2012. In the meantime though, we have Yogi Bear to deal with.The movie starts off exactly how you'd expect it to; Yogi attempting to steal pic-a-nic baskets and Ranger Smith scolding him. But a threat presents itself in the mayor wanting to start logging Jellystone to turn a profit on a bankrupt town and also give him a running start for his campaign as governor. So of course Ranger Smith steps in to try and save the park himself with Yogi accidentally ruining his efforts. As a defeated Ranger Smith is transferred to another park, Yogi decides to stop being a smarter than average bear and just be average. With a little pep talk from Boo Boo, Yogi reunites with Ranger Smith to try and save Jellystone before it's leveled and gone forever before it can celebrate its 100th birthday.I probably shouldn't have expected much from the story since it's based on a cartoon that initially only lasted seven minutes or so in its prime, but it still seems weak in its execution. The movie pushes you to the brink of tolerating such hokey tripe. As if drudging through the story that is incredibly unlikely and banks on a one in a million miracle to save the location of beloved cartoon characters isn't enough, their ridiculous inventions, scatterbrained ideas, and irritating dance routines will make you want to jump off a cliff and hopefully land on something jagged to bring you the sweet satisfaction and quieting comfort of serenity away from a horrid film. The dialogue isn't much better either: "Faster than the speed of sandwich." Ugh, seriously? It makes you want to kick a bear square in the nuts just to get some sort of retribution.The voice cast for Yogi and Boo Boo is a bit out of left field. Dan Aykroyd and Justin Timberlake sound off at times, especially Timberlake. In shorter strings of dialogue between the two talking bears it isn't too bad, but it's incredibly noticeable when they talk for longer periods of time; Timberlake especially. It's like his voice fluctuated sporadically for no reason at all at times. While it's respectable to try and do your own take on a classic character, it didn't really feel like the Yogi Bear and Boo Boo that you know. It felt like a refurbished version of them, which may have been the point.The special effects in this are vital to making the entire movie work. When the talking bears are just walking around the park talking to humans, they look fine and are as believable as two talking bears in the woods can be. But things get really terrible in the second half of the movie around the time they get on the raft in the rapids and go over the waterfall. Just picture this: CG characters in front of a green screen. It's truly awful; like a turd in motion as it swirls down the toilet bowl.While it does partially feel like a seven minute cartoon storyline stretched to last an hour and twelve minutes, Yogi Bear still suffers from being highly predictable, incredibly corny, and downright simple. The movie is practically anything but funny and charming while the cast comes off as awkward and overbearing. At least the film has the decency to keep the pain and anguish short and sweet as the movie is only about as long as Cloverfield. If you must see this though do yourself a favor, run swiftly into a brick wall before it begins so you'll wake up from your unconscious state around the time the credits are rolling. Or just watch that fanmade alternate ending floating around that parodies The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. You'll be set either way.

A Semi-Cute Story About A Pic-A-Nic Basket Thieving Bear

tt1302067

As arrogant as he clearly is, Yogi may go around boasting that he's smarter than the average bear, but after seeing what sort of silly shenanigans he gets up to, I'd definitely say that he's also more annoying than the average bear, as well.In fact, I think that Yogi Bear should be well-advised to switch names with his sidekick, Boo-Boo, and that way he'd be much more appropriately named.For starters - I'd say this kiddies' movie made its gravest mistake by mixing live-action with the CG bear effects. This weak, marginally entertaining story would've faired so much better had the whole production been total animation.Not only was the "aw-shucks" romance that transpired between Ranger Smith and Rachel more suited for a pair of clumsy teenagers - But the overly ambitious Mayor Brown character (and all of his despicable, political treachery) literally scraped the very bottom of the barrel when it came to the stereotypical callousness of a government official.Far from being just a simple, light-hearted romp through the pristine beauty of Jellystone Park, "Yogi Bear" (with its cut & dry characters and its $80 million budget) didn't even come anywhere close to capturing the dumb charm of the early-1960's, 2-D, animated TV series which it based its characters upon.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1302067/reviews-100

ur27361979

title: A Semi-Cute Story About A Pic-A-Nic Basket Thieving Bear review: As arrogant as he clearly is, Yogi may go around boasting that he's smarter than the average bear, but after seeing what sort of silly shenanigans he gets up to, I'd definitely say that he's also more annoying than the average bear, as well.In fact, I think that Yogi Bear should be well-advised to switch names with his sidekick, Boo-Boo, and that way he'd be much more appropriately named.For starters - I'd say this kiddies' movie made its gravest mistake by mixing live-action with the CG bear effects. This weak, marginally entertaining story would've faired so much better had the whole production been total animation.Not only was the "aw-shucks" romance that transpired between Ranger Smith and Rachel more suited for a pair of clumsy teenagers - But the overly ambitious Mayor Brown character (and all of his despicable, political treachery) literally scraped the very bottom of the barrel when it came to the stereotypical callousness of a government official.Far from being just a simple, light-hearted romp through the pristine beauty of Jellystone Park, "Yogi Bear" (with its cut & dry characters and its $80 million budget) didn't even come anywhere close to capturing the dumb charm of the early-1960's, 2-D, animated TV series which it based its characters upon.

Good for young children but sometimes irritating for parents

tt1302067

Yogi bear, a piece of ancient history comes to life in a film that like the first Garfield film combines real life acting with computer animated action. The story is easy enough: living in a park with his friend Booboo his only "work" is attempting to steal food from people coming there for a picnic. His idyllic life is threatened though - first there's the ranger that is on their tail and then there is the governor who wants to tear down the forest to make money for the city. But Yogi is a versatile bear, and solutions are in the making.This is a typical kids film, designed for kids of all ages with a bias towards kids around 4 to 8 years old. The story is light and even the most dark spots are sweetened with enough sugar to make a layer cake or two.For the parents it is endurable. It's not quite as fun as some of the other films in the same age group out there as it lacks any of the harmless innuendo that makes such films so much better, but it is endurable. The worst would probably be having to see the scenes that combine the real actors with the animated ones - the interaction shows all too clearly that they were blue-screen acted with the actors looking into the distance or somewhere different altogether while the animation should be happening right in front of their noses.5 out of 10 misshapen attempts at resurrection childhood heroes

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1302067/reviews-58

ur0023796

title: Good for young children but sometimes irritating for parents review: Yogi bear, a piece of ancient history comes to life in a film that like the first Garfield film combines real life acting with computer animated action. The story is easy enough: living in a park with his friend Booboo his only "work" is attempting to steal food from people coming there for a picnic. His idyllic life is threatened though - first there's the ranger that is on their tail and then there is the governor who wants to tear down the forest to make money for the city. But Yogi is a versatile bear, and solutions are in the making.This is a typical kids film, designed for kids of all ages with a bias towards kids around 4 to 8 years old. The story is light and even the most dark spots are sweetened with enough sugar to make a layer cake or two.For the parents it is endurable. It's not quite as fun as some of the other films in the same age group out there as it lacks any of the harmless innuendo that makes such films so much better, but it is endurable. The worst would probably be having to see the scenes that combine the real actors with the animated ones - the interaction shows all too clearly that they were blue-screen acted with the actors looking into the distance or somewhere different altogether while the animation should be happening right in front of their noses.5 out of 10 misshapen attempts at resurrection childhood heroes

A Nutshell Review: Yogi Bear

tt1302067

As if Jack Black's Gulliver's Travels isn't enough for the younger crowd this holiday season, Yogi Bear fares no better in providing entertainment solely for the kids, and if you're looking for something intelligent from this film, you're better off somewhere else. Like all Hanna- Barbera Productions' characters translated for the silver screen such as The Flintstones and Scooby Doo, what this provides is a live action version to much cherished childhood cartoon characters, and little else.Yogi Bear and his sidekick, the smaller sized bear Boo Boo, are walking-on-hind-legs, talking bears at Jellystone Park, managed by park ranger Smith (Tom Cavanagh) and a none too bright ranger Jones (T.J. Miller) who aspires to be chief ranger one day. As usual most of the scenes with Yogi and Boo Boo center upon their exploits in trying to pinch and take off with the picnickers' baskets of food using schemes, plans and tools created by none other than that who is smarter than your average bear.The story by Jeffrey Ventimilia, Joshua Sternin and Brad Copeland is an extremely simple one centered around the villainous politician Mayor Brown (Andrew Daly) and his spineless bootlicking sidekick (Nathan Corddry) who try to balance their state's budget deficit (of their own overspending) through the execution of their plan of selling off Jellystone to loggers, and doing so by co-opting Jones into their fold to foil fund-raising plans by Smith to keep the Park alive and self-sufficient. And besides Yogi Bear's obsession with picnicker's food, some time got set aside for a romantic subplot between Smith and Rachel (Anna Faris in a totally wasted role), a filmmaker working on a nature documentary.Yes there is room here for some environmental message to creep in, with the introduction of endangered species toward the final act, and how we must act in order to save trees from illegal logging and the natural habitats of animals. The setups are quite clear from the onset that they're introduced, which leaves you wonder how long it'll take before the film screams to an end as it plods its way through some 83 minutes. Ultimately, it feels like an unwelcome extension of a typical cartoon episode.Voiced by Dan Aykroyd, Yogi doesn't seem to sound like his usual self from the cartoons seen on television, but I suppose Aykroyd came close enough, just not quite. Justin Timberlake to my surprise however, seemed to have nailed Boo Boo's voice quite accurately. The graphics used to render these two bears turn out to be quite vivid, although some slip-shoddiness in effects can be clearly detected especially during the entire rapids scene with obvious sub-par superimposition works. One wonders if most of the budget went into the three dimensional aspects of the film, which have scenes specially crafted to exploit this, than to pay attention to simple things that usually get taken for granted, adding to a marred experience.For a kids' film, surely there's the expected blatant flaws such as the bears being able to roam around without being detected for so long, which is quite impossible given their penchant for showboating and being near people just to pinch their food. But of course you must remember one thing, this is designed for the kids, and as adults we have already outgrown this no thanks to cynicism in the real world. I shudder at the thought that the Smurfs are ready to make their 3D live action debut sometime next year. Hopefully it will be that cut above the rest that had gone before it.Do turn up early for the film so that you can catch Wild E Coyote Vs Road Runner in Rabid Rider, which sees the good ol unsuccessful antics that Coyote concocts to catch up with Runner, with hilarious results from his latest hair-brained idea of utilizing the segway utility vehicle, which turned out to be nothing but expectedly disastrous. A lot more fun unfortunately than the main feature.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1302067/reviews-20

ur0317399

title: A Nutshell Review: Yogi Bear review: As if Jack Black's Gulliver's Travels isn't enough for the younger crowd this holiday season, Yogi Bear fares no better in providing entertainment solely for the kids, and if you're looking for something intelligent from this film, you're better off somewhere else. Like all Hanna- Barbera Productions' characters translated for the silver screen such as The Flintstones and Scooby Doo, what this provides is a live action version to much cherished childhood cartoon characters, and little else.Yogi Bear and his sidekick, the smaller sized bear Boo Boo, are walking-on-hind-legs, talking bears at Jellystone Park, managed by park ranger Smith (Tom Cavanagh) and a none too bright ranger Jones (T.J. Miller) who aspires to be chief ranger one day. As usual most of the scenes with Yogi and Boo Boo center upon their exploits in trying to pinch and take off with the picnickers' baskets of food using schemes, plans and tools created by none other than that who is smarter than your average bear.The story by Jeffrey Ventimilia, Joshua Sternin and Brad Copeland is an extremely simple one centered around the villainous politician Mayor Brown (Andrew Daly) and his spineless bootlicking sidekick (Nathan Corddry) who try to balance their state's budget deficit (of their own overspending) through the execution of their plan of selling off Jellystone to loggers, and doing so by co-opting Jones into their fold to foil fund-raising plans by Smith to keep the Park alive and self-sufficient. And besides Yogi Bear's obsession with picnicker's food, some time got set aside for a romantic subplot between Smith and Rachel (Anna Faris in a totally wasted role), a filmmaker working on a nature documentary.Yes there is room here for some environmental message to creep in, with the introduction of endangered species toward the final act, and how we must act in order to save trees from illegal logging and the natural habitats of animals. The setups are quite clear from the onset that they're introduced, which leaves you wonder how long it'll take before the film screams to an end as it plods its way through some 83 minutes. Ultimately, it feels like an unwelcome extension of a typical cartoon episode.Voiced by Dan Aykroyd, Yogi doesn't seem to sound like his usual self from the cartoons seen on television, but I suppose Aykroyd came close enough, just not quite. Justin Timberlake to my surprise however, seemed to have nailed Boo Boo's voice quite accurately. The graphics used to render these two bears turn out to be quite vivid, although some slip-shoddiness in effects can be clearly detected especially during the entire rapids scene with obvious sub-par superimposition works. One wonders if most of the budget went into the three dimensional aspects of the film, which have scenes specially crafted to exploit this, than to pay attention to simple things that usually get taken for granted, adding to a marred experience.For a kids' film, surely there's the expected blatant flaws such as the bears being able to roam around without being detected for so long, which is quite impossible given their penchant for showboating and being near people just to pinch their food. But of course you must remember one thing, this is designed for the kids, and as adults we have already outgrown this no thanks to cynicism in the real world. I shudder at the thought that the Smurfs are ready to make their 3D live action debut sometime next year. Hopefully it will be that cut above the rest that had gone before it.Do turn up early for the film so that you can catch Wild E Coyote Vs Road Runner in Rabid Rider, which sees the good ol unsuccessful antics that Coyote concocts to catch up with Runner, with hilarious results from his latest hair-brained idea of utilizing the segway utility vehicle, which turned out to be nothing but expectedly disastrous. A lot more fun unfortunately than the main feature.

Improvement over the cartoon

tt1302067

Okay, I guess, if you are hung up on CGI-animated movies and will watch just about everything that's clearly made with care, at least from an animated perspective.Story-wise there is not that much to recommend and if you are totally ignorant about the original cartoon, you will probably enjoy it less as an adult. I doubt, if any kiddies have actually seen the original cartoon which was extremely boring, so this movie has got to feel more fresh.The voice actors, Dan Aykroyd and Justin Timberlake do well. Timberlake actually sounds uncannily like Don Messick. The live actors are really poor, though. I have no idea why they chose Tom Cavanaugh as Ranger Smith. They would have been better off choosing Diedrich Bader, who was in the 3D test short. Anna Faris does a little better, but I would have thought that she would have outgrown these kinds of parts by now. Anyway, the love story is extremely run-of-the-mill as usual and of course, you don't really look forward to see a love story in part-animated movie anyway.This is the second children's film that I have seen in a short time about an Eco-terrorist, the other being Cars 2. I wonder if they are trying to tell us something. Just for fun, I read a study that people in general could care less about such matters. Thank god, the movie mill cares.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1302067/reviews-86

ur4780626

title: Improvement over the cartoon review: Okay, I guess, if you are hung up on CGI-animated movies and will watch just about everything that's clearly made with care, at least from an animated perspective.Story-wise there is not that much to recommend and if you are totally ignorant about the original cartoon, you will probably enjoy it less as an adult. I doubt, if any kiddies have actually seen the original cartoon which was extremely boring, so this movie has got to feel more fresh.The voice actors, Dan Aykroyd and Justin Timberlake do well. Timberlake actually sounds uncannily like Don Messick. The live actors are really poor, though. I have no idea why they chose Tom Cavanaugh as Ranger Smith. They would have been better off choosing Diedrich Bader, who was in the 3D test short. Anna Faris does a little better, but I would have thought that she would have outgrown these kinds of parts by now. Anyway, the love story is extremely run-of-the-mill as usual and of course, you don't really look forward to see a love story in part-animated movie anyway.This is the second children's film that I have seen in a short time about an Eco-terrorist, the other being Cars 2. I wonder if they are trying to tell us something. Just for fun, I read a study that people in general could care less about such matters. Thank god, the movie mill cares.

Whisper it, but Priceless is actually quite watchable.

tt0482088

We shouldn't enjoy Priceless as much as we do. A film which, on the surface, is frothy and colourful and quite perky; a film driven by a young woman who enjoys the company of older men because of their bank balance than any other quality. A frothy, sugary film set in a place where it's difficult to take anybody, or anything, particularly seriously; a holiday resort divided into two by those much old and rich ploughing on through their fatuous existences and those much younger and much poorer who loath the rich individuals it is whom they must serve in order to make a living. Pierre Salvadori's film does the job; it sets up, depicts and explores to an extent that is wholly satisfying. The film doesn't delve to the depths that it could have done; this is not a sex-laden, depraved and wholly ugly world being depicted here wherein we squeam at the mere presence of these people. Rather, the film is softer on its subjects: it humanises more-so demonises – it doesn't offer excuses or ways out for them, but it takes on an approach and sticks to its guns.The film is about lying; sloth and greed and yet it is the sort of film you can very quickly ease into once you've grasped the aesthetic and general tone of the animal. It's no masterpiece, but such is the effectiveness of most films coming out of France, it can mess about with this approach to this sort of subject matter, and still get away with it. We follow a young clerk at a hotel on the Côte d'Azur named Jean (Elmaleh), a man fulfilling the menial jobs at a luxurious establishment which plays host to France's richer personnel. When we first see him, he is a dogsbody out dog walking; a man struggling along, as those whom do not need to worry about such things, sit far away enough for the overall walk to be as arduous as it is and exist in their flawed and fatuous existence. During the walk, Jean will come to very briefly be near to a young woman named Irène (Tautou); her immediate presence propped up by a close up of a pair of expensive earrings sat perched in a shop window. They do not interact, but this will not be the first time Irène will be stood looming in the background ready to purchase something in the vicinity of our Jean.Jean plods along in life, serving the rich and empty; hobbling along in his job, suffering the wrath of his supervisor should he doze off during his night-shift in this, his bartender-come-security guard-come-anything else role. The Irène of earlier enters his life when the elderly man she's working on, in so much she grants him her time and love on account of being provided with anything and everything she desires, passes out on the night of his birthday through the over consumption of alcohol. Bored and frustrated, Irène spills out into the complex only to bump into Jean – someone who becomes smitten with her when they bond and sleep together. But he is, of course, merely a lowly clerk and she won't stand for anyone who doesn't have at least half the annual income that could supplement a night in one of these sorts of hotels.Disappearing in the morning, but reappearing a year later, she is still with her old boyfriend although but is on course to marry him. Jeans decides to act, and realises he must woo her away from this suitor: but how? She'll only go for very specific men who are endowed in the monetary department, and he only has so much cash. Coming to run out of money himself in trying to live this false existence, Jean must stoop to her level in playing pretty-younger-partner to a rich elderly woman just so that he may remain in her space.Cue a story depicted by Salvadori, which although we predict from a fairly early point, and of which is told to us through an often aggravating 'tourist board' aesthetic, is actually quite good. Ultimately, it is a film about Jean becoming enraptured in a lifestyle where previously he played the black sheep; likewise, Irène's gradual belief that those whom they initially dismissed are actually rather decent and have a heart where it matters is depicted coming up the other way. There is nothing glaringly terrible about Priceless; recall that it is a character study about two people blinded by relationships, or the potential for relationships, who end up looking foolish because of their actions above most things.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482088/reviews-51

ur0855231

title: Whisper it, but Priceless is actually quite watchable. review: We shouldn't enjoy Priceless as much as we do. A film which, on the surface, is frothy and colourful and quite perky; a film driven by a young woman who enjoys the company of older men because of their bank balance than any other quality. A frothy, sugary film set in a place where it's difficult to take anybody, or anything, particularly seriously; a holiday resort divided into two by those much old and rich ploughing on through their fatuous existences and those much younger and much poorer who loath the rich individuals it is whom they must serve in order to make a living. Pierre Salvadori's film does the job; it sets up, depicts and explores to an extent that is wholly satisfying. The film doesn't delve to the depths that it could have done; this is not a sex-laden, depraved and wholly ugly world being depicted here wherein we squeam at the mere presence of these people. Rather, the film is softer on its subjects: it humanises more-so demonises – it doesn't offer excuses or ways out for them, but it takes on an approach and sticks to its guns.The film is about lying; sloth and greed and yet it is the sort of film you can very quickly ease into once you've grasped the aesthetic and general tone of the animal. It's no masterpiece, but such is the effectiveness of most films coming out of France, it can mess about with this approach to this sort of subject matter, and still get away with it. We follow a young clerk at a hotel on the Côte d'Azur named Jean (Elmaleh), a man fulfilling the menial jobs at a luxurious establishment which plays host to France's richer personnel. When we first see him, he is a dogsbody out dog walking; a man struggling along, as those whom do not need to worry about such things, sit far away enough for the overall walk to be as arduous as it is and exist in their flawed and fatuous existence. During the walk, Jean will come to very briefly be near to a young woman named Irène (Tautou); her immediate presence propped up by a close up of a pair of expensive earrings sat perched in a shop window. They do not interact, but this will not be the first time Irène will be stood looming in the background ready to purchase something in the vicinity of our Jean.Jean plods along in life, serving the rich and empty; hobbling along in his job, suffering the wrath of his supervisor should he doze off during his night-shift in this, his bartender-come-security guard-come-anything else role. The Irène of earlier enters his life when the elderly man she's working on, in so much she grants him her time and love on account of being provided with anything and everything she desires, passes out on the night of his birthday through the over consumption of alcohol. Bored and frustrated, Irène spills out into the complex only to bump into Jean – someone who becomes smitten with her when they bond and sleep together. But he is, of course, merely a lowly clerk and she won't stand for anyone who doesn't have at least half the annual income that could supplement a night in one of these sorts of hotels.Disappearing in the morning, but reappearing a year later, she is still with her old boyfriend although but is on course to marry him. Jeans decides to act, and realises he must woo her away from this suitor: but how? She'll only go for very specific men who are endowed in the monetary department, and he only has so much cash. Coming to run out of money himself in trying to live this false existence, Jean must stoop to her level in playing pretty-younger-partner to a rich elderly woman just so that he may remain in her space.Cue a story depicted by Salvadori, which although we predict from a fairly early point, and of which is told to us through an often aggravating 'tourist board' aesthetic, is actually quite good. Ultimately, it is a film about Jean becoming enraptured in a lifestyle where previously he played the black sheep; likewise, Irène's gradual belief that those whom they initially dismissed are actually rather decent and have a heart where it matters is depicted coming up the other way. There is nothing glaringly terrible about Priceless; recall that it is a character study about two people blinded by relationships, or the potential for relationships, who end up looking foolish because of their actions above most things.

SUPERB - the better romantic comedy...

tt0482088

This is a wonderful, witty, grown-up comedy of seduction and smarts that is so stylish, composed, and just plain watchable.The story of the the waiter mistaken for a millionaire by a professional gold digger sounds mediocre but is pure gold. Hors De Prix never overextends itself or flags - it has a beautiful feel to it, laid-back mixed with the zest and jump of a genuine French farce.The stars are perfect and very good fun ensues.This is a VERY good comedy. It is full of moment of genuine surprise and inventiveness, definitely rich, grown-up and above all, sophisticated. Here, life chooses wit and emotion over sentimentality, and it delights at every turn.Highest and warmest recommendation - our favourite comedy of the decade so far.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482088/reviews-25

ur2419668

title: SUPERB - the better romantic comedy... review: This is a wonderful, witty, grown-up comedy of seduction and smarts that is so stylish, composed, and just plain watchable.The story of the the waiter mistaken for a millionaire by a professional gold digger sounds mediocre but is pure gold. Hors De Prix never overextends itself or flags - it has a beautiful feel to it, laid-back mixed with the zest and jump of a genuine French farce.The stars are perfect and very good fun ensues.This is a VERY good comedy. It is full of moment of genuine surprise and inventiveness, definitely rich, grown-up and above all, sophisticated. Here, life chooses wit and emotion over sentimentality, and it delights at every turn.Highest and warmest recommendation - our favourite comedy of the decade so far.

Delicious

tt0482088

Living in a city like Los Angeles allows me to see films like this, a movie full of sophistication, intelligence, and wit. Here is a film that showcases the perks of the wealthy, the various types of people they interact with, and how not everything is solely appearances.Our heroine, if we can call her that, is a call girl who has mastered a system. For most of the time she manages to do very well, while she remains cool and collected; things take a wild turn when her emotions run wild. Her destiny and that of a very "lucky" hotel employee change forever as they meet, and a comedy of errors ensue.Soon, we are treated to the world of escorts, their benefits, their very unstable lifestyle, and the huge differences between old and new money. The package is glossy and substantial, a treat to the eyes, and with performers like Tautou, we are able to connect the interior and the exterior. There are a few scenes in this film where we understand her feelings, see her perspective clearly, and no words are needed.Priceless is not a cold diamond. It is a sparkling tear, a bubbly glass of champagne, pure and effervescent, a jewel on its own, with enough range and emotion to satisfy even the most demanding customer.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482088/reviews-17

ur2115026

title: Delicious review: Living in a city like Los Angeles allows me to see films like this, a movie full of sophistication, intelligence, and wit. Here is a film that showcases the perks of the wealthy, the various types of people they interact with, and how not everything is solely appearances.Our heroine, if we can call her that, is a call girl who has mastered a system. For most of the time she manages to do very well, while she remains cool and collected; things take a wild turn when her emotions run wild. Her destiny and that of a very "lucky" hotel employee change forever as they meet, and a comedy of errors ensue.Soon, we are treated to the world of escorts, their benefits, their very unstable lifestyle, and the huge differences between old and new money. The package is glossy and substantial, a treat to the eyes, and with performers like Tautou, we are able to connect the interior and the exterior. There are a few scenes in this film where we understand her feelings, see her perspective clearly, and no words are needed.Priceless is not a cold diamond. It is a sparkling tear, a bubbly glass of champagne, pure and effervescent, a jewel on its own, with enough range and emotion to satisfy even the most demanding customer.

Ten more seconds…Hors de prix

tt0482088

Considering the last film I saw featuring Audrey Tautou was the not so great The Da Vinci Code, when I saw the trailer for her latest French language work, Hors de prix, I jumped at the chance to see this beauty once again. With a premise of her as a gold digger, allowing wealthy men to pay for her completely, accidentally thinking a hotel bartender/bellboy was a rich businessman and subsequently finding out the truth, it seemed to have potential for laughs. Especially once you see that the man she mistook for a mark, after losing his job when found out, becomes a male gold digger himself. While at first he tries to woo her into believing that what they had was real, he soon finds himself broke and on the brink of incarceration before an older woman steps in to save him at the price of his companionship. So, Jean and Iréne find themselves together again, this time as friends with a common goal, to get as much out of their "loves" as they can…that is, until they finally see that true love is what matters and not expensive dresses or watches. This is a romantic comedy after all.With a predictable overall arc, the film still manages to entertain through the sheer fun of what these people go through. At the beginning, you really start to feel bad for Jean as he is caught up in a tryst with someone way out of his league, yet trying to keep up appearances so it can last as long as possible, even if that is just one night. When Iréne discovers the truth, her payback is so cruel to watch—not just due to her enjoyment in watching Jean's bank account quickly disappear, but also from the utter dejection on his part, in love and unable to give up hope, going as far as buying a final ten seconds to simply stare into her eyes before she goes. As all rom-coms prove, never think the two leads will be apart for long. From a major coincidence that this older woman allows Jean to stay in the hotel as her escort, just as Iréne has found a new man to con, the two begin a competition to see who can acquire more presents than the other. It's at this point that the film really picks up speed and becomes a laugh riot, showing how a little sulking and "close but distant" expressions can make one's lover crumble into doing anything. Watching Jean ride into frame on a scooter with his 30,000 Euro watch on his wrist is, as the title translates, priceless.What keep the movie working and endearing are the performances. Since the story is somewhat slight and obvious we need the acting to hold our interest during the wait. Tautou is great as always, showing off her stunning figure whenever possible, as well as her impeccable comic timing and wealth of facial expressions. I always find it a riot when an actor must "act" in the film. When trying to show Jean how to seduce someone, she turns from friendly to sultry and ambivalent, drawing him in, before snapping back to normal saying, "you see how that works?" without missing a beat. Her expressions in response to the success that Jean finds while on his first scam are also a joy to behold.The supporting cast does well to enhance everything as it transpires. Marie-Christine Adam, for instance, as Jean's partner Madeleine, plays the strong wealthy widow to perfection. She is constantly sizing up her new toy, finding what colors suit him and what trinkets she can purchase to make him happy. Always waking him up by a not so subtle throw of a pillow, Adam shows the playful romantic bent while still being able to portray the steely, shrewd woman she is, telling Jean that she knows exactly what he is doing and is willing to continue as long as he plays by the rules. This is a world of debauchery and incalculable wealth. Every player knows their role and doesn't seem to mind in the slightest—neither those taking advantage nor those being taken. It's a parasitic world with all parties receiving something from the deal, and that unabashed knowledge makes it more fun as these two paupers find themselves a little too close to the line where acceptance turns into rejection.What works the most, however, is the fact that the professional con-artist, Iréne, finds herself being outplayed by the novice, Jean. Whereas she hits snags everywhere, the ex-bartender gets so comfortable that he can do no wrong. Whether getting wealth for himself or having the ability to help her when her troubles deem it necessary, it is the inexperienced one that begins to play the game like a seasoned pro, because he isn't afraid to leave the life behind for the woman he loves, something so unheard of with that "job" that each time he leaves, Madeleine gives him something even more expensive to keep him around. His oblivious nature is what makes him so irresistible and credit goes to Gad Elmaleh for pulling it off. Always with a smile on his face, enjoying being around Iréne whether it's in good times or bad, he exudes the feelings that he holds for her in every frame. And his wit is real and refreshing, showing off his conquests as though a child in the playground. Hamming it up for the characters in the film as well as the audience in the theatre, Elmaleh proves that priceless is a relative term and sometimes people need a little time and cajoling to find out what the meaning truly is to them.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482088/reviews-24

ur2020154

title: Ten more seconds…Hors de prix review: Considering the last film I saw featuring Audrey Tautou was the not so great The Da Vinci Code, when I saw the trailer for her latest French language work, Hors de prix, I jumped at the chance to see this beauty once again. With a premise of her as a gold digger, allowing wealthy men to pay for her completely, accidentally thinking a hotel bartender/bellboy was a rich businessman and subsequently finding out the truth, it seemed to have potential for laughs. Especially once you see that the man she mistook for a mark, after losing his job when found out, becomes a male gold digger himself. While at first he tries to woo her into believing that what they had was real, he soon finds himself broke and on the brink of incarceration before an older woman steps in to save him at the price of his companionship. So, Jean and Iréne find themselves together again, this time as friends with a common goal, to get as much out of their "loves" as they can…that is, until they finally see that true love is what matters and not expensive dresses or watches. This is a romantic comedy after all.With a predictable overall arc, the film still manages to entertain through the sheer fun of what these people go through. At the beginning, you really start to feel bad for Jean as he is caught up in a tryst with someone way out of his league, yet trying to keep up appearances so it can last as long as possible, even if that is just one night. When Iréne discovers the truth, her payback is so cruel to watch—not just due to her enjoyment in watching Jean's bank account quickly disappear, but also from the utter dejection on his part, in love and unable to give up hope, going as far as buying a final ten seconds to simply stare into her eyes before she goes. As all rom-coms prove, never think the two leads will be apart for long. From a major coincidence that this older woman allows Jean to stay in the hotel as her escort, just as Iréne has found a new man to con, the two begin a competition to see who can acquire more presents than the other. It's at this point that the film really picks up speed and becomes a laugh riot, showing how a little sulking and "close but distant" expressions can make one's lover crumble into doing anything. Watching Jean ride into frame on a scooter with his 30,000 Euro watch on his wrist is, as the title translates, priceless.What keep the movie working and endearing are the performances. Since the story is somewhat slight and obvious we need the acting to hold our interest during the wait. Tautou is great as always, showing off her stunning figure whenever possible, as well as her impeccable comic timing and wealth of facial expressions. I always find it a riot when an actor must "act" in the film. When trying to show Jean how to seduce someone, she turns from friendly to sultry and ambivalent, drawing him in, before snapping back to normal saying, "you see how that works?" without missing a beat. Her expressions in response to the success that Jean finds while on his first scam are also a joy to behold.The supporting cast does well to enhance everything as it transpires. Marie-Christine Adam, for instance, as Jean's partner Madeleine, plays the strong wealthy widow to perfection. She is constantly sizing up her new toy, finding what colors suit him and what trinkets she can purchase to make him happy. Always waking him up by a not so subtle throw of a pillow, Adam shows the playful romantic bent while still being able to portray the steely, shrewd woman she is, telling Jean that she knows exactly what he is doing and is willing to continue as long as he plays by the rules. This is a world of debauchery and incalculable wealth. Every player knows their role and doesn't seem to mind in the slightest—neither those taking advantage nor those being taken. It's a parasitic world with all parties receiving something from the deal, and that unabashed knowledge makes it more fun as these two paupers find themselves a little too close to the line where acceptance turns into rejection.What works the most, however, is the fact that the professional con-artist, Iréne, finds herself being outplayed by the novice, Jean. Whereas she hits snags everywhere, the ex-bartender gets so comfortable that he can do no wrong. Whether getting wealth for himself or having the ability to help her when her troubles deem it necessary, it is the inexperienced one that begins to play the game like a seasoned pro, because he isn't afraid to leave the life behind for the woman he loves, something so unheard of with that "job" that each time he leaves, Madeleine gives him something even more expensive to keep him around. His oblivious nature is what makes him so irresistible and credit goes to Gad Elmaleh for pulling it off. Always with a smile on his face, enjoying being around Iréne whether it's in good times or bad, he exudes the feelings that he holds for her in every frame. And his wit is real and refreshing, showing off his conquests as though a child in the playground. Hamming it up for the characters in the film as well as the audience in the theatre, Elmaleh proves that priceless is a relative term and sometimes people need a little time and cajoling to find out what the meaning truly is to them.

The film is cluttered with clichés, some quite well repolished, but it is nevertheless enjoyable.

tt0482088

Jean (Elmaleh) is every business owner's dream – he works hard and never asks for a pay-raise. But when a lovely looking girl (Tautou) walks into the cozy bar of the hotel where he works and asks for a drink, things suddenly change. Jean presents himself as a rich but lonely bachelor, the girl likes what she is told and after a few drinks the two end up in bed.On the following morning, instead of revealing who he really is, Jean decides to stick with the bachelor play. Unfortunately for him, it becomes obvious that the girl is already staying at the hotel with someone else - a rich, twice her age, man with little stamina and plenty of cash to burn. Does Jean have enough in his savings account to earn the girl's heart? Priceless is a simple film with an even simpler story. It is about a girl fishing for her Sugar Daddy on the French Riviera. She is careful, kind, and always respectful with those willing to invest in her. Like most girls, she also likes expensive gifts and fine dining. But when a lonely workaholic falls for her, and later on manages to impressively beat her at her own game, Priceless gets interesting. Elmaleh and Tautou clash in a fascinating "let's see who's the better player" game where all bets are off.Surprisingly, Elmaleh's game is better (well, let's face it, if it wasn't this film would have been unwatchable). He unexpectedly conquers the heart of an old widow willing to pay for a younger companion, and the once shy and poorly dressed bartender immediately becomes a man of interest. He acts as a gentleman, and Tautou's character begins to see in him what she couldn't while he was spending on her the last Euros from his savings account.Obviously, as much as Priceless is a sweet comedy with plenty of clichés, it is also a film with a good dose of sour realism. The beautiful young girls at the French Riviera being pampered by their old (not older, I mean old) and financially stable partners, the young men being bought by wealthy old (again, old, not older) women to escort them, so they could parade themselves at the luxurious restaurants, all of this at times comes off as sour rather than sweet. With other words, Priceless offers plenty of humor, but there is a good dose of drama in it as well.Tunisia-born French director Pierre Salvadori (who also helmed the similarly themed Après Vous with Daniel Auteuil and Sandrine Kiberlain) does a good job of capturing the glamor of the French Riviera. The endless chic hotels, expensive boutiques, and exotic cars seen in Priceless certainly allow the viewer to get a good taste of the playing field where Elmaleh and Tautou's characters collide. C'est la vie!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482088/reviews-38

ur2127670

title: The film is cluttered with clichés, some quite well repolished, but it is nevertheless enjoyable. review: Jean (Elmaleh) is every business owner's dream – he works hard and never asks for a pay-raise. But when a lovely looking girl (Tautou) walks into the cozy bar of the hotel where he works and asks for a drink, things suddenly change. Jean presents himself as a rich but lonely bachelor, the girl likes what she is told and after a few drinks the two end up in bed.On the following morning, instead of revealing who he really is, Jean decides to stick with the bachelor play. Unfortunately for him, it becomes obvious that the girl is already staying at the hotel with someone else - a rich, twice her age, man with little stamina and plenty of cash to burn. Does Jean have enough in his savings account to earn the girl's heart? Priceless is a simple film with an even simpler story. It is about a girl fishing for her Sugar Daddy on the French Riviera. She is careful, kind, and always respectful with those willing to invest in her. Like most girls, she also likes expensive gifts and fine dining. But when a lonely workaholic falls for her, and later on manages to impressively beat her at her own game, Priceless gets interesting. Elmaleh and Tautou clash in a fascinating "let's see who's the better player" game where all bets are off.Surprisingly, Elmaleh's game is better (well, let's face it, if it wasn't this film would have been unwatchable). He unexpectedly conquers the heart of an old widow willing to pay for a younger companion, and the once shy and poorly dressed bartender immediately becomes a man of interest. He acts as a gentleman, and Tautou's character begins to see in him what she couldn't while he was spending on her the last Euros from his savings account.Obviously, as much as Priceless is a sweet comedy with plenty of clichés, it is also a film with a good dose of sour realism. The beautiful young girls at the French Riviera being pampered by their old (not older, I mean old) and financially stable partners, the young men being bought by wealthy old (again, old, not older) women to escort them, so they could parade themselves at the luxurious restaurants, all of this at times comes off as sour rather than sweet. With other words, Priceless offers plenty of humor, but there is a good dose of drama in it as well.Tunisia-born French director Pierre Salvadori (who also helmed the similarly themed Après Vous with Daniel Auteuil and Sandrine Kiberlain) does a good job of capturing the glamor of the French Riviera. The endless chic hotels, expensive boutiques, and exotic cars seen in Priceless certainly allow the viewer to get a good taste of the playing field where Elmaleh and Tautou's characters collide. C'est la vie!

