Datasets:

DDDDZQ

/

imdb_reviews

like 0

Beautiful and Unnerving Technicolor Noir

tt0037865

A Few Reasons to View this Luscious Lunacy. It is a Film-Noir in Technicolor. Gene Tierney's Striking Performance of a Monstrous Female. The Movie More than Touches on Taboos of the Time Like Incest, Self-Abortion, and the Chilling Murder of a Teenager.It is an Absorbing Film with Oscar Winning Cinematography and a Compelling, Completely Believable, Maniacal Character that is Disturbing, coming from one of the Screens Radiant Beauties. The Film Starts Out at an Even Pace and then Accelerates as it Draws You Into a Web of Bizarro Land Film-Noir that is Usually Filled with Shadows of Ominous Black, White, and Grey. But the Contrast here Belies its Genre with a Colorful Palette. There is Very Little Mystery here as the Terror and Tension is known Almost Immediately and it is a Place of the most Personal Nightmares. The Ending is so Bad and Ill Thinking and Vincent Price's Shouting Every Word in the Courtroom Scene just about Sinks all of the Weighty Things that Came Before.But this Entertainment was so Unsettling and Unexpected in a Color Romantic Movie that Naive Audiences might have been Quite a Taken Back by a Certain Dismaying Edge that the Film Delivered and Nothing, no Matter how Ridiculous could Damage the Impact of this Almost Forgotten Thriller.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0037865/reviews-120

ur33374263

title: Beautiful and Unnerving Technicolor Noir review: A Few Reasons to View this Luscious Lunacy. It is a Film-Noir in Technicolor. Gene Tierney's Striking Performance of a Monstrous Female. The Movie More than Touches on Taboos of the Time Like Incest, Self-Abortion, and the Chilling Murder of a Teenager.It is an Absorbing Film with Oscar Winning Cinematography and a Compelling, Completely Believable, Maniacal Character that is Disturbing, coming from one of the Screens Radiant Beauties. The Film Starts Out at an Even Pace and then Accelerates as it Draws You Into a Web of Bizarro Land Film-Noir that is Usually Filled with Shadows of Ominous Black, White, and Grey. But the Contrast here Belies its Genre with a Colorful Palette. There is Very Little Mystery here as the Terror and Tension is known Almost Immediately and it is a Place of the most Personal Nightmares. The Ending is so Bad and Ill Thinking and Vincent Price's Shouting Every Word in the Courtroom Scene just about Sinks all of the Weighty Things that Came Before.But this Entertainment was so Unsettling and Unexpected in a Color Romantic Movie that Naive Audiences might have been Quite a Taken Back by a Certain Dismaying Edge that the Film Delivered and Nothing, no Matter how Ridiculous could Damage the Impact of this Almost Forgotten Thriller.

Gene Tierney's performance makes up for any & all story deficiencies.

tt0037865

This film is a soap opera reasonably faithful to Ben Ames William's best selling 1944 novel.John M.Stahl one of the leading directors of the era helm-ed this soap opera written by Jo Swerling also a leading screen writer of the time.Three of 20th Century Fox's biggest stars are the lead.Gene Tierney finally gets the dramatic role she has craved for.She portrays a women so evil & cunning, she destroys of near destroys everyone who gets in her way. It is one best performance's by any actress ever.Cornell Wilde is her loving but almost naive husband, Cornell never could be considered a great actor, he was at his best here.Jeanne Crain is Gene's sweet loving adopted sister & is as she always played innocence personified.In excellent support is Vincent Price as a vindictive District Attorney once in love with Gene's character.All the other actors are equally good,I must make mention of 2.Darryl Hickman as the polio stricken brother of Cornell's role & what happens to him is the crux for remainder of the events.Chill Wills in one of his early roles easily shows his future talent.This film is a soap opera, 99.44% pure (as per soap box ad.Being soap opera, it has either hints of various non acceptable deeds, like Incest,pregnancy termination,suicide & even murder most foul.There are many clichés,but the acting & production is so superior just sit back & enjoy this 1945 classic film,ignoring the clichés.Ratings: ***1/2 out of 4--95 points out of 100--IMDB 9 out of 10.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0037865/reviews-87

ur0495697

title: Gene Tierney's performance makes up for any & all story deficiencies. review: This film is a soap opera reasonably faithful to Ben Ames William's best selling 1944 novel.John M.Stahl one of the leading directors of the era helm-ed this soap opera written by Jo Swerling also a leading screen writer of the time.Three of 20th Century Fox's biggest stars are the lead.Gene Tierney finally gets the dramatic role she has craved for.She portrays a women so evil & cunning, she destroys of near destroys everyone who gets in her way. It is one best performance's by any actress ever.Cornell Wilde is her loving but almost naive husband, Cornell never could be considered a great actor, he was at his best here.Jeanne Crain is Gene's sweet loving adopted sister & is as she always played innocence personified.In excellent support is Vincent Price as a vindictive District Attorney once in love with Gene's character.All the other actors are equally good,I must make mention of 2.Darryl Hickman as the polio stricken brother of Cornell's role & what happens to him is the crux for remainder of the events.Chill Wills in one of his early roles easily shows his future talent.This film is a soap opera, 99.44% pure (as per soap box ad.Being soap opera, it has either hints of various non acceptable deeds, like Incest,pregnancy termination,suicide & even murder most foul.There are many clichés,but the acting & production is so superior just sit back & enjoy this 1945 classic film,ignoring the clichés.Ratings: ***1/2 out of 4--95 points out of 100--IMDB 9 out of 10.

Burning Bright.

tt0810784

After the grot, grime, filth and general unpleasantness of 2003's In the Cut comes the lavish, much more colourful and far easier-on-the-eye Jane Campion piece about two people coming together and forging a relationship. Gone is the dank, Hellish and greyed out locale of contemporary New York City and in its place arrives 19th century Hampstead, in England; a zone peppered with fields, rife with both tranquillity as well as a certain kind of beauty, and often abound with greens and yellows and purples. Away from the smut and corruption of her last film comes the piece about two people poised at respective stages in their lives coming together and lightly bonding - the film covers two people of a younger and more rawer disposition than that of In the Cut; ironic then, that the film would be a rawer and more involving experience as a result.The film will begin with some quilt-work, stitching and sewing and whatnot; with cuts gradually bringing us away from said activity, the person engaging in it and the building within which they were based in order to reveal a farm-like locale and a distant London skyline. Such an opening encapsulates the body of the film; that is to say a pulling away of something so intrinsic, or precise, in nature to reveal a wider picture of something – encapsulated in the film's going on to explore an intrinsic true-to-history tale of poet John Keats' tryst with a certain Fanny Brawne. Abbie Cornish is the one playing Brawne, while Ben Whishaw adopts the role of John Keats. Cornish does superbly, adding to the long list of Campion heroines that include Holy Smoke's Kate Winslet; The Piano's Holly Hunter and the aforementioned In the Cut's Meg Ryan; women getting too involved with men whom are initially perceived as their binary opposites and often getting entangled for the worse. It is she whom we observe stitching during the opening and through her extensive contacts of family and friends, a travelling to Keats' home is the order of the initial exchanges.Once there, Brawne appears opinionated and dares to challenge the far cockier and more confident of the household in additional poet Charles Brown (Schneider) on his work – as much as Brown is what he is, Keats appears shy and retiring through the fact he does not initially show at the gathering at all. In spite of living with Brown and sharing his career field, Keats is a thin and softly spoken fellow; appearing weak in his immediate appearance and lacking the facial hair his counterpart has. It is somewhat counter-balanced to that of Brown and his larger, more pompous disposition, which sees him strike us as rather outlandish and less caring. Shooting down Brown's jibes and petty comments, she goes so far as to denounce whatever little admiration for poetry she already had in front of most people, by which time Keats has appeared. It is additionally revealed his brother is suffering from a serious illness; his parents recently died and that he himself is struggling within his field with exposure and profit. But Keats is still somewhat of an entertainer, his stories and speech seeing most warm to him until the time comes to nail a spontaneous poem after dinner, upon which he falters.Through meeting Keats, Brawne purchases one of his books; this initial exposure to poetry beginning a change in her life which will go on to additionally affect that of Wishaw's character - her prejudices slowly dissipating to warmly lit shots of her lying flat on her back engaging with what this man has written. The two come to formulate more of a bond as the crux of the film progresses, their relationship delicate and often feeling pleasantly poised; a far cry from the franker and more brash nature of the bond between the two leads in In the Cut – so much so, that when Brown sends Fanny a valentine's card as she begins to get to know Keats a little more, it is an explosion of sorts within the realm Brawne and Keats currently occupy. Campion constructs these exchanges to a tee; there are no fast talking exchanges running on hip-dialogue whilst unfolding in a modern day locale rife with large amounts of snow on the ground, these natural and really well performed scenes resonating as they lyrically progress from interaction to interaction.Peppering their relationship is a stark, sociological ethic acting as a really tragically affecting over-tune which persistently threatens to destroy what they have. This is more broadly linked to an apparent agreement both parties should be privy to entering, should they ever consider marriage. Principally, and it's at this point the norms of the era within which the film is set make themselves painfully known thus instilling a greater sense of tragedy, it would be frowned up should the female participant of the marriage be relied upon for income above that of the male. Since Keats struggles within a highly specialist field of artistic and creative integrity, he cannot be relied upon for income to fund the state of matrimony; Campion going on to send up such a belief a wily way, challenging the ideological patriarchy and creating a story leading only to destruction and trauma eased little by the fact two people whom loved one another a great deal were not able to come together out of what are perceived to be false-propositions. It is a notion epitomised in Cornish's pained response to her peers, when she informs them that "You taught me of love, not of love for a specific class or rich person." Bright Star is a thoroughly engaging and really rather mature love story one is quite easily caught up in, and is near enough a considerable cut above most films of its year.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810784/reviews-97