McCheesy's take on "Priceless"

tt0482088

When it comes to romantic comedies, nobody does it better than the French. Their latest rom-com film is "Priceless" starring Audrey Tautou as a gold-digging social climber who falls in love with a bartender.The French have created several unforgettable romantic flicks like "Amelie" (the greatest French film imo) and "Paris, je t'aime " (not really that much of a French film but some of the directors are from Paris) so clearly, you can't go wrong with a French romantic film.The chemistry between Tautou's character Irene and Elmaleh's Jean is perfect. They just go with each other's flow and doesn't upstage one another. Irene is very much alike Tautou's previous role Amelie but this time the word "Gold Digger" is all over her. You wanna hate her but you can't because she's just too lovable to hate. Jean on the other hand is awkwardly marvelous trying oh so hard to impress his ladylove Irene. His facial expressions are priceless (pardon the pun) Priceless is a priceless flick therefore it gets a solid 8.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482088/reviews-22

ur10252234

title: McCheesy's take on "Priceless" review: When it comes to romantic comedies, nobody does it better than the French. Their latest rom-com film is "Priceless" starring Audrey Tautou as a gold-digging social climber who falls in love with a bartender.The French have created several unforgettable romantic flicks like "Amelie" (the greatest French film imo) and "Paris, je t'aime " (not really that much of a French film but some of the directors are from Paris) so clearly, you can't go wrong with a French romantic film.The chemistry between Tautou's character Irene and Elmaleh's Jean is perfect. They just go with each other's flow and doesn't upstage one another. Irene is very much alike Tautou's previous role Amelie but this time the word "Gold Digger" is all over her. You wanna hate her but you can't because she's just too lovable to hate. Jean on the other hand is awkwardly marvelous trying oh so hard to impress his ladylove Irene. His facial expressions are priceless (pardon the pun) Priceless is a priceless flick therefore it gets a solid 8.

Tautou doing to others what we'd all like her to do to us

tt0482088

Lovely, light--thoroughly amoral--romantic comedy that has a style reminiscent of the best Audrey Hepburn comedies. And the cloying nonsense of "Amelie" is left far behind. Using Monaco like a beautiful postcard, the humor is more subtle than we're used to from the French. A small bit at the beginning where a waiter dozes off while standing at a bar reassured me this was going to be rare.Tautou and her foil, Gad Elmaleh, can't upstage one another; their facial and physical takes are masterful. Even the supporting roles (Marie-Christine Adam a particular stand-out) are on par with the leads. An absolute delight from bouncy credits to a predictable although satisfying finish.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482088/reviews-19

ur0590820

title: Tautou doing to others what we'd all like her to do to us review: Lovely, light--thoroughly amoral--romantic comedy that has a style reminiscent of the best Audrey Hepburn comedies. And the cloying nonsense of "Amelie" is left far behind. Using Monaco like a beautiful postcard, the humor is more subtle than we're used to from the French. A small bit at the beginning where a waiter dozes off while standing at a bar reassured me this was going to be rare.Tautou and her foil, Gad Elmaleh, can't upstage one another; their facial and physical takes are masterful. Even the supporting roles (Marie-Christine Adam a particular stand-out) are on par with the leads. An absolute delight from bouncy credits to a predictable although satisfying finish.

Grand Prix

tt0482088

Last night my girlfriend dragged me to a chick flick. Fortunately for me, my girl has pretty good taste and it happened to be a French chick flick. Priceless doesn't redefine the genre, but it does prove most European mainstream films have a lot more going for them than most mainstream American films. "Love conquers all" is certainly not an original theme, yet clichéd or not, this telling feels both fresh and intelligent. Whereas American chick flicks portray women as lonely, hopeless and dying to meet Mr. Right, Priceless establishes its female lead as anything but. Audrey Tautou's Irène is an icy predator, a materialistic bitch with no redeeming qualities other than a great body every designer dress she dons showcases. Here the male lead Jean (Gad Elmaleh) is the hapless and hopeless romantic, who is desperate to melt the ice queen's heart. While this setup might call to mind the Coen Brother's Intolerable Cruelty, it doesn't suffer from IC's achilles heel: aping the films it was inspired by. The Coen's film is an all too obvious tribute to Howard Hawk's screwball romantic comedies, so much so, their respect for Hawk's becomes the very crutch that renders IC lame. Priceless also pays respect to classic French comedies (ie. the films of Louis de Funès and Jacques Tati) but, unlike IC, it never gets bogged down by its influences. Priceless manages to make the old seem new and it is buoyed by its charm, its nuanced writing and the performances of the two leads.Gad Elmaleh who plays the naïve Jean, not only nails every bit of physical comedy assigned to him, but he also provides Priceless with its heart. You can't help but feel his pain as you see in his eyes the heartache and humiliation inflicted upon him by Tautou's Irène. Throughout the film Elmaleh effortlessly expresses a wide range of emotions and even though the comedy is, at times, broad it never feels contrived and always feels natural.I'm not going to go over the top and call this a masterpiece, but if you've got to sacrifice some blood and sit through a chick flick after subjecting your better half to a Herzog marathon (as I recently did), then Priceless is the perfect choice.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482088/reviews-20

ur2148935

title: Grand Prix review: Last night my girlfriend dragged me to a chick flick. Fortunately for me, my girl has pretty good taste and it happened to be a French chick flick. Priceless doesn't redefine the genre, but it does prove most European mainstream films have a lot more going for them than most mainstream American films. "Love conquers all" is certainly not an original theme, yet clichéd or not, this telling feels both fresh and intelligent. Whereas American chick flicks portray women as lonely, hopeless and dying to meet Mr. Right, Priceless establishes its female lead as anything but. Audrey Tautou's Irène is an icy predator, a materialistic bitch with no redeeming qualities other than a great body every designer dress she dons showcases. Here the male lead Jean (Gad Elmaleh) is the hapless and hopeless romantic, who is desperate to melt the ice queen's heart. While this setup might call to mind the Coen Brother's Intolerable Cruelty, it doesn't suffer from IC's achilles heel: aping the films it was inspired by. The Coen's film is an all too obvious tribute to Howard Hawk's screwball romantic comedies, so much so, their respect for Hawk's becomes the very crutch that renders IC lame. Priceless also pays respect to classic French comedies (ie. the films of Louis de Funès and Jacques Tati) but, unlike IC, it never gets bogged down by its influences. Priceless manages to make the old seem new and it is buoyed by its charm, its nuanced writing and the performances of the two leads.Gad Elmaleh who plays the naïve Jean, not only nails every bit of physical comedy assigned to him, but he also provides Priceless with its heart. You can't help but feel his pain as you see in his eyes the heartache and humiliation inflicted upon him by Tautou's Irène. Throughout the film Elmaleh effortlessly expresses a wide range of emotions and even though the comedy is, at times, broad it never feels contrived and always feels natural.I'm not going to go over the top and call this a masterpiece, but if you've got to sacrifice some blood and sit through a chick flick after subjecting your better half to a Herzog marathon (as I recently did), then Priceless is the perfect choice.

breakfast at Audrey's

tt0482088

As I understand it, Pierre Salvadori's "Hors de prix" ("Priceless" in English) is based on Truman Capote's "Breakfast at Tiffany's", following the book more closely than the 1961 movie did. I've never read the book or seen the original movie, so I can only talk about this one.Audrey Tautou plays gold-digger Irène, who happens upon bartender Jean (Gad Elmaleh) in a swanky hotel on the French Riviera. Not realizing that Jean is an employee - he fell asleep on the job - Irène tries to start up a relationship with him...except that her current paramour dumps her, after which a mishap gets Jean fired! Now that the two are in a real fix, she doesn't want to see him again...but there's more than meets the eye.This isn't any kind of masterpiece, but fun to watch for the short period that it runs. The clever Irène and the nerdy Jean actually make a pretty fine pair. But without a doubt, I'd say that the best part is seeing Audrey Tautou in very revealing dresses (hell, seeing her at all in a movie, but especially in the sexy clothes that she wears here). From this movie and "To Catch a Thief" and "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels", southern France sure looks like a cool place to visit. Worth seeing.Also starring Marie-Christine Adam, Vernon Dobtcheff, Jacques Spiesser and Annelise Hesme.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482088/reviews-42

ur4888011

title: breakfast at Audrey's review: As I understand it, Pierre Salvadori's "Hors de prix" ("Priceless" in English) is based on Truman Capote's "Breakfast at Tiffany's", following the book more closely than the 1961 movie did. I've never read the book or seen the original movie, so I can only talk about this one.Audrey Tautou plays gold-digger Irène, who happens upon bartender Jean (Gad Elmaleh) in a swanky hotel on the French Riviera. Not realizing that Jean is an employee - he fell asleep on the job - Irène tries to start up a relationship with him...except that her current paramour dumps her, after which a mishap gets Jean fired! Now that the two are in a real fix, she doesn't want to see him again...but there's more than meets the eye.This isn't any kind of masterpiece, but fun to watch for the short period that it runs. The clever Irène and the nerdy Jean actually make a pretty fine pair. But without a doubt, I'd say that the best part is seeing Audrey Tautou in very revealing dresses (hell, seeing her at all in a movie, but especially in the sexy clothes that she wears here). From this movie and "To Catch a Thief" and "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels", southern France sure looks like a cool place to visit. Worth seeing.Also starring Marie-Christine Adam, Vernon Dobtcheff, Jacques Spiesser and Annelise Hesme.

Bold, very bold but additionally very bad.

tt0368222

Let's be honest, there wasn't much romance in Romance & Cigarettes, was there? There wasn't really much of anything, bar a couple of dopey and un-enjoyable characters moping around about how 'down' they are or how regretful they are or how lonely they are or how they cannot communicate with anyone and how everything is horrible and terrible and life's nasty and it's all spiralling out of control. Fact of the matter is, the film is an hour and a half plus of big name actors and actresses dallying around feeling sorry for themselves beneath a facade of a study of love when really it's a daft exercise in how post-modern we can be with camera angles and musical numbers as we pretend to make a study of the complexity of relationships.I really disliked Romance & Cigarettes; I disliked every eccentric, style-driven, often cringe-inducing minute of it for a number of reasons. The film was made by a man called John Turturro, who I've seen in a number of very good films and who has worked with a couple of America's more exciting contemporary directors; names such as Martin Scorsese, Joel and Ethen Coen as well as Spike Lee. Trouble is, Turtutto is just an actor and, with only two prior directorial efforts credited to his name according to this site, it is advised he stick to acting in those small-but-very-noticeable roles in films that go on and garner much deserved attention. Clockers, Jungle Fever, Rounders and The Colour of Money spring to mind and it's quite feasible there are others out there I'm yet to stumble upon.The film masquerades as a cheery and colourful study on life, love and the tribulations that these things entail when the fact you've been stupid enough to cheat on your partner catches up with you. But this film, like its makers probably would as well, tells us that its lead character's fling with another woman was some kind of 'natural drive' or some kind of "spiritual calling that drove the male onto another spiritual level that forced him into confronting his fears and desires and thus.......blah, blah, blah" You know what? Rubbish John Turturro, absolute rubbish – you're a good actor at playing those snotty and wormy characters you often get in crime driven films (Miller's Crossing stands out in memory) but your style as a director completely masks the fact you're making a film about idiots, making idiotic and ill advised decisions under a pretense of something deeper.So if the director's out of his element then the cast additionally follow suit with a string of musical numbers done really badly that might completely miss the target in the sense people will find the bad singing and eccentricity of the pieces 'funny' more so than they will find what it is they're actually singing about quite humbling; which is what they should be feeling given the themes of loss of love and despair held within the songs. But the film itself is built around James Gandolfini's character named Nick Murder and his life which is balanced around working as some sort of maintainer of bridges with his buddy Angelo (Buscemi); his life at home with wife Kitty (Sarandon) and their three daughters while lastly, an elusive affair with Tula, in what is an image shredding role for Kate Winslet, given her prior work.I mean, the film is rubbish. It masquerades as this post-modern and energetic look at love and the dilemmas when you feel for two people and the moral choices that accompany it. No it's not; it's about a bored, working class American slob who's just not getting enough action, isn't satisfied enough and plays around a bit on the side for his own amusement. Very early on, there's a musical number that would-be about loneliness and general confusion as the morality of the situation looks to sink in but all the women wear pretty, quaint revealing costumes and we get certain close ups of certain areas the women possess and you begin to have this sick, dirty realisation that this is what everyone's more interested in. I mean, essays and books have been written about how cinema is constructed for and around a male perspective but this just sticks two fingers up at all of that and says "So what!? We're going through with it anyway!" Twinned with this is an annoying little subplot about equally annoying people, those being Nick and Kitty's three daughters Constance (Parker); Rosebud (Turturro) and Baby (Moore); whose full name is rather disturbingly 'Baby Murder', and their band that they try to get going which is flagging as each day goes by what with their horrid, annoying guitar and piano playing and singing – I know it's done badly on purpose but who on Earth thought it might be funny? Who actually finds it amusing? I read afterwards that the 'Moore' that plays Baby is a certain Mandy Moore, a singer and good God – why, oh why would you accept a role in a film in which you play a really bad musician if you're a musician yourself – perhaps she hadn't been selling many records, maybe the cash situation was low.So in short; it's a disaster – Angelo plays the Jiminy Cricket/conscience role that pops up and offers Nick tidbits of advice whenever the film feels he needs it, which is a bit silly. There's a little plot twist later on that leads the film off down another route towards supposed redemption (which is what the makers would tell you it's about) but it's very silly and bails the film out in terms on needing resolution. All in all, rather a large and silly mess made by someone who has worked with, arguably, the best but is far from those persons' respective level.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368222/reviews-62

ur0855231

title: Bold, very bold but additionally very bad. review: Let's be honest, there wasn't much romance in Romance & Cigarettes, was there? There wasn't really much of anything, bar a couple of dopey and un-enjoyable characters moping around about how 'down' they are or how regretful they are or how lonely they are or how they cannot communicate with anyone and how everything is horrible and terrible and life's nasty and it's all spiralling out of control. Fact of the matter is, the film is an hour and a half plus of big name actors and actresses dallying around feeling sorry for themselves beneath a facade of a study of love when really it's a daft exercise in how post-modern we can be with camera angles and musical numbers as we pretend to make a study of the complexity of relationships.I really disliked Romance & Cigarettes; I disliked every eccentric, style-driven, often cringe-inducing minute of it for a number of reasons. The film was made by a man called John Turturro, who I've seen in a number of very good films and who has worked with a couple of America's more exciting contemporary directors; names such as Martin Scorsese, Joel and Ethen Coen as well as Spike Lee. Trouble is, Turtutto is just an actor and, with only two prior directorial efforts credited to his name according to this site, it is advised he stick to acting in those small-but-very-noticeable roles in films that go on and garner much deserved attention. Clockers, Jungle Fever, Rounders and The Colour of Money spring to mind and it's quite feasible there are others out there I'm yet to stumble upon.The film masquerades as a cheery and colourful study on life, love and the tribulations that these things entail when the fact you've been stupid enough to cheat on your partner catches up with you. But this film, like its makers probably would as well, tells us that its lead character's fling with another woman was some kind of 'natural drive' or some kind of "spiritual calling that drove the male onto another spiritual level that forced him into confronting his fears and desires and thus.......blah, blah, blah" You know what? Rubbish John Turturro, absolute rubbish – you're a good actor at playing those snotty and wormy characters you often get in crime driven films (Miller's Crossing stands out in memory) but your style as a director completely masks the fact you're making a film about idiots, making idiotic and ill advised decisions under a pretense of something deeper.So if the director's out of his element then the cast additionally follow suit with a string of musical numbers done really badly that might completely miss the target in the sense people will find the bad singing and eccentricity of the pieces 'funny' more so than they will find what it is they're actually singing about quite humbling; which is what they should be feeling given the themes of loss of love and despair held within the songs. But the film itself is built around James Gandolfini's character named Nick Murder and his life which is balanced around working as some sort of maintainer of bridges with his buddy Angelo (Buscemi); his life at home with wife Kitty (Sarandon) and their three daughters while lastly, an elusive affair with Tula, in what is an image shredding role for Kate Winslet, given her prior work.I mean, the film is rubbish. It masquerades as this post-modern and energetic look at love and the dilemmas when you feel for two people and the moral choices that accompany it. No it's not; it's about a bored, working class American slob who's just not getting enough action, isn't satisfied enough and plays around a bit on the side for his own amusement. Very early on, there's a musical number that would-be about loneliness and general confusion as the morality of the situation looks to sink in but all the women wear pretty, quaint revealing costumes and we get certain close ups of certain areas the women possess and you begin to have this sick, dirty realisation that this is what everyone's more interested in. I mean, essays and books have been written about how cinema is constructed for and around a male perspective but this just sticks two fingers up at all of that and says "So what!? We're going through with it anyway!" Twinned with this is an annoying little subplot about equally annoying people, those being Nick and Kitty's three daughters Constance (Parker); Rosebud (Turturro) and Baby (Moore); whose full name is rather disturbingly 'Baby Murder', and their band that they try to get going which is flagging as each day goes by what with their horrid, annoying guitar and piano playing and singing – I know it's done badly on purpose but who on Earth thought it might be funny? Who actually finds it amusing? I read afterwards that the 'Moore' that plays Baby is a certain Mandy Moore, a singer and good God – why, oh why would you accept a role in a film in which you play a really bad musician if you're a musician yourself – perhaps she hadn't been selling many records, maybe the cash situation was low.So in short; it's a disaster – Angelo plays the Jiminy Cricket/conscience role that pops up and offers Nick tidbits of advice whenever the film feels he needs it, which is a bit silly. There's a little plot twist later on that leads the film off down another route towards supposed redemption (which is what the makers would tell you it's about) but it's very silly and bails the film out in terms on needing resolution. All in all, rather a large and silly mess made by someone who has worked with, arguably, the best but is far from those persons' respective level.

Sensitive performances can't get film passed the creative idea stage...

tt0368222

An interesting misfire. Blue-collar Catholic husband from Queens, fighting with his infected lungs, cheats on his stalwart (but apparently sexless) wife with a red-haired British chippie and suffers the consequences. Perplexing drama from writer-director John Turturro, who seems caught in a Nicolas Roeg/Dennis Potter phase and frequently has his actors bursting into song-and-dance. The surreal musical-fringe isn't the general problem however, it is the unblushing sexual dialogue which makes these characters appear cartoonish. For all the careful work he does get accomplished, Turturro as a screenwriter is like a horny prankster with a poison pen. The overall effect is both immature and off-putting, although the filmmaker certainly gained the trust of his all-star cast, most of whom do solid work. *1/2 from ****

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368222/reviews-66

ur0989035

title: Sensitive performances can't get film passed the creative idea stage... review: An interesting misfire. Blue-collar Catholic husband from Queens, fighting with his infected lungs, cheats on his stalwart (but apparently sexless) wife with a red-haired British chippie and suffers the consequences. Perplexing drama from writer-director John Turturro, who seems caught in a Nicolas Roeg/Dennis Potter phase and frequently has his actors bursting into song-and-dance. The surreal musical-fringe isn't the general problem however, it is the unblushing sexual dialogue which makes these characters appear cartoonish. For all the careful work he does get accomplished, Turturro as a screenwriter is like a horny prankster with a poison pen. The overall effect is both immature and off-putting, although the filmmaker certainly gained the trust of his all-star cast, most of whom do solid work. *1/2 from ****

Quarters from hell

tt0368222

This Coen plated counterfeit American go at Pennies from Heaven is a failure in every way save for the earthy performance of Kate Winslets saucy temptress and little else. It is sloppy hero worship at its most inept by director John Tuturro.Nick Murder (James Gandolfini) strays on wife Kitty Kane (Susan Sarandon) with the aforementioned hot hussy Tula (Kate). Kitty finds out and kisses him off sending Nick into a funk with plenty of musical accompaniment and choreography grafted from commercials announcing the fall TV season.Tuturro's shameless homaging of Fellini, West Side Story, John Waters the Conformist as well as his benefactors does more harm than charm with it's jumble of uninspired compositions lacking cohesion bringing the film to a standstill most of the time with wasteful non-sequitors (Anyone else get the Ray Middleton reference?) . The muted tones of the drab middle class neighborhood offers up some original abstracts but Tuturro's red fetish and insistence on taking it to the streets in dance or fisticuffs takes up the majority of the film draining it of the little energy it shows in flashes.Sarandon is lifeless as Kitty in a lumpishly written role while Gandolfini spends most of the time confused mugging sheepishly. Steve Buscemi reprises some stale Fargo with Chris Walken and Elaine Strich each an abominable waste of time. It's like the entire cast arrived at a has been convention all at once with the foxy Miss Winslet as the entertainment. It is a fine mess indeed.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368222/reviews-67

ur13178622

title: Quarters from hell review: This Coen plated counterfeit American go at Pennies from Heaven is a failure in every way save for the earthy performance of Kate Winslets saucy temptress and little else. It is sloppy hero worship at its most inept by director John Tuturro.Nick Murder (James Gandolfini) strays on wife Kitty Kane (Susan Sarandon) with the aforementioned hot hussy Tula (Kate). Kitty finds out and kisses him off sending Nick into a funk with plenty of musical accompaniment and choreography grafted from commercials announcing the fall TV season.Tuturro's shameless homaging of Fellini, West Side Story, John Waters the Conformist as well as his benefactors does more harm than charm with it's jumble of uninspired compositions lacking cohesion bringing the film to a standstill most of the time with wasteful non-sequitors (Anyone else get the Ray Middleton reference?) . The muted tones of the drab middle class neighborhood offers up some original abstracts but Tuturro's red fetish and insistence on taking it to the streets in dance or fisticuffs takes up the majority of the film draining it of the little energy it shows in flashes.Sarandon is lifeless as Kitty in a lumpishly written role while Gandolfini spends most of the time confused mugging sheepishly. Steve Buscemi reprises some stale Fargo with Chris Walken and Elaine Strich each an abominable waste of time. It's like the entire cast arrived at a has been convention all at once with the foxy Miss Winslet as the entertainment. It is a fine mess indeed.

Exquisite!

tt0368222

This is how The Sopranos series should end, I don't know how that series ends, but deep in our hearts this is probably how we all feel it should. What a great movie, right from the start. Got me in the same way Pulp Fiction had got me the first time I watched it, When you know immediately that hey this is going to be good. James Gandolfini is so sweet in this one, he even gets knocked out by a bum. Great soundtrack to this film, I mean its practically a musical. If its out on CD i got to have it. A great great cast too with master performances. I hope to see more of Turturro's work as a director in the near future. May the imagination for movies with new recipes and this was the case and that let go to love in itself be kept up and kept Supreme.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368222/reviews-24

ur9619380

title: Exquisite! review: This is how The Sopranos series should end, I don't know how that series ends, but deep in our hearts this is probably how we all feel it should. What a great movie, right from the start. Got me in the same way Pulp Fiction had got me the first time I watched it, When you know immediately that hey this is going to be good. James Gandolfini is so sweet in this one, he even gets knocked out by a bum. Great soundtrack to this film, I mean its practically a musical. If its out on CD i got to have it. A great great cast too with master performances. I hope to see more of Turturro's work as a director in the near future. May the imagination for movies with new recipes and this was the case and that let go to love in itself be kept up and kept Supreme.

Quite a mess

tt0368222

Just saw this film about a week ago in Los Angeles with a friend who desperately wanted to catch it, primarily because of the great cast. I'd heard a bit about it previously, mostly negative reviews from the professional critics, but I thought I'd give it a go, primarily for Susan Sarandon. After about the first half-hour, I had a few solid impressions: (1) the sing-alongs mostly didn't work and were sometimes just annoying; (2) the editing went from fair to non-existent, with scenes just vanishing; (3) most of the actors were wasted -- more like cameo appearances than roles (did Elaine Stritch just happen to be in the neighborhood?); (4) the choreography apparently was supposed to be unstylish and clunky, but it often was just distracting. While watching the final credits, I saw the 2005 copyright date and assumed that the studio thought the film too poor for release, and my friend agree--after saying that it was one of the worst movies he'd ever seen.If you want to see singing and dancing noir, stick with Potter's THE SINGING DETECTIVE or the underrated Martin-Peters flick PENNIES FROM HEAVEN.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368222/reviews-35

ur6928498

title: Quite a mess review: Just saw this film about a week ago in Los Angeles with a friend who desperately wanted to catch it, primarily because of the great cast. I'd heard a bit about it previously, mostly negative reviews from the professional critics, but I thought I'd give it a go, primarily for Susan Sarandon. After about the first half-hour, I had a few solid impressions: (1) the sing-alongs mostly didn't work and were sometimes just annoying; (2) the editing went from fair to non-existent, with scenes just vanishing; (3) most of the actors were wasted -- more like cameo appearances than roles (did Elaine Stritch just happen to be in the neighborhood?); (4) the choreography apparently was supposed to be unstylish and clunky, but it often was just distracting. While watching the final credits, I saw the 2005 copyright date and assumed that the studio thought the film too poor for release, and my friend agree--after saying that it was one of the worst movies he'd ever seen.If you want to see singing and dancing noir, stick with Potter's THE SINGING DETECTIVE or the underrated Martin-Peters flick PENNIES FROM HEAVEN.

Privileged fiasco

tt0368222

Turturro's Romance and Cigarettes leaves almost no impression -- unless you're bowled over by James Gandolfini singing (he hasn't much of a voice). Nick Murder (pointless surname) works as a garbage man in Queens (an occupation fleetingly referenced) and fixes bridges with Steve Buscemi, who gives him advice in dialogue that's not very well written or delivered. Nick's married to Kitty (Susan Sarandon) and has three daughters -- Mary Louise Parker, Mandy Moore, and Aida Turturro (deceased from The Sopranos, John's cousin; Turturro works himself and his little boy into the movie too at some point). What's this lively cast doing in such a fiasco? Well, Turturro has been in some excellent movies -- notably Do the Right Thing, Barton Fink, and The Big Lebowski -- and he has lots of friends. The Coen brothers, whom he's worked with so notably, produced.The action begins when Kitty finds a pornographic note and realizes Nick is cheating on him. She calls in Christopher Walken for moral support. And Walken's an old song and dance man, so he adds something.You might call this a partial, second-hand, working-class musical. It's second-hand in the sense that none of the music is original. And it's partial because not all the principal characters sing or appear in musical numbers. Buscemi, Eddie Izzard (as a minister), Mary Louise Parker don't get them. Numbers are dubs or voice-overs of songs from James Brown, Tom Jones, Englebert Humperdink, Westside Story, Saturday Night Fever, and many other sources, which evoke John Waters (especially now that he's gone musical with Hairspray) when they're performed in the down-and-dirty settings of a shabby Queens suburb. Sometimes this achieves poetry; other times, more often, it just seems odd, and Turturro hasn't Water's gift for sleaze, which might have transformed this story into high camp. It runs more to crudity, to a degree admittedly unusual for a (partial) musical, chiefly through the mistress, Tula (Kate Winslet), a gutter-mouthed shop girl from Lancashire who thinks -- and talks, in vivid detail -- of little but sex. Tula's lively, zoftig, and in her crude way a hot number. But she's awfully shallow.There's audacity in the conception. Gandalfini singing would startle even Dr. Melfi. Certainly this is a good cast. But it's not necessarily the right cast. Gandalfini fits -- were it not for his overwhelming current association with that mansion in Jersey and with Edie Falco, who seems a more likely match for him than Sarandon. She has done working class roles (White Palace, Thelma and Louise); but she's fifteen years older than Gandalfini, and seems too classy for this setting. Izzard's out of place in leading a mixed-race Queens gospel choir. Kate Winslet's sublimely into her role, but her character is a little too tacky for the conventional musical love interest she is, by default, made to become.There's not much of a story (one longs for John Water's ornate but tight plot structures) and Turturro's editing is patchy -- he has a bad habit of snipping in two or three other scenes during a song to no purpose. In fact none of this would make it within two hundred miles of Broadway, though as The Mother (who appears when Nick's in hospital from OD'ing on licorice) Elaine Stritch gives her five-minute cameo a Broadway intensity and snap. Along with the vagueness in the action, the period is also undetermined, a "general retro feel," as Variety puts it -- very general, not very retro -and so not surprisingly, as is probably already obvious, the tone is also uneven.Eventually Nick decides to give up Tula, and Kitty (Sarandon), somewhat reluctantly, takes him back. Sarandon injects some genuine feeling -- no doubt from another, more serious, movie -- into those final scenes. Winslet is a buoyant scene-stealer throughout in her (unfortunately) smaller role, and when Nick pushes her in the river in his goodbye scene with her she has an underwater singing sequence that is the movie's best moment visually -- it's gloriously improbable and quite beautiful. There's more. Bobby Carnavale is an absurd peacock as Mandy Moore's neighbor fiancé: his looks and strutting are eye-catching, but he'd need either to be less obtrusive or have more lines for the character to work in the whole thing. But -- What "whole thing" are we talking about? This effort just doesn't hold together. You keep wondering how individual scenes might have worked well somewhere else, in some other movie, where the style and tone were consistent.Romance and Cigarettes is a privileged US indie movie, the kind that it took pull to get made and that, because of the pull, and the stars brought in as a result, gets good festival mileage and Sundance buzz, but fizzles out in the real world.Shown at SFIFF 49 (April-May 2006).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368222/reviews-16

ur1501216

title: Privileged fiasco review: Turturro's Romance and Cigarettes leaves almost no impression -- unless you're bowled over by James Gandolfini singing (he hasn't much of a voice). Nick Murder (pointless surname) works as a garbage man in Queens (an occupation fleetingly referenced) and fixes bridges with Steve Buscemi, who gives him advice in dialogue that's not very well written or delivered. Nick's married to Kitty (Susan Sarandon) and has three daughters -- Mary Louise Parker, Mandy Moore, and Aida Turturro (deceased from The Sopranos, John's cousin; Turturro works himself and his little boy into the movie too at some point). What's this lively cast doing in such a fiasco? Well, Turturro has been in some excellent movies -- notably Do the Right Thing, Barton Fink, and The Big Lebowski -- and he has lots of friends. The Coen brothers, whom he's worked with so notably, produced.The action begins when Kitty finds a pornographic note and realizes Nick is cheating on him. She calls in Christopher Walken for moral support. And Walken's an old song and dance man, so he adds something.You might call this a partial, second-hand, working-class musical. It's second-hand in the sense that none of the music is original. And it's partial because not all the principal characters sing or appear in musical numbers. Buscemi, Eddie Izzard (as a minister), Mary Louise Parker don't get them. Numbers are dubs or voice-overs of songs from James Brown, Tom Jones, Englebert Humperdink, Westside Story, Saturday Night Fever, and many other sources, which evoke John Waters (especially now that he's gone musical with Hairspray) when they're performed in the down-and-dirty settings of a shabby Queens suburb. Sometimes this achieves poetry; other times, more often, it just seems odd, and Turturro hasn't Water's gift for sleaze, which might have transformed this story into high camp. It runs more to crudity, to a degree admittedly unusual for a (partial) musical, chiefly through the mistress, Tula (Kate Winslet), a gutter-mouthed shop girl from Lancashire who thinks -- and talks, in vivid detail -- of little but sex. Tula's lively, zoftig, and in her crude way a hot number. But she's awfully shallow.There's audacity in the conception. Gandalfini singing would startle even Dr. Melfi. Certainly this is a good cast. But it's not necessarily the right cast. Gandalfini fits -- were it not for his overwhelming current association with that mansion in Jersey and with Edie Falco, who seems a more likely match for him than Sarandon. She has done working class roles (White Palace, Thelma and Louise); but she's fifteen years older than Gandalfini, and seems too classy for this setting. Izzard's out of place in leading a mixed-race Queens gospel choir. Kate Winslet's sublimely into her role, but her character is a little too tacky for the conventional musical love interest she is, by default, made to become.There's not much of a story (one longs for John Water's ornate but tight plot structures) and Turturro's editing is patchy -- he has a bad habit of snipping in two or three other scenes during a song to no purpose. In fact none of this would make it within two hundred miles of Broadway, though as The Mother (who appears when Nick's in hospital from OD'ing on licorice) Elaine Stritch gives her five-minute cameo a Broadway intensity and snap. Along with the vagueness in the action, the period is also undetermined, a "general retro feel," as Variety puts it -- very general, not very retro -and so not surprisingly, as is probably already obvious, the tone is also uneven.Eventually Nick decides to give up Tula, and Kitty (Sarandon), somewhat reluctantly, takes him back. Sarandon injects some genuine feeling -- no doubt from another, more serious, movie -- into those final scenes. Winslet is a buoyant scene-stealer throughout in her (unfortunately) smaller role, and when Nick pushes her in the river in his goodbye scene with her she has an underwater singing sequence that is the movie's best moment visually -- it's gloriously improbable and quite beautiful. There's more. Bobby Carnavale is an absurd peacock as Mandy Moore's neighbor fiancé: his looks and strutting are eye-catching, but he'd need either to be less obtrusive or have more lines for the character to work in the whole thing. But -- What "whole thing" are we talking about? This effort just doesn't hold together. You keep wondering how individual scenes might have worked well somewhere else, in some other movie, where the style and tone were consistent.Romance and Cigarettes is a privileged US indie movie, the kind that it took pull to get made and that, because of the pull, and the stars brought in as a result, gets good festival mileage and Sundance buzz, but fizzles out in the real world.Shown at SFIFF 49 (April-May 2006).

Turturro's Third Film Has Its Own Charm But Loses Steam Near The End

tt0368222

John Turturro wrote and directed this personal labor of love about a working class Brooklyn couple who are facing the marriage crisis all wives dread: the husband's infidelity. What starts out as a fun, joyous musical, which is really unique, turns rather conventional in its last half hour. But before that, the film is loads of fun with inventive musical numbers utilizing pop songs to tell the story of James Gandolfini, a construction worker, who can't control his fetish for the voluptuous red-head Kate Winslet. It's the classic Madonna/whore situation for Gandolfini facing a late mid-life crisis. Several actors appear in brief standout roles: Kate Winslet as the lingerie salesgirl with the voluptuous curves; Steve Buscemi as Gandolfini's construction buddy with a Neanderthal outlook on women; Aida Turturro as one of Gandolfini's daughters; Christopher Walken as cousin Bo, a would-be hit man with an Elvis fixation; Elaine Stritch as Gandolfini's mother full of regrets about her own past. All of them are very funny and very good at the same time. Susan Sarandon is also pretty good as Gandolfini's long suffering wife. Mary-Louise Parker and Mandy Moore as the other daughters have little to do. Guys will no doubt like this a lot more than women will. The film's conclusion seems to indicate the Madonna/whore dilemma will still remain no matter how much men mess up their marriages. It's an entertaining film that peters out once Gandolfini gets sick. The songs used are perfect choices in most instances. *** of 4 stars.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368222/reviews-61

ur2567338

title: Turturro's Third Film Has Its Own Charm But Loses Steam Near The End review: John Turturro wrote and directed this personal labor of love about a working class Brooklyn couple who are facing the marriage crisis all wives dread: the husband's infidelity. What starts out as a fun, joyous musical, which is really unique, turns rather conventional in its last half hour. But before that, the film is loads of fun with inventive musical numbers utilizing pop songs to tell the story of James Gandolfini, a construction worker, who can't control his fetish for the voluptuous red-head Kate Winslet. It's the classic Madonna/whore situation for Gandolfini facing a late mid-life crisis. Several actors appear in brief standout roles: Kate Winslet as the lingerie salesgirl with the voluptuous curves; Steve Buscemi as Gandolfini's construction buddy with a Neanderthal outlook on women; Aida Turturro as one of Gandolfini's daughters; Christopher Walken as cousin Bo, a would-be hit man with an Elvis fixation; Elaine Stritch as Gandolfini's mother full of regrets about her own past. All of them are very funny and very good at the same time. Susan Sarandon is also pretty good as Gandolfini's long suffering wife. Mary-Louise Parker and Mandy Moore as the other daughters have little to do. Guys will no doubt like this a lot more than women will. The film's conclusion seems to indicate the Madonna/whore dilemma will still remain no matter how much men mess up their marriages. It's an entertaining film that peters out once Gandolfini gets sick. The songs used are perfect choices in most instances. *** of 4 stars.

About freedom and other things

tt0368222

It's no coincidence that "Romance & Cigarettes" was executive produced by the Coen Brothers, who once in the brilliant "The Big Lebowski" created two musical sequences out of nothing to show the freedom making cinema meant for them. This film, written and directed by John Turturro, is the story of a husband that tries to get the love of his wife back, and I'm still not sure if it's mainly a musical; but I can assure you it's ruled by freedom.There's a great Spanish film, "El otro lado de la cama", that deals with a love quadrangle and in which the characters express their joys and sorrows in songs, and appear dancing and singing in the middle of the street. In this aspect, Turturro's film is exactly the same but I want to name a few things to emphasize the fact that "Romance & Cigarettes" was conceived with the beautiful idea of embracing the freedom that comes with film-making. First, the fact that Turturro, who has been married for more than twenty years and has two children, builds his story from the perspective of adult love. The main characters, Nick (James Gandolfini) and Kitty (Susan Sarandon), have been married for twenty years and as the film begins she discovers he's being unfaithful, and not precisely with a woman that could be compared to his wife, who angrily shouts: "I've been cooking for you for the last twenty years!".Nicky and Kitty's problems constitute the center of the movie (which gives place for Gandolfini to get out on the street and sing "A Man Without Love", as the whole city working men start joining him) that also deals with adolescent love in the relationship of one of Nick's daughters, Baby (Mandy Moore), and Fryburg (Bobby Cannavale); but this already starts bordering the ridiculous.The ridiculous is, of course, is an asset that shows Turturro's freedom. It's everywhere, if you pay attention. Take the scene in which we first meet the woman with whom Nick has the affair. Nick and some of his co-workers are dressed as firemen who try to put out the fire of a window, where a sexy woman can be seen dancing. She's Tula (Kate Winslet), and the music she dances with is Spanish Flamenco, but when we meet her then she has nothing to do with Spain; she's Irish (or maybe Scottish). Anyway, the thing is that the water coming from the pumps stops pumping and all these firemen end up dancing with Tula. It maybe hard for you to imagine it by reading it (and that's why you have to see the film), but it's fantastic.Another example of the film's careless and joyful existence is another one of Nicks daughters, Constance, played by Mary-Louise Parker. It's a wonderfully absurd performance by Parker, who is 44, and plays Constance as a rebellious teenager who reinvents herself everyday. Now we've got to wonder why Turturro might have given her the role: I'm almost sure that he did it because the actress is among the very few people who can really pull it off. Another annoying performance that is supposed to seem annoying and out of place is Nick's third daughter, Rosebud; a completely weird human being played by the director's cousin Aida Turturro. Just like it's no coincidence that the Coens produced the film, it's also logical that Turturro would find his casting options in the Coen universe: Steve Buscemi plays a minor role; James Gandolfini, a robust man and a serious character dramatic actor you would never imagine in a film of this type and whose best work is in a Coens film, achieves a perfection and a tenderness that we can sense was not difficult for him. Of course there are elements of the cast, like the enormous Parker, that come from somewhere else, which is Turturro's experience of some many years in the industry. What Kate Winslet makes of Tula, only she can make it; what Elaine Stritch does in two minutes can't be topped by anyone; Susan Sarandon is unique and Christopher Walken dancing is… well, you should already know about Walken. What I want to say is that Turturo has something to say, and it's not to be found in the songs that the film contains; or the script, which is a mixture of relationship knowledge (something greatly developed in "El Otro lado de la cama") and songs that turn into actual spoken words and vice-versa. In fact, it takes another bit of attention to notice the fact that the songs are partially sang by the actors (they sing over the originals) and sometimes some of them don't get the tempo right, that the choreographies are far from perfect (even though Tom Stern's cinematography gets the best out of every scene, acted and/or danced); but this doesn't make the film less brave or extravagant or fundamental in its message. I say too often that musicals need to fly on screen, because "Moulin Rouge!" soars and it set a bar. There's a plane in "Romance & Cigarettes" that is shown several times and it never seems to land: I think it's trying to make clear that the movie, even if we can't define it in the musical genre, flies…High.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368222/reviews-59

ur4751428

title: About freedom and other things review: It's no coincidence that "Romance & Cigarettes" was executive produced by the Coen Brothers, who once in the brilliant "The Big Lebowski" created two musical sequences out of nothing to show the freedom making cinema meant for them. This film, written and directed by John Turturro, is the story of a husband that tries to get the love of his wife back, and I'm still not sure if it's mainly a musical; but I can assure you it's ruled by freedom.There's a great Spanish film, "El otro lado de la cama", that deals with a love quadrangle and in which the characters express their joys and sorrows in songs, and appear dancing and singing in the middle of the street. In this aspect, Turturro's film is exactly the same but I want to name a few things to emphasize the fact that "Romance & Cigarettes" was conceived with the beautiful idea of embracing the freedom that comes with film-making. First, the fact that Turturro, who has been married for more than twenty years and has two children, builds his story from the perspective of adult love. The main characters, Nick (James Gandolfini) and Kitty (Susan Sarandon), have been married for twenty years and as the film begins she discovers he's being unfaithful, and not precisely with a woman that could be compared to his wife, who angrily shouts: "I've been cooking for you for the last twenty years!".Nicky and Kitty's problems constitute the center of the movie (which gives place for Gandolfini to get out on the street and sing "A Man Without Love", as the whole city working men start joining him) that also deals with adolescent love in the relationship of one of Nick's daughters, Baby (Mandy Moore), and Fryburg (Bobby Cannavale); but this already starts bordering the ridiculous.The ridiculous is, of course, is an asset that shows Turturro's freedom. It's everywhere, if you pay attention. Take the scene in which we first meet the woman with whom Nick has the affair. Nick and some of his co-workers are dressed as firemen who try to put out the fire of a window, where a sexy woman can be seen dancing. She's Tula (Kate Winslet), and the music she dances with is Spanish Flamenco, but when we meet her then she has nothing to do with Spain; she's Irish (or maybe Scottish). Anyway, the thing is that the water coming from the pumps stops pumping and all these firemen end up dancing with Tula. It maybe hard for you to imagine it by reading it (and that's why you have to see the film), but it's fantastic.Another example of the film's careless and joyful existence is another one of Nicks daughters, Constance, played by Mary-Louise Parker. It's a wonderfully absurd performance by Parker, who is 44, and plays Constance as a rebellious teenager who reinvents herself everyday. Now we've got to wonder why Turturro might have given her the role: I'm almost sure that he did it because the actress is among the very few people who can really pull it off. Another annoying performance that is supposed to seem annoying and out of place is Nick's third daughter, Rosebud; a completely weird human being played by the director's cousin Aida Turturro. Just like it's no coincidence that the Coens produced the film, it's also logical that Turturro would find his casting options in the Coen universe: Steve Buscemi plays a minor role; James Gandolfini, a robust man and a serious character dramatic actor you would never imagine in a film of this type and whose best work is in a Coens film, achieves a perfection and a tenderness that we can sense was not difficult for him. Of course there are elements of the cast, like the enormous Parker, that come from somewhere else, which is Turturro's experience of some many years in the industry. What Kate Winslet makes of Tula, only she can make it; what Elaine Stritch does in two minutes can't be topped by anyone; Susan Sarandon is unique and Christopher Walken dancing is… well, you should already know about Walken. What I want to say is that Turturo has something to say, and it's not to be found in the songs that the film contains; or the script, which is a mixture of relationship knowledge (something greatly developed in "El Otro lado de la cama") and songs that turn into actual spoken words and vice-versa. In fact, it takes another bit of attention to notice the fact that the songs are partially sang by the actors (they sing over the originals) and sometimes some of them don't get the tempo right, that the choreographies are far from perfect (even though Tom Stern's cinematography gets the best out of every scene, acted and/or danced); but this doesn't make the film less brave or extravagant or fundamental in its message. I say too often that musicals need to fly on screen, because "Moulin Rouge!" soars and it set a bar. There's a plane in "Romance & Cigarettes" that is shown several times and it never seems to land: I think it's trying to make clear that the movie, even if we can't define it in the musical genre, flies…High.

Sexiest Musical ever. A movie all about sex and music.

tt0368222

Sexiest Musical ever. A movie all about sex and music.Not sure what the writer director John Turturro wanted to venture before writing this film. But once he wrote, it clearly came as he wanted it. The songs are meticulously chosen and the lip sync done by actors adds up to the music.This movie is about marital issues in simplest terms. But there are layers which just keep coming along. James Gandolfini as Nick Murder has too many issues at home to deal with. If he deals with his wife, he would deal with all the issues. But sadly, he just cannot leave his wife. A shameless husband he is.Kate Winslet as Tula, the lingerie seller add so much life and color to her character that whenever she is turned on, she becomes the dirtiest woman. She is so naturally good I feel, he acceptance of this movie just re establishes her liking for meaty roles. Susan Sarandon as Kitty, Nick's wife just does what she believes is right for the scene. She is yelling or aggressive at Nick and has fun with her ex lover Angelo.The characters are sketched out from clichés and are written from director's brain which is so damn tough to decipher. Any film can end in any way, but life ends in one way only that is death. Do I need to say more. The story of infidelity was never told more beautifully or comically or even sexually.There are so many other characters like Nick's friend or Nick's daughters who are so very clichéd and just speak as they should. Acting is superb as expected but what takes the acting to a higher altitude is the dialogues. Each dialogue makes the character in itself interesting.I watched this film just be seeing the poster and getting to know that Barton FInk's John Turturro has directed it and was blown away by the time i finished watching.It's good in every which I shall say, but i's a tad longer than expected. Yet, it makes a great watch. I am unhappy that I missed such an opportunity to see it in theater but now, I have seen and am happy.I would go with 4/5 for one of the best musicals ever. And it's very good to see a movie for not taking the point it wanted to say seriously.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368222/reviews-75

ur17029428

title: Sexiest Musical ever. A movie all about sex and music. review: Sexiest Musical ever. A movie all about sex and music.Not sure what the writer director John Turturro wanted to venture before writing this film. But once he wrote, it clearly came as he wanted it. The songs are meticulously chosen and the lip sync done by actors adds up to the music.This movie is about marital issues in simplest terms. But there are layers which just keep coming along. James Gandolfini as Nick Murder has too many issues at home to deal with. If he deals with his wife, he would deal with all the issues. But sadly, he just cannot leave his wife. A shameless husband he is.Kate Winslet as Tula, the lingerie seller add so much life and color to her character that whenever she is turned on, she becomes the dirtiest woman. She is so naturally good I feel, he acceptance of this movie just re establishes her liking for meaty roles. Susan Sarandon as Kitty, Nick's wife just does what she believes is right for the scene. She is yelling or aggressive at Nick and has fun with her ex lover Angelo.The characters are sketched out from clichés and are written from director's brain which is so damn tough to decipher. Any film can end in any way, but life ends in one way only that is death. Do I need to say more. The story of infidelity was never told more beautifully or comically or even sexually.There are so many other characters like Nick's friend or Nick's daughters who are so very clichéd and just speak as they should. Acting is superb as expected but what takes the acting to a higher altitude is the dialogues. Each dialogue makes the character in itself interesting.I watched this film just be seeing the poster and getting to know that Barton FInk's John Turturro has directed it and was blown away by the time i finished watching.It's good in every which I shall say, but i's a tad longer than expected. Yet, it makes a great watch. I am unhappy that I missed such an opportunity to see it in theater but now, I have seen and am happy.I would go with 4/5 for one of the best musicals ever. And it's very good to see a movie for not taking the point it wanted to say seriously.

Another form of musical

tt0368222

This is funny in a way that American movies usually aren't. Gandolfini is playing a character extremely far away from all Soprano stuff. But he's a hero.He's cheating on his wife in a way which isn't glamorous, just rather cheap and rather human. Susan Sarandon as the wife is really funny through all her love-hate. This family is dysfunctional, but in a way that's impossible not to like.And it really is a musical. Sometimes. The characters burst out, miming to hit songs. That's show stoppers, but in the good sense of the word. It's all worth seeing.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368222/reviews-13

ur1419266

title: Another form of musical review: This is funny in a way that American movies usually aren't. Gandolfini is playing a character extremely far away from all Soprano stuff. But he's a hero.He's cheating on his wife in a way which isn't glamorous, just rather cheap and rather human. Susan Sarandon as the wife is really funny through all her love-hate. This family is dysfunctional, but in a way that's impossible not to like.And it really is a musical. Sometimes. The characters burst out, miming to hit songs. That's show stoppers, but in the good sense of the word. It's all worth seeing.

Flawed but refreshingly original piece of entertainment

tt0368222

Romance & Cigarettes, John Turturro's third feature as a director, is not one of the best musicals ever made, as excessively enthusiastic supporters will have you believe. Nor is it the atrocity some detractors claim it to be. It's an imperfect film, but it's hugely entertaining, filled to the bone with raw energy and finely acted, sung and danced.The story, like in most musicals, is ridiculously simple: Nick Murder (James Gandolfini), a construction worker from Brooklyn, has been happily married to Kitty (Susan Sarandon) for years, living in peace with her and their three daughters (Mandy Mooore, Mary-Louise Parker and Aida Turturro). Then one day she discovers he's been having an affair with an English call-girl named Tula (Kate Winslet) and promptly throws him out of the house. As he keeps seeing Tula and asking his colleague (Steve Buscemi) for advice, Nick has nothing better to do but express his disappointment through a number of extravagant musical numbers, while Kitty plots revenge with the hot-headed Cousin Bo (Christopher Walken).The film's strength doesn't lie in the plot, for it is merely a contrivance, but in its execution: Romance & Cigarettes is the most foul-mouthed musical since the South Park motion picture. There is a neat contrast between the singing and the talking: the former is beautiful and almost poetic (Walken's rendition of "Delilah" is a standout), the latter joyously filthy, especially when the delightfully bold Winslet is on screen. It's Steven Sondheim meets Kevin Smith, and John Turturro plays on that absurdity with glee.It is that absurdity, paired with superb performances, that makes the movie fly: from Walken's typically ridiculous haircut to Sarandon's witty remarks on adultery ("Your father went on a beaver diet") via the paradoxical fact that Aida Turturro, Gandolfini's sister in The Sopranos, plays his daughter in this film (she's only a year younger than him), the movie holds up well as long as no one starts to question the logic of certain things (like the inexplicable scene where Nick gets circumcised). The director knows this, and therefore it is strange that he chooses to end his experimental ride with a bleak and utterly flat epilogue, which totally contrasts the senseless energy of everything that's happened up to that point. Perhaps such an effect was deliberate, but it does diminish the impact of the conclusion, despite the cast's best efforts.Overall, this is a film that won't please everybody. In fact, those who aren't familiar with Turturro's style, as an actor or a director, might find it hard to embrace the madness that permeates the picture. Nevertheless, Romance & Cigarettes remains a worthy effort and deserving of a viewing, if only to see Kate Winslet talk dirty and Christopher Walken dance like few people are able to.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368222/reviews-54

ur5156288

title: Flawed but refreshingly original piece of entertainment review: Romance & Cigarettes, John Turturro's third feature as a director, is not one of the best musicals ever made, as excessively enthusiastic supporters will have you believe. Nor is it the atrocity some detractors claim it to be. It's an imperfect film, but it's hugely entertaining, filled to the bone with raw energy and finely acted, sung and danced.The story, like in most musicals, is ridiculously simple: Nick Murder (James Gandolfini), a construction worker from Brooklyn, has been happily married to Kitty (Susan Sarandon) for years, living in peace with her and their three daughters (Mandy Mooore, Mary-Louise Parker and Aida Turturro). Then one day she discovers he's been having an affair with an English call-girl named Tula (Kate Winslet) and promptly throws him out of the house. As he keeps seeing Tula and asking his colleague (Steve Buscemi) for advice, Nick has nothing better to do but express his disappointment through a number of extravagant musical numbers, while Kitty plots revenge with the hot-headed Cousin Bo (Christopher Walken).The film's strength doesn't lie in the plot, for it is merely a contrivance, but in its execution: Romance & Cigarettes is the most foul-mouthed musical since the South Park motion picture. There is a neat contrast between the singing and the talking: the former is beautiful and almost poetic (Walken's rendition of "Delilah" is a standout), the latter joyously filthy, especially when the delightfully bold Winslet is on screen. It's Steven Sondheim meets Kevin Smith, and John Turturro plays on that absurdity with glee.It is that absurdity, paired with superb performances, that makes the movie fly: from Walken's typically ridiculous haircut to Sarandon's witty remarks on adultery ("Your father went on a beaver diet") via the paradoxical fact that Aida Turturro, Gandolfini's sister in The Sopranos, plays his daughter in this film (she's only a year younger than him), the movie holds up well as long as no one starts to question the logic of certain things (like the inexplicable scene where Nick gets circumcised). The director knows this, and therefore it is strange that he chooses to end his experimental ride with a bleak and utterly flat epilogue, which totally contrasts the senseless energy of everything that's happened up to that point. Perhaps such an effect was deliberate, but it does diminish the impact of the conclusion, despite the cast's best efforts.Overall, this is a film that won't please everybody. In fact, those who aren't familiar with Turturro's style, as an actor or a director, might find it hard to embrace the madness that permeates the picture. Nevertheless, Romance & Cigarettes remains a worthy effort and deserving of a viewing, if only to see Kate Winslet talk dirty and Christopher Walken dance like few people are able to.

Chaotically imbalanced yet earnestly charming musical hybrid

tt0368222

Seldom does a film come along which proves so difficult to pinhole using conventional definitions: a film dealing with the themes of both family and extramarital affairs which blends elements of both comedy and serious drama without ever being easily classified as each. Also, the occasional sporadic musical number thrown in to either extrapolate the characters' sentiments or entirely divert from them, while simultaneously wavering on the line of the fantastic and gritty realism without ever delving too deeply into one or the other. Whichever grounds it tries to cover at any given time, it is unlikely the majority of viewers will have ever seen anything like the charmingly, chaotically imbalanced flurry that is Romance & Cigarettes, which, while bewilderingly imbalanced, still boasts enough of an earnest emotional heart to remain lovable in the midst of all of its discordantly endearing flaws.While the inciting premise proves an alluring one indeed, the scattershot, loosely connected series of vignettes on love, sex, adultery and family prove a bit too madcap and sporadic to be anywhere near as effective as it could have been - the film fades bewilderingly in and out of fantasy sequences and characters come and go, many alluding to more developed parts which never arise and some are unceremoniously dropped entirely seemingly halfway through their roles (Bobby Canavale's gyrating lothlorio and, most disappointingly Christopher Walken spring to mind). While starting out strong, with the zany screenplay offering many a snappy line of acerbic wit (most delivered with perfect deadpan by Gandolfini), the film begins to lose direction midway through, and by its finale results as a chaotic struggle for mostly lost coherency. The haphazard musical sequences prove equally imbalanced, as characters belt out renowned pop tunes, their own voices confusingly blending overtop of the original singer's, but such interludes prove more charming and endearing than befuddling, with some of the most eccentric choreography seen in years.The film does carry the unmistakable touch of the Coen brothers (whose names appear among the staggering 36 credited as producers, perhaps explaining the film's inherent creative imbalance) yet writer/director John Turturro hammers the judiciously balanced weirdness which makes their usual work such a triumph a bit too strongly, the resulting film feeling too imbalanced, all over the place and lacking clarity of vision to match up to the expected standard. If slightly less ambitious and with more focus on the story's key characters, the film could have proved a heartwarming and touching treatise, but while attempting to tackle such a wide variety of characters and stories the audience's attention feels too dispersed to touch upon any of them in much depth. This being said, the film boasts undeniably genuine heart and soul, and many moments of surprisingly touch or hilarious emotional weight do result, many being surprisingly realistic touching interchanges between Nick Murder and his estranged wife. However, the noticeably downbeat ending proves distinctly out of place, a shockingly sour note upon which to end a film which previously dazzled with such vivacity and sparkled with irreverent wit - an unmistakable directorial misfire.James Gandolfini's gruff charm makes a surprisingly charismatic and sympathetic lead out of the stoic mug of Nick Murder, bewilderedly attempting to decide between his frantic wife and torrid mistress, his eyes speaking volumes where his befuddled mouth cannot. As Murder's wife Kitty, Susan Sarandon proves hugely charismatic, chomping the scenery and wrapping her mouth around many of the script's more acidic lines with particular vigour. Kate Winslet, playing violently against type as the foul mouthed sex addict Murder is having an affair with is particularly enjoyable, her wildfire of a performance and stunning sensuality lending the film volumes of necessary life and spark. Steve Buscemi proves a consistently hilarious scene stealer as Murder's friend and fellow construction worker, always willing to irreverently spout off his sexual preferences. As expected, Christopher Walken offers the film a much needed jolt of irreverent hysteria, arguably walking away with the film in a mostly pointless but exuberantly enjoyable role as Kitty's offbeat Cousin Bo. Exemplifying the quirkily endearing spirit of the film, Walken is a scream (his rendition of Tom Jones' "Delilah" is priceless) making it all the more disappointing when his character is sporadically dropped from the film with no explanation, as his loss feels like a gaping hole in the film's comedy factor. Mandy Moore, Aida Turturro and Mary-Louise Parker vary between discordant and hilarious as the quirky Murder daughters (though their grunge band performances are side-splitting) and Eddie Izzard is criminally underused as a bizarre pastor, whose presence hints at a much larger role having been cut, and seeming all the more unnecessary an inclusion as consequence.Despite its unmistakable flaws, Romance & Cigarettes remains undeniably enjoyable in all of its charming lunacy, laudable if only in its persistent willingness to throw itself chaotically against the mainstream grain, usually with more successful results than not. While the film's chaotic imbalance does threaten to overwhelm it as the successful jolt of its beginning wanes, the superb cast, inventive musical numbers and sporadically brilliant script are enough to help it limp along to a satisfying conclusion, albeit short of its true potential.-7/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368222/reviews-50

ur3728510

title: Chaotically imbalanced yet earnestly charming musical hybrid review: Seldom does a film come along which proves so difficult to pinhole using conventional definitions: a film dealing with the themes of both family and extramarital affairs which blends elements of both comedy and serious drama without ever being easily classified as each. Also, the occasional sporadic musical number thrown in to either extrapolate the characters' sentiments or entirely divert from them, while simultaneously wavering on the line of the fantastic and gritty realism without ever delving too deeply into one or the other. Whichever grounds it tries to cover at any given time, it is unlikely the majority of viewers will have ever seen anything like the charmingly, chaotically imbalanced flurry that is Romance & Cigarettes, which, while bewilderingly imbalanced, still boasts enough of an earnest emotional heart to remain lovable in the midst of all of its discordantly endearing flaws.While the inciting premise proves an alluring one indeed, the scattershot, loosely connected series of vignettes on love, sex, adultery and family prove a bit too madcap and sporadic to be anywhere near as effective as it could have been - the film fades bewilderingly in and out of fantasy sequences and characters come and go, many alluding to more developed parts which never arise and some are unceremoniously dropped entirely seemingly halfway through their roles (Bobby Canavale's gyrating lothlorio and, most disappointingly Christopher Walken spring to mind). While starting out strong, with the zany screenplay offering many a snappy line of acerbic wit (most delivered with perfect deadpan by Gandolfini), the film begins to lose direction midway through, and by its finale results as a chaotic struggle for mostly lost coherency. The haphazard musical sequences prove equally imbalanced, as characters belt out renowned pop tunes, their own voices confusingly blending overtop of the original singer's, but such interludes prove more charming and endearing than befuddling, with some of the most eccentric choreography seen in years.The film does carry the unmistakable touch of the Coen brothers (whose names appear among the staggering 36 credited as producers, perhaps explaining the film's inherent creative imbalance) yet writer/director John Turturro hammers the judiciously balanced weirdness which makes their usual work such a triumph a bit too strongly, the resulting film feeling too imbalanced, all over the place and lacking clarity of vision to match up to the expected standard. If slightly less ambitious and with more focus on the story's key characters, the film could have proved a heartwarming and touching treatise, but while attempting to tackle such a wide variety of characters and stories the audience's attention feels too dispersed to touch upon any of them in much depth. This being said, the film boasts undeniably genuine heart and soul, and many moments of surprisingly touch or hilarious emotional weight do result, many being surprisingly realistic touching interchanges between Nick Murder and his estranged wife. However, the noticeably downbeat ending proves distinctly out of place, a shockingly sour note upon which to end a film which previously dazzled with such vivacity and sparkled with irreverent wit - an unmistakable directorial misfire.James Gandolfini's gruff charm makes a surprisingly charismatic and sympathetic lead out of the stoic mug of Nick Murder, bewilderedly attempting to decide between his frantic wife and torrid mistress, his eyes speaking volumes where his befuddled mouth cannot. As Murder's wife Kitty, Susan Sarandon proves hugely charismatic, chomping the scenery and wrapping her mouth around many of the script's more acidic lines with particular vigour. Kate Winslet, playing violently against type as the foul mouthed sex addict Murder is having an affair with is particularly enjoyable, her wildfire of a performance and stunning sensuality lending the film volumes of necessary life and spark. Steve Buscemi proves a consistently hilarious scene stealer as Murder's friend and fellow construction worker, always willing to irreverently spout off his sexual preferences. As expected, Christopher Walken offers the film a much needed jolt of irreverent hysteria, arguably walking away with the film in a mostly pointless but exuberantly enjoyable role as Kitty's offbeat Cousin Bo. Exemplifying the quirkily endearing spirit of the film, Walken is a scream (his rendition of Tom Jones' "Delilah" is priceless) making it all the more disappointing when his character is sporadically dropped from the film with no explanation, as his loss feels like a gaping hole in the film's comedy factor. Mandy Moore, Aida Turturro and Mary-Louise Parker vary between discordant and hilarious as the quirky Murder daughters (though their grunge band performances are side-splitting) and Eddie Izzard is criminally underused as a bizarre pastor, whose presence hints at a much larger role having been cut, and seeming all the more unnecessary an inclusion as consequence.Despite its unmistakable flaws, Romance & Cigarettes remains undeniably enjoyable in all of its charming lunacy, laudable if only in its persistent willingness to throw itself chaotically against the mainstream grain, usually with more successful results than not. While the film's chaotic imbalance does threaten to overwhelm it as the successful jolt of its beginning wanes, the superb cast, inventive musical numbers and sporadically brilliant script are enough to help it limp along to a satisfying conclusion, albeit short of its true potential.-7/10

A moving satirical work that moves your enjoyment and emotions mainly by daydreaming and music!

tt0368222

I must say this is some pretty wonderful work of satire that plays the emotions and joy of a viewer thru musical scenes of daydreams. "Romance and Cigarettes" is certainly entertaining and it creates escape for the way it shows how the trouble of life can be handled by daydreaming. John Turturro and the Coen brothers also did a fine job with the directing and producing of this film. The acting is top notch from veterans James Gandolfini, Susan Sarandon, and Kate Winslet. Kitty(Sarandon) discovers her husband Nick(Gandolfini) is having an affair with a hot and sexy young lady named Tula(Kate Winslet)the already rocky relationship gets even more stressful and out of hand. To top it off we see great supporting performances by Mary-Louise Parker, Mandy Moore and Aida Turturro who are down and dirty as Nick's extrovert daughters. Plus even more compelling the film takes an interesting turn when Kitty calls upon her lonely and strange southern drawl cousin Bo(Christopher Walken who gives a good performance) to hunt Tula down.This film is mixed with comedy, emotion, seduction, and it's battered down in the end with love and hate and all along the way it's carried along by a mix of flashback and foreshadowing skits of offbeat musical dialogue and daydreaming set pieces. Really an underrated film one to watch you will enjoy and have fun while your emotions are touched in an offbeat way!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368222/reviews-42

ur9927546

title: A moving satirical work that moves your enjoyment and emotions mainly by daydreaming and music! review: I must say this is some pretty wonderful work of satire that plays the emotions and joy of a viewer thru musical scenes of daydreams. "Romance and Cigarettes" is certainly entertaining and it creates escape for the way it shows how the trouble of life can be handled by daydreaming. John Turturro and the Coen brothers also did a fine job with the directing and producing of this film. The acting is top notch from veterans James Gandolfini, Susan Sarandon, and Kate Winslet. Kitty(Sarandon) discovers her husband Nick(Gandolfini) is having an affair with a hot and sexy young lady named Tula(Kate Winslet)the already rocky relationship gets even more stressful and out of hand. To top it off we see great supporting performances by Mary-Louise Parker, Mandy Moore and Aida Turturro who are down and dirty as Nick's extrovert daughters. Plus even more compelling the film takes an interesting turn when Kitty calls upon her lonely and strange southern drawl cousin Bo(Christopher Walken who gives a good performance) to hunt Tula down.This film is mixed with comedy, emotion, seduction, and it's battered down in the end with love and hate and all along the way it's carried along by a mix of flashback and foreshadowing skits of offbeat musical dialogue and daydreaming set pieces. Really an underrated film one to watch you will enjoy and have fun while your emotions are touched in an offbeat way!

Thank god he returns to his roots

tt0365125

Don't get me wrong I liked Pecker and Hairspray but John Waters has returned to his roots and I am truly grateful. He has a wonderful over-dramatic slap stick comedy. I love how all the characters are so extremely that you identify more with the "freaks" than the "normals".I love that Waters doesn't water things down and instead layers on the absurdity.This is not a movie for people that take sex too seriously or who don't have a sense of humour.There all the classic water homages- using old clips of various films, flashing words on the screens and having all the styles from the 1950's though the 80's.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365125/reviews-51

ur4183437

title: Thank god he returns to his roots review: Don't get me wrong I liked Pecker and Hairspray but John Waters has returned to his roots and I am truly grateful. He has a wonderful over-dramatic slap stick comedy. I love how all the characters are so extremely that you identify more with the "freaks" than the "normals".I love that Waters doesn't water things down and instead layers on the absurdity.This is not a movie for people that take sex too seriously or who don't have a sense of humour.There all the classic water homages- using old clips of various films, flashing words on the screens and having all the styles from the 1950's though the 80's.

Water's world continues to freak out!

tt0365125

Director John Waters' latest film delirium is called "A Dirty Shame". The film proves that Waters continues to confirm the fact his Watered-down films are of a shocking category. However, it is a dirty shame that the film's sexist comedic scenes were a bit hackneyed. Tracey Ullman stars as Sylvia, an inhibiting middle-age fem who suffers a concussion that causes a sexual awakening. In other words, Ullman's Syliva wants to do "allman" that breathe! Chris Isaak co-stars as Vaughn, Sylvia's subdued husband. There is no bigger fan of Issak than I. However, Chris did a "bad, bad, thing" by taking this role. He was more Isaakly wicked in his underrated cable program "The Chris Isaak Show". Johnny Knoxville co-stars as Ray Ray, the oversexed mechanic who somehow leads a cult of concussion sexual-craved maniacs in a suburbia sexual revolution. If there is any certainty of Ray Ray it's that he is definitely not gay gay. His signature line "let's go sexing" is the primary "fuckus" I mean focus of " A Dirty Shame". However, Knoxville's Ray Ray becomes quite the jackass when he says it way too many times throughout the film. Selma Blair plays Caprice, Vaughn & Sylvia's gargantuan-breasted daughter who happens to be a strip dancer goddess. Blair's work was not her breast, I mean best. The film did have its laugh riot moments, but I was thirsting for more Watery-witty comedy from this Waters film. *** Average

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365125/reviews-48

ur0489763

title: Water's world continues to freak out! review: Director John Waters' latest film delirium is called "A Dirty Shame". The film proves that Waters continues to confirm the fact his Watered-down films are of a shocking category. However, it is a dirty shame that the film's sexist comedic scenes were a bit hackneyed. Tracey Ullman stars as Sylvia, an inhibiting middle-age fem who suffers a concussion that causes a sexual awakening. In other words, Ullman's Syliva wants to do "allman" that breathe! Chris Isaak co-stars as Vaughn, Sylvia's subdued husband. There is no bigger fan of Issak than I. However, Chris did a "bad, bad, thing" by taking this role. He was more Isaakly wicked in his underrated cable program "The Chris Isaak Show". Johnny Knoxville co-stars as Ray Ray, the oversexed mechanic who somehow leads a cult of concussion sexual-craved maniacs in a suburbia sexual revolution. If there is any certainty of Ray Ray it's that he is definitely not gay gay. His signature line "let's go sexing" is the primary "fuckus" I mean focus of " A Dirty Shame". However, Knoxville's Ray Ray becomes quite the jackass when he says it way too many times throughout the film. Selma Blair plays Caprice, Vaughn & Sylvia's gargantuan-breasted daughter who happens to be a strip dancer goddess. Blair's work was not her breast, I mean best. The film did have its laugh riot moments, but I was thirsting for more Watery-witty comedy from this Waters film. *** Average

Let's Go Sexin'!

tt0365125

A Dirty Shame is, by a longshot, the strangest piece of cinema I've ever seen. The plot is bizarre, the acting is hilarious, but it's the execution that is the best part about Shame. A Dirty Shame is filled from beginning to end with some of the strangest scenes you'll ever see; this sort of strangeness could only come from the twisted mind of John Waters.Sylvia Stickles (Tracy Ullman) is an uptight, middle-aged woman who is opposed to sex in every way imaginable. After an accident, she bumps her head and becomes transformed into a sex addict. Ray Ray Perkins (Johnny Knoxville) tells her that she is the 12th Apostle in his band of sex addicts; apparently, every time someone is hit on the head, their true sexual nature is released, and they are free to do what they want. Ray Ray tells Sylvia that she will lead the "resurrsexion" and that she will help discover a new sex act that will lead to the ultimate orgasm. Joining Sylvia is her daughter, Caprice Stickles (Selma Blair), who is a well-known porn star known as Ursula Utters.A Dirty Shame is filled to the brim with sexual innuendo and nasty fetishes, and every minute is another scene that will make your mouth drop open with disgust and then start howling with laughter. John Waters has made a strange sex comedy with A Dirty Shame, but it actually works very well.The acting is probably the best thing about A Dirty Shame; without Johnny Knoxville and Tracy Ullman the film would just be unwatchable trite. Johnny Knoxville is at the top of his game as Ray Ray, the master of sexual healing. He brings an unseen quirkiness to the character. Tracy Ullman is hysterically funny as Sylvia, and Selma Blair is great as Caprice.Overall, A Dirty Shame is strange, insulting, and sexy--a very good movie. The ending is probably the weirdest scene in the movie in which they discover "the ultimate orgasm." Don't miss this--it's a hilarious treat from start to finish! Let's go sexin'!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365125/reviews-84

ur7752337

title: Let's Go Sexin'! review: A Dirty Shame is, by a longshot, the strangest piece of cinema I've ever seen. The plot is bizarre, the acting is hilarious, but it's the execution that is the best part about Shame. A Dirty Shame is filled from beginning to end with some of the strangest scenes you'll ever see; this sort of strangeness could only come from the twisted mind of John Waters.Sylvia Stickles (Tracy Ullman) is an uptight, middle-aged woman who is opposed to sex in every way imaginable. After an accident, she bumps her head and becomes transformed into a sex addict. Ray Ray Perkins (Johnny Knoxville) tells her that she is the 12th Apostle in his band of sex addicts; apparently, every time someone is hit on the head, their true sexual nature is released, and they are free to do what they want. Ray Ray tells Sylvia that she will lead the "resurrsexion" and that she will help discover a new sex act that will lead to the ultimate orgasm. Joining Sylvia is her daughter, Caprice Stickles (Selma Blair), who is a well-known porn star known as Ursula Utters.A Dirty Shame is filled to the brim with sexual innuendo and nasty fetishes, and every minute is another scene that will make your mouth drop open with disgust and then start howling with laughter. John Waters has made a strange sex comedy with A Dirty Shame, but it actually works very well.The acting is probably the best thing about A Dirty Shame; without Johnny Knoxville and Tracy Ullman the film would just be unwatchable trite. Johnny Knoxville is at the top of his game as Ray Ray, the master of sexual healing. He brings an unseen quirkiness to the character. Tracy Ullman is hysterically funny as Sylvia, and Selma Blair is great as Caprice.Overall, A Dirty Shame is strange, insulting, and sexy--a very good movie. The ending is probably the weirdest scene in the movie in which they discover "the ultimate orgasm." Don't miss this--it's a hilarious treat from start to finish! Let's go sexin'!