ur0855231

title: Burning Bright. review: After the grot, grime, filth and general unpleasantness of 2003's In the Cut comes the lavish, much more colourful and far easier-on-the-eye Jane Campion piece about two people coming together and forging a relationship. Gone is the dank, Hellish and greyed out locale of contemporary New York City and in its place arrives 19th century Hampstead, in England; a zone peppered with fields, rife with both tranquillity as well as a certain kind of beauty, and often abound with greens and yellows and purples. Away from the smut and corruption of her last film comes the piece about two people poised at respective stages in their lives coming together and lightly bonding - the film covers two people of a younger and more rawer disposition than that of In the Cut; ironic then, that the film would be a rawer and more involving experience as a result.The film will begin with some quilt-work, stitching and sewing and whatnot; with cuts gradually bringing us away from said activity, the person engaging in it and the building within which they were based in order to reveal a farm-like locale and a distant London skyline. Such an opening encapsulates the body of the film; that is to say a pulling away of something so intrinsic, or precise, in nature to reveal a wider picture of something – encapsulated in the film's going on to explore an intrinsic true-to-history tale of poet John Keats' tryst with a certain Fanny Brawne. Abbie Cornish is the one playing Brawne, while Ben Whishaw adopts the role of John Keats. Cornish does superbly, adding to the long list of Campion heroines that include Holy Smoke's Kate Winslet; The Piano's Holly Hunter and the aforementioned In the Cut's Meg Ryan; women getting too involved with men whom are initially perceived as their binary opposites and often getting entangled for the worse. It is she whom we observe stitching during the opening and through her extensive contacts of family and friends, a travelling to Keats' home is the order of the initial exchanges.Once there, Brawne appears opinionated and dares to challenge the far cockier and more confident of the household in additional poet Charles Brown (Schneider) on his work – as much as Brown is what he is, Keats appears shy and retiring through the fact he does not initially show at the gathering at all. In spite of living with Brown and sharing his career field, Keats is a thin and softly spoken fellow; appearing weak in his immediate appearance and lacking the facial hair his counterpart has. It is somewhat counter-balanced to that of Brown and his larger, more pompous disposition, which sees him strike us as rather outlandish and less caring. Shooting down Brown's jibes and petty comments, she goes so far as to denounce whatever little admiration for poetry she already had in front of most people, by which time Keats has appeared. It is additionally revealed his brother is suffering from a serious illness; his parents recently died and that he himself is struggling within his field with exposure and profit. But Keats is still somewhat of an entertainer, his stories and speech seeing most warm to him until the time comes to nail a spontaneous poem after dinner, upon which he falters.Through meeting Keats, Brawne purchases one of his books; this initial exposure to poetry beginning a change in her life which will go on to additionally affect that of Wishaw's character - her prejudices slowly dissipating to warmly lit shots of her lying flat on her back engaging with what this man has written. The two come to formulate more of a bond as the crux of the film progresses, their relationship delicate and often feeling pleasantly poised; a far cry from the franker and more brash nature of the bond between the two leads in In the Cut – so much so, that when Brown sends Fanny a valentine's card as she begins to get to know Keats a little more, it is an explosion of sorts within the realm Brawne and Keats currently occupy. Campion constructs these exchanges to a tee; there are no fast talking exchanges running on hip-dialogue whilst unfolding in a modern day locale rife with large amounts of snow on the ground, these natural and really well performed scenes resonating as they lyrically progress from interaction to interaction.Peppering their relationship is a stark, sociological ethic acting as a really tragically affecting over-tune which persistently threatens to destroy what they have. This is more broadly linked to an apparent agreement both parties should be privy to entering, should they ever consider marriage. Principally, and it's at this point the norms of the era within which the film is set make themselves painfully known thus instilling a greater sense of tragedy, it would be frowned up should the female participant of the marriage be relied upon for income above that of the male. Since Keats struggles within a highly specialist field of artistic and creative integrity, he cannot be relied upon for income to fund the state of matrimony; Campion going on to send up such a belief a wily way, challenging the ideological patriarchy and creating a story leading only to destruction and trauma eased little by the fact two people whom loved one another a great deal were not able to come together out of what are perceived to be false-propositions. It is a notion epitomised in Cornish's pained response to her peers, when she informs them that "You taught me of love, not of love for a specific class or rich person." Bright Star is a thoroughly engaging and really rather mature love story one is quite easily caught up in, and is near enough a considerable cut above most films of its year.

Jane Campion's Latest Is a Flat Dud

tt0810784

How could the same director who put such intense eroticism on screen in "The Piano" be responsible for this dull, tepid film? "Bright Star" tells the story of poor poet John Keats and the passionate love he shared with his muse, Fanny Brawne. But you'll have to take the film's word that this passion existed, because mighty little of it ever makes an appearance on screen. Ben Whishaw, who plays Keats, and Abbie Cornish, in a rather lifeless performance as Brawne, are good at moping around but not much else. The film's biggest dramatic conflict is that Keats and Brawne want to get married but can't because both are too poor. So they instead wander around English cottages and countryside reciting poetry to one another. Paul Schneider, as Keats' jealous friend, tries hard to imbue some energy into the film, but his character is too bothersome to make those rare bouts of energy enjoyable.A flat dud.Grade: C-

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810784/reviews-74

ur4532636

title: Jane Campion's Latest Is a Flat Dud review: How could the same director who put such intense eroticism on screen in "The Piano" be responsible for this dull, tepid film? "Bright Star" tells the story of poor poet John Keats and the passionate love he shared with his muse, Fanny Brawne. But you'll have to take the film's word that this passion existed, because mighty little of it ever makes an appearance on screen. Ben Whishaw, who plays Keats, and Abbie Cornish, in a rather lifeless performance as Brawne, are good at moping around but not much else. The film's biggest dramatic conflict is that Keats and Brawne want to get married but can't because both are too poor. So they instead wander around English cottages and countryside reciting poetry to one another. Paul Schneider, as Keats' jealous friend, tries hard to imbue some energy into the film, but his character is too bothersome to make those rare bouts of energy enjoyable.A flat dud.Grade: C-

Suck it Wordsworth, Keats da bomb

tt0810784

Jane Campion directs "Bright Star". The film is based on the last three years of the life of poet John Keats (Ben Whishaw), and charts his romantic relationship with a young woman, Fanny Brawne (Abbie Cornish).Like many of Campion's pictures ("Holy Smoke", "The Piano", "In The Cut"), "Bright Star" is both gorgeously directed and erotically charged. Campion's compositions are immaculate, her cinematography precious and the film's lighting oft recalls the faint whites of Johannes Vermeer.Typical of Campion, "Bright Star" also manages to be sexy despite the chastity of its lead characters. Where Campion's "Piano" and "Cut" charged music and words with sexual possibility, in "Bright Star" we're thrown into the world of two lovers who imbue words with an eroticism which their bodies aren't allowed. Separated by tight corsets, social barriers and tradition, Brawne and Keats ravish one another with prose and stanzas, poetry and literature becoming a form of prim foreplay.But Keats and Barwne aren't simply lovers stereotypically boxed in by the social mores of the 19th century. No, both are also a couple of strong-willed, assertive bohemians. Brawne is a fiery proto-feminist who walks at the beat of her own drum, and Keats likewise doesn't give a damn about what anybody thinks or says. This results in a film which breaks away from the conventions of most romantic films set in the 19th century. Rather than a Jane Austenesque tale in which social pressures keep lovers apart, Campion serves up a tale in which two lovers decide to remain apart as an act of both pragmatism and love; Keats refuses to marry Brawne so as not to be a financial burden and Brawne refuses to marry Keats as an act of deference, refusing to get in the way of his poetry. Keats and Brawne's romance may be doomed, but it is doomed because they mutually will it. It is doomed by choice.Campion is one of the few female directors to command a mainstream audience. Virtually all her films are underrated, "Bright Star" included. Arguably Campion's most confidently directed picture, it features an excellent performance by Abbie Cornish, whose difficult role requires a blending of fragility, inexperience, power and agency. Those looking for insights into Keats' life and poetry, however, will be disappointed. Unlike Brawne, Campion's Keats never amounts to anything more than a stereotype. He's a dainty "emo" artist, a giant caricature of a Romantic Poet, and the words which springs from his mouth and pen seems to come from a personality completely at odds with what Campion has sketched. The blunt, mannered prose of Keats is also at odds with Campion's visual beauty, which is gentle, ethereal and delicate. Still, these are minor criticisms. Campion's "Bright Star" is mostly excellent, at least insofar as it echoes the ethos of the Romantic Movement, a movement which arose in the mid 1790s and became unconsciously obsessed with a form of pantheism (seeing the divine in everything), nostalgia, naivety and reacted against Enlightenment principles (most of the famous Romantic artists eventually became giant reactionaries). Campion's Keats is similarly narrow minded, but to Brawne, these fixations make him irresistibly delectable.8/10 – Sumptuous. Worth multiple viewings.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810784/reviews-110