John Waters can only shock us with a G rated film

tt0365125

The bard of Baltimore has made a career out of championing the outsider who can't or won't conform to what is considered normal. Over forty plus years, Waters gave us some of the craziest pictures to come out of the so called underground and stake a place in the popular imagination. Now, he's like the kindly, if strange Uncle figure to the world's alienated youth who find a kinship with his interests in serial murderers, body modification, the changing gender roles in society and making films his way, becoming one of the few true auteurs of cinema."A Dirty Shame" gets off to a kooky start with a scenario based on the apparently real facts about some head injury survivors developing a stronger sex drive, post accident. Tracy Ullman has her greatest US role as "Sylvia", a somewhat dowdy lady who gets to shock the whole city with her transformation from prudish to wild. Her husband (Chris Isaak) and very large breasted daughter (Selma Blair) are taken aback by the new Sylvia, who's "got the itch" and runs around Baltimore looking for someone who can scratch it!This disc has just as much wonderful behind the scenes detail, with many chapters (all worth watching) about everything from the real nature of unusual sex practises (now the proverbial cat out of the bag, thanks to the internet) to how Waters gets help with his soundtrack selections. "A Dirty Shame" is no grand thesis on religion and carnality. It's a wild comic ride through familiar territory for fans, this time with an NC-17 rating instead of the old Waters' standard of X (I've never liked this "NC-17" thing, to me it's like something the matronly woman in those old underwear ads would stamp on defective men's briefs!). The biggest shock nowadays would be if an elder statesman on bad taste like Waters made a totally family friendly movie and earned a truly shocking "G".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365125/reviews-103

ur22424524

title: John Waters can only shock us with a G rated film review: The bard of Baltimore has made a career out of championing the outsider who can't or won't conform to what is considered normal. Over forty plus years, Waters gave us some of the craziest pictures to come out of the so called underground and stake a place in the popular imagination. Now, he's like the kindly, if strange Uncle figure to the world's alienated youth who find a kinship with his interests in serial murderers, body modification, the changing gender roles in society and making films his way, becoming one of the few true auteurs of cinema."A Dirty Shame" gets off to a kooky start with a scenario based on the apparently real facts about some head injury survivors developing a stronger sex drive, post accident. Tracy Ullman has her greatest US role as "Sylvia", a somewhat dowdy lady who gets to shock the whole city with her transformation from prudish to wild. Her husband (Chris Isaak) and very large breasted daughter (Selma Blair) are taken aback by the new Sylvia, who's "got the itch" and runs around Baltimore looking for someone who can scratch it!This disc has just as much wonderful behind the scenes detail, with many chapters (all worth watching) about everything from the real nature of unusual sex practises (now the proverbial cat out of the bag, thanks to the internet) to how Waters gets help with his soundtrack selections. "A Dirty Shame" is no grand thesis on religion and carnality. It's a wild comic ride through familiar territory for fans, this time with an NC-17 rating instead of the old Waters' standard of X (I've never liked this "NC-17" thing, to me it's like something the matronly woman in those old underwear ads would stamp on defective men's briefs!). The biggest shock nowadays would be if an elder statesman on bad taste like Waters made a totally family friendly movie and earned a truly shocking "G".

Let's go sexing!

tt0365125

A review of this movie has to know it's source. It's John Waters! That should put your expectations in order. This movie pits the people who have a head trauma (sex addicts) against the people that didn't (Neuters). The sex addicts are are out to enjoy their sexual selves and the neuters are out to stop them. The movie can draw parallels to drinkers vs non drinkers, Pro-life vs pro-Choice, straight vs gay or any other difference in the way people lead their lives. Only this movie pokes fun at both sides. I laughed out loud a lot which is why I gave it a 7.0. It's all in bad taste and the acting is sub par, but it's all in good fun. Seeing Tracy Ullman do the "Hokey Pokey" and pick up that bottle was a hoot!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365125/reviews-12

ur2104171

title: Let's go sexing! review: A review of this movie has to know it's source. It's John Waters! That should put your expectations in order. This movie pits the people who have a head trauma (sex addicts) against the people that didn't (Neuters). The sex addicts are are out to enjoy their sexual selves and the neuters are out to stop them. The movie can draw parallels to drinkers vs non drinkers, Pro-life vs pro-Choice, straight vs gay or any other difference in the way people lead their lives. Only this movie pokes fun at both sides. I laughed out loud a lot which is why I gave it a 7.0. It's all in bad taste and the acting is sub par, but it's all in good fun. Seeing Tracy Ullman do the "Hokey Pokey" and pick up that bottle was a hoot!

This movie is nasty,funny,very weird

tt0365125

This is the first John Waters movie I have seen and I wasn't surprised when I watched all the things that happened in the movie because I have heard what nasty things can happen in his movies.I must day this is by far the most weirdest movie I have ever seen.It will be very hard to find another movie that tops this.This is a typical John Waters movie.I managed to find the uncut NC-17 rated version and I must say don't watch this movie unless its the NC-17 version.This movie was really nasty and really funny.It made me laugh non stop from start to finish.I got told don't watch this movie but I had to see what all the fuss was about it. Don't watch this movie if you get easily offended or faint hearted cos there is a lot of stuff that is in this movie that offends and disturbs people.This is not for children only for adults.My mom saw this movie on TV a few years ago and she said it was a movie that is really bad but it isn't a bad movie.John Waters definitely has a very twisted mind and he can put in a lot of crazy stuff into a 90 minute movie.I don't think there was a second of this movie where it wasn't crazy.10/10 is my rating

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365125/reviews-116

ur20163970

title: This movie is nasty,funny,very weird review: This is the first John Waters movie I have seen and I wasn't surprised when I watched all the things that happened in the movie because I have heard what nasty things can happen in his movies.I must day this is by far the most weirdest movie I have ever seen.It will be very hard to find another movie that tops this.This is a typical John Waters movie.I managed to find the uncut NC-17 rated version and I must say don't watch this movie unless its the NC-17 version.This movie was really nasty and really funny.It made me laugh non stop from start to finish.I got told don't watch this movie but I had to see what all the fuss was about it. Don't watch this movie if you get easily offended or faint hearted cos there is a lot of stuff that is in this movie that offends and disturbs people.This is not for children only for adults.My mom saw this movie on TV a few years ago and she said it was a movie that is really bad but it isn't a bad movie.John Waters definitely has a very twisted mind and he can put in a lot of crazy stuff into a 90 minute movie.I don't think there was a second of this movie where it wasn't crazy.10/10 is my rating

terrible

tt0365125

I want to clear something up right away before all the fans start clicking "no."I am a Waters fan. "Pink Flamingos", "Female Trouble" great B movie cult classics, even Water's himself making cameos here and there ("Seed of Chucky" etc.) So I don't want to be misunderstood as one of those people who just doesn't like anything he does. Blair, Knoxville and Ullman's families should all be instructed to love them less after starring in this dreck.Not only is the movie not on par with the usual atmosphere of Water's past classics, it's just downright stupid, and not even in a turn-your-brain off amusing sort of way. People get knocked in the head and are all of a sudden sex fiends....and not only that, soon the whole town is walking around with head injuries and trying to hump anyone that moves.....(sigh). Blair sleep walks campily through this film as a stripper with nightmarishly huge boobs and little else. Why she, after proving that she had obvious talent in other roles, ever agreed to this is beyond me. I can appreciate well known actresses wanting to do a "cult" or "B" movie because of love for a character or franchise (ie: Bridget Fonda's cameo in "Army of Darkness.") But not after reading this script and saying "Let me get this straight, I talk about how good promiscuity is and having huge knockers, and pole dance through the entire thing?" "Where do I sign?!" Ullman was a shocker. Was she hard up for cash? She should stick with the skit shows. Knoxville, well, i'm not real surprised at, it seems to fall into the category of everything else he'd been in up to the time this came out. (He's probably suffered enough head injuries from his "Jackass" days to explain his participation.) Although he's subsequently had some significant and decent roles, go figure. I wish there was more I could tell you about the plot, but there's not. Some group tries to redeem the sexually deviant, only to in the end become them themselves. Great. I was actually angry for wasting my time and rental fee on this trash. I know Waters is known for controversial, trashy movies, but the difference between this and his others is that they're fun. My advice, skip this and dig into your collection for the "Divine" era.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365125/reviews-98

ur4162450

title: terrible review: I want to clear something up right away before all the fans start clicking "no."I am a Waters fan. "Pink Flamingos", "Female Trouble" great B movie cult classics, even Water's himself making cameos here and there ("Seed of Chucky" etc.) So I don't want to be misunderstood as one of those people who just doesn't like anything he does. Blair, Knoxville and Ullman's families should all be instructed to love them less after starring in this dreck.Not only is the movie not on par with the usual atmosphere of Water's past classics, it's just downright stupid, and not even in a turn-your-brain off amusing sort of way. People get knocked in the head and are all of a sudden sex fiends....and not only that, soon the whole town is walking around with head injuries and trying to hump anyone that moves.....(sigh). Blair sleep walks campily through this film as a stripper with nightmarishly huge boobs and little else. Why she, after proving that she had obvious talent in other roles, ever agreed to this is beyond me. I can appreciate well known actresses wanting to do a "cult" or "B" movie because of love for a character or franchise (ie: Bridget Fonda's cameo in "Army of Darkness.") But not after reading this script and saying "Let me get this straight, I talk about how good promiscuity is and having huge knockers, and pole dance through the entire thing?" "Where do I sign?!" Ullman was a shocker. Was she hard up for cash? She should stick with the skit shows. Knoxville, well, i'm not real surprised at, it seems to fall into the category of everything else he'd been in up to the time this came out. (He's probably suffered enough head injuries from his "Jackass" days to explain his participation.) Although he's subsequently had some significant and decent roles, go figure. I wish there was more I could tell you about the plot, but there's not. Some group tries to redeem the sexually deviant, only to in the end become them themselves. Great. I was actually angry for wasting my time and rental fee on this trash. I know Waters is known for controversial, trashy movies, but the difference between this and his others is that they're fun. My advice, skip this and dig into your collection for the "Divine" era.

Shame about the soundtrack

tt0365125

... because the soundtrack is absolutely great. John Waters is a true connaisseur of 1950ies rockabilly music.Also a shame about the great cast consisting of Tracey Ullman, Selma Blair, Chris Isaak ... erm, and Patty Hearst and David Hasselhoff (aka his Hoffness). And a bunch of surprisingly effective unknowns. It's a John Waters movie, after all.This is a pastiche that plays off sexual depravity against a 1950ies style puritanism. A stolid housewife gets whacked over the head, turns into a sexfiend, and joins the local league of sexual perverts, each of which developed a fetish such as "paydaying" (you'll find out) after getting whacked on the head. There are many conversations like this in this movie: "I'm horny, I need hard cock!" -- "Wash your mouth out with soap and water, sexuality is a sacred duty." When was this ever funny or captivating? Never. But it is particularly out of place in an age where there is a whole, worldwide medium almost solely dedicated to the exploration of every last perversion the human mind is capable of -- and writing cinema reviews. This movie really needs a storyline.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365125/reviews-101

ur1061889

title: Shame about the soundtrack review: ... because the soundtrack is absolutely great. John Waters is a true connaisseur of 1950ies rockabilly music.Also a shame about the great cast consisting of Tracey Ullman, Selma Blair, Chris Isaak ... erm, and Patty Hearst and David Hasselhoff (aka his Hoffness). And a bunch of surprisingly effective unknowns. It's a John Waters movie, after all.This is a pastiche that plays off sexual depravity against a 1950ies style puritanism. A stolid housewife gets whacked over the head, turns into a sexfiend, and joins the local league of sexual perverts, each of which developed a fetish such as "paydaying" (you'll find out) after getting whacked on the head. There are many conversations like this in this movie: "I'm horny, I need hard cock!" -- "Wash your mouth out with soap and water, sexuality is a sacred duty." When was this ever funny or captivating? Never. But it is particularly out of place in an age where there is a whole, worldwide medium almost solely dedicated to the exploration of every last perversion the human mind is capable of -- and writing cinema reviews. This movie really needs a storyline.

"Let's...go...SEXING!"

tt0365125

Depressed puritanical housewife Sylvia Stickles (Tracey Ullman) with a nice but horny husband (Chris Isaak) and a HUGE breasted kid (Selma Blair) is hit on the head one day. It immediately turns her into a raving sex addict and she finds there's a whole group of people like her led by Ray Ray Perkins (Johnny Knoxville).First off I should mention I saw the 84 minute R rated cut and not the 89 minute NC-17 one. Some of the cuts were obvious as were the voice overdubs but I don't think it changed the movie a lot. What I saw was a typically strange John Waters film with plenty of good moments but it didn't totally work. The main problem is the script is all over the place! The first half of the movie is coherent but the film totally derails during the second half. Complications come on fast and furious and it all ends up not making a lot of sense. The movie is chockful of dialogue discussing frank sexual acts and some incredibly unsubtle imagery. Some of it works but, more often than not, it just doesn't hit its mark. A cameo by David Hasselhoff particularly makes no sense and isn't funny at all. Also the pacing here is atrocious--but that's not uncommon in a Water film. Acting really helps this one. Ullman is fearless here considering some of her very sexually explicit lines and costumes. Blair deserves a lot of credit for wearing these HUGE breasts and making the character sympathetic and believable. Isaak is given little to do but he's good. Best of all is Knoxville who has a real difficult role to play--and pulls it off. So, it has its moments but not enough of them. I can only give this a 5.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365125/reviews-106

ur0463200

title: "Let's...go...SEXING!" review: Depressed puritanical housewife Sylvia Stickles (Tracey Ullman) with a nice but horny husband (Chris Isaak) and a HUGE breasted kid (Selma Blair) is hit on the head one day. It immediately turns her into a raving sex addict and she finds there's a whole group of people like her led by Ray Ray Perkins (Johnny Knoxville).First off I should mention I saw the 84 minute R rated cut and not the 89 minute NC-17 one. Some of the cuts were obvious as were the voice overdubs but I don't think it changed the movie a lot. What I saw was a typically strange John Waters film with plenty of good moments but it didn't totally work. The main problem is the script is all over the place! The first half of the movie is coherent but the film totally derails during the second half. Complications come on fast and furious and it all ends up not making a lot of sense. The movie is chockful of dialogue discussing frank sexual acts and some incredibly unsubtle imagery. Some of it works but, more often than not, it just doesn't hit its mark. A cameo by David Hasselhoff particularly makes no sense and isn't funny at all. Also the pacing here is atrocious--but that's not uncommon in a Water film. Acting really helps this one. Ullman is fearless here considering some of her very sexually explicit lines and costumes. Blair deserves a lot of credit for wearing these HUGE breasts and making the character sympathetic and believable. Isaak is given little to do but he's good. Best of all is Knoxville who has a real difficult role to play--and pulls it off. So, it has its moments but not enough of them. I can only give this a 5.

The Zero Theorem isn't a film for every taste, but I found it quite interesting

tt2333804

On the positive side, The Zero Theorem is full of philosophical concepts, explorations of human condition, and a perverse sense of humor which finds laughs in the futility of people; and all that is contained in a space decorated by the same production designers of the TV series Max Headroom with a limited budget. On the negative side... the same reasons. But, in my humble opinion, the positive side surpasses the negative one because I'm accustomed to see the films directed by Terry Gilliam as authentic displays of an unstoppable creativity, vaguely structured by ideas and deep existential questions which are easy to lose of sight, due to the fact that they are expressed through deceptively irrelevant details, when in fact, they contain the films' true essence. However, those who will see The Zero Theorem exclusively focusing on its superficial elements might find the screenplay obtuse and repetitive, and told in confusing settings created by special effects of a doubtful quality. However, I think that this film's authentic value goes much beyond its variegated presentation. It's hard for me to put that on words, but it's exactly why I generally like Gilliam's films: the sensation of a purpose behind the chaos. I don't know if that's real, or just a consequence of my ossified brain trying to process random information, looking for ideas where there's only style. Anyway, it worked for me, and that's why I think The Zero Theorem deserves a recommendation, with the hope that every spectator will find something different and maybe valuable in the experience. And I would also like to mention the excellent work from the whole cast, who brings credibility and enthusiasm to the eccentric characters. In conclusion, I enjoyed The Zero Theorem pretty much. At the difference of its tortured main character, I don't need a concrete answer in order to be left satisfied by a film. It's enough for me with the possibility that the solution exists in some place of the narrative, waiting for the moment of revealing itself and surprising us.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2333804/reviews-61

ur6216723

title: The Zero Theorem isn't a film for every taste, but I found it quite interesting review: On the positive side, The Zero Theorem is full of philosophical concepts, explorations of human condition, and a perverse sense of humor which finds laughs in the futility of people; and all that is contained in a space decorated by the same production designers of the TV series Max Headroom with a limited budget. On the negative side... the same reasons. But, in my humble opinion, the positive side surpasses the negative one because I'm accustomed to see the films directed by Terry Gilliam as authentic displays of an unstoppable creativity, vaguely structured by ideas and deep existential questions which are easy to lose of sight, due to the fact that they are expressed through deceptively irrelevant details, when in fact, they contain the films' true essence. However, those who will see The Zero Theorem exclusively focusing on its superficial elements might find the screenplay obtuse and repetitive, and told in confusing settings created by special effects of a doubtful quality. However, I think that this film's authentic value goes much beyond its variegated presentation. It's hard for me to put that on words, but it's exactly why I generally like Gilliam's films: the sensation of a purpose behind the chaos. I don't know if that's real, or just a consequence of my ossified brain trying to process random information, looking for ideas where there's only style. Anyway, it worked for me, and that's why I think The Zero Theorem deserves a recommendation, with the hope that every spectator will find something different and maybe valuable in the experience. And I would also like to mention the excellent work from the whole cast, who brings credibility and enthusiasm to the eccentric characters. In conclusion, I enjoyed The Zero Theorem pretty much. At the difference of its tortured main character, I don't need a concrete answer in order to be left satisfied by a film. It's enough for me with the possibility that the solution exists in some place of the narrative, waiting for the moment of revealing itself and surprising us.

One of Gilliam's most existentialist films to date

tt2333804

Gilliam seems to certainly know how to craft a movie that forces you to think, and Zero Theorem certainly does that. In fact, it seems to go much further than many of his other movies go in exploring the nature of existence and reality. While 12 Monkeys and Brazil also seem to go down that path, they tend to be much more watchable than did this film, where a bulk of the action takes place within an abandoned monastery with only a handful of character passing through the story, and really only focusing on one person, Qohen.Qohen is a very strange person because he simply wants to sit in his room and wait for a phone call which will give him the reason for his existence, and in many ways he simply has no other purpose other than waiting for this phone call. It is not that he is depressed, he simply does not want to be happy, namely because, at this stage, he has no purpose in which to make him happy. This is compounded by the job that he is given by his employer, and that is that he has to mathematically prove that everything is in fact nothing – the zero theorem. To put it simply, what it is proving is that the Big Bang Theory is true because what the Big Bang Theory states is that everything came out of nothing, and if everything came out of nothing, then it will be returning to nothing, and this, in reality, everything is nothing. However, try as he might, he simply cannot prove this.This film deals with the question of existence, and purpose of living. It is absurd in a sense because there really is no purpose, but Qohen fails in this because there is no purpose, he needs to go out and create his own purpose, his own reason for existing, yet he fails to do this (which is the conclusion of this film, namely that his failure to create his own reason, and his own purpose, makes him worthless and useless).Then there is the question of reality, and in many cases one wonders what is true and what is not true. Does Bainsley actually love him, or is she little more than a prostitute. Who actually is Bob, and can we trust anything that he actually says. We come to understand the distortion of reality right from the beginning with the 'iPod Party'. Here everybody seems to be disconnected from everybody else, simply listening to their iPods rather than interacting with anybody around them. However, the only interaction seems to occur between Bainsley and Qohen, yet Qohen continues to reject her, even though as the movie progresses he seems to be compelled to move towards her, only to then force her away.Yet the whole nature of reality comes about with the VR scene, but also with the fact that there does not necessarily seem to be an order with what is going on. Is he given the VR suit before, or after, Bob tells him that she is a prostitute and will never see her again, and yet he does see her again, in the VR room, but is the VR room a reality, and does she exist within the VR room. However, we discover that when he logs on to the computer and enters the website at a different time, we discover that she does seem to be leading a double life. This is probably why Qohen in the end rejects her because the reality of the fact that she is little more than a prostitute has come home to him.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2333804/reviews-24

ur27175177

title: One of Gilliam's most existentialist films to date review: Gilliam seems to certainly know how to craft a movie that forces you to think, and Zero Theorem certainly does that. In fact, it seems to go much further than many of his other movies go in exploring the nature of existence and reality. While 12 Monkeys and Brazil also seem to go down that path, they tend to be much more watchable than did this film, where a bulk of the action takes place within an abandoned monastery with only a handful of character passing through the story, and really only focusing on one person, Qohen.Qohen is a very strange person because he simply wants to sit in his room and wait for a phone call which will give him the reason for his existence, and in many ways he simply has no other purpose other than waiting for this phone call. It is not that he is depressed, he simply does not want to be happy, namely because, at this stage, he has no purpose in which to make him happy. This is compounded by the job that he is given by his employer, and that is that he has to mathematically prove that everything is in fact nothing – the zero theorem. To put it simply, what it is proving is that the Big Bang Theory is true because what the Big Bang Theory states is that everything came out of nothing, and if everything came out of nothing, then it will be returning to nothing, and this, in reality, everything is nothing. However, try as he might, he simply cannot prove this.This film deals with the question of existence, and purpose of living. It is absurd in a sense because there really is no purpose, but Qohen fails in this because there is no purpose, he needs to go out and create his own purpose, his own reason for existing, yet he fails to do this (which is the conclusion of this film, namely that his failure to create his own reason, and his own purpose, makes him worthless and useless).Then there is the question of reality, and in many cases one wonders what is true and what is not true. Does Bainsley actually love him, or is she little more than a prostitute. Who actually is Bob, and can we trust anything that he actually says. We come to understand the distortion of reality right from the beginning with the 'iPod Party'. Here everybody seems to be disconnected from everybody else, simply listening to their iPods rather than interacting with anybody around them. However, the only interaction seems to occur between Bainsley and Qohen, yet Qohen continues to reject her, even though as the movie progresses he seems to be compelled to move towards her, only to then force her away.Yet the whole nature of reality comes about with the VR scene, but also with the fact that there does not necessarily seem to be an order with what is going on. Is he given the VR suit before, or after, Bob tells him that she is a prostitute and will never see her again, and yet he does see her again, in the VR room, but is the VR room a reality, and does she exist within the VR room. However, we discover that when he logs on to the computer and enters the website at a different time, we discover that she does seem to be leading a double life. This is probably why Qohen in the end rejects her because the reality of the fact that she is little more than a prostitute has come home to him.

The Consequences of Modern Online Life, Writ "Gilliam".

tt2333804

Cohn Leth (Christophe Waltz) is a specialist IT worker in a future time somewhere between our own and the true dystopia of director Terry Gilliam's earlier 'Brazil'. Possibly a hypochondriac, Leth seeks permanent time off from his work in order to be present full time at home for a mysterious phone call he is expecting. Denied time off, Leth seeks direct meeting with his employer 'Mancom's "Big Brother"esque boss - a neat cameo by Matt Damon. As a result Leth is allowed to work from home, assigned the task of deciphering the titular "zero theorem", a task that has driven previous undertakers to despair. Once home, Leth is subject to the distractions and temptations of life more than in the outside world he seems to shun, as a futuristic "webcam babe" and the arrival of Bob, the son of Leth's boss, become modern "Men from Porlock". Just as Poet Cokeridge was interrupted in his completion of his ode to Kublai Khan by a doorstepping salesman from Porlock so Leth is procrastinate from his goal leading to a literally nihilistic finale.Gilliam's style, on an apparent budget here, is present as are his formative cultural experiences - Waltz's Leth seems to be a cross between Gilliam's protagonists from 'Twelve Monkeys', 'Brazil' and 'The Fisher King' so David Thewlis plays his grin-and-bear-it boss Jobey as a distillation of all the Python alumni's sleaze bags and game show host characters. As a stylistic link to 'Brazil' and 'Twelve Monkeys' there are in-jokes and clues which anticipate those films in a prequel idiom far more subtly than 'Prometheus' did 'Alien'.A satire on modern IT work and play - computers in the Zero Theorem's world are the result of a drunken one-night stand between a play-station and an iPad - Leth's antisocial oyster-life is a caricature of and meditation on online hopers and dreamers. Bloggers, online creatives and artisans, seeking escape from their day jobs - waiting as Leth is for "the phone call", for the big break to come knocking - may be sorely disappointed. From a computer desk, in one's head at least, an individual can work, play, pick fights, fall in love, have sex and virtually die. Gilliam's meditation has a stark conclusion - the internet can absolutely indulge the self, just as religion offered, creating a despot as whimsical and cruel as the reality the individual seeks escape from. Nothingness awaits if you cannot start to live in the real world.A quiet, smaller scale film for Gilliam but with some of the largest and most pertinent ideas he has yet expressed.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2333804/reviews-8

ur1284840

title: The Consequences of Modern Online Life, Writ "Gilliam". review: Cohn Leth (Christophe Waltz) is a specialist IT worker in a future time somewhere between our own and the true dystopia of director Terry Gilliam's earlier 'Brazil'. Possibly a hypochondriac, Leth seeks permanent time off from his work in order to be present full time at home for a mysterious phone call he is expecting. Denied time off, Leth seeks direct meeting with his employer 'Mancom's "Big Brother"esque boss - a neat cameo by Matt Damon. As a result Leth is allowed to work from home, assigned the task of deciphering the titular "zero theorem", a task that has driven previous undertakers to despair. Once home, Leth is subject to the distractions and temptations of life more than in the outside world he seems to shun, as a futuristic "webcam babe" and the arrival of Bob, the son of Leth's boss, become modern "Men from Porlock". Just as Poet Cokeridge was interrupted in his completion of his ode to Kublai Khan by a doorstepping salesman from Porlock so Leth is procrastinate from his goal leading to a literally nihilistic finale.Gilliam's style, on an apparent budget here, is present as are his formative cultural experiences - Waltz's Leth seems to be a cross between Gilliam's protagonists from 'Twelve Monkeys', 'Brazil' and 'The Fisher King' so David Thewlis plays his grin-and-bear-it boss Jobey as a distillation of all the Python alumni's sleaze bags and game show host characters. As a stylistic link to 'Brazil' and 'Twelve Monkeys' there are in-jokes and clues which anticipate those films in a prequel idiom far more subtly than 'Prometheus' did 'Alien'.A satire on modern IT work and play - computers in the Zero Theorem's world are the result of a drunken one-night stand between a play-station and an iPad - Leth's antisocial oyster-life is a caricature of and meditation on online hopers and dreamers. Bloggers, online creatives and artisans, seeking escape from their day jobs - waiting as Leth is for "the phone call", for the big break to come knocking - may be sorely disappointed. From a computer desk, in one's head at least, an individual can work, play, pick fights, fall in love, have sex and virtually die. Gilliam's meditation has a stark conclusion - the internet can absolutely indulge the self, just as religion offered, creating a despot as whimsical and cruel as the reality the individual seeks escape from. Nothingness awaits if you cannot start to live in the real world.A quiet, smaller scale film for Gilliam but with some of the largest and most pertinent ideas he has yet expressed.

Zero gain

tt2333804

This film potentially sucks in both The Fountain (and in some ways Pi) as well as Brazil, films with great visuals with varying degrees of wit and wisdom. At the start, we see a Gillianesque future, and a frustrated hacker waiting for a phone call which will Give Him Meaning.But this film is a hollow - it has no point and attempts to run on style. Its a diverting insult, but that is all. Whatever Terry Gilliam has offered in the past, and that includes some great cinema, this film simply escaped without completion. He has always skated with authority and he clearly lost out in this case.What there is works as far as it goes, but a sketch is not a film. I'm also going to call time on the autistic hacker - seriously, grow up. Even Bruce Willis films manage to surpass this. Avoid.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2333804/reviews-1

ur1633357

title: Zero gain review: This film potentially sucks in both The Fountain (and in some ways Pi) as well as Brazil, films with great visuals with varying degrees of wit and wisdom. At the start, we see a Gillianesque future, and a frustrated hacker waiting for a phone call which will Give Him Meaning.But this film is a hollow - it has no point and attempts to run on style. Its a diverting insult, but that is all. Whatever Terry Gilliam has offered in the past, and that includes some great cinema, this film simply escaped without completion. He has always skated with authority and he clearly lost out in this case.What there is works as far as it goes, but a sketch is not a film. I'm also going to call time on the autistic hacker - seriously, grow up. Even Bruce Willis films manage to surpass this. Avoid.

tries to be profound

tt2333804

In a futuristic world, Qohen Leth (Christoph Waltz) is an eccentric loner programmer who constantly refers to himself as "we". He is solving the Zero Theorem which purports to show the meaningless end to the universe. He is given mental checkups by a computer program Dr Shrink-ROM (Tilda Swinton). Management (Matt Damon) is the mysterious boss. Joby (David Thewlis) is his supervisor. Bainsley (Mélanie Thierry) is a beautiful sex worker who comes into his life. He tells her that he hung up a call with the meaning of life and has been waiting for another call ever since. He is also sent programmer Bob (Lucas Hedges) who is the son of Management.This movie tries to be profound but all the confounding things in the movie leave it meaningless. Some of it is interesting. The style is still Gilliam except it's all bright colors and wacky computers. The bright colors make this feel cheap and silly. The computers are not futuristic enough. I keep thinking of Minecraft. He's essentially doing something similar to Brazil. He tries to dress it up but fails. I like Christoph Waltz and Mélanie Thierry. This is an idea for a movie looking for a better script.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2333804/reviews-87

ur2898520

title: tries to be profound review: In a futuristic world, Qohen Leth (Christoph Waltz) is an eccentric loner programmer who constantly refers to himself as "we". He is solving the Zero Theorem which purports to show the meaningless end to the universe. He is given mental checkups by a computer program Dr Shrink-ROM (Tilda Swinton). Management (Matt Damon) is the mysterious boss. Joby (David Thewlis) is his supervisor. Bainsley (Mélanie Thierry) is a beautiful sex worker who comes into his life. He tells her that he hung up a call with the meaning of life and has been waiting for another call ever since. He is also sent programmer Bob (Lucas Hedges) who is the son of Management.This movie tries to be profound but all the confounding things in the movie leave it meaningless. Some of it is interesting. The style is still Gilliam except it's all bright colors and wacky computers. The bright colors make this feel cheap and silly. The computers are not futuristic enough. I keep thinking of Minecraft. He's essentially doing something similar to Brazil. He tries to dress it up but fails. I like Christoph Waltz and Mélanie Thierry. This is an idea for a movie looking for a better script.

Zero or Infinity?

tt2333804

'The Zero Theorem' is directed by Terry Gilliam, a highly original creator and an explorer of the future, which he already described in rather dark colors in several memorable films like 'Brazil' and 'Twelve Monkeys'. His other principal title of glory, the 'Monty Python' series, somehow balances in his filmography the concept of anticipation with the one of an alternate present or past in the comic registry. 'The Zero Theorem' was shot mostly in Romania, and part of the technical team and actors are Romanian, to the extent the in the program of the festival I saw the film in it was classified as a an English-Romanian co-production.In the fantastic scenery of an abandoned church that some of my Bucharest friends might recognize we find the hero of the film (played brilliantly by Christoph Waltz), a specialist in 'processing entities'. working frantically on a mission entrusted by a large corporation whose chief is called impersonal 'The Management' (Matt Damon), a mission whose goal may be finding the meaning of existence, or an absurd demonstration that accumulation of full (100%) is equal to the Great Zero. Or perhaps the essence of human existence and the absurd are the same? Actually it does not really matter, because the story and the logic of the film is focused on the frantic and obsessive search of the main character. Or maybe this is human nature, a continuous search that ends in nothing? Or in the Infinity? We find in this film's many of the visual metaphors Terry Gillman used us to, in a colorful world activated by a strange retro-advanced technology, like belonging to a branching of time for human scientific developments that extends the early 20th century. We also find a fierce critique of large international corporations - the main character is provided with such items of 'personal development' like a virtual-dream love relationship (with gorgeous Gwendoline Christie) or psychoanalysis through tele-presence (by severe Tilda Swinton). He is subjected to tracking methods that infiltrate his privacy inspired by Orwell's '1984' and Gilliam's own 'Brazil' and also terrorized by a small and despotic manager, a familiar figure many of those who worked in large global corporations may find familiar.'The Zero Theorem' is first of all a wonderful visual experience. It is also a film that does not open immediately all its secret doors, but gives the impression of depth and complexity that calls for a second and maybe more viewings.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2333804/reviews-73

ur0547823

title: Zero or Infinity? review: 'The Zero Theorem' is directed by Terry Gilliam, a highly original creator and an explorer of the future, which he already described in rather dark colors in several memorable films like 'Brazil' and 'Twelve Monkeys'. His other principal title of glory, the 'Monty Python' series, somehow balances in his filmography the concept of anticipation with the one of an alternate present or past in the comic registry. 'The Zero Theorem' was shot mostly in Romania, and part of the technical team and actors are Romanian, to the extent the in the program of the festival I saw the film in it was classified as a an English-Romanian co-production.In the fantastic scenery of an abandoned church that some of my Bucharest friends might recognize we find the hero of the film (played brilliantly by Christoph Waltz), a specialist in 'processing entities'. working frantically on a mission entrusted by a large corporation whose chief is called impersonal 'The Management' (Matt Damon), a mission whose goal may be finding the meaning of existence, or an absurd demonstration that accumulation of full (100%) is equal to the Great Zero. Or perhaps the essence of human existence and the absurd are the same? Actually it does not really matter, because the story and the logic of the film is focused on the frantic and obsessive search of the main character. Or maybe this is human nature, a continuous search that ends in nothing? Or in the Infinity? We find in this film's many of the visual metaphors Terry Gillman used us to, in a colorful world activated by a strange retro-advanced technology, like belonging to a branching of time for human scientific developments that extends the early 20th century. We also find a fierce critique of large international corporations - the main character is provided with such items of 'personal development' like a virtual-dream love relationship (with gorgeous Gwendoline Christie) or psychoanalysis through tele-presence (by severe Tilda Swinton). He is subjected to tracking methods that infiltrate his privacy inspired by Orwell's '1984' and Gilliam's own 'Brazil' and also terrorized by a small and despotic manager, a familiar figure many of those who worked in large global corporations may find familiar.'The Zero Theorem' is first of all a wonderful visual experience. It is also a film that does not open immediately all its secret doors, but gives the impression of depth and complexity that calls for a second and maybe more viewings.