ur4130201

title: Suck it Wordsworth, Keats da bomb review: Jane Campion directs "Bright Star". The film is based on the last three years of the life of poet John Keats (Ben Whishaw), and charts his romantic relationship with a young woman, Fanny Brawne (Abbie Cornish).Like many of Campion's pictures ("Holy Smoke", "The Piano", "In The Cut"), "Bright Star" is both gorgeously directed and erotically charged. Campion's compositions are immaculate, her cinematography precious and the film's lighting oft recalls the faint whites of Johannes Vermeer.Typical of Campion, "Bright Star" also manages to be sexy despite the chastity of its lead characters. Where Campion's "Piano" and "Cut" charged music and words with sexual possibility, in "Bright Star" we're thrown into the world of two lovers who imbue words with an eroticism which their bodies aren't allowed. Separated by tight corsets, social barriers and tradition, Brawne and Keats ravish one another with prose and stanzas, poetry and literature becoming a form of prim foreplay.But Keats and Barwne aren't simply lovers stereotypically boxed in by the social mores of the 19th century. No, both are also a couple of strong-willed, assertive bohemians. Brawne is a fiery proto-feminist who walks at the beat of her own drum, and Keats likewise doesn't give a damn about what anybody thinks or says. This results in a film which breaks away from the conventions of most romantic films set in the 19th century. Rather than a Jane Austenesque tale in which social pressures keep lovers apart, Campion serves up a tale in which two lovers decide to remain apart as an act of both pragmatism and love; Keats refuses to marry Brawne so as not to be a financial burden and Brawne refuses to marry Keats as an act of deference, refusing to get in the way of his poetry. Keats and Brawne's romance may be doomed, but it is doomed because they mutually will it. It is doomed by choice.Campion is one of the few female directors to command a mainstream audience. Virtually all her films are underrated, "Bright Star" included. Arguably Campion's most confidently directed picture, it features an excellent performance by Abbie Cornish, whose difficult role requires a blending of fragility, inexperience, power and agency. Those looking for insights into Keats' life and poetry, however, will be disappointed. Unlike Brawne, Campion's Keats never amounts to anything more than a stereotype. He's a dainty "emo" artist, a giant caricature of a Romantic Poet, and the words which springs from his mouth and pen seems to come from a personality completely at odds with what Campion has sketched. The blunt, mannered prose of Keats is also at odds with Campion's visual beauty, which is gentle, ethereal and delicate. Still, these are minor criticisms. Campion's "Bright Star" is mostly excellent, at least insofar as it echoes the ethos of the Romantic Movement, a movement which arose in the mid 1790s and became unconsciously obsessed with a form of pantheism (seeing the divine in everything), nostalgia, naivety and reacted against Enlightenment principles (most of the famous Romantic artists eventually became giant reactionaries). Campion's Keats is similarly narrow minded, but to Brawne, these fixations make him irresistibly delectable.8/10 – Sumptuous. Worth multiple viewings.

Bright Star pretty dim

tt0810784

Oh dear... Ms Campion is really overdoing it this time. At least The Piano Player had nudity and Harvey Keitel to keep us awake.This is a chick-flick at its very worst. Long, tedious to the point of somnolence, she has made all the wrong moves here. First, she chooses Australian actress Abbie Cornish to play the heroine, Fanny Brawne, who perhaps might be good in something else, but here just has NO charisma. Her seven year old sister in the film is more vibrant and interesting to watch than she is. Second, there is not a single person in the film who you would like to actually know: Keats mopes around with a smarmy smile; his Scottish friend and mentor, Charles Armitage Brown(Paul Schneider) is the closest we see to anyone with a little REAL passion or life to him - unfortunately all he gets to do is be difficult, jealous and obnoxious from beginning to end. The girl's family flicker around the edges, never ever really coming to life... Everyone seems to be playing on ONE note... and the rhythm of the film never changes either. Both these defects most likely can be attributed to Campion, who we expect should know better. Utterly dreadful !I have adored Ben Whishaw ever since seeing him in Perfume : The History of a Murderer. Well, either Whishaw has suddenly lost all his talent, or Ms Campion just doesn't know how to breathe life into this enterprise, but he has never seemed LESS interesting. And there is just NO electricity between his Keats and Miss Browne. They go through the motions, but I just don't believe they are really hot for each other.Of course, all the feminists and their boyfriends – nicely trained in Political Correctness – will ADORE this film for concentrating on women's feelings instead of action. In today's society everything is supposed to follow a polite formula and NOT be messy. But I think it is time Ms Campion tried her hand at making a film from the MAN'S point of view for a change. She is stuck in a rut and obviously is the worse for wear. Nevertheless I will give her points for the visuals and the attention to detail. The shot where the women leave their Hampstead house, passing through a muddy yard with bedsheets hung out to dry and London's St Paul's in the distance was perfect; it gave us a sense of time, place and circumstances, and I was delighted with it. The clothes really did often look hand-made - and often not very flattering, exactly what a woman of the heroine's ilk and social class might be expected to make/wear. (Imagine how sumptuous the clothes would have looked if this had been a Merchant/Ivory film.!) I also give Ms Campion kudos for having managed to find a bevy of actresses whose faces really DO resemble the women who we see in portraits of the period as opposed to the beauties of our own era. They all look just a little less attractive than we might have hoped; this give them a veracity of period which someone like Julie Roberts just doesn't somehow manage to bring off in quite the same way. I was SO looking forward to this film, principally for Ben Whishaw and buoyed by having re-watched The Piano a few weeks previous to seeing Bright Star. The Piano, though also slow-moving and the ultimate chick-flick, DID manage to have characters who were deep, fascinating, intriguing and believable. Bright Star somehow manages to diminish everyone in it. Ladies, I know I won't be able to persuade you to avoid this - Ms Campion is too well-loved for that. But be kind: leave your boyfriends and husbands at home!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810784/reviews-65

ur19611476

title: Bright Star pretty dim review: Oh dear... Ms Campion is really overdoing it this time. At least The Piano Player had nudity and Harvey Keitel to keep us awake.This is a chick-flick at its very worst. Long, tedious to the point of somnolence, she has made all the wrong moves here. First, she chooses Australian actress Abbie Cornish to play the heroine, Fanny Brawne, who perhaps might be good in something else, but here just has NO charisma. Her seven year old sister in the film is more vibrant and interesting to watch than she is. Second, there is not a single person in the film who you would like to actually know: Keats mopes around with a smarmy smile; his Scottish friend and mentor, Charles Armitage Brown(Paul Schneider) is the closest we see to anyone with a little REAL passion or life to him - unfortunately all he gets to do is be difficult, jealous and obnoxious from beginning to end. The girl's family flicker around the edges, never ever really coming to life... Everyone seems to be playing on ONE note... and the rhythm of the film never changes either. Both these defects most likely can be attributed to Campion, who we expect should know better. Utterly dreadful !I have adored Ben Whishaw ever since seeing him in Perfume : The History of a Murderer. Well, either Whishaw has suddenly lost all his talent, or Ms Campion just doesn't know how to breathe life into this enterprise, but he has never seemed LESS interesting. And there is just NO electricity between his Keats and Miss Browne. They go through the motions, but I just don't believe they are really hot for each other.Of course, all the feminists and their boyfriends – nicely trained in Political Correctness – will ADORE this film for concentrating on women's feelings instead of action. In today's society everything is supposed to follow a polite formula and NOT be messy. But I think it is time Ms Campion tried her hand at making a film from the MAN'S point of view for a change. She is stuck in a rut and obviously is the worse for wear. Nevertheless I will give her points for the visuals and the attention to detail. The shot where the women leave their Hampstead house, passing through a muddy yard with bedsheets hung out to dry and London's St Paul's in the distance was perfect; it gave us a sense of time, place and circumstances, and I was delighted with it. The clothes really did often look hand-made - and often not very flattering, exactly what a woman of the heroine's ilk and social class might be expected to make/wear. (Imagine how sumptuous the clothes would have looked if this had been a Merchant/Ivory film.!) I also give Ms Campion kudos for having managed to find a bevy of actresses whose faces really DO resemble the women who we see in portraits of the period as opposed to the beauties of our own era. They all look just a little less attractive than we might have hoped; this give them a veracity of period which someone like Julie Roberts just doesn't somehow manage to bring off in quite the same way. I was SO looking forward to this film, principally for Ben Whishaw and buoyed by having re-watched The Piano a few weeks previous to seeing Bright Star. The Piano, though also slow-moving and the ultimate chick-flick, DID manage to have characters who were deep, fascinating, intriguing and believable. Bright Star somehow manages to diminish everyone in it. Ladies, I know I won't be able to persuade you to avoid this - Ms Campion is too well-loved for that. But be kind: leave your boyfriends and husbands at home!