Undoubted virtues don't save Gilliam's latest from being lost in narrative muddle and failure to identify

tt2333804

In a dystopian alternative reality, disturbed cyber-worker Qohen Leth (he pronounces it "Cohen", others pronounce it "Quinn", to his annoyance) is beavering away at an answer to the big question "Why?" Others crossing his path are his immediate boss, a boss called Management, Management's teenage son, and a young lady who offers cybersex.Welcome back Terry Gilliam, with another movie which features dazzling visuals in a fully realised world of its own (to me, clearly an alternate reality based on our own rather than the near future), and an impressive central performance from Christoph Waltz as Qohen.Unfortunately, while the visuals capture the imagination throughout, the content does not. This rambling tale is muddled and confusing: it is far from clear what point (if any) it is trying to make. For me, the main reason for the film's narrative failure is that the world it is based in is sufficiently well realised that we recognise it as being very different from our own, which means it is difficult to attribute context to Qohen's behaviour - we don't know how troubled he is, or what the cure (if any) for his problems might be because we can't easily see what those problems are - perhaps, for instance, he is actually normal in this world he inhabits. It is really difficult to identify with him. Contrast Jonathan Pryce's Sam Lowry in Brazil (a film which The Zero Theorem resembles in some ways, both visually and thematically), a character we understand perfectly and identify with.I like Terry Gilliam and his work, and his films are always interesting enough to be worth watching but, for me, this film failed.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2333804/reviews-15

ur7813355

title: Undoubted virtues don't save Gilliam's latest from being lost in narrative muddle and failure to identify review: In a dystopian alternative reality, disturbed cyber-worker Qohen Leth (he pronounces it "Cohen", others pronounce it "Quinn", to his annoyance) is beavering away at an answer to the big question "Why?" Others crossing his path are his immediate boss, a boss called Management, Management's teenage son, and a young lady who offers cybersex.Welcome back Terry Gilliam, with another movie which features dazzling visuals in a fully realised world of its own (to me, clearly an alternate reality based on our own rather than the near future), and an impressive central performance from Christoph Waltz as Qohen.Unfortunately, while the visuals capture the imagination throughout, the content does not. This rambling tale is muddled and confusing: it is far from clear what point (if any) it is trying to make. For me, the main reason for the film's narrative failure is that the world it is based in is sufficiently well realised that we recognise it as being very different from our own, which means it is difficult to attribute context to Qohen's behaviour - we don't know how troubled he is, or what the cure (if any) for his problems might be because we can't easily see what those problems are - perhaps, for instance, he is actually normal in this world he inhabits. It is really difficult to identify with him. Contrast Jonathan Pryce's Sam Lowry in Brazil (a film which The Zero Theorem resembles in some ways, both visually and thematically), a character we understand perfectly and identify with.I like Terry Gilliam and his work, and his films are always interesting enough to be worth watching but, for me, this film failed.

As brilliant and opaque as Brazil

tt2333804

It was obvious to me that this was a modern imagining of Brazil, a movie just as weird and abstract as this one, made 1985, also by Gilliam. Therefore I was not surprised to see Gilliam admit it, but I found it strange that he called it the last part of a trilogy that also contained 12 Monkeys. Perhaps that was more metaphorical than I thought when I watched it last, because I didn't feel it was the same thing at all.Anyway, explaining the plot is kind of pointless. Most of the film is carried by Christoph Waltz, with support from veteran David Thewlis, lovely Mélanie Thierry and young Lucas Hedges. Gilliam replaced the gray government with the bright and colorful corporation, but kept the same feeling of hopelessness, lack of meaning and control that was prevalent in Brazil. In The Zero Theorem he mostly challenges belief, the part of it that gives hope without merit, that makes people wait for life to happen to them instead of making it happen.But, as with all Gilliam films, it is a weird one. Concepts are either too abstract to "get" or too blunt (like the Church of Batman the Redeemer). Waltz does a fantastic role, and the movie looks great for the tiny budget that was used.Bottom line: is a film designed to make you feel and think. I don't know exactly if this is how it should be and I am too numbed by the typical movies that I am watching or if it is the duty of the director and writer to make a film clear enough so that you don't need to go online and look for explanations afterward. Well implemented, I am afraid that the film is also easy to forget. Was something amiss or did I miss something? Just watch it and decide for yourself.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2333804/reviews-50

ur3146136

title: As brilliant and opaque as Brazil review: It was obvious to me that this was a modern imagining of Brazil, a movie just as weird and abstract as this one, made 1985, also by Gilliam. Therefore I was not surprised to see Gilliam admit it, but I found it strange that he called it the last part of a trilogy that also contained 12 Monkeys. Perhaps that was more metaphorical than I thought when I watched it last, because I didn't feel it was the same thing at all.Anyway, explaining the plot is kind of pointless. Most of the film is carried by Christoph Waltz, with support from veteran David Thewlis, lovely Mélanie Thierry and young Lucas Hedges. Gilliam replaced the gray government with the bright and colorful corporation, but kept the same feeling of hopelessness, lack of meaning and control that was prevalent in Brazil. In The Zero Theorem he mostly challenges belief, the part of it that gives hope without merit, that makes people wait for life to happen to them instead of making it happen.But, as with all Gilliam films, it is a weird one. Concepts are either too abstract to "get" or too blunt (like the Church of Batman the Redeemer). Waltz does a fantastic role, and the movie looks great for the tiny budget that was used.Bottom line: is a film designed to make you feel and think. I don't know exactly if this is how it should be and I am too numbed by the typical movies that I am watching or if it is the duty of the director and writer to make a film clear enough so that you don't need to go online and look for explanations afterward. Well implemented, I am afraid that the film is also easy to forget. Was something amiss or did I miss something? Just watch it and decide for yourself.

hard to disappoint with Gilliam and Waltz, and it doesn't even if it's less than great

tt2333804

The Zero Theorem is in parts like a staged play - with Quohen Leth (watch how you say that first name!) the star and his big gaudy church-turned-cave the stage - and other times like an existential comic book. By that I mean, the main actor is literally posing this question through much of the story: what are we here for? Why do I exist? Am I even dead yet or dying already? There's a very funny scene where Leth is in a meeting - I hasten to call it an interrogation, it's for his work - and he's lying back in a big room trying to find out what his next 'mission' for this company in an alternate-reality-future-space will be. He asks about if he is dying, he thinks he is. Someone else comments that we're ALL dying. The way the dialog comes through in this, how Gilliam makes these actors sincere on one side and non-plussed on the other, makes up the humor here. As in the rest of the film.Leth (a very bald and world-weary Christoph Waltz) is, or tries to be, a serious man. He is given a task no one has been able to solve: the zero theorem, which involves playing like a video game, only involving equations and long stretches of numbers and symbols that mean little to us (how could they unless you're a super-engineer seeing this with an advanced degree in quantum mechanics). But we watch him as he goes over and over and over again to get a little brick into a wall, and it comes crashing down. Meanwhile, he has a computer therapist (Tilda Swinton in one of her varied roles this year, classic oddball humor in terms of psych-babble speak), and Leth becomes intrigued by a girl he meets when he is forced to go to a company party.This girl (Melanie Thierry) is someone he doesn't actually want to spend much time with, but she does with him. And then, as he plugs in his head to the computer - kind of like a cruder, more gangly Gilliam-type extension we've seen in The Matrix, or even his own 12 Monkeys - he can plug in to spend time with her, or a version of her that is, on a beach in the sun and with everything very plastic and ideal and serene. If the script isn't terribly original in parts - an oppressive corporation making a subject's life a living hell, you don't say, get in line - Gilliam as director doesn't disappoint to keep the viewer on dramatic-comic edge. This also happens with a side character, a little akin to the 12 Monkeys Brad Pitt person who has a LOT of information, only here insanity is replaced with youth and braggadocio. What will Leth do with this young man? Or with Thierry's character? Or this darn equation? The Zero Theorem is all about asking these questions, and par Gilliam he won't supply easy answers. It's biggest problem is familiarity, that this director has done this before in altered forms. But that doesn't mean he isn't trying, far from it. The outside world, the computer-virtual landscapes, and this place of Leth's hum-drum techno-scape dwelling, are distinct, vibrant, dangerous places, and it all works to be what this character is fighting against or wondering about in his way. How is he supposed to live? Will he wind up in outer space like in his visions? Or will he just continue to shut down emotionally and not let people in? And what is up with that scenario on the beach anyway? Christoph Waltz is what makes this a key to being more than just a Gilliam sci-tech-warped exercise. Waltz makes Leth the heart of the picture, and Waltz makes him come alive even when he really shouldn't. Or, perhaps, it's because of how much Waltz has to keep this guy restrained, from showing his outpouring of emotions as a man hurt and lost in this future world (he had a woman once before, he mentions), and so much pain is conveyed in those eyes, in his trembling, confused voice, and is so naked anyway, in terms of vulnerability, with that shaved head and monkey-suit he has when connected to the computer.Waltz finds another angle than we've seen from, say, Bruce Willis or Jonathan Pryce, the past Gilliam futurist-alternate-reality heroes. I felt so much for this guy and wanted him to get his answers, or find some measure of peace or serenity, and it comes through in that performance and how he has to manage himself around other characters, both more alive (David Thewlis) and completely closed-off and bureaucratic (Matt Damon as "Management", his first scene is the funniest in the movie by the way). Another big question that's posed, and hopefully by the end is if not answered then pondered well enough: how do emotions fit into an 'equation'? Maybe not a must-see among the director's catalog, but more than just a curio. For the star, it's another notch in his years on the scene as a powerhouse, and here it's actually his first total leading-man role as well far as I can tell (he's usually supporting or ensemble). It's a tricky, usually rewarding film for a cult crowd.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2333804/reviews-80

ur0453068

title: hard to disappoint with Gilliam and Waltz, and it doesn't even if it's less than great review: The Zero Theorem is in parts like a staged play - with Quohen Leth (watch how you say that first name!) the star and his big gaudy church-turned-cave the stage - and other times like an existential comic book. By that I mean, the main actor is literally posing this question through much of the story: what are we here for? Why do I exist? Am I even dead yet or dying already? There's a very funny scene where Leth is in a meeting - I hasten to call it an interrogation, it's for his work - and he's lying back in a big room trying to find out what his next 'mission' for this company in an alternate-reality-future-space will be. He asks about if he is dying, he thinks he is. Someone else comments that we're ALL dying. The way the dialog comes through in this, how Gilliam makes these actors sincere on one side and non-plussed on the other, makes up the humor here. As in the rest of the film.Leth (a very bald and world-weary Christoph Waltz) is, or tries to be, a serious man. He is given a task no one has been able to solve: the zero theorem, which involves playing like a video game, only involving equations and long stretches of numbers and symbols that mean little to us (how could they unless you're a super-engineer seeing this with an advanced degree in quantum mechanics). But we watch him as he goes over and over and over again to get a little brick into a wall, and it comes crashing down. Meanwhile, he has a computer therapist (Tilda Swinton in one of her varied roles this year, classic oddball humor in terms of psych-babble speak), and Leth becomes intrigued by a girl he meets when he is forced to go to a company party.This girl (Melanie Thierry) is someone he doesn't actually want to spend much time with, but she does with him. And then, as he plugs in his head to the computer - kind of like a cruder, more gangly Gilliam-type extension we've seen in The Matrix, or even his own 12 Monkeys - he can plug in to spend time with her, or a version of her that is, on a beach in the sun and with everything very plastic and ideal and serene. If the script isn't terribly original in parts - an oppressive corporation making a subject's life a living hell, you don't say, get in line - Gilliam as director doesn't disappoint to keep the viewer on dramatic-comic edge. This also happens with a side character, a little akin to the 12 Monkeys Brad Pitt person who has a LOT of information, only here insanity is replaced with youth and braggadocio. What will Leth do with this young man? Or with Thierry's character? Or this darn equation? The Zero Theorem is all about asking these questions, and par Gilliam he won't supply easy answers. It's biggest problem is familiarity, that this director has done this before in altered forms. But that doesn't mean he isn't trying, far from it. The outside world, the computer-virtual landscapes, and this place of Leth's hum-drum techno-scape dwelling, are distinct, vibrant, dangerous places, and it all works to be what this character is fighting against or wondering about in his way. How is he supposed to live? Will he wind up in outer space like in his visions? Or will he just continue to shut down emotionally and not let people in? And what is up with that scenario on the beach anyway? Christoph Waltz is what makes this a key to being more than just a Gilliam sci-tech-warped exercise. Waltz makes Leth the heart of the picture, and Waltz makes him come alive even when he really shouldn't. Or, perhaps, it's because of how much Waltz has to keep this guy restrained, from showing his outpouring of emotions as a man hurt and lost in this future world (he had a woman once before, he mentions), and so much pain is conveyed in those eyes, in his trembling, confused voice, and is so naked anyway, in terms of vulnerability, with that shaved head and monkey-suit he has when connected to the computer.Waltz finds another angle than we've seen from, say, Bruce Willis or Jonathan Pryce, the past Gilliam futurist-alternate-reality heroes. I felt so much for this guy and wanted him to get his answers, or find some measure of peace or serenity, and it comes through in that performance and how he has to manage himself around other characters, both more alive (David Thewlis) and completely closed-off and bureaucratic (Matt Damon as "Management", his first scene is the funniest in the movie by the way). Another big question that's posed, and hopefully by the end is if not answered then pondered well enough: how do emotions fit into an 'equation'? Maybe not a must-see among the director's catalog, but more than just a curio. For the star, it's another notch in his years on the scene as a powerhouse, and here it's actually his first total leading-man role as well far as I can tell (he's usually supporting or ensemble). It's a tricky, usually rewarding film for a cult crowd.

The Meaninglessness of Life

tt2333804

There's Nothing Quite Like the Visuals in Artist/Filmmaker/Philosopher Terry Gilliam's Films. The Stories, Messages, and or Plots are Also Not the Stuff of Mainstream Movies. Simply, a Terry Gilliam Experience is Unique.In This One, His Final Act in the Trilogy, Following Brazil (1985) and Twelve Monkey's (1995), He Brings Along Familiar Abstract Analysis and Artful Playing Around with "The Meaning of Life" and Other Light Thinkings, Like Religion, Big Brother, Corporations as God, You Know, Basic Conversations Around the Dinner Table (at an Asylum).Fans of the Auteur Will Not Be Disappointed. Others May Reach for Pain Medication, In Any Form, for Relief. Some May Reach for Their Holy Book, and Others will Just Throw Up Their Hands and Their Dinner, and Surrender to the Gaudy Frustration of it All.There are No Easy Answers to Complex Problems, Especially in Math and Philosophy. So Of Course, that's Where Gilliam Chooses to Reside His Movie and Place His Protagonist (Christopher Waltz), in a Bizarro World of Colorful, Ill Fitting, Styles with Layers of Pseudo Psychology/Philosophy, and Materialistic Mayhem Designed to Syphon the Herd from Their Money and Their Souls.Definitely Worth a Watch for Fans of the Director, the Avant Garde, Cult Films, and Something Completely Different. It's a Complex Movie This, and What You Get Out of it will Most Likely Depend on What You Bring to it. Nothing More...Nothing Less (than Zero).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2333804/reviews-105

ur33374263

title: The Meaninglessness of Life review: There's Nothing Quite Like the Visuals in Artist/Filmmaker/Philosopher Terry Gilliam's Films. The Stories, Messages, and or Plots are Also Not the Stuff of Mainstream Movies. Simply, a Terry Gilliam Experience is Unique.In This One, His Final Act in the Trilogy, Following Brazil (1985) and Twelve Monkey's (1995), He Brings Along Familiar Abstract Analysis and Artful Playing Around with "The Meaning of Life" and Other Light Thinkings, Like Religion, Big Brother, Corporations as God, You Know, Basic Conversations Around the Dinner Table (at an Asylum).Fans of the Auteur Will Not Be Disappointed. Others May Reach for Pain Medication, In Any Form, for Relief. Some May Reach for Their Holy Book, and Others will Just Throw Up Their Hands and Their Dinner, and Surrender to the Gaudy Frustration of it All.There are No Easy Answers to Complex Problems, Especially in Math and Philosophy. So Of Course, that's Where Gilliam Chooses to Reside His Movie and Place His Protagonist (Christopher Waltz), in a Bizarro World of Colorful, Ill Fitting, Styles with Layers of Pseudo Psychology/Philosophy, and Materialistic Mayhem Designed to Syphon the Herd from Their Money and Their Souls.Definitely Worth a Watch for Fans of the Director, the Avant Garde, Cult Films, and Something Completely Different. It's a Complex Movie This, and What You Get Out of it will Most Likely Depend on What You Bring to it. Nothing More...Nothing Less (than Zero).

Gilliam's crazy quilt kissing cousin to BRAZIL - cosmic cocktail of 1984 meets THE TWILIGHT ZONE via WAITING FOR GODOT

tt2333804

THE ZERO THEOREM (2014) ***1/2 Christoph Waltz, David Thewlis, Melanie Thierry, Matt Damon, Lucas Hedges, Tilda Swinton, Ben Whishaw, Peter Stormare.Terry Gilliam's kissing cousin of BRAZIL with a bouillesbaiese of 1984, THE TWILIGHT ZONE's "The Obsolete Man", WAITING FOR GODOT and Jonathan Swift satire mixed to a colorful cocktail of dystopia in the not-too-distant-future with corporate cog/border-line head case Quohen Leth (a bald and tic fused Waltz getting his ya-yas out to the nth degree) whose ambition to crack the code to What Is The Meaning of ALL THIS and expecting a rather personal phone call perhaps to shed some light. A game ensemble with Thewlis as the touchy-feelie supervisor, Damon as Management (a virtual clone to Karl Lagerfield incarnate), Swinton in her cottage industry of elaborate wigs and prosthetic teeth as a virtual reality shrink and the beguiling Thierry as Waltz' love/lust interest making things very interesting. Kudos to the amazing production design concocted by David Warren, inventive costumes by Carlo Poggioli and clear-eyed surreal cinematography by Nicola Pecorini. Gilliam outdoes himself with the visual scope while balancing the office drone in hell schism to an art form and crushing soul ennui as a totem poem to the proletariate searching for something more THAN THIS. Yes that is the late Robin Williams (unbilled) as a billboard spokesman for of all things The Church Of Batman the Redeemer!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2333804/reviews-67

ur0937743

title: Gilliam's crazy quilt kissing cousin to BRAZIL - cosmic cocktail of 1984 meets THE TWILIGHT ZONE via WAITING FOR GODOT review: THE ZERO THEOREM (2014) ***1/2 Christoph Waltz, David Thewlis, Melanie Thierry, Matt Damon, Lucas Hedges, Tilda Swinton, Ben Whishaw, Peter Stormare.Terry Gilliam's kissing cousin of BRAZIL with a bouillesbaiese of 1984, THE TWILIGHT ZONE's "The Obsolete Man", WAITING FOR GODOT and Jonathan Swift satire mixed to a colorful cocktail of dystopia in the not-too-distant-future with corporate cog/border-line head case Quohen Leth (a bald and tic fused Waltz getting his ya-yas out to the nth degree) whose ambition to crack the code to What Is The Meaning of ALL THIS and expecting a rather personal phone call perhaps to shed some light. A game ensemble with Thewlis as the touchy-feelie supervisor, Damon as Management (a virtual clone to Karl Lagerfield incarnate), Swinton in her cottage industry of elaborate wigs and prosthetic teeth as a virtual reality shrink and the beguiling Thierry as Waltz' love/lust interest making things very interesting. Kudos to the amazing production design concocted by David Warren, inventive costumes by Carlo Poggioli and clear-eyed surreal cinematography by Nicola Pecorini. Gilliam outdoes himself with the visual scope while balancing the office drone in hell schism to an art form and crushing soul ennui as a totem poem to the proletariate searching for something more THAN THIS. Yes that is the late Robin Williams (unbilled) as a billboard spokesman for of all things The Church Of Batman the Redeemer!

A psychological thriller that is predictable

tt0448075

(Synopsis) Gabriel No one (Robin Williams), a radio show host begins by telling his intriguing life stories to his night listeners. Gabriel is having personal problems when his lover moves out of his house. Gabriel is having a storyteller's block and can't perform at the radio station. A book agent gives Gabriel an unpublished book, written by a 14-year old boy, Pete Boland (Rory Culkin). Pete's book is about the abused childhood and suffering he went through at the hands of his parents and their friends. Pete now lives with an adopted mother and social worker, Donna Boland (Toni Collette). Pete is still suffering because he is dying of AIDS. Gabriel talks to Pete on the phone and begins to bond with Pete, but things are very strange when Gabriel tries to meet Pete and discovers that there is a possibility that Pete may not exist. Gabriel flies to the small town in Wisconsin to uncover the truth.(My Comment) The film starts off as a psychological thriller, but you will be able to predict what comes next. Robin Williams probably took the part so he could play a gay storyteller. I guess all actors are taking gay parts now days. There are some scenes that get him into trouble because of this. I think Toni Collette gives a terrific performance as a blind and mysterious woman who could be a heroine or a scary psycho on the loose. The question at the end of the movie was this based on a true story or not? (Miramax Pictures, Run time 1:22, Rated R)(6/10)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448075/reviews-38

ur2747265

title: A psychological thriller that is predictable review: (Synopsis) Gabriel No one (Robin Williams), a radio show host begins by telling his intriguing life stories to his night listeners. Gabriel is having personal problems when his lover moves out of his house. Gabriel is having a storyteller's block and can't perform at the radio station. A book agent gives Gabriel an unpublished book, written by a 14-year old boy, Pete Boland (Rory Culkin). Pete's book is about the abused childhood and suffering he went through at the hands of his parents and their friends. Pete now lives with an adopted mother and social worker, Donna Boland (Toni Collette). Pete is still suffering because he is dying of AIDS. Gabriel talks to Pete on the phone and begins to bond with Pete, but things are very strange when Gabriel tries to meet Pete and discovers that there is a possibility that Pete may not exist. Gabriel flies to the small town in Wisconsin to uncover the truth.(My Comment) The film starts off as a psychological thriller, but you will be able to predict what comes next. Robin Williams probably took the part so he could play a gay storyteller. I guess all actors are taking gay parts now days. There are some scenes that get him into trouble because of this. I think Toni Collette gives a terrific performance as a blind and mysterious woman who could be a heroine or a scary psycho on the loose. The question at the end of the movie was this based on a true story or not? (Miramax Pictures, Run time 1:22, Rated R)(6/10)

A gently moving study in obsession and loneliness

tt0448075

The Night Listener is essentially quite straightforward: a study in obsession and loneliness. The two protagonists are almost mirror images of each other, one an ageing homosexual writer and the other an attention-seeking fantasist. It was billed, by some, as a thriller, and consequently criticised for not being very thrilling, not being very mysterious and, finally, not really having a story. Certainly, there is no resolution to 'the story' as such, but then whether of not the young boy existed is not relevant. What is relevant is that the storyteller, whose younger lover has left him, desperately wants there to be a boy, desperately wants to have a son. The other obsessive, a woman who apparently invents the boy to get attention, will do anything to keep the fiction going. The film plays trick a little viewer and I cannot make up my mind whether it does so fairly or not. So, for example, we are shown the fictional boy talking to the storyteller on the phone and then handing the receiver to the obsessive woman. So, it would seem, and do the film would have us believe, he really did exist. Yet he didn't: he really is just a vehicle for the obsessive to get the attention she craves. A final scene confirms it: at the end of the film she has moved to another town to start a new life, is no longer blind and the fictional boy in her life is no longer the victim of paedophile parents, but has lost a leg. Finally, of course, it doesn't matter whether or not the film plays fair. Its essence is to portray the private despair of an essentially decent man whom life is slowly but surely passing by. If you read other reviews, you will hear it claimed that The Night Listener is a cracking thriller or, alternatively, not worth a minute of the running time. Both views are wrong, but more to the point mistake, The Night Listener is a gentle film in which the storyteller finds some sort of peace, if only an acceptance that he is getting older and that life is not always as accommodating as we fondly wish. Furthermore, the film is beautifully shot in dark browns of different hues, in shadows, at night. Daylight and light generally play no part in the storyteller's world. Very little is distinct, and ironically the only real understanding and openness comes from two younger characters who are sceptical of the boys existence from the start. This is a slow-moving, in many ways uneventful film which succeeds because it doesn't pretend to be anything more than it is: an examination of obsession and loneliness. If you like a certain kind of film, you will like it. Williams is very good in portraying the storyteller's loneliness and Toni Collette also turns in a good performance. If you want a thriller, forget it. There is so much more to this film than that.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448075/reviews-159

ur4308028

title: A gently moving study in obsession and loneliness review: The Night Listener is essentially quite straightforward: a study in obsession and loneliness. The two protagonists are almost mirror images of each other, one an ageing homosexual writer and the other an attention-seeking fantasist. It was billed, by some, as a thriller, and consequently criticised for not being very thrilling, not being very mysterious and, finally, not really having a story. Certainly, there is no resolution to 'the story' as such, but then whether of not the young boy existed is not relevant. What is relevant is that the storyteller, whose younger lover has left him, desperately wants there to be a boy, desperately wants to have a son. The other obsessive, a woman who apparently invents the boy to get attention, will do anything to keep the fiction going. The film plays trick a little viewer and I cannot make up my mind whether it does so fairly or not. So, for example, we are shown the fictional boy talking to the storyteller on the phone and then handing the receiver to the obsessive woman. So, it would seem, and do the film would have us believe, he really did exist. Yet he didn't: he really is just a vehicle for the obsessive to get the attention she craves. A final scene confirms it: at the end of the film she has moved to another town to start a new life, is no longer blind and the fictional boy in her life is no longer the victim of paedophile parents, but has lost a leg. Finally, of course, it doesn't matter whether or not the film plays fair. Its essence is to portray the private despair of an essentially decent man whom life is slowly but surely passing by. If you read other reviews, you will hear it claimed that The Night Listener is a cracking thriller or, alternatively, not worth a minute of the running time. Both views are wrong, but more to the point mistake, The Night Listener is a gentle film in which the storyteller finds some sort of peace, if only an acceptance that he is getting older and that life is not always as accommodating as we fondly wish. Furthermore, the film is beautifully shot in dark browns of different hues, in shadows, at night. Daylight and light generally play no part in the storyteller's world. Very little is distinct, and ironically the only real understanding and openness comes from two younger characters who are sceptical of the boys existence from the start. This is a slow-moving, in many ways uneventful film which succeeds because it doesn't pretend to be anything more than it is: an examination of obsession and loneliness. If you like a certain kind of film, you will like it. Williams is very good in portraying the storyteller's loneliness and Toni Collette also turns in a good performance. If you want a thriller, forget it. There is so much more to this film than that.

one movie that is actually too short

tt0448075

This movie should have been longer. It just kind of ends with not much of a resolution. It's about a late night radio host who gets a copy of a book written by an abused 14 year old boy. The boy is a fan of his and starts calling him at home. He also talks to the boy's guardian who keeps the boy hidden since his mother skipped bail. Gabe's friend hears a message left from the boy and his guardian and remarks that is sounds like the same voice. Gabe starts asking questions of his friend who gave him the book. He has never met the boy either. Curisostity gets the better of him and Gabe flies to Wisconsin to find the boy. He finds the guardian, Donna, who is blind but always has an answer as to why he can not meet the boy, Pete. Gabe begins a short investigation into the where abouts of Pete. He finally gets the answer he was looking for and returns home. Later, we see Donna and find out how mental disturbed she really is.The plot does sound good, but the movie really isn't. It develops really slow and just isn't entertaining. This is not a thriller. And the conclusion is just bad; it didn't feel like a real ending.FINAL VERDICT: Not worth watching.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448075/reviews-132

ur1773414

title: one movie that is actually too short review: This movie should have been longer. It just kind of ends with not much of a resolution. It's about a late night radio host who gets a copy of a book written by an abused 14 year old boy. The boy is a fan of his and starts calling him at home. He also talks to the boy's guardian who keeps the boy hidden since his mother skipped bail. Gabe's friend hears a message left from the boy and his guardian and remarks that is sounds like the same voice. Gabe starts asking questions of his friend who gave him the book. He has never met the boy either. Curisostity gets the better of him and Gabe flies to Wisconsin to find the boy. He finds the guardian, Donna, who is blind but always has an answer as to why he can not meet the boy, Pete. Gabe begins a short investigation into the where abouts of Pete. He finally gets the answer he was looking for and returns home. Later, we see Donna and find out how mental disturbed she really is.The plot does sound good, but the movie really isn't. It develops really slow and just isn't entertaining. This is not a thriller. And the conclusion is just bad; it didn't feel like a real ending.FINAL VERDICT: Not worth watching.

Worst Robin Williams film in memory

tt0448075

This movie is trash-poor. It has horrible taste, and is pedestrian and unconvincing in script although supposedly based on real-events - which doesn't add much of anything but make it more of a disappointment. Direction is not well done at as scenes and dialogue are out-of-place. Not sure what Robin Williams saw in this character or story. To start, Williams is not convincing as a gay in a relationship breakup nor is the relationship itself interesting. What's worse, his character is compelled by an ugly pedophile story that is base and has no place as a plot device. You have an older Rory Culkin tastelessly spouting "d_ck_smker" - in good fun- which is annoying enough and then laughed up by the Williams character. Finally you have Sandra Oh as a guardian angel adviser to Williams and a thrown in explanation of the whole fiasco towards the end. Toni Collete's character is just plain annoying and a re-hash of her 6th Sense performance with poorer direction. Very Miss-able.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448075/reviews-128

ur0635312

title: Worst Robin Williams film in memory review: This movie is trash-poor. It has horrible taste, and is pedestrian and unconvincing in script although supposedly based on real-events - which doesn't add much of anything but make it more of a disappointment. Direction is not well done at as scenes and dialogue are out-of-place. Not sure what Robin Williams saw in this character or story. To start, Williams is not convincing as a gay in a relationship breakup nor is the relationship itself interesting. What's worse, his character is compelled by an ugly pedophile story that is base and has no place as a plot device. You have an older Rory Culkin tastelessly spouting "d_ck_smker" - in good fun- which is annoying enough and then laughed up by the Williams character. Finally you have Sandra Oh as a guardian angel adviser to Williams and a thrown in explanation of the whole fiasco towards the end. Toni Collete's character is just plain annoying and a re-hash of her 6th Sense performance with poorer direction. Very Miss-able.

Losing the magic of words

tt0448075

It's always interesting to see what happens when a novel is made into a film. Armistead Maupin's novel, The Night Listener, is about a depressed gay man, Gabriel No one, with a beloved late night radio talk show where he does monologues based on his own life. Gabe's younger lover Jess, whom he's nursed with AIDS for a decade, is much better now and has moved out "to have some space," leaving Gabe so miserable he can't face his life or do the show any more. Gabe receives a manuscript, the precocious, superbly written autobiography of a thirteen-year-old boy subjected to horrific sexual abuse as a child. The boy, Pete Logand, is a big fan of Gabe's show, and a long-distance telephone relationship between Pete and Gabe develops that pulls Gabe out of his depression (sort of) as he begins caring for Pete and playing father. He also talks to Pete's foster mother, Donna. Pete's and Donna's voices sound awfully similar. Could a teenager write such a fine book? Gabe goes to Wisconsin to get to the bottom of the mystery.The book is about voices and words and the way they spur the imagination and inspire feelings, and about doubt and the need to love and the mystery of what we can't see and above all about storytelling. It's a quiet tale that one ponders slowly. The essence of Maupin's story, which was a bestseller, is that Gabe never sees Pete.But in the movie we see him -- played by Rory Culkin, who's so good we wish we'd see more of him. He may not be real, of course, but we see him. And that's all the more confusing because the movie feels obligated to tell us that Pete doesn't exist -- which the novel never quite specifies.The essential flaw of the film is that its makers feel obligated to show us what in the book -- where a manuscript and a radio show and phone conversations are central -- only gives us words for, so we imagine images, or not, as we see fit, but in the movie we are forced to see them.The movie skips too quickly through the early phases of the autobiography and the phone conversations by which Gabe develops his relationship with Pete, so Gabe's fascination with Pete feels insufficiently developed; it seems the filmmakers wanted to rush forward to the trip to the Midwest which is full of action. But in the book both parts are equally important, and the first part is essential to the second.Robin Williams as Gabe is depressed and sad, and yells at Jess (Bobby Carnavale), his estranged lover, but while the performance is nicely modulated, his character hasn't been developed fully. In the book, the depression hovers over everything. It seems Maupin knows whereof he speaks. Sandra Oh as usual is good, as Anna, Gabe's accountant-confidante. Under Patrick Stettner's direction The Night Listener becomes spookier and scarier than the book, and more about action. Instead of whispering in your ear it shrieks. Toni Colette, a bold and powerful actress, is arresting as the foster mother, Donna. But she comes to seem like a crone out of a horror movie. Robin Williams comes to seem like a film noir hero who's turned unwillingly into a villain; at that point, one began to wish the movie was in black and white. That way we'd see less, and imagine more. It's almost like the second, Midwestern, segment is another movie whose beginning we've missed. There's a final scene with Colette that gives us the answer to the mystery -- but the book didn't. Was this necessary? I don't think so. If the movie had been made smaller and held back more, it would have worked better. In the end you wonder if Maupin's novel was right to be made into a movie at all.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448075/reviews-67

ur1501216

title: Losing the magic of words review: It's always interesting to see what happens when a novel is made into a film. Armistead Maupin's novel, The Night Listener, is about a depressed gay man, Gabriel No one, with a beloved late night radio talk show where he does monologues based on his own life. Gabe's younger lover Jess, whom he's nursed with AIDS for a decade, is much better now and has moved out "to have some space," leaving Gabe so miserable he can't face his life or do the show any more. Gabe receives a manuscript, the precocious, superbly written autobiography of a thirteen-year-old boy subjected to horrific sexual abuse as a child. The boy, Pete Logand, is a big fan of Gabe's show, and a long-distance telephone relationship between Pete and Gabe develops that pulls Gabe out of his depression (sort of) as he begins caring for Pete and playing father. He also talks to Pete's foster mother, Donna. Pete's and Donna's voices sound awfully similar. Could a teenager write such a fine book? Gabe goes to Wisconsin to get to the bottom of the mystery.The book is about voices and words and the way they spur the imagination and inspire feelings, and about doubt and the need to love and the mystery of what we can't see and above all about storytelling. It's a quiet tale that one ponders slowly. The essence of Maupin's story, which was a bestseller, is that Gabe never sees Pete.But in the movie we see him -- played by Rory Culkin, who's so good we wish we'd see more of him. He may not be real, of course, but we see him. And that's all the more confusing because the movie feels obligated to tell us that Pete doesn't exist -- which the novel never quite specifies.The essential flaw of the film is that its makers feel obligated to show us what in the book -- where a manuscript and a radio show and phone conversations are central -- only gives us words for, so we imagine images, or not, as we see fit, but in the movie we are forced to see them.The movie skips too quickly through the early phases of the autobiography and the phone conversations by which Gabe develops his relationship with Pete, so Gabe's fascination with Pete feels insufficiently developed; it seems the filmmakers wanted to rush forward to the trip to the Midwest which is full of action. But in the book both parts are equally important, and the first part is essential to the second.Robin Williams as Gabe is depressed and sad, and yells at Jess (Bobby Carnavale), his estranged lover, but while the performance is nicely modulated, his character hasn't been developed fully. In the book, the depression hovers over everything. It seems Maupin knows whereof he speaks. Sandra Oh as usual is good, as Anna, Gabe's accountant-confidante. Under Patrick Stettner's direction The Night Listener becomes spookier and scarier than the book, and more about action. Instead of whispering in your ear it shrieks. Toni Colette, a bold and powerful actress, is arresting as the foster mother, Donna. But she comes to seem like a crone out of a horror movie. Robin Williams comes to seem like a film noir hero who's turned unwillingly into a villain; at that point, one began to wish the movie was in black and white. That way we'd see less, and imagine more. It's almost like the second, Midwestern, segment is another movie whose beginning we've missed. There's a final scene with Colette that gives us the answer to the mystery -- but the book didn't. Was this necessary? I don't think so. If the movie had been made smaller and held back more, it would have worked better. In the end you wonder if Maupin's novel was right to be made into a movie at all.