Bright Star

tt0810784

Bright Star takes place in early 19th century England and focuses on the true love story of poet John Keats and a local woman named Fanny Brawne. The film shows the distant, yet growing relationship between the two of them and obstacles including other people and John's health which comes in the way of their relationship. Seeing as Bright Star is based upon a now famous 19th century poet, you would expect a film about him to be obviously poetic and Bright Star is. There are scenes that just focus on the flowers, gardens and nature around the characters and there are some scenes which seem to take a pause from the story and just focus on beautiful and inspiring landscapes and there are also voice over scenes with one of the actors reading John Keats poems. As a period piece, Bright Star does everything right. The filming locations, the costumes and sets are all very believable and it does sometimes feel like it is taking place during that time period. The acting by Abbie Cornish (Fanny), Ben Whishaw (John) and John's friend Mr. Brown (Paul Schneider) are also very good. I particularly liked Paul Schneider as the arrogant and quite full of himself Mr. Brown, who I think is well developed and becomes more and more interesting as the film goes along and in the first half of the film he is also the bringer of comedic relief to the film because of his high opinion of himself and I think it was captured very well by Paul Schneider and I would have to say is definitely an underrated performance. While the beauty and look of Bright Star really impressed me, as it started to move along, I was having some problems with the story and there were also times were Abbie Cornish'a performance was getting a little too melodramatic for me in the second half. One problem I had with the story was that I did not really find the relationship between John and Fanny to be believable. There always seemed to be some distance between them and it was also like the fact of getting closer, or showing any kind of love, or intimacy was just uncomfortable for them and they seemed unsure of themselves. Once you watch the film you will notice some of the complications which arise from the relationship (some I briefly mentioned above), but I had a hard time picking out any tenderness, or anything really moving about their relationship. Maybe this is just a problem I had personally, but watching it, I did have a problem with it because it just didn't feel real to me. And as I said, I know there were complications, but I do not really see as how that could affect the relationship so much. Perhaps some of the problems lie in the film's script for this particular problem I had with the film because I did enjoy the performances (until they started to get melodramatic) and I think the actors were just working with the material they were given. The melodramatic parts bothered me because I have never been a fan of that style of acting, or writing. You know the kind, where everything is really emotional from the music to some over the top emotional acting with the actors almost seeming like they are forcing themselves to be that way in the scene and it does not feel real, or believable. From the acting to the music, the film really felt like it wanted you to pity these characters and their circumstances, but when a film feels forced and like it is coming on too strong, like this one was, it is hard to feel anything at all, other than annoyance at it. I still did find enough to like about Bright Star and I think where it fails is in the development of the characters and some of the acting and music in the second half. It is still technically a well made and gorgeous looking film, but for me at least, I would say this one would be a rental and not a go to the theatre type of movie to see. I know there is an audience for this type of film, who will find what I am saying to be untrue and just a waste of time writing for me and reading on their part of the review. However, I think anyone into the classic British period piece films will probably find something to like in it and others may appreciate it, like I did, but more for the style and way it was made than the source material.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810784/reviews-54

ur1471623

title: Bright Star review: Bright Star takes place in early 19th century England and focuses on the true love story of poet John Keats and a local woman named Fanny Brawne. The film shows the distant, yet growing relationship between the two of them and obstacles including other people and John's health which comes in the way of their relationship. Seeing as Bright Star is based upon a now famous 19th century poet, you would expect a film about him to be obviously poetic and Bright Star is. There are scenes that just focus on the flowers, gardens and nature around the characters and there are some scenes which seem to take a pause from the story and just focus on beautiful and inspiring landscapes and there are also voice over scenes with one of the actors reading John Keats poems. As a period piece, Bright Star does everything right. The filming locations, the costumes and sets are all very believable and it does sometimes feel like it is taking place during that time period. The acting by Abbie Cornish (Fanny), Ben Whishaw (John) and John's friend Mr. Brown (Paul Schneider) are also very good. I particularly liked Paul Schneider as the arrogant and quite full of himself Mr. Brown, who I think is well developed and becomes more and more interesting as the film goes along and in the first half of the film he is also the bringer of comedic relief to the film because of his high opinion of himself and I think it was captured very well by Paul Schneider and I would have to say is definitely an underrated performance. While the beauty and look of Bright Star really impressed me, as it started to move along, I was having some problems with the story and there were also times were Abbie Cornish'a performance was getting a little too melodramatic for me in the second half. One problem I had with the story was that I did not really find the relationship between John and Fanny to be believable. There always seemed to be some distance between them and it was also like the fact of getting closer, or showing any kind of love, or intimacy was just uncomfortable for them and they seemed unsure of themselves. Once you watch the film you will notice some of the complications which arise from the relationship (some I briefly mentioned above), but I had a hard time picking out any tenderness, or anything really moving about their relationship. Maybe this is just a problem I had personally, but watching it, I did have a problem with it because it just didn't feel real to me. And as I said, I know there were complications, but I do not really see as how that could affect the relationship so much. Perhaps some of the problems lie in the film's script for this particular problem I had with the film because I did enjoy the performances (until they started to get melodramatic) and I think the actors were just working with the material they were given. The melodramatic parts bothered me because I have never been a fan of that style of acting, or writing. You know the kind, where everything is really emotional from the music to some over the top emotional acting with the actors almost seeming like they are forcing themselves to be that way in the scene and it does not feel real, or believable. From the acting to the music, the film really felt like it wanted you to pity these characters and their circumstances, but when a film feels forced and like it is coming on too strong, like this one was, it is hard to feel anything at all, other than annoyance at it. I still did find enough to like about Bright Star and I think where it fails is in the development of the characters and some of the acting and music in the second half. It is still technically a well made and gorgeous looking film, but for me at least, I would say this one would be a rental and not a go to the theatre type of movie to see. I know there is an audience for this type of film, who will find what I am saying to be untrue and just a waste of time writing for me and reading on their part of the review. However, I think anyone into the classic British period piece films will probably find something to like in it and others may appreciate it, like I did, but more for the style and way it was made than the source material.

Ridiculous

tt0810784

I would have given this a 4/10 score except, the more I think about it the less there is to say in commendation of it. The principle problem is that Campion has chosen to write the script herself with only the aid of Andrew Motion. No wonder this is so off target. If you are at all interested in history, or God forbid, Keats himself, stay well away. It is a truly appalling representation of a real person's life and work. It gives no sense of the deprivations suffered by Keats. You'd think he was a spoilt brat pretending to live the life of an occasional letter writer, in a well lit, airy rural setting, with Brawne depicted like the 21st Century prick-tease that chimes more with modern day sentimentality. Costumes interesting. Casting poor. Script Godawful. Cinematography odd. Deserving of oblivion.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810784/reviews-46

ur6499406

title: Ridiculous review: I would have given this a 4/10 score except, the more I think about it the less there is to say in commendation of it. The principle problem is that Campion has chosen to write the script herself with only the aid of Andrew Motion. No wonder this is so off target. If you are at all interested in history, or God forbid, Keats himself, stay well away. It is a truly appalling representation of a real person's life and work. It gives no sense of the deprivations suffered by Keats. You'd think he was a spoilt brat pretending to live the life of an occasional letter writer, in a well lit, airy rural setting, with Brawne depicted like the 21st Century prick-tease that chimes more with modern day sentimentality. Costumes interesting. Casting poor. Script Godawful. Cinematography odd. Deserving of oblivion.

A very interesting romantic drama

tt0810784

I am generally not very attracted by the "period romances", but director Jane Campion guarantees my interest in anything she does, so I decided to watch Bright Star anyway. And even though it is not as good as The Piano or Holy Smoke, Bright Star is definitely a very interesting film which shows once more the talent and vision from Campion.Some people might suppose that the usually intense Campion filled this poetic romance with febrile expressions of love and operatic drama, but Bright Star might be Campion's most "relaxed" film so far. Those who know something about poet John Keats (1795-1821)' life will know that it is impossible for the film to have a happy ending, but beyond of that, the film is developed with calmness, without any fuss or dramatic excesses. In fact, I almost felt that the point from this film is not exactly the love between the two main characters, but the methodology of the ancient romance, whose emphasis was on the value from the words to express feelings on an elegant and subtle way, which say very much without betraying the good customs from that time.Anyway, I liked Bright Star pretty much, but I do not think it is a film for every taste. The silence is an important part of the language in here, and there are many scenes which extend without dialogs and even without any action, but not without meaning. The actors make an excellent work with their roles (particularly the girl Edie Martin, who steals every scene she is involved in), and the settings and costumes are fascinating for their attention to every single detail and their realism. So, despite not being a great film, I can recommend Bright Star for those who appreciate a solid romantic drama made with a classic sensibility.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810784/reviews-94

ur6216723

title: A very interesting romantic drama review: I am generally not very attracted by the "period romances", but director Jane Campion guarantees my interest in anything she does, so I decided to watch Bright Star anyway. And even though it is not as good as The Piano or Holy Smoke, Bright Star is definitely a very interesting film which shows once more the talent and vision from Campion.Some people might suppose that the usually intense Campion filled this poetic romance with febrile expressions of love and operatic drama, but Bright Star might be Campion's most "relaxed" film so far. Those who know something about poet John Keats (1795-1821)' life will know that it is impossible for the film to have a happy ending, but beyond of that, the film is developed with calmness, without any fuss or dramatic excesses. In fact, I almost felt that the point from this film is not exactly the love between the two main characters, but the methodology of the ancient romance, whose emphasis was on the value from the words to express feelings on an elegant and subtle way, which say very much without betraying the good customs from that time.Anyway, I liked Bright Star pretty much, but I do not think it is a film for every taste. The silence is an important part of the language in here, and there are many scenes which extend without dialogs and even without any action, but not without meaning. The actors make an excellent work with their roles (particularly the girl Edie Martin, who steals every scene she is involved in), and the settings and costumes are fascinating for their attention to every single detail and their realism. So, despite not being a great film, I can recommend Bright Star for those who appreciate a solid romantic drama made with a classic sensibility.

Campion captures the sine curve of romantic experience

tt0810784

Keats's romance with Fanny Brawne and final days are brought to lovely life in Jane Campion's new film, Bright Star. He had TB, though it's never named. When he had become very ill, they sent him to Rome. How foolish! Its climate isn't healthy, though it might have seemed so compared to Hampstead. The house where Keats lived in Hampstead for two years and was in love with Fanny Brawne and wrote some of his has just been restored.Campion's film may not be a deep investigation of poetical genius, but it's delicate and alive and infinitely touching. There's a delightful litte rosy-cheeked girl, and good use is made of cats. The handsome Regency house was then divided into two, one side occupied by Keats and his landlord and possessive companion Charles Brown, the other by a family called Brawne. He fell in love with Fanny Brawne, and she with him. She is creative in her own way, a brilliant seamstress and designer of clothing who was inventive with fabrics. She didn't know much about poetry but to go by the film, she crammed the classics to be able to talk to Keats and read all his poems and memorized many passages. They recite them back and forth to each other, which may be artificial, but you don't mind, because the poetry is their love, it bloomed through their love and expresses it. Until he began coughing blood and ceased to write because he was suddenly too ill, Keats wrote some of his best work in Hampstead, in love with Fanny Brwwne.They express their love in long sweet kisses, and walking hand in hand. This too is artificial but a fitting symbolic expression of the ecstasy and swoons of romantic poetry.Sometimes the final credits define the experience of a film and of its audience. You have to love a film over whose final credits the wispy, winsome Whishaw is heard softly reading the whole of the Ode to a Nightingale, right to the end, and you have to respect an audience in an American cineplex when many of its members sit still to hear Keats's masterpiece down to the final words, "Was it a vision, or a waking dream?/ Fled is that music: – Do I wake or sleep?" Can you imagine having known a person with such extravagant gifts? Campion doesn't get too much in the way of our own imagining. She just lets it happen, lets the cats wander in and out, and thus captures the sine curve of romantic experience, its extremes of joy and despair that are so poignantly focused in the life of this penniless English boy who died at twenty-five, thinking himself a failure, and left behind some of the finest poetry in the language.Abbie Cornish plays Fanny, Ben Wishaw John Keats, Paul Schneider plays Charles Brown. The little rosy-cheeked sister, Margaret "Toots" Brawne, is played by Edie Martin. Brown is the villain of the piece, because he jealously guards Keants from Fanny, whom he thinks is a silly girl who only sews and flirts. He's getting in the way of romantic love! And Schneider can't help but seem obtrusive here. Brown redeems himself later when, having gotten the sweet Irish servant girl Abigail (Antonia Campbell-Hughes) with child, he does the right thing and marries her.Fanny's mother says she can't marry Keats, because he has no money, but he proposes, and she accepts, and when the liebestod begins, there's no way of denying his happiness or Fanny's, or the sadness and devotion that made her wear the gold engagement band for the rest of her life. Campion's film offers no profound insights into the poetic process. But how can it? Though Fanny asks Keats to give her "lessons" in poetry, its appreciation, like its creation, must be instinctive and cannot be explained, particularly not the ethereal romantic kind. Wishaw's delicate and enigmatic quality is a satisfying image to hang our fantasies on.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810784/reviews-14

ur1501216

title: Campion captures the sine curve of romantic experience review: Keats's romance with Fanny Brawne and final days are brought to lovely life in Jane Campion's new film, Bright Star. He had TB, though it's never named. When he had become very ill, they sent him to Rome. How foolish! Its climate isn't healthy, though it might have seemed so compared to Hampstead. The house where Keats lived in Hampstead for two years and was in love with Fanny Brawne and wrote some of his has just been restored.Campion's film may not be a deep investigation of poetical genius, but it's delicate and alive and infinitely touching. There's a delightful litte rosy-cheeked girl, and good use is made of cats. The handsome Regency house was then divided into two, one side occupied by Keats and his landlord and possessive companion Charles Brown, the other by a family called Brawne. He fell in love with Fanny Brawne, and she with him. She is creative in her own way, a brilliant seamstress and designer of clothing who was inventive with fabrics. She didn't know much about poetry but to go by the film, she crammed the classics to be able to talk to Keats and read all his poems and memorized many passages. They recite them back and forth to each other, which may be artificial, but you don't mind, because the poetry is their love, it bloomed through their love and expresses it. Until he began coughing blood and ceased to write because he was suddenly too ill, Keats wrote some of his best work in Hampstead, in love with Fanny Brwwne.They express their love in long sweet kisses, and walking hand in hand. This too is artificial but a fitting symbolic expression of the ecstasy and swoons of romantic poetry.Sometimes the final credits define the experience of a film and of its audience. You have to love a film over whose final credits the wispy, winsome Whishaw is heard softly reading the whole of the Ode to a Nightingale, right to the end, and you have to respect an audience in an American cineplex when many of its members sit still to hear Keats's masterpiece down to the final words, "Was it a vision, or a waking dream?/ Fled is that music: – Do I wake or sleep?" Can you imagine having known a person with such extravagant gifts? Campion doesn't get too much in the way of our own imagining. She just lets it happen, lets the cats wander in and out, and thus captures the sine curve of romantic experience, its extremes of joy and despair that are so poignantly focused in the life of this penniless English boy who died at twenty-five, thinking himself a failure, and left behind some of the finest poetry in the language.Abbie Cornish plays Fanny, Ben Wishaw John Keats, Paul Schneider plays Charles Brown. The little rosy-cheeked sister, Margaret "Toots" Brawne, is played by Edie Martin. Brown is the villain of the piece, because he jealously guards Keants from Fanny, whom he thinks is a silly girl who only sews and flirts. He's getting in the way of romantic love! And Schneider can't help but seem obtrusive here. Brown redeems himself later when, having gotten the sweet Irish servant girl Abigail (Antonia Campbell-Hughes) with child, he does the right thing and marries her.Fanny's mother says she can't marry Keats, because he has no money, but he proposes, and she accepts, and when the liebestod begins, there's no way of denying his happiness or Fanny's, or the sadness and devotion that made her wear the gold engagement band for the rest of her life. Campion's film offers no profound insights into the poetic process. But how can it? Though Fanny asks Keats to give her "lessons" in poetry, its appreciation, like its creation, must be instinctive and cannot be explained, particularly not the ethereal romantic kind. Wishaw's delicate and enigmatic quality is a satisfying image to hang our fantasies on.