Creepy, Unsettling, Not Bad -- But Coulda Been Better

tt0448075

"The Night Listener" is a creepy and unsettling movie, and it's pretty good as far as creepy and unsettling movies go.It could have been much better, though. The true, raw material on which the film is based is really compelling: A famous author is contacted by an abused child dying of AIDS. As the relationship progresses, the author comes to wonder if the kid is real or a hoax.The story is so fascinating that several television shows and print articles have been based on it.The movie makes good, but not great, use of the story. The film has creepy, scary, hair raising moments, and moments that make you stop and think about trust, suspicion, and relationships.But it never really breaks into the same territory as, say, "Vertigo," which treads some of the same ground.Robin Williams doesn't really do much here. His relationship with his ex lover, Bobby Cannavale, is never believable. The two have zero chemistry, and never even move as two people who once shared the same house, never mind the same bed.The relationship with the abused child is rushed. It's never given any poignancy. And, so, when Williams begins to suspect the relationship, there is less at stake.Toni Collette, though, gives a terrific performance as a woman who may be a heroine, or who may be a very scary psycho. She's just so good.The director manages to make Wisconsin in winter seem like a very ominous place. I never thought that fat, pale, working class Wisconsin residents could appear so menacing.If the material appeals to you, give this film a try. It's not great, but it's not half bad.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448075/reviews-35

ur2366009

title: Creepy, Unsettling, Not Bad -- But Coulda Been Better review: "The Night Listener" is a creepy and unsettling movie, and it's pretty good as far as creepy and unsettling movies go.It could have been much better, though. The true, raw material on which the film is based is really compelling: A famous author is contacted by an abused child dying of AIDS. As the relationship progresses, the author comes to wonder if the kid is real or a hoax.The story is so fascinating that several television shows and print articles have been based on it.The movie makes good, but not great, use of the story. The film has creepy, scary, hair raising moments, and moments that make you stop and think about trust, suspicion, and relationships.But it never really breaks into the same territory as, say, "Vertigo," which treads some of the same ground.Robin Williams doesn't really do much here. His relationship with his ex lover, Bobby Cannavale, is never believable. The two have zero chemistry, and never even move as two people who once shared the same house, never mind the same bed.The relationship with the abused child is rushed. It's never given any poignancy. And, so, when Williams begins to suspect the relationship, there is less at stake.Toni Collette, though, gives a terrific performance as a woman who may be a heroine, or who may be a very scary psycho. She's just so good.The director manages to make Wisconsin in winter seem like a very ominous place. I never thought that fat, pale, working class Wisconsin residents could appear so menacing.If the material appeals to you, give this film a try. It's not great, but it's not half bad.

I hope this film isn't the reason Robin Williams resumed drinking.

tt0448075

I know; I know! That's cold.But, this is the only one of his three recent dramas that left me feeling lukewarm. Perhaps, it's really the fault of the distributors and the way they edited the preview trailers. They made it seem (to me, anyway) like this was going to be a real, knuckle-whitening psychological thriller. The same as "Insomnia" or "One Hour Photo."All I got for my money, however, was a rehash of gay lover angst that had already been done much more sympathetically in "The Bird Cage." With a few Deniro-style profanities thrown in for not-so-good measure.Things sort of picked up in the middle, when Gabe begins investigating what might be the true background of "Pete Logand." There was the eerie realism with which Toni Collette played Danni, the blind woman. And, there was the young actor portraying allegedly imaginary Pete, himself. Now, _he_ provoked feelings of sympathy!But, it sort of got anti-climactic, for me, when it's revealed that Danni might really be just an obsessed fan of Gabe's (he has a somewhat popular late-night radio show). And, I'm afraid I don't mean that in a good way.Oh, well! At least, the production company didn't go for an ending a la "Fatal Attraction." That would have made me score this considerably lower than a five!!!In short; this wasn't a snooze-fest. But, it didn't have me on the edge of my seat, either. So, only see it if you're really, really, _really_ bored with TV re-runs.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448075/reviews-51

ur2216443

title: I hope this film isn't the reason Robin Williams resumed drinking. review: I know; I know! That's cold.But, this is the only one of his three recent dramas that left me feeling lukewarm. Perhaps, it's really the fault of the distributors and the way they edited the preview trailers. They made it seem (to me, anyway) like this was going to be a real, knuckle-whitening psychological thriller. The same as "Insomnia" or "One Hour Photo."All I got for my money, however, was a rehash of gay lover angst that had already been done much more sympathetically in "The Bird Cage." With a few Deniro-style profanities thrown in for not-so-good measure.Things sort of picked up in the middle, when Gabe begins investigating what might be the true background of "Pete Logand." There was the eerie realism with which Toni Collette played Danni, the blind woman. And, there was the young actor portraying allegedly imaginary Pete, himself. Now, _he_ provoked feelings of sympathy!But, it sort of got anti-climactic, for me, when it's revealed that Danni might really be just an obsessed fan of Gabe's (he has a somewhat popular late-night radio show). And, I'm afraid I don't mean that in a good way.Oh, well! At least, the production company didn't go for an ending a la "Fatal Attraction." That would have made me score this considerably lower than a five!!!In short; this wasn't a snooze-fest. But, it didn't have me on the edge of my seat, either. So, only see it if you're really, really, _really_ bored with TV re-runs.

A TV Movie Starring Robin Williams

tt0448075

After seeing "The Night Listener" on August 13, 2006, I have mixed feelings about it. Robin Williams give a great performance as Gabriel No one, a troubled late-night radio storyteller. But my mind couldn't help, but scream "LIFETIME MOVIE!" The movie begins in the radio station where troubled Gabriel, who has just broken up with his boyfriend, is describing his fictional stories, but claims for this particular story, which he calls "The Night Listener," to be completely true. So he begins telling the story, starting when his publisher friend gave him a manuscript written by 14-year-old Pete Logand (Rory Culkin). Pete has written an autobiography of how he was sexually abused by his parents and their friends. They made pornographic tapes starring Pete in their basement to sell on the internet.Now infected with AIDS, Pete writes his memoir hoping to have it published. He forms a very close relationship with Gabriel, almost like a father-son relationship. But when questions about Pete's existence come up, Pete's foster mother (Toni Collette) becomes very protective.It held my attention for an hour and a half, but, again, my mind kept screaming "LIFETIME MOVIE!" But that is just my opinion. I give "The Night Listener" 6/10 stars. Great acting, okay script. Also stars Sandra Oh.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448075/reviews-58

ur4758821

title: A TV Movie Starring Robin Williams review: After seeing "The Night Listener" on August 13, 2006, I have mixed feelings about it. Robin Williams give a great performance as Gabriel No one, a troubled late-night radio storyteller. But my mind couldn't help, but scream "LIFETIME MOVIE!" The movie begins in the radio station where troubled Gabriel, who has just broken up with his boyfriend, is describing his fictional stories, but claims for this particular story, which he calls "The Night Listener," to be completely true. So he begins telling the story, starting when his publisher friend gave him a manuscript written by 14-year-old Pete Logand (Rory Culkin). Pete has written an autobiography of how he was sexually abused by his parents and their friends. They made pornographic tapes starring Pete in their basement to sell on the internet.Now infected with AIDS, Pete writes his memoir hoping to have it published. He forms a very close relationship with Gabriel, almost like a father-son relationship. But when questions about Pete's existence come up, Pete's foster mother (Toni Collette) becomes very protective.It held my attention for an hour and a half, but, again, my mind kept screaming "LIFETIME MOVIE!" But that is just my opinion. I give "The Night Listener" 6/10 stars. Great acting, okay script. Also stars Sandra Oh.

Kept me interested

tt0448075

If there is one thing to recommend about this film is that it is intriguing. The premise certainly draws the audience in because it is a mystery, and throughout the film there are hints that there is something dark lurking about. However, there is not much tension, and Williams' mild mannered portrayal doesn't do much to makes us relate to his obsession with the boy.Collete fares much better as the woman whose true nature and intentions are not very clear. The production felt rushed and holes are apparent. It certainly feels like a preview for a much more complete and better effort. The book is probably better.One thing is certain: Taupin must have written something truly good to have inspired at least one commendable effort.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448075/reviews-3

ur2115026

title: Kept me interested review: If there is one thing to recommend about this film is that it is intriguing. The premise certainly draws the audience in because it is a mystery, and throughout the film there are hints that there is something dark lurking about. However, there is not much tension, and Williams' mild mannered portrayal doesn't do much to makes us relate to his obsession with the boy.Collete fares much better as the woman whose true nature and intentions are not very clear. The production felt rushed and holes are apparent. It certainly feels like a preview for a much more complete and better effort. The book is probably better.One thing is certain: Taupin must have written something truly good to have inspired at least one commendable effort.

Mysterious and strange.

tt0448075

I thought that this was a great little weird mystery. It's about Gabriel No one who tells stories over the radio at night. One day he learns about this boy who is dying and he is going to publish a book on how he was abused as a child. The boys caretaker gets into this too. Then Gabriel starts to wonder if this boy even exists so he goes to Wisconsin but all he meets is the caretaker. Soon Gabriel is in a mad chase to find the boy but there is just a series of dead ends.I liked the lack of lighting in this movie. It gave the movie more of an eerie feeling and more of a mysterious presence. This is a really strange movie that I felt was unresolved. It takes place in the coldness of Wisconsin just like the emptiness of the mystery. Brrr.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448075/reviews-154

ur10123981

title: Mysterious and strange. review: I thought that this was a great little weird mystery. It's about Gabriel No one who tells stories over the radio at night. One day he learns about this boy who is dying and he is going to publish a book on how he was abused as a child. The boys caretaker gets into this too. Then Gabriel starts to wonder if this boy even exists so he goes to Wisconsin but all he meets is the caretaker. Soon Gabriel is in a mad chase to find the boy but there is just a series of dead ends.I liked the lack of lighting in this movie. It gave the movie more of an eerie feeling and more of a mysterious presence. This is a really strange movie that I felt was unresolved. It takes place in the coldness of Wisconsin just like the emptiness of the mystery. Brrr.

Save your popcorn...

tt0448075

...but turn the lights off, be alone, and get into the "mood".I didn't quite know what to expect, and maybe that was the key for me to get inside this film.Robin Williams is good, he always is. He just can't be bad. But Toni Collette really stole the show in this one.I understand people who either don't get this movie or don't like it. I wouldn't have liked this either, but I was in that peculiar state of mind at the time when I watched this, and it helped a lot. This isn't so much of a movie that messes with your brains (although it does a bit), but one that messes with your feelings, your heart.I was captivated with everything that happened, every sound and every look on a face. Without the very last scene I would've given this one a 10 out of 10.Give it a chance, you might be surprised.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448075/reviews-142

ur10844919

title: Save your popcorn... review: ...but turn the lights off, be alone, and get into the "mood".I didn't quite know what to expect, and maybe that was the key for me to get inside this film.Robin Williams is good, he always is. He just can't be bad. But Toni Collette really stole the show in this one.I understand people who either don't get this movie or don't like it. I wouldn't have liked this either, but I was in that peculiar state of mind at the time when I watched this, and it helped a lot. This isn't so much of a movie that messes with your brains (although it does a bit), but one that messes with your feelings, your heart.I was captivated with everything that happened, every sound and every look on a face. Without the very last scene I would've given this one a 10 out of 10.Give it a chance, you might be surprised.

Engaging, but failed to raise my interest

tt0448075

It is always interesting when Robin Williams strays outside the space in which he is most effective (or not, as some may argue).As in "Insomnia" and "One Hour Photo", his character here is more complex. Williams plays an acclaimed writer, Gabriel No one, who has also parlayed his writing into a successful late night radio show.Williams' troubles start when an avid fan makes contact with him during a slump period in his career and personal life. The fan is a boy with a terminal condition who starts sharing stories of the terrible abuse he suffered while growing up.As the relationship deepens, a more sinister aspect emerges, and the movie shifts into a mystery mode.The problem is that the pace is too slow, and it becomes clear too early in the plot what is going on. The story also fails to build interest or anxiety especially around the imperilment of Williams' character.And that's ultimately a casting problem, because in concept there's actually nothing wrong.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448075/reviews-155

ur16367289

title: Engaging, but failed to raise my interest review: It is always interesting when Robin Williams strays outside the space in which he is most effective (or not, as some may argue).As in "Insomnia" and "One Hour Photo", his character here is more complex. Williams plays an acclaimed writer, Gabriel No one, who has also parlayed his writing into a successful late night radio show.Williams' troubles start when an avid fan makes contact with him during a slump period in his career and personal life. The fan is a boy with a terminal condition who starts sharing stories of the terrible abuse he suffered while growing up.As the relationship deepens, a more sinister aspect emerges, and the movie shifts into a mystery mode.The problem is that the pace is too slow, and it becomes clear too early in the plot what is going on. The story also fails to build interest or anxiety especially around the imperilment of Williams' character.And that's ultimately a casting problem, because in concept there's actually nothing wrong.

Open-ended drama/thriller that works

tt0448075

Popular radio storyteller Gabriel No one(Robin Williams,scraggy and speaking in hushed,hypnotic tones) becomes acquainted and friends with a fourteen-year-old boy from Wisconsin named Pete Logand(Rory Culkin),who has written a book detailing sexual abuse from his parents. To boot,Pete has AIDS and this compels Gabriel further still,since his partner Jess(Bobby Cannavale,good)happens to be a survivor of HIV himself. He also acquaints himself with Pete's guardian,a woman named Donna(Toni Collette,brilliant!)and when Gabriel decides he wants to meet and talk to the two of them in person and goes to Wisconsin,he discovers some secrets he was(naturally)not prepared to find.Based on real events that happened to Armistead Maupin(who co-wrote the screenplay with Terry Anderson)and directed by Patrick Stetner,this film moves a lot faster(90 min.,maybe a few minutes longer)than one might think a movie of this genre would run. That's good in that it keeps the action and storyline lean and clear. It's bad in that it leaves various holes in the plot and doesn't sew-up any of the plot openings or back-story. I'd rather not go into any great detail except to say that,if you are not familiar with Mr.Maupin's works or his personal story,you feel a little bit out of the loop here. Still,the performances by Williams( I would've loved to heard more of his narration,personally),Collette,Cannavale,Culkin and much of the supporting cast(the Waitress at the restaurant Collete's Donna frequents does a great job with what small part she has!)are top-notch and the mood established here--namely,the chilly,lonely dark exteriors of Wisconsin and New York--give a terrific framing for this story. It may have ends that don't tie together particularly well,but it's still a compelling enough story to stick with.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448075/reviews-62

ur2608802

title: Open-ended drama/thriller that works review: Popular radio storyteller Gabriel No one(Robin Williams,scraggy and speaking in hushed,hypnotic tones) becomes acquainted and friends with a fourteen-year-old boy from Wisconsin named Pete Logand(Rory Culkin),who has written a book detailing sexual abuse from his parents. To boot,Pete has AIDS and this compels Gabriel further still,since his partner Jess(Bobby Cannavale,good)happens to be a survivor of HIV himself. He also acquaints himself with Pete's guardian,a woman named Donna(Toni Collette,brilliant!)and when Gabriel decides he wants to meet and talk to the two of them in person and goes to Wisconsin,he discovers some secrets he was(naturally)not prepared to find.Based on real events that happened to Armistead Maupin(who co-wrote the screenplay with Terry Anderson)and directed by Patrick Stetner,this film moves a lot faster(90 min.,maybe a few minutes longer)than one might think a movie of this genre would run. That's good in that it keeps the action and storyline lean and clear. It's bad in that it leaves various holes in the plot and doesn't sew-up any of the plot openings or back-story. I'd rather not go into any great detail except to say that,if you are not familiar with Mr.Maupin's works or his personal story,you feel a little bit out of the loop here. Still,the performances by Williams( I would've loved to heard more of his narration,personally),Collette,Cannavale,Culkin and much of the supporting cast(the Waitress at the restaurant Collete's Donna frequents does a great job with what small part she has!)are top-notch and the mood established here--namely,the chilly,lonely dark exteriors of Wisconsin and New York--give a terrific framing for this story. It may have ends that don't tie together particularly well,but it's still a compelling enough story to stick with.

Portentous and flawed, but a thoughtful work

tt0448075

Robin Williams (Gabriel No one) tells stories on a late night radio show and is well established. He comes across a book, soon to be published, that sets him off on a search for the truth and that leads him to find part of himself. Toni Collette plays a character whose truth we constantly doubt. The Night Listener raises questions about the dark part which maybe lies in each us, our personal traumas, and the way we deal with them. It asks how much we want to say the things people want to hear, and examines the emotional needs that propel us. While the ending is not too difficult to guess, the subtleties reverberate beyond the simplistic plot.Gabriel has just spilt up with his (gay) partner. He receives an advance copy of 'The Blacking Factory - A Diary of Transcendent Hope and Courage,' and promises to read it. It tells a terrible tale of the author's abuse as a child, likening that period to the blacking (boot polish) factory that Charles Dickens was sent to when he was twelve, a place that 'not only screwed him up for ever but made him a great writer.' It suggests that we all have a blacking factory, some terrible something that makes us 'lose our baby hearts as well as our baby teeth'. Gabriel is in touch by phone with the author, a boy of only fourteen years, and his new adopted mother (Toni Collette). The boy is dying and Gabriel soon becomes quite attached to him even though he has never met him. Gabriel's ex calls, and heartlessly suggests that things might not be what they seem, reminding Gabriel how he embellished the truth when it came to relating incidents from their own life together as real-life stories on the radio.As the mystery unfolds, we get a warm and very human picture of the gay community that is part of Gabriel's world, and feel for him as he pursues his enquiries in ways that lead to his being misunderstood when often only we know the goodness of his true intentions. By now, we are aware that the mystery is as much about the emotions and psychologies of the people involved, and there are many lines that leave us guessing. "The hell of it is," says Colette's character, "we're only loved as much as we think we are." Later, Gabriel says, "Real isn't the thing you're made, it's the thing that happens to you." Collette and Williams are very watchable, although Williams perhaps has not reached the point where he can throw himself into a serious part as well as he has in the past with comic ones. Sandra Oh (Sideways, Under the Tuscan Sun) puts in a first class supporting role, charismatic and crisply confident in welcome contrast to the muddled lives of the main characters.Inspired by true events, the Night Listener is a thoughtful work, marred a little by its own self-consciousness and portentous (if necessary) slowness; it may have limited appeal considering the size of market aimed at by its inclusion of top names.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448075/reviews-71

ur0064493

title: Portentous and flawed, but a thoughtful work review: Robin Williams (Gabriel No one) tells stories on a late night radio show and is well established. He comes across a book, soon to be published, that sets him off on a search for the truth and that leads him to find part of himself. Toni Collette plays a character whose truth we constantly doubt. The Night Listener raises questions about the dark part which maybe lies in each us, our personal traumas, and the way we deal with them. It asks how much we want to say the things people want to hear, and examines the emotional needs that propel us. While the ending is not too difficult to guess, the subtleties reverberate beyond the simplistic plot.Gabriel has just spilt up with his (gay) partner. He receives an advance copy of 'The Blacking Factory - A Diary of Transcendent Hope and Courage,' and promises to read it. It tells a terrible tale of the author's abuse as a child, likening that period to the blacking (boot polish) factory that Charles Dickens was sent to when he was twelve, a place that 'not only screwed him up for ever but made him a great writer.' It suggests that we all have a blacking factory, some terrible something that makes us 'lose our baby hearts as well as our baby teeth'. Gabriel is in touch by phone with the author, a boy of only fourteen years, and his new adopted mother (Toni Collette). The boy is dying and Gabriel soon becomes quite attached to him even though he has never met him. Gabriel's ex calls, and heartlessly suggests that things might not be what they seem, reminding Gabriel how he embellished the truth when it came to relating incidents from their own life together as real-life stories on the radio.As the mystery unfolds, we get a warm and very human picture of the gay community that is part of Gabriel's world, and feel for him as he pursues his enquiries in ways that lead to his being misunderstood when often only we know the goodness of his true intentions. By now, we are aware that the mystery is as much about the emotions and psychologies of the people involved, and there are many lines that leave us guessing. "The hell of it is," says Colette's character, "we're only loved as much as we think we are." Later, Gabriel says, "Real isn't the thing you're made, it's the thing that happens to you." Collette and Williams are very watchable, although Williams perhaps has not reached the point where he can throw himself into a serious part as well as he has in the past with comic ones. Sandra Oh (Sideways, Under the Tuscan Sun) puts in a first class supporting role, charismatic and crisply confident in welcome contrast to the muddled lives of the main characters.Inspired by true events, the Night Listener is a thoughtful work, marred a little by its own self-consciousness and portentous (if necessary) slowness; it may have limited appeal considering the size of market aimed at by its inclusion of top names.

I spent my life selecting only the parts that glitter

tt0448075

There are many illnesses born in the mind of man which have been given life in modern times. Constant vigilance or accrued information in the realm of Pyschosis, have kept psychologists, counselors and psychiatrists busy with enough work to last them decades. Occasionally, some of these mental phenomenon are discover by those with no knowledge of their remedy or even of their existence. That is the premise of the film entitled " The Night Listner." It tells the story of a popular radio host called Gabriel Noon (Robin Williams) who spends his evenings enthralling his audiences with vivid stories about Gay lifestyles. Perhaps its because his show is losing it's authentic veneer which causes Noon to admit he is no longer himself. Feeling abandoned by both his lover Jess (Bobby Cannavale) and his and best friend (Joe Morton), he seeks shelter in his deepening despair and isolation. It is here, a mysterious voice in the night asks him for help. Noon needs to feel useful and reaches out to the desperate voice which belongs to a 14 year old boy called Peter (Rory Culkin). In reading the boy's harrowing manuscript which depicts the early life and sexual abuse at the hands of his brutal parents, Noon is captivated and wants to help. However, things are not what they seem and Noon soon finds himself en-wrapped in an elusive and bizarre tale torn right out of a medical nightmare. This movie is pure Robin Williams and were it not for Toni Collette who plays Donna D. Logand, Sandra Oh as Anna and John Cullum as pop, this might be comical. Instead, this may prove to be one of William's more serious performances. ***

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448075/reviews-135

ur3902771

title: I spent my life selecting only the parts that glitter review: There are many illnesses born in the mind of man which have been given life in modern times. Constant vigilance or accrued information in the realm of Pyschosis, have kept psychologists, counselors and psychiatrists busy with enough work to last them decades. Occasionally, some of these mental phenomenon are discover by those with no knowledge of their remedy or even of their existence. That is the premise of the film entitled " The Night Listner." It tells the story of a popular radio host called Gabriel Noon (Robin Williams) who spends his evenings enthralling his audiences with vivid stories about Gay lifestyles. Perhaps its because his show is losing it's authentic veneer which causes Noon to admit he is no longer himself. Feeling abandoned by both his lover Jess (Bobby Cannavale) and his and best friend (Joe Morton), he seeks shelter in his deepening despair and isolation. It is here, a mysterious voice in the night asks him for help. Noon needs to feel useful and reaches out to the desperate voice which belongs to a 14 year old boy called Peter (Rory Culkin). In reading the boy's harrowing manuscript which depicts the early life and sexual abuse at the hands of his brutal parents, Noon is captivated and wants to help. However, things are not what they seem and Noon soon finds himself en-wrapped in an elusive and bizarre tale torn right out of a medical nightmare. This movie is pure Robin Williams and were it not for Toni Collette who plays Donna D. Logand, Sandra Oh as Anna and John Cullum as pop, this might be comical. Instead, this may prove to be one of William's more serious performances. ***

The dark journey of Robin Williams

tt0448075

STAR RATING: ***** Jodie Marsh **** Michelle Marsh *** Kym Marsh ** Rodney Marsh * Hackney Marsh Still recovering from a bitter break-up from his younger lover, gay radio storyteller Gabriel No one (Robin Williams) seeks solace in a story sent to him by a young man who claims to have been sexually molested. He starts exchanging phone conservations with the boy and starts to form a close bond with him but then he starts to think that the boy's voice sounds very similar to that of his mother's (the boy's) and heads out to track him down. But little does he know he's set himself on a dark and dangerous journey which could take any turn.Williams continues to pummel in his taste for more darker roles with this new entry. He's the main driving force of the film, with pretty much all the supporting cast being recognizable supporting actors from previous films. Fittingly, he gives a performance of the same style he's given in films like One Hour Photo, Death to Smoochy and soforth. The film itself is pretty good, with a consistently intriguing story and a neat dark feel through-out. But the ending comes in and lets it down, with too many conclusions only for the story to start again and basically just failing to reach a satisfying ending.So then, well worth watching, not up there with the brilliant Insomnia but just on a par with One Hour Photo and quite high above the rather dreadful The Final Cut. ***

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448075/reviews-78

ur0345596

title: The dark journey of Robin Williams review: STAR RATING: ***** Jodie Marsh **** Michelle Marsh *** Kym Marsh ** Rodney Marsh * Hackney Marsh Still recovering from a bitter break-up from his younger lover, gay radio storyteller Gabriel No one (Robin Williams) seeks solace in a story sent to him by a young man who claims to have been sexually molested. He starts exchanging phone conservations with the boy and starts to form a close bond with him but then he starts to think that the boy's voice sounds very similar to that of his mother's (the boy's) and heads out to track him down. But little does he know he's set himself on a dark and dangerous journey which could take any turn.Williams continues to pummel in his taste for more darker roles with this new entry. He's the main driving force of the film, with pretty much all the supporting cast being recognizable supporting actors from previous films. Fittingly, he gives a performance of the same style he's given in films like One Hour Photo, Death to Smoochy and soforth. The film itself is pretty good, with a consistently intriguing story and a neat dark feel through-out. But the ending comes in and lets it down, with too many conclusions only for the story to start again and basically just failing to reach a satisfying ending.So then, well worth watching, not up there with the brilliant Insomnia but just on a par with One Hour Photo and quite high above the rather dreadful The Final Cut. ***

Great Film, Just Not What Audiences Expected

tt0448075

This isn't the comedic Robin Williams, nor is it the quirky/insane Robin Williams of recent thriller fame. This is a hybrid of the classic drama without over-dramatization, mixed with Robin's new love of the thriller. But this isn't a thriller, per se. This is more a mystery/suspense vehicle through which Williams attempts to locate a sick boy and his keeper.Also starring Sandra Oh and Rory Culkin, this Suspense Drama plays pretty much like a news report, until William's character gets close to achieving his goal.I must say that I was highly entertained, though this movie fails to teach, guide, inspect, or amuse. It felt more like I was watching a guy (Williams), as he was actually performing the actions, from a third person perspective. In other words, it felt real, and I was able to subscribe to the premise of the story.All in all, it's worth a watch, though it's definitely not Friday/Saturday night fare.It rates a 7.7/10 from...the Fiend :.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448075/reviews-133

ur2626332

title: Great Film, Just Not What Audiences Expected review: This isn't the comedic Robin Williams, nor is it the quirky/insane Robin Williams of recent thriller fame. This is a hybrid of the classic drama without over-dramatization, mixed with Robin's new love of the thriller. But this isn't a thriller, per se. This is more a mystery/suspense vehicle through which Williams attempts to locate a sick boy and his keeper.Also starring Sandra Oh and Rory Culkin, this Suspense Drama plays pretty much like a news report, until William's character gets close to achieving his goal.I must say that I was highly entertained, though this movie fails to teach, guide, inspect, or amuse. It felt more like I was watching a guy (Williams), as he was actually performing the actions, from a third person perspective. In other words, it felt real, and I was able to subscribe to the premise of the story.All in all, it's worth a watch, though it's definitely not Friday/Saturday night fare.It rates a 7.7/10 from...the Fiend :.

Elmer Dud

tt0053793

Whatever controversy there was in Sinclair Lewis's classic satire has been whitewashed to present a pro-religion view in this dreadful screen adaptation. The film is little more than filmed revival meetings, with two and half hours of loud, over-the-top preaching that is quite tedious to watch. Lancaster plays the title role with beady eyes, a toothy grin, and a phony laughter. It may be well-suited to the character, but it's a caricature that quickly becomes tiresome. Of course, this showy performance was ready-made for an Oscar. Simmons and Kennedy fare better, and Jones is quite alluring in a role far removed from Mrs. Partridge. The ending is contrived and utterly ridiculous.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053793/reviews-67

ur2590596

title: Elmer Dud review: Whatever controversy there was in Sinclair Lewis's classic satire has been whitewashed to present a pro-religion view in this dreadful screen adaptation. The film is little more than filmed revival meetings, with two and half hours of loud, over-the-top preaching that is quite tedious to watch. Lancaster plays the title role with beady eyes, a toothy grin, and a phony laughter. It may be well-suited to the character, but it's a caricature that quickly becomes tiresome. Of course, this showy performance was ready-made for an Oscar. Simmons and Kennedy fare better, and Jones is quite alluring in a role far removed from Mrs. Partridge. The ending is contrived and utterly ridiculous.

Satan lies awaitin'

tt0053793

Burt Lancaster acted in a number of excellent films during the late 1950s and early 1960s. "Elmer Gantry", directed by Richard Brooks, is one of his best.Set in the early 1920s, the film stars Lancaster as Elmer Gantry, a fast talking charlatan and con man who uses his seductive tongue to weasel his way into the church of Sharon Falconer (Jean Simmons), a Christian fundamentalist and female evangelist. Together the duo travel from town to town, setting up massive revival tents and seducing thousands upon thousands of believers.At its best, "Elmer Gantry" draws parallels between the words of business, entertainment and organised religion. In Brooks' hands, the church's foot-soldiers are more hucksters and crafty salesmen than men and women of God. They're selling a product, tailoring their pitches and pep talks to the wants and needs of the people, and even actively manufacturing desires, phobias and neuroses. Lancaster's character is himself a creepy sales machine who always knows exactly which screws to turn. His product? Himself. Ego-maniacal and craving attention, Gantry will do anything to be at the head of a pulpit.Burt Lancaster has often been accused of overacting. His character in "Elmer Gantry" is admittedly bombastic and exuberant, but fittingly so. Like an advertising executive on caffene, Gantry is a man of wild gestures and big promises, though there is subtlety and truth in the way Lancaster sculpts Gantry's smiles and the edges of Gantry's eyes. Gantry's facial features are hard, forced and false, all an act designed to seduce. Think of him as a precursor to Paul Thomas Anderson's Daniel Plainview (based on a 1927 Upton Sinclair novel)."Elmer Gantry" was itself based on less than 100 pages from an ahead-of-its-time novel by Sinclair Lewis (released in 1926). But where Lewis is satirical, edgy, angry, funny and resolutely anti-Christian, Brooks' film is kinder, gentler, ambiguous and scared of offending Christian audiences. Is Brooks' Gantry a believer? It seems so, despite his motivations. Do miracles happen within the film, thereby proving the existence of Christ? Again, it seems so, though the film is ambiguous enough to also suggest the exact opposite. Lewis' stance may have been too militant, even for the supposedly "progressive" 1960s; just another example of how timid cinema can be.Still, as a watered-down critique of fundamentalism, and even religion in a broader sense, the film works well. It's most sympathetic character is an atheist journalist, played by the great, underrated Arthur Kennedy. Kennedy's character sees through everyone's shams, but empathises with them nevertheless. A key scene involves him writing a newspaper article which shocks readers. Gantry and Falconer are hucksters and racketeers, he writes, selling superficialities in a world in which well-meaning intentions, religion and social goods offer no resistance to vices or social evil. Kennedy's readers support him, until the fast talking Elmer Gantry once again shifts popular opinion. Rather than change people, religion tends to force man to compartmentalise, repress or engage in wanton denial.The film missteps in its final act, with a fire-and-brimstone climax and an ending which is arguably too sympathetic toward Gantry. Better to portray him as a snake. A wolf in sheep's clothing. Brooks, though, has Gantry redeemed. He's just another soldier answering God's call. The film's best scene? Gantry stepping into an African American church and singing "I'm On My Way To Canaan's Land". The sequence is brilliant, Gantry's words like a threat, his tongue like the tool of Satan.8.5/10 - Richard Brooks is not well known today, but he directed a number of very good films (think of him as another John Huston). "Elmer Gantry" is one of his best. Worth one viewing.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053793/reviews-80

ur4130201

title: Satan lies awaitin' review: Burt Lancaster acted in a number of excellent films during the late 1950s and early 1960s. "Elmer Gantry", directed by Richard Brooks, is one of his best.Set in the early 1920s, the film stars Lancaster as Elmer Gantry, a fast talking charlatan and con man who uses his seductive tongue to weasel his way into the church of Sharon Falconer (Jean Simmons), a Christian fundamentalist and female evangelist. Together the duo travel from town to town, setting up massive revival tents and seducing thousands upon thousands of believers.At its best, "Elmer Gantry" draws parallels between the words of business, entertainment and organised religion. In Brooks' hands, the church's foot-soldiers are more hucksters and crafty salesmen than men and women of God. They're selling a product, tailoring their pitches and pep talks to the wants and needs of the people, and even actively manufacturing desires, phobias and neuroses. Lancaster's character is himself a creepy sales machine who always knows exactly which screws to turn. His product? Himself. Ego-maniacal and craving attention, Gantry will do anything to be at the head of a pulpit.Burt Lancaster has often been accused of overacting. His character in "Elmer Gantry" is admittedly bombastic and exuberant, but fittingly so. Like an advertising executive on caffene, Gantry is a man of wild gestures and big promises, though there is subtlety and truth in the way Lancaster sculpts Gantry's smiles and the edges of Gantry's eyes. Gantry's facial features are hard, forced and false, all an act designed to seduce. Think of him as a precursor to Paul Thomas Anderson's Daniel Plainview (based on a 1927 Upton Sinclair novel)."Elmer Gantry" was itself based on less than 100 pages from an ahead-of-its-time novel by Sinclair Lewis (released in 1926). But where Lewis is satirical, edgy, angry, funny and resolutely anti-Christian, Brooks' film is kinder, gentler, ambiguous and scared of offending Christian audiences. Is Brooks' Gantry a believer? It seems so, despite his motivations. Do miracles happen within the film, thereby proving the existence of Christ? Again, it seems so, though the film is ambiguous enough to also suggest the exact opposite. Lewis' stance may have been too militant, even for the supposedly "progressive" 1960s; just another example of how timid cinema can be.Still, as a watered-down critique of fundamentalism, and even religion in a broader sense, the film works well. It's most sympathetic character is an atheist journalist, played by the great, underrated Arthur Kennedy. Kennedy's character sees through everyone's shams, but empathises with them nevertheless. A key scene involves him writing a newspaper article which shocks readers. Gantry and Falconer are hucksters and racketeers, he writes, selling superficialities in a world in which well-meaning intentions, religion and social goods offer no resistance to vices or social evil. Kennedy's readers support him, until the fast talking Elmer Gantry once again shifts popular opinion. Rather than change people, religion tends to force man to compartmentalise, repress or engage in wanton denial.The film missteps in its final act, with a fire-and-brimstone climax and an ending which is arguably too sympathetic toward Gantry. Better to portray him as a snake. A wolf in sheep's clothing. Brooks, though, has Gantry redeemed. He's just another soldier answering God's call. The film's best scene? Gantry stepping into an African American church and singing "I'm On My Way To Canaan's Land". The sequence is brilliant, Gantry's words like a threat, his tongue like the tool of Satan.8.5/10 - Richard Brooks is not well known today, but he directed a number of very good films (think of him as another John Huston). "Elmer Gantry" is one of his best. Worth one viewing.