Campion's folly

tt0810784

The heroine tells us early on - I sew, I design and make my own clothes, and I can make money at it (although we never see her make a penny!) - another biopic of Coco Chanel? No, it's a film apparently about John Keats the poet, but it isn't, it's a movie about a couple passionately but platonically in love. Only really it's a film about a young woman called Fanny Brawn, set during the Regency in England, who fell in love with John Keats and we know this because they wrote a lot of letters, which have survived, to each other, and he wrote an ode to her. Only again it isn't, it's another modern feminist film about a modern girl, feisty, determined, manipulative to get her own way (including lying a lot), somehow repressed by the early nineteenth century society she is living in (exactly the same misalliance as Coco Avant Chanel). Why don't so-called feminist directors and writers write about now if they want to put over portraits of modern women, not load it all on to figures in the past? Abbie Cornish survives it all to give a sound performance, but Ben Whishaw disappears in the soap dressed up as painfully slow art-house cinema - why and where is it shown he is a great poet? Ms Campion, whose pretty dire 'The Piano' was so overpraised, has misfired yet again with a mediocre script and pretentious 'arty, beautiful pictures of flowers and seasons' direction (note to her, watch Zhang Yimou's 'Hero' for beautiful seasonal use of colour!) to indicate great poetry - no, it doesn't work! There are enough costumes to dress all the Bennett girls four times over if 'Pride and Prejudice' is remade, but I must say the best scene is Kerry Fox as Fanny's mother baking to perfection, which demonstrates that women performed to their best at what they were allowed to do at that time - great. The right message about the right time - pity the rest of the film didn't do that!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810784/reviews-41

ur15462983

title: Campion's folly review: The heroine tells us early on - I sew, I design and make my own clothes, and I can make money at it (although we never see her make a penny!) - another biopic of Coco Chanel? No, it's a film apparently about John Keats the poet, but it isn't, it's a movie about a couple passionately but platonically in love. Only really it's a film about a young woman called Fanny Brawn, set during the Regency in England, who fell in love with John Keats and we know this because they wrote a lot of letters, which have survived, to each other, and he wrote an ode to her. Only again it isn't, it's another modern feminist film about a modern girl, feisty, determined, manipulative to get her own way (including lying a lot), somehow repressed by the early nineteenth century society she is living in (exactly the same misalliance as Coco Avant Chanel). Why don't so-called feminist directors and writers write about now if they want to put over portraits of modern women, not load it all on to figures in the past? Abbie Cornish survives it all to give a sound performance, but Ben Whishaw disappears in the soap dressed up as painfully slow art-house cinema - why and where is it shown he is a great poet? Ms Campion, whose pretty dire 'The Piano' was so overpraised, has misfired yet again with a mediocre script and pretentious 'arty, beautiful pictures of flowers and seasons' direction (note to her, watch Zhang Yimou's 'Hero' for beautiful seasonal use of colour!) to indicate great poetry - no, it doesn't work! There are enough costumes to dress all the Bennett girls four times over if 'Pride and Prejudice' is remade, but I must say the best scene is Kerry Fox as Fanny's mother baking to perfection, which demonstrates that women performed to their best at what they were allowed to do at that time - great. The right message about the right time - pity the rest of the film didn't do that!

Romantic, intimate biopic

tt0810784

Bright Star is a fairly standard sort of biopic, investigating the life love and work - for they are all barely distinguishable - of romantic poet John Keats. What sets Jane Campion's account of his love for Fanny Brawne is its sensuality. The photography is of the first rank, Greig Fraser's attention to the image apparent from the first frame, holding lint-dusted linen in high-contrast light and then opening up into an endless sequence of meticulously constructed compositions. Janet Patterson's costume design needs to be adventurous and brilliantly executed, given that Abbie Cornish's Fanny is a proud fashion pioneer. Indeed Cornish and Ben Whishaw's Keats are also highly photogenic actors. From interior production design to the seasonal appearance of locations, manufactured or found, everything has both a tangible and aural quality. Image blends across the soft-touch sound design and allows the profusion of poetry quotations to emerge without awkwardness. This is the secret of good film making - when the visual seems to make provision for everything that needs to be said. Wish I'd seen it on a big screen. 7/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810784/reviews-100

ur2206551

title: Romantic, intimate biopic review: Bright Star is a fairly standard sort of biopic, investigating the life love and work - for they are all barely distinguishable - of romantic poet John Keats. What sets Jane Campion's account of his love for Fanny Brawne is its sensuality. The photography is of the first rank, Greig Fraser's attention to the image apparent from the first frame, holding lint-dusted linen in high-contrast light and then opening up into an endless sequence of meticulously constructed compositions. Janet Patterson's costume design needs to be adventurous and brilliantly executed, given that Abbie Cornish's Fanny is a proud fashion pioneer. Indeed Cornish and Ben Whishaw's Keats are also highly photogenic actors. From interior production design to the seasonal appearance of locations, manufactured or found, everything has both a tangible and aural quality. Image blends across the soft-touch sound design and allows the profusion of poetry quotations to emerge without awkwardness. This is the secret of good film making - when the visual seems to make provision for everything that needs to be said. Wish I'd seen it on a big screen. 7/10

A feast for the eyes and the senses

tt0810784

Jane Campion's latest film Bright Star introduces us in a very particular way to one of the most inspiring romances but also one of the least known by people around the world: young poet John Keats and Fanny Brawne.Keats and Brawne first met in 1818, he already was a published poet (although his work wasn't very acclaimed at that time) and she was a fashion student. Intrigued about poetry and Keats himself, Fanny asks him to teach her poetry. What happens next is somehow expected: they fall in love, but his economic situation, Charles Brown's disapproval of Fanny (Keats was Brown's protegeé and his best friend) and a fatal disease seem to doom the romance.All these elements could have been used in a cheap and over-dramatic biopic about Keats. Instead Campion takes as inspiration the letters he wrote to Fanny, avoids all the clichés of star-crossed lovers movies and gives us a stunning meditation about love and words as an instrument to keep two people together in spite of time and distance. Campion also achieves what many other people fail when it comes to create period pieces: through an elegant and subtle direction makes the romance totally believable even when some people might find it anachronic and cold.Campion's movies are always a visual delight and this movie is not the exception. This time Campion appeals to the visual element to immerse the audience into the atmosphere of Keats and Brawne's world in a sensorial experience. This is where Greg Frasier's extraordinary cinematography or Jannet Patterson's ravishing art direction become as important as Keats' poetry. The Oscar nominated costume design deserves a special mention, for being the most important of all technical elements since without it, Fanny's world and vision wouldn't be the same.The soul of the movie, however, lies in the acting. Paul Schneider as Brown creates an equally repulsive/fascinating character that plays ambigously with the idea that he was jealous of Fanny man. Ben Whishaw gives Keats a new life and makes us wonder if the real Keats was as charming and attractive. And Abbie Cornish in a brilliant performance embodies the soul of a strong but delicate and sensitive woman named Fanny Brawne who happened to be John Keats' bright star.This movie is a perfect opportunity to know John Keats' poetry for those who still don't know him and also it's an experience for those who enjoy a great story.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810784/reviews-75

ur5066804

title: A feast for the eyes and the senses review: Jane Campion's latest film Bright Star introduces us in a very particular way to one of the most inspiring romances but also one of the least known by people around the world: young poet John Keats and Fanny Brawne.Keats and Brawne first met in 1818, he already was a published poet (although his work wasn't very acclaimed at that time) and she was a fashion student. Intrigued about poetry and Keats himself, Fanny asks him to teach her poetry. What happens next is somehow expected: they fall in love, but his economic situation, Charles Brown's disapproval of Fanny (Keats was Brown's protegeé and his best friend) and a fatal disease seem to doom the romance.All these elements could have been used in a cheap and over-dramatic biopic about Keats. Instead Campion takes as inspiration the letters he wrote to Fanny, avoids all the clichés of star-crossed lovers movies and gives us a stunning meditation about love and words as an instrument to keep two people together in spite of time and distance. Campion also achieves what many other people fail when it comes to create period pieces: through an elegant and subtle direction makes the romance totally believable even when some people might find it anachronic and cold.Campion's movies are always a visual delight and this movie is not the exception. This time Campion appeals to the visual element to immerse the audience into the atmosphere of Keats and Brawne's world in a sensorial experience. This is where Greg Frasier's extraordinary cinematography or Jannet Patterson's ravishing art direction become as important as Keats' poetry. The Oscar nominated costume design deserves a special mention, for being the most important of all technical elements since without it, Fanny's world and vision wouldn't be the same.The soul of the movie, however, lies in the acting. Paul Schneider as Brown creates an equally repulsive/fascinating character that plays ambigously with the idea that he was jealous of Fanny man. Ben Whishaw gives Keats a new life and makes us wonder if the real Keats was as charming and attractive. And Abbie Cornish in a brilliant performance embodies the soul of a strong but delicate and sensitive woman named Fanny Brawne who happened to be John Keats' bright star.This movie is a perfect opportunity to know John Keats' poetry for those who still don't know him and also it's an experience for those who enjoy a great story.

Keats according to tradition

tt0810784

Many would say that Mr. John Keats is the greatest poet of his 19th century, and it is maybe hard to disagree. He also had a love story suited for romantic norms, as well as a death. His definition of absorbing poetry is famous. The reader is not supposed to swim from shore to shore. He ought to remain in the water and feel the mystery without coming to learn it.But Jane Campion really takes us from shore to shore and although the plot often is inter-foiled with the most beautiful excerpts from Keats' writings, you anyway have the feeling that so much more could have been made out of this poetry material.A movie which doesn't really dare.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810784/reviews-52

ur1419266

title: Keats according to tradition review: Many would say that Mr. John Keats is the greatest poet of his 19th century, and it is maybe hard to disagree. He also had a love story suited for romantic norms, as well as a death. His definition of absorbing poetry is famous. The reader is not supposed to swim from shore to shore. He ought to remain in the water and feel the mystery without coming to learn it.But Jane Campion really takes us from shore to shore and although the plot often is inter-foiled with the most beautiful excerpts from Keats' writings, you anyway have the feeling that so much more could have been made out of this poetry material.A movie which doesn't really dare.

Old-school romance

tt0810784

Being best known for period films such as The Piano or Portrait of a Lady, Jane Campion has occasionally tried different things, most notably in 2003 when she directed the Meg Ryan-starring thriller In the Cut, which was greeted with mixed reactions to say the least. Bright Star, well received by critics and audiences - but ignored by the jury - at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival, is a welcome return to what the director does best.The film revolves around the last three-four years in the life of Romantic poet John Keats (played in the film by Ben Whishaw), author of such masterpieces as Ode on a Grecian Urn, who met a premature demise at the age of 25, due to tuberculosis. During those years (1818-1820, he died in Rome in early 1821), he met a woman named Fanny Brawne (Abbie Cornish), and the two had a chaste yet passionate love story until his departure from England. His feelings for her were so intense, he wrote a poem to express his affection: Bright Star.Even if one doesn't have extensive knowledge of Keats' life, familiarity with Campion's filmography should help in figuring out the ending. Nevertheless, the inevitable tragedy doesn't prevent her witty screenplay and the fantastic interaction between Whishaw and Cornish (the former more at ease here than in Brideshead Revisited, the latter marvelous as usual) from creating a romance so powerful it convinces and moves all the way. Like the passion that linked Keats and Brawne, Campion's direction is understated but always present, focusing on small details, both in the love story (the short, casual conversations between the two) and elsewhere (as always in her films, the period rendition is flawless).The only times the movie drags is when Campion resorts to formula, requiring an antagonistic presence in the picture, like Harvey Keitel in The Piano: in this case, it is Keats' friend and colleague Charles Brown (Paul Schneider, with an intermittent Scottish accent), whose constant criticisms towards Fanny and her feelings for the poet are no doubt amusing, but severely devoid of real dramatic meat. Fortunately, the rest of the supporting cast delivers, with familiar British faces like Kerry Fox and Thomas Sangster (playing Fanny's mother and younger brother respectively) contributing sparingly but effectively.Bright Star is a beautiful film about a beautiful story, wonderfully shot, written and acted. It may not reach the sublime heights of The Piano (still Campion's masterpiece), but its heart and soul are certainly in the right place.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810784/reviews-64

ur5156288

title: Old-school romance review: Being best known for period films such as The Piano or Portrait of a Lady, Jane Campion has occasionally tried different things, most notably in 2003 when she directed the Meg Ryan-starring thriller In the Cut, which was greeted with mixed reactions to say the least. Bright Star, well received by critics and audiences - but ignored by the jury - at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival, is a welcome return to what the director does best.The film revolves around the last three-four years in the life of Romantic poet John Keats (played in the film by Ben Whishaw), author of such masterpieces as Ode on a Grecian Urn, who met a premature demise at the age of 25, due to tuberculosis. During those years (1818-1820, he died in Rome in early 1821), he met a woman named Fanny Brawne (Abbie Cornish), and the two had a chaste yet passionate love story until his departure from England. His feelings for her were so intense, he wrote a poem to express his affection: Bright Star.Even if one doesn't have extensive knowledge of Keats' life, familiarity with Campion's filmography should help in figuring out the ending. Nevertheless, the inevitable tragedy doesn't prevent her witty screenplay and the fantastic interaction between Whishaw and Cornish (the former more at ease here than in Brideshead Revisited, the latter marvelous as usual) from creating a romance so powerful it convinces and moves all the way. Like the passion that linked Keats and Brawne, Campion's direction is understated but always present, focusing on small details, both in the love story (the short, casual conversations between the two) and elsewhere (as always in her films, the period rendition is flawless).The only times the movie drags is when Campion resorts to formula, requiring an antagonistic presence in the picture, like Harvey Keitel in The Piano: in this case, it is Keats' friend and colleague Charles Brown (Paul Schneider, with an intermittent Scottish accent), whose constant criticisms towards Fanny and her feelings for the poet are no doubt amusing, but severely devoid of real dramatic meat. Fortunately, the rest of the supporting cast delivers, with familiar British faces like Kerry Fox and Thomas Sangster (playing Fanny's mother and younger brother respectively) contributing sparingly but effectively.Bright Star is a beautiful film about a beautiful story, wonderfully shot, written and acted. It may not reach the sublime heights of The Piano (still Campion's masterpiece), but its heart and soul are certainly in the right place.

3 Long Saturdays

tt0810784

Greetings again from the darkness. From writer/director Jane Campion (The Piano), this is beautiful and touching story of unrequited love between the incredible poet John Keats and designer/seamstress Fanny Brawne.Ben Whishaw (Perfume) does a fine job capturing the frailty, sensitivity and many moods of the poet, and give us a peek at his thoughts regarding his own death. The only real glimpses we get into Keats' writing process are his scenes with Paul Schneider (as Mr. Brown). Schneider's character is overly protective of Keats the genius and Keats the man ... almost to the point of obsession.The real Bright Star of the film is Abbie Cornish (Elizabeth, A Good Year) as Fanny Brawne. She brings much depth to character and her emotions caused me to well up a couple of times (not a common experience for me). Star-crossed lovers seems so cliché, but certainly fits this story.While I would have preferred more insight into the Keats genius, this is really a story of love and emotions. So we make do with the voice overs and bits of Keats poetry that Campion tosses in.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810784/reviews-23

ur0806494

title: 3 Long Saturdays review: Greetings again from the darkness. From writer/director Jane Campion (The Piano), this is beautiful and touching story of unrequited love between the incredible poet John Keats and designer/seamstress Fanny Brawne.Ben Whishaw (Perfume) does a fine job capturing the frailty, sensitivity and many moods of the poet, and give us a peek at his thoughts regarding his own death. The only real glimpses we get into Keats' writing process are his scenes with Paul Schneider (as Mr. Brown). Schneider's character is overly protective of Keats the genius and Keats the man ... almost to the point of obsession.The real Bright Star of the film is Abbie Cornish (Elizabeth, A Good Year) as Fanny Brawne. She brings much depth to character and her emotions caused me to well up a couple of times (not a common experience for me). Star-crossed lovers seems so cliché, but certainly fits this story.While I would have preferred more insight into the Keats genius, this is really a story of love and emotions. So we make do with the voice overs and bits of Keats poetry that Campion tosses in.

Hauntingly poetic, cinematically beautiful

tt0810784

I had the pleasure of attending a screening of Bright Star with Director Jane Campion and rascal Mr. Brown (Paul Schneider) - who, by the way, is even more handsome in person. I thoroughly enjoyed this quiet, elegant and romantic film. It is the embodiment of romance in every way possible. This story really seems to capture the essence of John Keats and the tragic love affair that was cut short with his only true love - Fanny Brawne (played brilliantly by Abbie Cornish). It is heartbreaking to watch how this relationship progresses, from the hostility and jealousy of his friend, Charles Brown to the physical frailty that Keats endured. It is a Romeo and Juliet scenario in the sense that their inability to be together was based upon the moral code of the as yet to become Victorian era.The film provides great insight into the astounding beauty of Keats' poetry that is emotionally moving well beyond his years. Fanny's steadfast and pure devotion is doomed, but she never wavers. Like him, she has the soul of an artist and her chosen outlet is clothing design. There has been speculation as to whether Brown had sexual feelings for Keats. Reading between the lines it appears as though that may have been the case. Every so gently, Campion touches upon this first through Brown's seemingly unfounded jealousy of Fanny. During one scene, Brown maintains that he has failed Keats and goes on to say that he was never aware of how much Keats had wrapped himself around his heart. However, Campion is adept at subtlety, perhaps unlike any other filmmaker. The gentleness with which she tells this story does not provide any obvious explanation for a man to be so vehemently opposed to a friend's love for a woman. It is also easy to be entranced by the romance in this film and get swept into the love between Fanny and Keats so as not to see the subplot clearly. Brown's love for Keats is an interesting aspect of the story - but there is no direct and actual evidence of a triangle. But if you watch closely, it may become more obvious than could be realized.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810784/reviews-106

ur2673916

title: Hauntingly poetic, cinematically beautiful review: I had the pleasure of attending a screening of Bright Star with Director Jane Campion and rascal Mr. Brown (Paul Schneider) - who, by the way, is even more handsome in person. I thoroughly enjoyed this quiet, elegant and romantic film. It is the embodiment of romance in every way possible. This story really seems to capture the essence of John Keats and the tragic love affair that was cut short with his only true love - Fanny Brawne (played brilliantly by Abbie Cornish). It is heartbreaking to watch how this relationship progresses, from the hostility and jealousy of his friend, Charles Brown to the physical frailty that Keats endured. It is a Romeo and Juliet scenario in the sense that their inability to be together was based upon the moral code of the as yet to become Victorian era.The film provides great insight into the astounding beauty of Keats' poetry that is emotionally moving well beyond his years. Fanny's steadfast and pure devotion is doomed, but she never wavers. Like him, she has the soul of an artist and her chosen outlet is clothing design. There has been speculation as to whether Brown had sexual feelings for Keats. Reading between the lines it appears as though that may have been the case. Every so gently, Campion touches upon this first through Brown's seemingly unfounded jealousy of Fanny. During one scene, Brown maintains that he has failed Keats and goes on to say that he was never aware of how much Keats had wrapped himself around his heart. However, Campion is adept at subtlety, perhaps unlike any other filmmaker. The gentleness with which she tells this story does not provide any obvious explanation for a man to be so vehemently opposed to a friend's love for a woman. It is also easy to be entranced by the romance in this film and get swept into the love between Fanny and Keats so as not to see the subplot clearly. Brown's love for Keats is an interesting aspect of the story - but there is no direct and actual evidence of a triangle. But if you watch closely, it may become more obvious than could be realized.