Hallelujah!

tt0053793

"Elmer Gantry" is one of writer/director Richard Brooks's many literary adaptations. I'm not familiar with the original novel by Sinclair Lewis so I can't comment on how faithful this adaptation is but Brooks must have captured some of the book's appeal since his screenplay was rewarded with an Oscar.The story revolves around the title character, a fast-talking salesman turned evangelist. He teams up with an established female evangelist whose more subdued style makes them perfect complements to one another. However, Gantry isn't as upright as he makes himself out to be and his unsavoury past threatens to catch up with him.Gantry is portrayed by Burt Lancaster in an Academy Award winning performance. Some might say that it's over the top but I think that it was perfectly suited to his character. His female counterpart, the lovely Jean Simmons, was somehow overlooked by the Academy while Shirley Jones bagged an Oscar mainly for playing against type. The rest of the cast members (including Arthur Kennedy & Dean Jagger) lend quality support.Brooks's direction is well-handled if not particularly notable. The score by André Previn was nominated for an Oscar but I'm drawing a complete blank regarding it. This suggests to me that, like the direction, it was ably handled but not especially remarkable.It is worth noting that the film's five Oscar nominations include one for Best Picture. I feel that this recognition was warranted and the film still holds up as a worthwhile drama with some fine performances and an interesting, lively storyline.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053793/reviews-65

ur17822437

title: Hallelujah! review: "Elmer Gantry" is one of writer/director Richard Brooks's many literary adaptations. I'm not familiar with the original novel by Sinclair Lewis so I can't comment on how faithful this adaptation is but Brooks must have captured some of the book's appeal since his screenplay was rewarded with an Oscar.The story revolves around the title character, a fast-talking salesman turned evangelist. He teams up with an established female evangelist whose more subdued style makes them perfect complements to one another. However, Gantry isn't as upright as he makes himself out to be and his unsavoury past threatens to catch up with him.Gantry is portrayed by Burt Lancaster in an Academy Award winning performance. Some might say that it's over the top but I think that it was perfectly suited to his character. His female counterpart, the lovely Jean Simmons, was somehow overlooked by the Academy while Shirley Jones bagged an Oscar mainly for playing against type. The rest of the cast members (including Arthur Kennedy & Dean Jagger) lend quality support.Brooks's direction is well-handled if not particularly notable. The score by André Previn was nominated for an Oscar but I'm drawing a complete blank regarding it. This suggests to me that, like the direction, it was ably handled but not especially remarkable.It is worth noting that the film's five Oscar nominations include one for Best Picture. I feel that this recognition was warranted and the film still holds up as a worthwhile drama with some fine performances and an interesting, lively storyline.

Let's go back to church!

tt0053793

The growth of fundamentalist Christianity in contemporary America is a source of bafflement to those who just don't get it; including, by and large, the movie industry, which may like to end its films with sanctimonious moralising, but which usually reserves the right to serve us substantial portions of sex and violence beforehand. Mel Gibson aside, you don't expect to see a sympathetic portrayal of religion in the movies; from 'Night of the Hunter' onwards, the dodgy preacher has been a more common character than the saintly one, and there's another kicking for the born-again movement in 'Elmer Gantry'. In fact, the film could be seen as prescient, as both religious revivalism, and celebrity-scandal driven journalism (another of its subjects), have arguably become more prevalent since it was made. The film's slant may be predictable, and it also suffers from some common flaws of its era (an ugly, intrusive Andre Previn score, and occasionally wooden acting); but it's hugely entertaining nonetheless. Burt Lancaster plays the eponymous anti-hero as rogue of such charm that you almost want him to succeed; while the ambiguous character of his partner Sister Falconer (Jean Simmons), who doesn't seem to know herself whether is she a fellow-fraud or a genuine messenger of God, makes a perfect dramatic foil. In fact, the film's theatricality can almost be seen as a strength, for it's constructed like a well-written play. Although most entertaining when Gantry is actually preaching (mainly in the opening half of the film), the intelligent script moves on from it's basic premise (that Gantry is a charlatan) to explore wider questions of the nature of humanity and society. You could even argue that Gantry is performing a kind of public service, meeting a need with maximum opportunism but without malice. For all that, you also fear for a world in which the influence of modern-day Gantries shows no sign of diminishing. This is a film that has outlasted its time.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053793/reviews-32

ur2082018

title: Let's go back to church! review: The growth of fundamentalist Christianity in contemporary America is a source of bafflement to those who just don't get it; including, by and large, the movie industry, which may like to end its films with sanctimonious moralising, but which usually reserves the right to serve us substantial portions of sex and violence beforehand. Mel Gibson aside, you don't expect to see a sympathetic portrayal of religion in the movies; from 'Night of the Hunter' onwards, the dodgy preacher has been a more common character than the saintly one, and there's another kicking for the born-again movement in 'Elmer Gantry'. In fact, the film could be seen as prescient, as both religious revivalism, and celebrity-scandal driven journalism (another of its subjects), have arguably become more prevalent since it was made. The film's slant may be predictable, and it also suffers from some common flaws of its era (an ugly, intrusive Andre Previn score, and occasionally wooden acting); but it's hugely entertaining nonetheless. Burt Lancaster plays the eponymous anti-hero as rogue of such charm that you almost want him to succeed; while the ambiguous character of his partner Sister Falconer (Jean Simmons), who doesn't seem to know herself whether is she a fellow-fraud or a genuine messenger of God, makes a perfect dramatic foil. In fact, the film's theatricality can almost be seen as a strength, for it's constructed like a well-written play. Although most entertaining when Gantry is actually preaching (mainly in the opening half of the film), the intelligent script moves on from it's basic premise (that Gantry is a charlatan) to explore wider questions of the nature of humanity and society. You could even argue that Gantry is performing a kind of public service, meeting a need with maximum opportunism but without malice. For all that, you also fear for a world in which the influence of modern-day Gantries shows no sign of diminishing. This is a film that has outlasted its time.

Wow! Complex, Fascinating, Relevant; A Must See

tt0053793

In "Elmer Gantry," Burt Lancaster gives one of the all-time great screen performances. Lancaster's performance is so rich, so real, that the viewer knows this man, knows what Gantry smells like (sweat and eau de cologne) and what he eats (big slabs of beef). I can't say I've ever seen anything quite like it. Gantry's entire repertoire is performed with encyclopedic thoroughness and accuracy. We see Gantry the narcissistic conman, Gantry the philanthropist, Gantry the flamboyant showman.Just when we think we've seen it all, just when we think we can write Gantry off as a cross between a clown, a self-deceiver, and a blowhard, the movie reveals another nuance in Gantry's soul – something we'd never seen before, and yet realize is totally believable, and, in fact, essential to understanding the man. Our views of the man change. We can't help but love him.One such scene: almost 75 % of the way through the movie, in fact, after a shorter and shallower movie would have ended, Gantry says to another man, "Don't you know that that hurts?" in a voice we haven't heard him use before. Lancaster is breathtaking in this, the film's quietest line reading. Lancaster is so magnificent in this, his Oscar-winning role, that you have to wonder if he is not calling on much of his own character, as a charming, larger-than-life Hollywood star, to play the charming, larger-than-life star of tent revivals. IMDb trivia notes claim that Lancaster received a letter from a childhood friend saying that Lancaster's performance as Elmer Gantry reminded him of the Lancaster he remembered from real life.The rest of the cast is also superb. Jean Simmons is domineering, spiritual, spooky, and lustful, by turns. Shirley Jones is heartbreaking as a doomed woman. Arthur Kennedy is perfect as a skeptical journalist. Dean Jagger perfectly times and pitches his paternal air, his outrage, and his surprised forgiveness. Patti Page is poignant as Sister Rachel. Edward Andrews is the embodiment of a sanctimonious, ambitious, brothel owner.This film addressing religious corruption, lynch mob mentality, and illicit sex was made under strict rules of censorship. There are no four letter words, no naked breasts, no bleeding wounds. And yet this film raised goose bumps in ways that more explicit movies only wish they could. A crowd brays for blood; a man pulls a horse whip out of a paper bag and cracks it. Refuse is thrown at a man, and what looks very like maggots. A police officer arresting a prostitute says "You wouldn't believe what I caught this one doing." A virgin is taken under a building by a man who has practically hypnotized her. Wow! "Elmer Gantry" is critical of Christian revival meetings that were popular in the rural south and Midwest in the early decades of the twentieth century. Its indirect targets were understood to be the historical figures, Aimee Semple McPherson and Billy Sunday. Some Christians might avoid the movie for this reason. That would be a mistake. The movie is ultimately very charitable to all of its characters, even Babbit, the brothel owner. Like Gantry himself, the film sees humanity in all its beauty and ugliness, understands, and forgives. This is no black/white, two-dimensional screed. It's a complex exploration of complex behaviors, longings, needs, desires, ambitions. A woman can be a virgin dedicated to God and also a lover who empties sand out of her high-heeled shoe after a night of illicit passion on a beach. A villain who contributed to the ruination of a young woman's life can redeem himself through application of biblical concepts of humility and forgiveness.Too, the flimflamming "Elmer Gantry" skewers is not limited to churches. There is a charming narcissist of uncertain background on the world stage today who, like Gantry, attracts chanting crowds, causes women to faint and men to believe in a national renaissance. This particular charismatic public speaker is not a religious leader, but a candidate for the presidency. The speaker who wows crowds, the crowds who yearn to surrender themselves to a putative messiah, are forever with us. That being the case, "Elmer Gantry" is a film that will never lose its relevance.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053793/reviews-56

ur2366009

title: Wow! Complex, Fascinating, Relevant; A Must See review: In "Elmer Gantry," Burt Lancaster gives one of the all-time great screen performances. Lancaster's performance is so rich, so real, that the viewer knows this man, knows what Gantry smells like (sweat and eau de cologne) and what he eats (big slabs of beef). I can't say I've ever seen anything quite like it. Gantry's entire repertoire is performed with encyclopedic thoroughness and accuracy. We see Gantry the narcissistic conman, Gantry the philanthropist, Gantry the flamboyant showman.Just when we think we've seen it all, just when we think we can write Gantry off as a cross between a clown, a self-deceiver, and a blowhard, the movie reveals another nuance in Gantry's soul – something we'd never seen before, and yet realize is totally believable, and, in fact, essential to understanding the man. Our views of the man change. We can't help but love him.One such scene: almost 75 % of the way through the movie, in fact, after a shorter and shallower movie would have ended, Gantry says to another man, "Don't you know that that hurts?" in a voice we haven't heard him use before. Lancaster is breathtaking in this, the film's quietest line reading. Lancaster is so magnificent in this, his Oscar-winning role, that you have to wonder if he is not calling on much of his own character, as a charming, larger-than-life Hollywood star, to play the charming, larger-than-life star of tent revivals. IMDb trivia notes claim that Lancaster received a letter from a childhood friend saying that Lancaster's performance as Elmer Gantry reminded him of the Lancaster he remembered from real life.The rest of the cast is also superb. Jean Simmons is domineering, spiritual, spooky, and lustful, by turns. Shirley Jones is heartbreaking as a doomed woman. Arthur Kennedy is perfect as a skeptical journalist. Dean Jagger perfectly times and pitches his paternal air, his outrage, and his surprised forgiveness. Patti Page is poignant as Sister Rachel. Edward Andrews is the embodiment of a sanctimonious, ambitious, brothel owner.This film addressing religious corruption, lynch mob mentality, and illicit sex was made under strict rules of censorship. There are no four letter words, no naked breasts, no bleeding wounds. And yet this film raised goose bumps in ways that more explicit movies only wish they could. A crowd brays for blood; a man pulls a horse whip out of a paper bag and cracks it. Refuse is thrown at a man, and what looks very like maggots. A police officer arresting a prostitute says "You wouldn't believe what I caught this one doing." A virgin is taken under a building by a man who has practically hypnotized her. Wow! "Elmer Gantry" is critical of Christian revival meetings that were popular in the rural south and Midwest in the early decades of the twentieth century. Its indirect targets were understood to be the historical figures, Aimee Semple McPherson and Billy Sunday. Some Christians might avoid the movie for this reason. That would be a mistake. The movie is ultimately very charitable to all of its characters, even Babbit, the brothel owner. Like Gantry himself, the film sees humanity in all its beauty and ugliness, understands, and forgives. This is no black/white, two-dimensional screed. It's a complex exploration of complex behaviors, longings, needs, desires, ambitions. A woman can be a virgin dedicated to God and also a lover who empties sand out of her high-heeled shoe after a night of illicit passion on a beach. A villain who contributed to the ruination of a young woman's life can redeem himself through application of biblical concepts of humility and forgiveness.Too, the flimflamming "Elmer Gantry" skewers is not limited to churches. There is a charming narcissist of uncertain background on the world stage today who, like Gantry, attracts chanting crowds, causes women to faint and men to believe in a national renaissance. This particular charismatic public speaker is not a religious leader, but a candidate for the presidency. The speaker who wows crowds, the crowds who yearn to surrender themselves to a putative messiah, are forever with us. That being the case, "Elmer Gantry" is a film that will never lose its relevance.

A Much Better Than Average Literary Adaption

tt0053793

For some reason Richard Brooks seemed to think of himself as the man best suited to turning great novels and plays into films, but if the results were at best entertaining ("The Brothers Karamazov", "Cat on a hot tin roof") they tended to fall far short of the originals. If "Elmer Gantry" worked better than most was largely due to Brooks ability to tell a rattling good yarn at a cracking pace and to the performances of a superb cast.Burt Lancaster seemed born to play the role of the lustful traveling salesman whose desire for the Aimee Semple McPhearson-like Sister Sharon turns him into a charismatic preacher, (his performance here is a virtual reprise of his performance as Starbuck in "The Rainmaker" a few years earlier). As Sharon, Jean Simmons gives a luminous performance, all fragility and repressed sexuality and singer Shirley Jones is a revelation as a trampy prostitute; (both she and Lancaster were rewarded with Oscars). Not great then, but several cuts above what it might have been.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053793/reviews-27

ur1683855

title: A Much Better Than Average Literary Adaption review: For some reason Richard Brooks seemed to think of himself as the man best suited to turning great novels and plays into films, but if the results were at best entertaining ("The Brothers Karamazov", "Cat on a hot tin roof") they tended to fall far short of the originals. If "Elmer Gantry" worked better than most was largely due to Brooks ability to tell a rattling good yarn at a cracking pace and to the performances of a superb cast.Burt Lancaster seemed born to play the role of the lustful traveling salesman whose desire for the Aimee Semple McPhearson-like Sister Sharon turns him into a charismatic preacher, (his performance here is a virtual reprise of his performance as Starbuck in "The Rainmaker" a few years earlier). As Sharon, Jean Simmons gives a luminous performance, all fragility and repressed sexuality and singer Shirley Jones is a revelation as a trampy prostitute; (both she and Lancaster were rewarded with Oscars). Not great then, but several cuts above what it might have been.

Lancaster's Oscar winner

tt0053793

Elmer Gantry (Lancaster) is an obnoxious con man who'll stop at nothing to get ahead. Sharon Falconer, AKA: Katey Jones (Jean Simmons) is the righteous, holier than thou, sexually repressed spinster woman Gantry seduces after he joins up with her traveling caravan of soul savers and faith healers, taking them all the way from the sticks to the big city in the 1920s era of religious revivalism. But an old flame of Gantry's turned prostitute (good girl singer Shirley Jones) could ruin it all for Gantry... or will Gantry's passion for the sexually repressed Sharon be his undoing? And what will be the undoing of Sharon? He lust for Gantry or blind, unwavering faith in the Lord and her desire to be the savior of saviors? Lancaster's as vibrant and charismatic as he ever was as the opportunistic Gantry, who's heart grows ever so slightly when confronted by the woman he wronged in the past and for the uncompromising Sharon. As always, the coldly beautiful Simmons brings out the sincerity and forlorn sexual repression of her role (and gets her sexual wish fulfillment under the bay). Jones' also won an Oscar for the hooker who tries to ruin Gantry, only to go back on her attempts to get revenge.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053793/reviews-44

ur2293681

title: Lancaster's Oscar winner review: Elmer Gantry (Lancaster) is an obnoxious con man who'll stop at nothing to get ahead. Sharon Falconer, AKA: Katey Jones (Jean Simmons) is the righteous, holier than thou, sexually repressed spinster woman Gantry seduces after he joins up with her traveling caravan of soul savers and faith healers, taking them all the way from the sticks to the big city in the 1920s era of religious revivalism. But an old flame of Gantry's turned prostitute (good girl singer Shirley Jones) could ruin it all for Gantry... or will Gantry's passion for the sexually repressed Sharon be his undoing? And what will be the undoing of Sharon? He lust for Gantry or blind, unwavering faith in the Lord and her desire to be the savior of saviors? Lancaster's as vibrant and charismatic as he ever was as the opportunistic Gantry, who's heart grows ever so slightly when confronted by the woman he wronged in the past and for the uncompromising Sharon. As always, the coldly beautiful Simmons brings out the sincerity and forlorn sexual repression of her role (and gets her sexual wish fulfillment under the bay). Jones' also won an Oscar for the hooker who tries to ruin Gantry, only to go back on her attempts to get revenge.

"It's up to us to make a success out of Christianity."

tt0053793

I love it when the hucksters get their comeuppance, and as the title character Elmer Gantry, Burt Lancaster takes it to the shysters and con-men in all his flamboyant glory. The picture launches a direct broadside against the revival movement of the 1920's and those who would 'be the first to shake 'em up Jesus'. Lancaster is appealingly effective in his role as con-man, hustler, liar, thief and clown, a crude and vulgar show-off according to William Morgan (Dean Jagger). A single glance at revivalist preacher Sister Sharon Falconer (Jean Simmons) and Gantry insinuates himself into her congregation as the wayward messenger, a step up from bar room philosopher and itinerant alcoholic and womanizer.With present day progressives firmly entrenched in their war on Christianity and organized religion, it's interesting to take this half century step back in time and see how that era took it's unsubtle mocking of fundamentalism mainstream. There's a dichotomy though, Sister Falconer is genuinely entrenched in her faith and dreams of her own church one day. Gantry initially views her as simply another one of his romantic conquests, but is sharp enough to realize that the traveling religious sideshow can be a profitable business in it's own right. Preacher Gantry has the true believers swooning in their seats and the local churchmen eager and ready to capitalize on the resurgence of their congregations. Why is it that Edward Andrews is always the perfect choice for a character like George Babbitt? He can do them in his sleep.I first saw this film many years ago when the only television broadcast availability was in black and white, and I can't help think that the story might have been more effective if made in that format. The characters here had just too many shades of gray to be conveyed otherwise. You know, I just had a thought. Instead of colorizing old films, how about taking ones like this and redoing them in glorious black and white. "Elmer Gantry" would be a perfect candidate.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053793/reviews-78

ur2707735

title: "It's up to us to make a success out of Christianity." review: I love it when the hucksters get their comeuppance, and as the title character Elmer Gantry, Burt Lancaster takes it to the shysters and con-men in all his flamboyant glory. The picture launches a direct broadside against the revival movement of the 1920's and those who would 'be the first to shake 'em up Jesus'. Lancaster is appealingly effective in his role as con-man, hustler, liar, thief and clown, a crude and vulgar show-off according to William Morgan (Dean Jagger). A single glance at revivalist preacher Sister Sharon Falconer (Jean Simmons) and Gantry insinuates himself into her congregation as the wayward messenger, a step up from bar room philosopher and itinerant alcoholic and womanizer.With present day progressives firmly entrenched in their war on Christianity and organized religion, it's interesting to take this half century step back in time and see how that era took it's unsubtle mocking of fundamentalism mainstream. There's a dichotomy though, Sister Falconer is genuinely entrenched in her faith and dreams of her own church one day. Gantry initially views her as simply another one of his romantic conquests, but is sharp enough to realize that the traveling religious sideshow can be a profitable business in it's own right. Preacher Gantry has the true believers swooning in their seats and the local churchmen eager and ready to capitalize on the resurgence of their congregations. Why is it that Edward Andrews is always the perfect choice for a character like George Babbitt? He can do them in his sleep.I first saw this film many years ago when the only television broadcast availability was in black and white, and I can't help think that the story might have been more effective if made in that format. The characters here had just too many shades of gray to be conveyed otherwise. You know, I just had a thought. Instead of colorizing old films, how about taking ones like this and redoing them in glorious black and white. "Elmer Gantry" would be a perfect candidate.

"Every Circus needs a Clown"

tt0053793

Burt Lancaster's Ripe Performance seems to Elicit one of two Responses from Fans and Critics. 1)The most Buffoonish, Overblown, Overheated slice of Ham ever to Win an Academy Award, or for that Matter ever put on Film. 2)The Oscar Awarded Performance that was the Best in a Long Career, and Transcends Art into Personification.There is Something to be said about both. No Matter what Your Opinion, the Showy Part was Written and Meant to be that of a Carnival Barker, a Huckster, a Hard Sell Salesman in a Circus to Save Souls, Cleanse the Spirit and Rake in the Money with Fiery Folk Tales of Wrath and Punishment, Reward and Salvation.The Movie Opens with a Disclaimer that Apologizes for its Existence and the Movie is Structured as to not Offend the Majority of the Population (read ticker buyers) who were the Overwhelming part of the Citizenry. It is the Tone that the Film will take Throughout its Lengthy Running Time and it is a Sign of the Time, and the Movie's Biggest Flaw. A Fine Cast with Arthur Kennedy and Shirley Jones Standing Out in Support of Lancaster's Gantry. Jean Simmons does OK in a bit of Miscasting. The Type of Evangelicalism in the Film that Takes Place in the 1920's is Still with us Today, it has just Moved from Tent to TV.The Sixties and Breakdown of the Motion Picture Code and in Tandem the Liberalization of the Culture had yet to Manifest itself and the Destiny of the Change in Society was not quite upon Us. As a Result the Film Suffers from a Conservative Restraint, but is Nevertheless Very Entertaining.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053793/reviews-86

ur33374263

title: "Every Circus needs a Clown" review: Burt Lancaster's Ripe Performance seems to Elicit one of two Responses from Fans and Critics. 1)The most Buffoonish, Overblown, Overheated slice of Ham ever to Win an Academy Award, or for that Matter ever put on Film. 2)The Oscar Awarded Performance that was the Best in a Long Career, and Transcends Art into Personification.There is Something to be said about both. No Matter what Your Opinion, the Showy Part was Written and Meant to be that of a Carnival Barker, a Huckster, a Hard Sell Salesman in a Circus to Save Souls, Cleanse the Spirit and Rake in the Money with Fiery Folk Tales of Wrath and Punishment, Reward and Salvation.The Movie Opens with a Disclaimer that Apologizes for its Existence and the Movie is Structured as to not Offend the Majority of the Population (read ticker buyers) who were the Overwhelming part of the Citizenry. It is the Tone that the Film will take Throughout its Lengthy Running Time and it is a Sign of the Time, and the Movie's Biggest Flaw. A Fine Cast with Arthur Kennedy and Shirley Jones Standing Out in Support of Lancaster's Gantry. Jean Simmons does OK in a bit of Miscasting. The Type of Evangelicalism in the Film that Takes Place in the 1920's is Still with us Today, it has just Moved from Tent to TV.The Sixties and Breakdown of the Motion Picture Code and in Tandem the Liberalization of the Culture had yet to Manifest itself and the Destiny of the Change in Society was not quite upon Us. As a Result the Film Suffers from a Conservative Restraint, but is Nevertheless Very Entertaining.

Jesus was a simple virtuous teacher, . . . but I have my doubts "

tt0053793

From the exceptionally talented pen of noted author Sinclair Lewis comes this entertaining story of a fast-talking, yarn-spinning vacuum salesman with the natural gift of persuasion. In his ever lustful sights is a voluptuous female preacher. In order to conquer her, he must use his extensive repertoire of biblical quips, quotes and bawdy antidotes. Within the sphere of a traveling troupe of bible beating, evangelicals on a religious crusade, the author's hero, one Elmer Gantry (supurbly played by Oscar wining Burt Lancaster) is as energetic as his tales. Although it's difficult to know if Gantry's spiritual motivation is genuine or merely a ploy, throughout the film, one is kept guessing. The target of his earthly desires is Beautiful Sister Sharon Falconer (Jean Simmons) a sincere, but fallible woman out to build a ministry. A serious obstacle to her goal is Gantry, but more so is the cautionary and caustic pen of Jim Lefferts (Arthur Kennedy), a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who questions the personal and financial motives of her entourage. Her main supporter is worldly William Morgan (Dean Jagger) who believes in Falconer, and sees Gantry and Lefferts for the opportunistic impediments they are. The film is a triumph for Lancaster and Kennedy and for all those who wish to visit a confusing period of Americanna, when the word of God was infected by preachers, pushers and spiritual leeches. ****

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053793/reviews-48

ur3902771

title: Jesus was a simple virtuous teacher, . . . but I have my doubts " review: From the exceptionally talented pen of noted author Sinclair Lewis comes this entertaining story of a fast-talking, yarn-spinning vacuum salesman with the natural gift of persuasion. In his ever lustful sights is a voluptuous female preacher. In order to conquer her, he must use his extensive repertoire of biblical quips, quotes and bawdy antidotes. Within the sphere of a traveling troupe of bible beating, evangelicals on a religious crusade, the author's hero, one Elmer Gantry (supurbly played by Oscar wining Burt Lancaster) is as energetic as his tales. Although it's difficult to know if Gantry's spiritual motivation is genuine or merely a ploy, throughout the film, one is kept guessing. The target of his earthly desires is Beautiful Sister Sharon Falconer (Jean Simmons) a sincere, but fallible woman out to build a ministry. A serious obstacle to her goal is Gantry, but more so is the cautionary and caustic pen of Jim Lefferts (Arthur Kennedy), a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who questions the personal and financial motives of her entourage. Her main supporter is worldly William Morgan (Dean Jagger) who believes in Falconer, and sees Gantry and Lefferts for the opportunistic impediments they are. The film is a triumph for Lancaster and Kennedy and for all those who wish to visit a confusing period of Americanna, when the word of God was infected by preachers, pushers and spiritual leeches. ****

revivalists all the way to evangelicals

tt0053793

Richard Brooks's adaptation of Sinclair Lewis's "Elmer Gantry" looks at the revivalist movement of the 1920s, but it could just as easily be about modern-day evangelical Christianity. Burt Lancaster plays the title character, a shyster clergyman exploiting the beliefs of the faithful in middle America. With his fiery speeches, Elmer comes across as a man of the people, but he's only after their money. Jean Simmons co-stars as an evangelist based on Aimee Semple McPherson. She actually believes in what she's doing, but the self-aggrandizing Elmer simply rides her coattails. And then there's Shirley Jones as a prostitute who has her own story about Elmer.It's important to understand that the early 20th century had seen the rise of revivalist Christianity in response to the influx of Catholics from Europe. These predecessors of evangelicalism were the ones who pushed for the establishment of prohibition (which had disastrous results). The Scopes Trial set them back due to the perception that they were a bunch of ignorant yokels*, but they returned in the 1970s in response to everything that happened in the '60s. Elmer Gantry is depicted as a hypocritical preacher, but he could easily be any politician. There are few things as creepy as exploiting people's beliefs just to get them to support you.*The "Elmer Gantry" character Jim Lefferts is based on H.L. Mencken, who notably depicted the people in Dayton, Tennessee, as backwards hicks, which they basically were.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053793/reviews-73

ur4888011

title: revivalists all the way to evangelicals review: Richard Brooks's adaptation of Sinclair Lewis's "Elmer Gantry" looks at the revivalist movement of the 1920s, but it could just as easily be about modern-day evangelical Christianity. Burt Lancaster plays the title character, a shyster clergyman exploiting the beliefs of the faithful in middle America. With his fiery speeches, Elmer comes across as a man of the people, but he's only after their money. Jean Simmons co-stars as an evangelist based on Aimee Semple McPherson. She actually believes in what she's doing, but the self-aggrandizing Elmer simply rides her coattails. And then there's Shirley Jones as a prostitute who has her own story about Elmer.It's important to understand that the early 20th century had seen the rise of revivalist Christianity in response to the influx of Catholics from Europe. These predecessors of evangelicalism were the ones who pushed for the establishment of prohibition (which had disastrous results). The Scopes Trial set them back due to the perception that they were a bunch of ignorant yokels*, but they returned in the 1970s in response to everything that happened in the '60s. Elmer Gantry is depicted as a hypocritical preacher, but he could easily be any politician. There are few things as creepy as exploiting people's beliefs just to get them to support you.*The "Elmer Gantry" character Jim Lefferts is based on H.L. Mencken, who notably depicted the people in Dayton, Tennessee, as backwards hicks, which they basically were.

A Well Made, Strange Minor Classic

tt0053793

Elmer Gantry {dir. Richard Brooks, 1960} (***/****)Considered a minor classic in most circles Elmer Gantry is a strange little bit of blasphemy in that it isn't really that blasphemous. It tells the story of Elmer Gantry (Burt Lancaster), a drunk drifter/salesman in the early 1900s. In his youth Elmer studied to become a preacher, but was expelled when he gave into some of his own...animalistic instincts. One day he drifts into the Revival tent of Sister Sharon (Jean Simmons), and he attempts to join up with the group posing as a preacher himself. The setup seems like a beginning for vicious satire, yet the film lacks the teeth to take any stance on the plot points. There are some major flaws, however. Character motivations/actions are sometimes nonsensical, perhaps a product of the censorship codes of the era, but all of the performances are strong and the film is filled with nicely composed and crisply shot scenes.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053793/reviews-59

ur4388114

title: A Well Made, Strange Minor Classic review: Elmer Gantry {dir. Richard Brooks, 1960} (***/****)Considered a minor classic in most circles Elmer Gantry is a strange little bit of blasphemy in that it isn't really that blasphemous. It tells the story of Elmer Gantry (Burt Lancaster), a drunk drifter/salesman in the early 1900s. In his youth Elmer studied to become a preacher, but was expelled when he gave into some of his own...animalistic instincts. One day he drifts into the Revival tent of Sister Sharon (Jean Simmons), and he attempts to join up with the group posing as a preacher himself. The setup seems like a beginning for vicious satire, yet the film lacks the teeth to take any stance on the plot points. There are some major flaws, however. Character motivations/actions are sometimes nonsensical, perhaps a product of the censorship codes of the era, but all of the performances are strong and the film is filled with nicely composed and crisply shot scenes.

Twisted and morbid in its own right; but Leave Her to Heaven is, frustratingly, only periodically involving.

tt0037865

John Stahl's 1945 film Leave Her to Heaven begins with that familiar 20th Century Fox ident, complete with the searchlights, with its original fanfare re-dubbed and replaced with its own mysterious and unnerving tune. It comes off as a near death march-like series of drum and symbol noises; perhaps suggesting content so shocking that alerting the audience to something not entirely 'right' with proceedings needs to be highlighted so early on that the overriding of the studio's typical theme for its own icon must be carried out. The film will start in the present day before harking back to the past; Leave Her to Heaven mostly one long flashback told orally in that it is narrated to us by an elderly man speaking to another and we feel the film is headed for doomed territory.The catalyst for the story being told is in young author Richard Harland (Wilde), whom has just been released from prison, arriving at a pretty lake house and the presence of the two men. He wears a look of dishevelment and grief; a seemingly beaten man but maybe an angry one although most definitely despondent in his overall demeanour. Prior to darting back to days of old, the elderly narrator informs us that "jail is Hell for a man like that" thus inferring a sense of upstandingness Richard might have initially had about him, whereas the mentioning of jealousy suggests that this was a key item in whatever it was that went wrong. We start again on board a cross country train some time ago; young woman Ellen (Tierney) sits reading one of Richard's books opposite him and they get talking, the interplay between them both before and after the revealing that it is Richard's book she's reading well executed. The impact she has on him sees him temporarily forget where it is he's headed; the train stopping at a small New Mexico town which happens to be both person's stop. So far, so film noir; the idea that a man is lost amidst a particular woman's presence despite quite clearly being of an educated ilk, as well as that unnerving sense of something rife with destruction and death in the overriding of the studio's traditional theme, plus the film's own manipulation of time in its flashing back all mixing together to create unease.However, what comes to unfold is a tale of obsession and distrust under a different sort of guise; in that it is Ellen whom looses her mind over Richard, a relationship which is granted ample enough attention during their exchanges and dialogue over sessions beside a pool and large family gatherings during the evenings at this whitewashed haven. As time drifts by, Ellen's infatuation with Richard grows stronger; so much so that her fiancé in lawyer Russell Quinton (Price) becomes her ex. following Ellen's engagement to Richard. Their paring allows Ellen access to the before-seen secluded and somewhat luxurious lake-house Richard runs, but it additionally sees Ellen have to bond with her new husband's acquaintances; predominantly his young but crippled brother Danny (Hickman).The film is more an outlining of a form of obsessive jealousy than anything else, Tierney's Ellen coming to resemble a quite despicable incarnation of extreme mental illness when it transpires she cannot have Richard all to herself. It is only on very rare occasions a femme fatale will love those whom she snares; Leave Her to Heaven's sole revolving around of a character with nothing else on her agenda but loving a man somewhat defeating the typical convention, and not particularly doing so in a manner which makes it any more interesting or engaging. The narrative is a consistent pattern of sheer wrong-doing and there is little in the way of ambiguity in what it is Ellen does; her actions are quite clearly sinful and wrong, whereas those she victimises do nothing but stick to the straight and narrow. Where the core of a film noir will central in on a character whose morals are questionable and whose actions are persistently ambiguous in relation to an overall state of morality, most of the people we come across in Leave Her to Heaven are already on a definitive 'side' of that boundary and remain there throughout. Both sets of characters are so far apart on the proverbial overall spectrum that the moral tight rope most noir leads tiptoe back and forth on is miles out of sight - the film ultimately coming to have more in common with the genre of melodrama than any sort of noirish form.The film is propped up by some wonderful performances, Hickman's portrayal of the poor little boy whom would nary say or do a bad thing rightfully overplayed so as to enhance certain reactions we have to certain events; whereas Tierney ploughs on through her role with brutal efficiency in light of the material she is effectively given. The film is daring in its shooting of most of Richard's later interactions with Ellen's sister through the eyes of Ellen: a forcing of the audience to observe the world through her twisted, hate-filled and envious eyes; her eyes of which are later tactfully covered up by some sunglasses during a particularly disturbing sequence. The effective cloaking of her eyes with said prop thus rendering her overall facial expression dead, machine-like or even non-human; in doing so neatly capturing her inhumane characteristics as she does what she does. The film is not without merit, its narrative is a little limp in its gradual plodding from one symptom of mental illness rendered a disgracefully amoral set-piece to the next, while the courtroom sequence at the very end needs cutting completely. I don't know if I entirely agree with the labelling of the film as one of the film noir variety; but where I can find middle-ground is in agreeing that it is a neat and effective little dramatisation of mental illness which holds up.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0037865/reviews-104

ur0855231

title: Twisted and morbid in its own right; but Leave Her to Heaven is, frustratingly, only periodically involving. review: John Stahl's 1945 film Leave Her to Heaven begins with that familiar 20th Century Fox ident, complete with the searchlights, with its original fanfare re-dubbed and replaced with its own mysterious and unnerving tune. It comes off as a near death march-like series of drum and symbol noises; perhaps suggesting content so shocking that alerting the audience to something not entirely 'right' with proceedings needs to be highlighted so early on that the overriding of the studio's typical theme for its own icon must be carried out. The film will start in the present day before harking back to the past; Leave Her to Heaven mostly one long flashback told orally in that it is narrated to us by an elderly man speaking to another and we feel the film is headed for doomed territory.The catalyst for the story being told is in young author Richard Harland (Wilde), whom has just been released from prison, arriving at a pretty lake house and the presence of the two men. He wears a look of dishevelment and grief; a seemingly beaten man but maybe an angry one although most definitely despondent in his overall demeanour. Prior to darting back to days of old, the elderly narrator informs us that "jail is Hell for a man like that" thus inferring a sense of upstandingness Richard might have initially had about him, whereas the mentioning of jealousy suggests that this was a key item in whatever it was that went wrong. We start again on board a cross country train some time ago; young woman Ellen (Tierney) sits reading one of Richard's books opposite him and they get talking, the interplay between them both before and after the revealing that it is Richard's book she's reading well executed. The impact she has on him sees him temporarily forget where it is he's headed; the train stopping at a small New Mexico town which happens to be both person's stop. So far, so film noir; the idea that a man is lost amidst a particular woman's presence despite quite clearly being of an educated ilk, as well as that unnerving sense of something rife with destruction and death in the overriding of the studio's traditional theme, plus the film's own manipulation of time in its flashing back all mixing together to create unease.However, what comes to unfold is a tale of obsession and distrust under a different sort of guise; in that it is Ellen whom looses her mind over Richard, a relationship which is granted ample enough attention during their exchanges and dialogue over sessions beside a pool and large family gatherings during the evenings at this whitewashed haven. As time drifts by, Ellen's infatuation with Richard grows stronger; so much so that her fiancé in lawyer Russell Quinton (Price) becomes her ex. following Ellen's engagement to Richard. Their paring allows Ellen access to the before-seen secluded and somewhat luxurious lake-house Richard runs, but it additionally sees Ellen have to bond with her new husband's acquaintances; predominantly his young but crippled brother Danny (Hickman).The film is more an outlining of a form of obsessive jealousy than anything else, Tierney's Ellen coming to resemble a quite despicable incarnation of extreme mental illness when it transpires she cannot have Richard all to herself. It is only on very rare occasions a femme fatale will love those whom she snares; Leave Her to Heaven's sole revolving around of a character with nothing else on her agenda but loving a man somewhat defeating the typical convention, and not particularly doing so in a manner which makes it any more interesting or engaging. The narrative is a consistent pattern of sheer wrong-doing and there is little in the way of ambiguity in what it is Ellen does; her actions are quite clearly sinful and wrong, whereas those she victimises do nothing but stick to the straight and narrow. Where the core of a film noir will central in on a character whose morals are questionable and whose actions are persistently ambiguous in relation to an overall state of morality, most of the people we come across in Leave Her to Heaven are already on a definitive 'side' of that boundary and remain there throughout. Both sets of characters are so far apart on the proverbial overall spectrum that the moral tight rope most noir leads tiptoe back and forth on is miles out of sight - the film ultimately coming to have more in common with the genre of melodrama than any sort of noirish form.The film is propped up by some wonderful performances, Hickman's portrayal of the poor little boy whom would nary say or do a bad thing rightfully overplayed so as to enhance certain reactions we have to certain events; whereas Tierney ploughs on through her role with brutal efficiency in light of the material she is effectively given. The film is daring in its shooting of most of Richard's later interactions with Ellen's sister through the eyes of Ellen: a forcing of the audience to observe the world through her twisted, hate-filled and envious eyes; her eyes of which are later tactfully covered up by some sunglasses during a particularly disturbing sequence. The effective cloaking of her eyes with said prop thus rendering her overall facial expression dead, machine-like or even non-human; in doing so neatly capturing her inhumane characteristics as she does what she does. The film is not without merit, its narrative is a little limp in its gradual plodding from one symptom of mental illness rendered a disgracefully amoral set-piece to the next, while the courtroom sequence at the very end needs cutting completely. I don't know if I entirely agree with the labelling of the film as one of the film noir variety; but where I can find middle-ground is in agreeing that it is a neat and effective little dramatisation of mental illness which holds up.

Noirish melodrama in stunning Technicolor

tt0037865

"Leave Her to Heaven" concerns a writer (Cornel Wilde) who meets and falls in love with a beautiful young socialite (Gene Tierney). Although she's engaged she soon breaks off her engagement in order to marry her new beau. However, all is not well, since her obsessive nature threatens to ruin the lives of both her husband and her own family.The plot's rife with melodrama and while the film exhibits the sensibilities of film noir it's uncharacteristically drenched in the visual splendour of Technicolor. Personally, rather than associating this with film noir (as most do) I see it as prefiguring later movies like "Play Misty For Me" & "Fatal Attraction".Notably, Gene Tierney garnered the only Oscar nomination of her career for her starring role here. While I wasn't completely floored by her performance I'd say that she single-handedly made the film's best scene, which takes place on a lake with her husband's disabled younger brother. Her co-star, Cornel Wilde, makes a reliable leading man and Jeanne Crain delivers the best supporting performance. The always welcome Vincent Price is also present in a smaller role as a jilted lover.As for the direction, John M. Stahl does a fine job but the real highlight of the film's visuals is the vibrant, Oscar-winning Technicolor cinematography. The sumptuous art direction-interior decoration was also recognized with an Oscar nomination. Then there's the mood-enhancing score by nine-time Oscar winner Alfred Newman.Ultimately, the plot of "Leave Her to Heaven" might be a bit on the sensational side but the visuals go a long way in forgiving the script's excesses. I wouldn't recommend it unreservedly but there are definitely aspects of the film deserving high praise.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0037865/reviews-105

ur17822437

title: Noirish melodrama in stunning Technicolor review: "Leave Her to Heaven" concerns a writer (Cornel Wilde) who meets and falls in love with a beautiful young socialite (Gene Tierney). Although she's engaged she soon breaks off her engagement in order to marry her new beau. However, all is not well, since her obsessive nature threatens to ruin the lives of both her husband and her own family.The plot's rife with melodrama and while the film exhibits the sensibilities of film noir it's uncharacteristically drenched in the visual splendour of Technicolor. Personally, rather than associating this with film noir (as most do) I see it as prefiguring later movies like "Play Misty For Me" & "Fatal Attraction".Notably, Gene Tierney garnered the only Oscar nomination of her career for her starring role here. While I wasn't completely floored by her performance I'd say that she single-handedly made the film's best scene, which takes place on a lake with her husband's disabled younger brother. Her co-star, Cornel Wilde, makes a reliable leading man and Jeanne Crain delivers the best supporting performance. The always welcome Vincent Price is also present in a smaller role as a jilted lover.As for the direction, John M. Stahl does a fine job but the real highlight of the film's visuals is the vibrant, Oscar-winning Technicolor cinematography. The sumptuous art direction-interior decoration was also recognized with an Oscar nomination. Then there's the mood-enhancing score by nine-time Oscar winner Alfred Newman.Ultimately, the plot of "Leave Her to Heaven" might be a bit on the sensational side but the visuals go a long way in forgiving the script's excesses. I wouldn't recommend it unreservedly but there are definitely aspects of the film deserving high praise.

"I'll never let you go. Never, never, never"

tt0037865

I don't think I agree with those who have designated 'Leave Her to Heaven (1945)' a film noir. This Technicolor picture – and it's surprising how much the presence of colour can distort the tone of a film – feels much closer to the claustrophobic domestic melodramas of the same period, such as Hitchcock's 'Rebecca (1940)' and 'Suspicion (1941),' and Cukor's 'Gaslight (1944).' But there's one important difference. By reversing the gender roles, and placing the power in the hands of the wife, director John M. Stahl here creates a formidable femme fatale, personified by the lovely and luminous Gene Tierney. The vibrant Technicolor photography is certainly pleasing to the eye, and the saturated colours add a perhaps-unintended touch of the surreal, but the dazzling colour palette distracts from and obstructs the film's darker themes. As much as I wouldn't like to deprive myself of Tierney's sparkling green eyes, I think that, in terms of atmosphere, 'Leave Her to Heaven' would have worked better in black-and-white.The film starts off in the classic noir style: told in flashback, the story opens with popular author Richard Harland (Cornel Wilde), who meets an alluring woman, Ellen Berent (Tierney), on a train. Ellen quickly charms Richard with her dazzling looks and strong personality; soon, despite her own engagement to a prominent lawyer (Vincent Price), she has proposed their marriage, an offer he finds impossible to refuse. Here, 'Leave Her to Heaven' takes a distinct turn in storytelling approach, abruptly shifting its attention to Ellen's perspective, at which point we begin to recognise that perhaps she isn't as lovely as her new husband has been led to believe. The new couple move to Richard's secluded lakeside lodge, where they must also care for his crippled younger brother, Danny (Darryl Hickman, giving one of those "excited boy scout" child performances that were popular in the 1940s). As the weeks go by, Ellen's near-obsessive love for Richard begins to brood anger, hatred and jealousy, culminating in the cruelest of acts.Tierney's character initially elicits an amount of sympathy, especially given Richard's apparent inability to recognise his wife's desperate need for privacy and intimacy in their relationship. However, it doesn't take long before her behaviour, fuelled by suspicion and paranoia, becomes entirely contemptible, and there's no longer any trace of the charming enchantress we saw in 'Laura (1944).' Ellen's psychosis is an intriguing one: she was obviously obsessed with love for her own father – what Freud called "feminine Oedipus attitude," or Electra complex – and, following his death, subsequently fell in love with Richard, who bears a remarkable resemblance to him. Such is her passion for her father, through Richard, that she cannot bear to share him with anybody; thus, her mania stems from the simple notion that "she loves too much." Ellen's murders are shocking in their own low-key simplicity, and Tierney, who received her only Oscar nomination for the role, carries out her evils with an icily-impassive face. But, geez, even this chilling portrayal can't make me stop loving her.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0037865/reviews-75

ur10334028

title: "I'll never let you go. Never, never, never" review: I don't think I agree with those who have designated 'Leave Her to Heaven (1945)' a film noir. This Technicolor picture – and it's surprising how much the presence of colour can distort the tone of a film – feels much closer to the claustrophobic domestic melodramas of the same period, such as Hitchcock's 'Rebecca (1940)' and 'Suspicion (1941),' and Cukor's 'Gaslight (1944).' But there's one important difference. By reversing the gender roles, and placing the power in the hands of the wife, director John M. Stahl here creates a formidable femme fatale, personified by the lovely and luminous Gene Tierney. The vibrant Technicolor photography is certainly pleasing to the eye, and the saturated colours add a perhaps-unintended touch of the surreal, but the dazzling colour palette distracts from and obstructs the film's darker themes. As much as I wouldn't like to deprive myself of Tierney's sparkling green eyes, I think that, in terms of atmosphere, 'Leave Her to Heaven' would have worked better in black-and-white.The film starts off in the classic noir style: told in flashback, the story opens with popular author Richard Harland (Cornel Wilde), who meets an alluring woman, Ellen Berent (Tierney), on a train. Ellen quickly charms Richard with her dazzling looks and strong personality; soon, despite her own engagement to a prominent lawyer (Vincent Price), she has proposed their marriage, an offer he finds impossible to refuse. Here, 'Leave Her to Heaven' takes a distinct turn in storytelling approach, abruptly shifting its attention to Ellen's perspective, at which point we begin to recognise that perhaps she isn't as lovely as her new husband has been led to believe. The new couple move to Richard's secluded lakeside lodge, where they must also care for his crippled younger brother, Danny (Darryl Hickman, giving one of those "excited boy scout" child performances that were popular in the 1940s). As the weeks go by, Ellen's near-obsessive love for Richard begins to brood anger, hatred and jealousy, culminating in the cruelest of acts.Tierney's character initially elicits an amount of sympathy, especially given Richard's apparent inability to recognise his wife's desperate need for privacy and intimacy in their relationship. However, it doesn't take long before her behaviour, fuelled by suspicion and paranoia, becomes entirely contemptible, and there's no longer any trace of the charming enchantress we saw in 'Laura (1944).' Ellen's psychosis is an intriguing one: she was obviously obsessed with love for her own father – what Freud called "feminine Oedipus attitude," or Electra complex – and, following his death, subsequently fell in love with Richard, who bears a remarkable resemblance to him. Such is her passion for her father, through Richard, that she cannot bear to share him with anybody; thus, her mania stems from the simple notion that "she loves too much." Ellen's murders are shocking in their own low-key simplicity, and Tierney, who received her only Oscar nomination for the role, carries out her evils with an icily-impassive face. But, geez, even this chilling portrayal can't make me stop loving her.

Not quite heavenly

tt0037865

When first we meet novelist Richard Harland it's immediately clear something quite terrible has befallen him. He has the look of a broken man. We're told he just got out of jail after serving two years. From there the film unfolds in one big flashback. What went wrong in this man's life? Unsurprisingly it involves a woman. We see how Richard met the beautiful Ellen Berent. And then we see the catastrophic effect Ellen had on poor Richard's life. How did this handsome, successful author end up in prison? And is it possible going to prison was actually the least of Richard's troubles? What starts out as a happy romance leads to almost incomprehensible tragedy. Ellen Berent turns out to be the most fatal of femme fatales.Leave Her to Heaven is an odd movie in some ways. It's a film noir which unfolds not in black-and-white but in dazzling Technicolor, not in dark city streets but in the great outdoors. The settings may be bright and beautiful but the story certainly is not. This is noir at its darkest. Initially Ellen seems charming. She's clearly smart, stunningly beautiful. It's easy to see how she could draw Richard in. But her possessiveness and insane jealousy drive her mad. She wants Richard all to herself, much as she once wanted her father all to herself. Yes, this is a girl with serious daddy issues. Her anxieties and obsessions ultimately manifest themselves in the cruelest of ways. It's an interesting story but a thoroughly depressing one.Gene Tierney comes across somewhat cold in playing Ellen but that fits, the character is a frosty ice queen. More troubling is the performance of Cornel Wilde whose portrayal of Richard suffers from a severe personality deficit. There's very little life to him, no spark at all. In moments where Richard should be overcome with grief or rage we get very little out of Wilde. On the other end of the spectrum we get entirely too much emotion out of Vincent Price. He plays aspiring district attorney Russell Quinton, who is Ellen's fiancée when Richard first meets her. Ellen immediately dumps Russell and proposes marriage to Richard whom she barely knows. You'd think this would raise some red flags for Richard but no. Of course Russell is quite displeased by this turn of events. He'll have his opportunity for revenge later. Since we know from the beginning Richard is going to jail it's not giving much of anything away to say there's a big courtroom scene late on in the film. And this scene, thanks largely to Price, drives the movie completely off the rails. Price's over-the-top histrionics are laughable. Truly terrible acting making for absolutely excruciating viewing. It's a big letdown at the end of a film which all in all is a bit disappointing. The story is at times quite plodding. Ellen, the key character, is completely detestable. Wilde disappoints and Price threatens to sink the whole production by himself. Tierney is solid if somewhat distant. Probably the best performance in the film actually comes from Jeanne Crain playing Ellen's adoptive sister Ruth. But Crain has a mere supporting role, it's really up to Tierney and Wilde to carry the film. Tierney may have been up to it but Wilde gives her so little help. As a film noir Leave Her to Heaven stands out much more for its uniqueness than its actual quality.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0037865/reviews-122

ur0915482

title: Not quite heavenly review: When first we meet novelist Richard Harland it's immediately clear something quite terrible has befallen him. He has the look of a broken man. We're told he just got out of jail after serving two years. From there the film unfolds in one big flashback. What went wrong in this man's life? Unsurprisingly it involves a woman. We see how Richard met the beautiful Ellen Berent. And then we see the catastrophic effect Ellen had on poor Richard's life. How did this handsome, successful author end up in prison? And is it possible going to prison was actually the least of Richard's troubles? What starts out as a happy romance leads to almost incomprehensible tragedy. Ellen Berent turns out to be the most fatal of femme fatales.Leave Her to Heaven is an odd movie in some ways. It's a film noir which unfolds not in black-and-white but in dazzling Technicolor, not in dark city streets but in the great outdoors. The settings may be bright and beautiful but the story certainly is not. This is noir at its darkest. Initially Ellen seems charming. She's clearly smart, stunningly beautiful. It's easy to see how she could draw Richard in. But her possessiveness and insane jealousy drive her mad. She wants Richard all to herself, much as she once wanted her father all to herself. Yes, this is a girl with serious daddy issues. Her anxieties and obsessions ultimately manifest themselves in the cruelest of ways. It's an interesting story but a thoroughly depressing one.Gene Tierney comes across somewhat cold in playing Ellen but that fits, the character is a frosty ice queen. More troubling is the performance of Cornel Wilde whose portrayal of Richard suffers from a severe personality deficit. There's very little life to him, no spark at all. In moments where Richard should be overcome with grief or rage we get very little out of Wilde. On the other end of the spectrum we get entirely too much emotion out of Vincent Price. He plays aspiring district attorney Russell Quinton, who is Ellen's fiancée when Richard first meets her. Ellen immediately dumps Russell and proposes marriage to Richard whom she barely knows. You'd think this would raise some red flags for Richard but no. Of course Russell is quite displeased by this turn of events. He'll have his opportunity for revenge later. Since we know from the beginning Richard is going to jail it's not giving much of anything away to say there's a big courtroom scene late on in the film. And this scene, thanks largely to Price, drives the movie completely off the rails. Price's over-the-top histrionics are laughable. Truly terrible acting making for absolutely excruciating viewing. It's a big letdown at the end of a film which all in all is a bit disappointing. The story is at times quite plodding. Ellen, the key character, is completely detestable. Wilde disappoints and Price threatens to sink the whole production by himself. Tierney is solid if somewhat distant. Probably the best performance in the film actually comes from Jeanne Crain playing Ellen's adoptive sister Ruth. But Crain has a mere supporting role, it's really up to Tierney and Wilde to carry the film. Tierney may have been up to it but Wilde gives her so little help. As a film noir Leave Her to Heaven stands out much more for its uniqueness than its actual quality.

Good and evil with no shades of gray

tt0037865

I recommend purchasing the DVD of "Leave her to Heaven" in order to listen to Darryl Hickman's recollections of working on the film as a 14 year old child actor, playing the part of Danny Harland, the crippled brother of the protagonist, Richard Harland (played by Cornel Wilde). Whether you agree or disagree with Hickman's comments, they remain fascinating and will give you insight into the making of this film.Hickman recalls that director John Stahl treated him very poorly halfway into the making of the film. In the most famous scene in the movie, where Gene Tierney's character Ellen, allows Danny Harland to drown in the lake, Hickman states that he was forced to shoot many takes of the scene, swimming in ice cold water and freezing cold temperature. It was so cold that Hickman's stunt double refused to shoot the scene and Hickman was forced to act in the scene himself. At one point, Hickman got a cramp in his leg and he sensed that he was beginning to drown; Stahl ignored Hickman's pleas but fortunately an assistant on the set realized that the kid might be in serious danger and pulled him out of the water. The scene in the lake took almost three weeks to shoot. Hickman says Tierney was completely cold to him and seemed to support Stahl in his lack of support of the sensitive child actor.Ironically, Stahl's attitude toward Hickman changed half way through the shooting of the picture. It seems that the producer, Darryl Zanuck, saw the rushes of the drowning scene and told Stahl that it was the most powerful scene he had ever seen in the movies. Stahl started to call Hickman by his first name and no longer referred to him as "son", which Hickman regarded as an insulting epithet. Now Stahl started to refer to Cornel Wilde as "son" and Hickman relates that the director treated Wilde very poorly throughout the rest of the filming of 'Leave her to Heaven'. In fact, Hickman maintains that Wilde told Stahl after filming was completed that he would never forget how Stahl mistreated him. And Hickman also maintains that Tierney treated Cornel Wilde quite coldly, always taking the director's side in his disparagement of Wilde.Hickman's claims that Tierney didn't think much of Wilde's acting abilities is borne out by Tierney's recollections in her autobiography, "Self-Portrait". Tierney refers to the scene in the library and writes: "The scene was difficult for Cornel, who was meant to be weak and couldn't quite bring it off." She adds that Stahl turned to Wilde at one point and said, "They (referring to gaffers on the set) all seem to understand how the scene should be played, why can't you?" Hickman felt that Tierney's abilities as an actor were limited. He felt she was an emotionally constricted person who couldn't open up to people in general. He's aware that Tierney later had to deal with bouts of mental illness but concedes he knows little of the details of her personal life. Tierney was a troubled person during her career as an actor which she readily admits in her autobiography. One important point that Hickman is apparently unaware of is that Tierney gave birth to a retarded child in 1943 which certainly had a deleterious effect on her mental health in later years.The conflict between Hickman and Tierney may have been simply due to the fact that Hickman needed more support since he was only 14 years old at the time he was working on the picture. Tierney on the other hand was probably more of a no-nonsense type who didn't believe in socializing while she was on the set.Leave her to Heaven was sumptuously filmed in the Technicolor of its day. The 2003 digital transfer restores the faded colors of an earlier print to the plush hues we see on the DVD today.The big problem with Leave her to Heaven is that the first half is all exposition. It's extremely slow-moving and we only get hints that something dramatic is going to happen. Finally, we're rewarded with the machinations of Tierney's evil Ellen Berent Harland in the second half. The high points come in spurts: Ellen sitting in the boat, casually doing nothing as Danny drowns; the shocking scene where she intentionally throws herself down the stairs in order to abort her unborn child and her grand exit where she commits suicide in order to facilitate her half-sister being charged with murder. Even today, those scenes pack an emotional wallop.Despite Ellen's gripping histrionics, the other principal characters played by Cornel Wilde and Jeanne Crain, the husband and the half-sister, fit the typical victim mold of melodrama and are too beatific and wooden to be considered at all compelling. Speaking of histrionics, Vincent Price is much too over the top as the District Attorney with his one-note (and much too angry) grilling of Cornel Wilde while he's on the stand in the courtroom.Finally I couldn't understand why Harland gets two years for "withholding evidence". It's inferred that the "withholding of evidence" occurred earlier in Harland's testimony when he fails to inform the court that Ellen stood by and let his brother drown. But where is the proof that Ellen actually did nothing? The court only had Richard's take on what had occurred and certainly that testimony is not backed up by any independent witnesses.Leave her to Heaven will be remembered for its stunning cinematography as well as its portrait of a demented 'femme fatale'. Aside from a few classic scenes, it's a film that plods along and only manages to capture your attention during its most salacious moments. Leave her to Heaven descends into the morass of victim-hood, suggesting that there is only good and evil in the world and no shades of gray.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0037865/reviews-81

ur0225436

title: Good and evil with no shades of gray review: I recommend purchasing the DVD of "Leave her to Heaven" in order to listen to Darryl Hickman's recollections of working on the film as a 14 year old child actor, playing the part of Danny Harland, the crippled brother of the protagonist, Richard Harland (played by Cornel Wilde). Whether you agree or disagree with Hickman's comments, they remain fascinating and will give you insight into the making of this film.Hickman recalls that director John Stahl treated him very poorly halfway into the making of the film. In the most famous scene in the movie, where Gene Tierney's character Ellen, allows Danny Harland to drown in the lake, Hickman states that he was forced to shoot many takes of the scene, swimming in ice cold water and freezing cold temperature. It was so cold that Hickman's stunt double refused to shoot the scene and Hickman was forced to act in the scene himself. At one point, Hickman got a cramp in his leg and he sensed that he was beginning to drown; Stahl ignored Hickman's pleas but fortunately an assistant on the set realized that the kid might be in serious danger and pulled him out of the water. The scene in the lake took almost three weeks to shoot. Hickman says Tierney was completely cold to him and seemed to support Stahl in his lack of support of the sensitive child actor.Ironically, Stahl's attitude toward Hickman changed half way through the shooting of the picture. It seems that the producer, Darryl Zanuck, saw the rushes of the drowning scene and told Stahl that it was the most powerful scene he had ever seen in the movies. Stahl started to call Hickman by his first name and no longer referred to him as "son", which Hickman regarded as an insulting epithet. Now Stahl started to refer to Cornel Wilde as "son" and Hickman relates that the director treated Wilde very poorly throughout the rest of the filming of 'Leave her to Heaven'. In fact, Hickman maintains that Wilde told Stahl after filming was completed that he would never forget how Stahl mistreated him. And Hickman also maintains that Tierney treated Cornel Wilde quite coldly, always taking the director's side in his disparagement of Wilde.Hickman's claims that Tierney didn't think much of Wilde's acting abilities is borne out by Tierney's recollections in her autobiography, "Self-Portrait". Tierney refers to the scene in the library and writes: "The scene was difficult for Cornel, who was meant to be weak and couldn't quite bring it off." She adds that Stahl turned to Wilde at one point and said, "They (referring to gaffers on the set) all seem to understand how the scene should be played, why can't you?" Hickman felt that Tierney's abilities as an actor were limited. He felt she was an emotionally constricted person who couldn't open up to people in general. He's aware that Tierney later had to deal with bouts of mental illness but concedes he knows little of the details of her personal life. Tierney was a troubled person during her career as an actor which she readily admits in her autobiography. One important point that Hickman is apparently unaware of is that Tierney gave birth to a retarded child in 1943 which certainly had a deleterious effect on her mental health in later years.The conflict between Hickman and Tierney may have been simply due to the fact that Hickman needed more support since he was only 14 years old at the time he was working on the picture. Tierney on the other hand was probably more of a no-nonsense type who didn't believe in socializing while she was on the set.Leave her to Heaven was sumptuously filmed in the Technicolor of its day. The 2003 digital transfer restores the faded colors of an earlier print to the plush hues we see on the DVD today.The big problem with Leave her to Heaven is that the first half is all exposition. It's extremely slow-moving and we only get hints that something dramatic is going to happen. Finally, we're rewarded with the machinations of Tierney's evil Ellen Berent Harland in the second half. The high points come in spurts: Ellen sitting in the boat, casually doing nothing as Danny drowns; the shocking scene where she intentionally throws herself down the stairs in order to abort her unborn child and her grand exit where she commits suicide in order to facilitate her half-sister being charged with murder. Even today, those scenes pack an emotional wallop.Despite Ellen's gripping histrionics, the other principal characters played by Cornel Wilde and Jeanne Crain, the husband and the half-sister, fit the typical victim mold of melodrama and are too beatific and wooden to be considered at all compelling. Speaking of histrionics, Vincent Price is much too over the top as the District Attorney with his one-note (and much too angry) grilling of Cornel Wilde while he's on the stand in the courtroom.Finally I couldn't understand why Harland gets two years for "withholding evidence". It's inferred that the "withholding of evidence" occurred earlier in Harland's testimony when he fails to inform the court that Ellen stood by and let his brother drown. But where is the proof that Ellen actually did nothing? The court only had Richard's take on what had occurred and certainly that testimony is not backed up by any independent witnesses.Leave her to Heaven will be remembered for its stunning cinematography as well as its portrait of a demented 'femme fatale'. Aside from a few classic scenes, it's a film that plods along and only manages to capture your attention during its most salacious moments. Leave her to Heaven descends into the morass of victim-hood, suggesting that there is only good and evil in the world and no shades of gray.

Rainbow noir...

tt0037865

Can a film noir be effective in glorious colour or is that a contradiction in terms? Anyway I found this lesser-known thriller to be as exciting and involving as any other black-and-white-mean-streets scenario that the 40's threw up. Tightly plotted, well acted and above all, beautifully photographed, I was gripped from first to last. My only caveats might have been the "framing" device of Cornel Wilde's lawyer's top-and-tail introduction and epilogue, which just takes away a little of the dramatic tension, an over-intrusive musical score, particularly at Wilde and Tierney's first "strangers on a train" meeting and also the fact that more wasn't made of the conclusion of the otherwise tautly drawn crucial trial scene. The acting is top-rate, with no discernible weak links. Wilde, as the duped author, shows hidden depths to his handsome exterior, Crain, in a sub De-Havilland part modulates her performance winningly as her character's importance to the plot develops and Vincent Price is absolutely excellent as Tierney's abandoned fiancé, a lawyer on the make who convincingly destroys Wilde and Crain in his vengeful piece-de-resistance as the prosecuting counsel. What a shame he was later reduced to his stereotype cackling mad-man persona of seemingly dozens of horror films. He's a revelation here, almost stealing the movie in said trial scene where he's made to recite long pieces of staccato dialogue which he delivers pitch-perfect. Gene Tierney, of course, is enthralling in the pivotal role of the possessed / possessive Ellen, who uses her obvious beauty and sophistication to ensnare Wilde, before taking off into psychopath territory, which sees her effectively kill Wilde's disabled but adored younger brother and devise an almost perfect beyond-the-grave trap for Wilde and Crain to fall into. Great as all these pluses are, I keep coming back to the cinematography which captures like no other film I've ever seen tones of radiant beauty in almost every shot, both interior and exterior. In fact all I can say to finish is that I could find very little to fault this glorious but unheralded example of the golden age of Hollywood.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0037865/reviews-77

ur15298231

title: Rainbow noir... review: Can a film noir be effective in glorious colour or is that a contradiction in terms? Anyway I found this lesser-known thriller to be as exciting and involving as any other black-and-white-mean-streets scenario that the 40's threw up. Tightly plotted, well acted and above all, beautifully photographed, I was gripped from first to last. My only caveats might have been the "framing" device of Cornel Wilde's lawyer's top-and-tail introduction and epilogue, which just takes away a little of the dramatic tension, an over-intrusive musical score, particularly at Wilde and Tierney's first "strangers on a train" meeting and also the fact that more wasn't made of the conclusion of the otherwise tautly drawn crucial trial scene. The acting is top-rate, with no discernible weak links. Wilde, as the duped author, shows hidden depths to his handsome exterior, Crain, in a sub De-Havilland part modulates her performance winningly as her character's importance to the plot develops and Vincent Price is absolutely excellent as Tierney's abandoned fiancé, a lawyer on the make who convincingly destroys Wilde and Crain in his vengeful piece-de-resistance as the prosecuting counsel. What a shame he was later reduced to his stereotype cackling mad-man persona of seemingly dozens of horror films. He's a revelation here, almost stealing the movie in said trial scene where he's made to recite long pieces of staccato dialogue which he delivers pitch-perfect. Gene Tierney, of course, is enthralling in the pivotal role of the possessed / possessive Ellen, who uses her obvious beauty and sophistication to ensnare Wilde, before taking off into psychopath territory, which sees her effectively kill Wilde's disabled but adored younger brother and devise an almost perfect beyond-the-grave trap for Wilde and Crain to fall into. Great as all these pluses are, I keep coming back to the cinematography which captures like no other film I've ever seen tones of radiant beauty in almost every shot, both interior and exterior. In fact all I can say to finish is that I could find very little to fault this glorious but unheralded example of the golden age of Hollywood.

You can't always get what you want....

tt0037865

...but if you try enough, you can cause to the object of your desire a lot of suffering and torment.Gene Tierney, the most beautiful villainess on the screen in "Leave Her to Heaven" (1945) is ready to destroy herself if it causes her husband whom she madly loves to suffer. What a killer combination of divine beauty and insane possessive jealousy that would hurt even beyond the grave.There are many reasons to see this stylish, well written and acted thriller/noir/drama. One of them is the astounding Oscar winning color cinematography by legendary Leon Shamroy who had been nominated for an Oscar 18 times - more than any other DP. He won four Oscars.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0037865/reviews-56

ur1098460

title: You can't always get what you want.... review: ...but if you try enough, you can cause to the object of your desire a lot of suffering and torment.Gene Tierney, the most beautiful villainess on the screen in "Leave Her to Heaven" (1945) is ready to destroy herself if it causes her husband whom she madly loves to suffer. What a killer combination of divine beauty and insane possessive jealousy that would hurt even beyond the grave.There are many reasons to see this stylish, well written and acted thriller/noir/drama. One of them is the astounding Oscar winning color cinematography by legendary Leon Shamroy who had been nominated for an Oscar 18 times - more than any other DP. He won four Oscars.

One of the Most Tightly Constructed Masterworks of Subtlety and Symbolism That I Have Ever Seen

tt0037865

The visual richness of Leave Her To Heaven, all the color, all the emboldened and attention- grabbing scenery and the choice of every location being out in the vast American countryside is a streak of brilliance by the director, John M. Stahl, as the dark nature of Gene Tierney's character is made acutely subtle, practically nonexistent until we see a tangible actualization of it, when the script decides for her to put on sunglasses.Cornel Wilde perfectly embodies the harmoniously civilized individual, as if the panoramic Technicolor world of the story is representative of his perspective, which exists under the precepts of order, reason and beauty, all of which replace mere function, granting clearance to those moments at which we would normally scoff such as him and Tierney waking up in the morning fully made up complete with carefully styled hair. It's a subliminal surreality in which society is imposed upon the free form in nature. Tierney is the subterranean instigator, that of unseen nature and the inner workings of the emotions and subconscious, stirring the veiled content of the story's environment with her deep, obsessive, yet hardly visible motivations. And none of this ever alters the beautiful appearance of the movie. Stahl is a careful craftsman who knows the ironic clashing of both worlds in his technical vision.This creates an incredibly potent chemistry between the two characters, and thus the two leads since their performances are both so uncanny. It's as if Tierney is a stranger living in the pure ideological environment of 1940s America who, in her subterranean way, maneuvers her way through her life, not to be frittered away in superficialities. Every person with whom she feels a connection must be seized and squeezed to extract as much benefit as must be afforded her. Lavishing attention on Wilde, she seeks to be everything to him, thus forging an unheard-of insular existence, no matter what the cost, making her a villain in the eyes of the story.The film begins almost surely as if to be yet another movie from the classic era to begin near the end and be told in flashback, which it is. However, this device serves as an important component to the perfect portrayal of clashing realities in nature, as a defense attorney, played by the subdued libertarian likes of Ray Collins, bookends the story by negotiating an expansion of Wilde and Tierney's energies, suggesting a foray into a collective conscious. Also, Vincent Price initializes himself in my mind as a riveting actor as he gives a tremendously tense performance as a forceful, bull-headed and sharp-tongued district attorney who applies the pressure that means to gush the two repelling principles into the amalgam understood by Collins.This movie is one of the most tightly constructed masterworks of subtlety and symbolism that I have ever seen, one that is immediately comprehensible, fascinating and seamless. It is also one of the most beautifully filmed movies I have ever seen, regularly using monochromatic color schemes and the subtlest shades and hues to evoke the seeping through of an incongruous intensity.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0037865/reviews-76

ur8625456

title: One of the Most Tightly Constructed Masterworks of Subtlety and Symbolism That I Have Ever Seen review: The visual richness of Leave Her To Heaven, all the color, all the emboldened and attention- grabbing scenery and the choice of every location being out in the vast American countryside is a streak of brilliance by the director, John M. Stahl, as the dark nature of Gene Tierney's character is made acutely subtle, practically nonexistent until we see a tangible actualization of it, when the script decides for her to put on sunglasses.Cornel Wilde perfectly embodies the harmoniously civilized individual, as if the panoramic Technicolor world of the story is representative of his perspective, which exists under the precepts of order, reason and beauty, all of which replace mere function, granting clearance to those moments at which we would normally scoff such as him and Tierney waking up in the morning fully made up complete with carefully styled hair. It's a subliminal surreality in which society is imposed upon the free form in nature. Tierney is the subterranean instigator, that of unseen nature and the inner workings of the emotions and subconscious, stirring the veiled content of the story's environment with her deep, obsessive, yet hardly visible motivations. And none of this ever alters the beautiful appearance of the movie. Stahl is a careful craftsman who knows the ironic clashing of both worlds in his technical vision.This creates an incredibly potent chemistry between the two characters, and thus the two leads since their performances are both so uncanny. It's as if Tierney is a stranger living in the pure ideological environment of 1940s America who, in her subterranean way, maneuvers her way through her life, not to be frittered away in superficialities. Every person with whom she feels a connection must be seized and squeezed to extract as much benefit as must be afforded her. Lavishing attention on Wilde, she seeks to be everything to him, thus forging an unheard-of insular existence, no matter what the cost, making her a villain in the eyes of the story.The film begins almost surely as if to be yet another movie from the classic era to begin near the end and be told in flashback, which it is. However, this device serves as an important component to the perfect portrayal of clashing realities in nature, as a defense attorney, played by the subdued libertarian likes of Ray Collins, bookends the story by negotiating an expansion of Wilde and Tierney's energies, suggesting a foray into a collective conscious. Also, Vincent Price initializes himself in my mind as a riveting actor as he gives a tremendously tense performance as a forceful, bull-headed and sharp-tongued district attorney who applies the pressure that means to gush the two repelling principles into the amalgam understood by Collins.This movie is one of the most tightly constructed masterworks of subtlety and symbolism that I have ever seen, one that is immediately comprehensible, fascinating and seamless. It is also one of the most beautifully filmed movies I have ever seen, regularly using monochromatic color schemes and the subtlest shades and hues to evoke the seeping through of an incongruous intensity.