There is a holiness to the heart's affections … Bright Star

tt0810784

Director Jane Campion has always been one of those names who's work I just never had the pleasure of viewing. Finally, a few years back, I had the opportunity to see The Piano almost fifteen years after its release. The chance to watch her new tale of John Keats and love Fanny Brawne at the Toronto International Film Festival couldn't be passed up. Campion herself was there to introduce the Special Presentation screening and spoke about how this story was pure to her. Spanning two years of first love between a beloved poet and his muse, the tale is at the same time both heartwarmingly genuine in its passion and crushingly tragic in its aftermath. She gets the period style just right and brings out two amazing turns from her leads; there are very little, if any, faults with Bright Star.The story that takes place in the 19th century, a time where a man couldn't even conceive of the notion to marry unless he had a job and influx of money. When the man in question is a poet, you can imagine how hard a feat that can be—his work relying solely on critical acclaim and the success of his books—weak at best if one shop owner is to be believed that he bought twenty to sell and none had left his gaze. Living with a friend and fellow poet, Keats and Charles Armitage Brown find themselves with a lot of time on their hands to craft and create their next best artwork. The two rent space from the Brawne family, well Brown does since he is the one with money, and spend most moments alone behind closed doors seemingly doing very little of anything. Eventually, curiosity, and being fed-up with the sarcastic cruelty of Brown, makes young Fanny decide to meet Keats and gauge his make-up. The man is a virtual recluse except when caring for his deathly ill brother, using all his free time to think and compose. This meeting intrigues them both and is the first step to their budding relationship together, one that sees her critiquing his words before eventually being the subject of them.Abbie Cornish and Ben Whishaw, as Brawne and Keats respectively, completely embody their characters and bring them to life on screen. They know their motivations and their place in the world, she falling in love with him, knowing he can't love her due to his place in society's hierarchy, and he falling for her, knowing he can't until he sells his words and earns the right to. Social restraints notwithstanding, the two begin a (not so) secret union of love built on mutual respect and affection. Both very young, this is their first relationship, and one of the greatest details of the film is in portraying it just that way. When Cornish and Whishaw kiss, they do so gently and slow, closed mouth and no movement. They are unsure what to do and that naïve innocence makes the courting so real and effective to watch. Their love is so strong that any adversity is made so much more relevant and all encompassing to their world. When Keats must leave to write abroad, they both write letters, feeling the emptiness of loss until a reply is received. Brawne is so smitten and taken by his words of true love, how he would rather live a lifetime of three days with her as a butterfly than fifty common years weighed down by responsibilities of earth, she begins capturing the flying creatures, making her bedroom a sanctuary for them to fly about.Two years together and a bond unbreakable, their love is beautiful in its simplicity. Always so pure, (is Campion ever correct on that statement), and childlike in reverence, they want nothing more than to be together. Her parents allow the relationship to continue even though they know he must become a success before letting her leave them and the only real blockade comes from Keats' friend Brown, played wonderfully by Paul Schneider adding the comic relief and a bit of conflict. Wanting the space and time to do his work with Keats, each time Brawne comes by to steal her love away, Brown is always quick with a quip to put her down and complain about the intrusion. But it is a playful relationship they have, as Brawne is never shy to shoot back with a biting word timed to perfection. Schneider infuses the role with so much heart, as he usually does, in his love for Keats and friendship with Fanny. When true tragedy strikes, he becomes a beacon of strength, for the most part, and holds himself responsible in keeping his poet friend safe.Bright Star is a romance for sure, and its bittersweet ending only bolsters that fact. Nothing can come between the love both Cornish and Whishaw portray in the film. The hardships that hit them make their bond ever stronger, realizing how much they need each other. Risking the rumors and talking behind their backs of a love frowned upon and socially rejected, nothing else matters as they are their own world, living together through it all, even with death knocking at the door. The metaphor of the butterflies resonates so fully when you look at the short time Keats and Brawne have with one another on this earth. They take that time and live without regret, knowing that without the other they would have nothing. Any credibility in his poetry comes from his feelings for her and her purpose for going on lives within him. So subtle and immense in its details, Jane Campion has crafted a romance to engross and affect all those who take the time to watch it. Highly recommended for sure, its simplicity hides its immense emotional worth, making for a film not to be taken lightly.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810784/reviews-4

ur2020154

title: There is a holiness to the heart's affections … Bright Star review: Director Jane Campion has always been one of those names who's work I just never had the pleasure of viewing. Finally, a few years back, I had the opportunity to see The Piano almost fifteen years after its release. The chance to watch her new tale of John Keats and love Fanny Brawne at the Toronto International Film Festival couldn't be passed up. Campion herself was there to introduce the Special Presentation screening and spoke about how this story was pure to her. Spanning two years of first love between a beloved poet and his muse, the tale is at the same time both heartwarmingly genuine in its passion and crushingly tragic in its aftermath. She gets the period style just right and brings out two amazing turns from her leads; there are very little, if any, faults with Bright Star.The story that takes place in the 19th century, a time where a man couldn't even conceive of the notion to marry unless he had a job and influx of money. When the man in question is a poet, you can imagine how hard a feat that can be—his work relying solely on critical acclaim and the success of his books—weak at best if one shop owner is to be believed that he bought twenty to sell and none had left his gaze. Living with a friend and fellow poet, Keats and Charles Armitage Brown find themselves with a lot of time on their hands to craft and create their next best artwork. The two rent space from the Brawne family, well Brown does since he is the one with money, and spend most moments alone behind closed doors seemingly doing very little of anything. Eventually, curiosity, and being fed-up with the sarcastic cruelty of Brown, makes young Fanny decide to meet Keats and gauge his make-up. The man is a virtual recluse except when caring for his deathly ill brother, using all his free time to think and compose. This meeting intrigues them both and is the first step to their budding relationship together, one that sees her critiquing his words before eventually being the subject of them.Abbie Cornish and Ben Whishaw, as Brawne and Keats respectively, completely embody their characters and bring them to life on screen. They know their motivations and their place in the world, she falling in love with him, knowing he can't love her due to his place in society's hierarchy, and he falling for her, knowing he can't until he sells his words and earns the right to. Social restraints notwithstanding, the two begin a (not so) secret union of love built on mutual respect and affection. Both very young, this is their first relationship, and one of the greatest details of the film is in portraying it just that way. When Cornish and Whishaw kiss, they do so gently and slow, closed mouth and no movement. They are unsure what to do and that naïve innocence makes the courting so real and effective to watch. Their love is so strong that any adversity is made so much more relevant and all encompassing to their world. When Keats must leave to write abroad, they both write letters, feeling the emptiness of loss until a reply is received. Brawne is so smitten and taken by his words of true love, how he would rather live a lifetime of three days with her as a butterfly than fifty common years weighed down by responsibilities of earth, she begins capturing the flying creatures, making her bedroom a sanctuary for them to fly about.Two years together and a bond unbreakable, their love is beautiful in its simplicity. Always so pure, (is Campion ever correct on that statement), and childlike in reverence, they want nothing more than to be together. Her parents allow the relationship to continue even though they know he must become a success before letting her leave them and the only real blockade comes from Keats' friend Brown, played wonderfully by Paul Schneider adding the comic relief and a bit of conflict. Wanting the space and time to do his work with Keats, each time Brawne comes by to steal her love away, Brown is always quick with a quip to put her down and complain about the intrusion. But it is a playful relationship they have, as Brawne is never shy to shoot back with a biting word timed to perfection. Schneider infuses the role with so much heart, as he usually does, in his love for Keats and friendship with Fanny. When true tragedy strikes, he becomes a beacon of strength, for the most part, and holds himself responsible in keeping his poet friend safe.Bright Star is a romance for sure, and its bittersweet ending only bolsters that fact. Nothing can come between the love both Cornish and Whishaw portray in the film. The hardships that hit them make their bond ever stronger, realizing how much they need each other. Risking the rumors and talking behind their backs of a love frowned upon and socially rejected, nothing else matters as they are their own world, living together through it all, even with death knocking at the door. The metaphor of the butterflies resonates so fully when you look at the short time Keats and Brawne have with one another on this earth. They take that time and live without regret, knowing that without the other they would have nothing. Any credibility in his poetry comes from his feelings for her and her purpose for going on lives within him. So subtle and immense in its details, Jane Campion has crafted a romance to engross and affect all those who take the time to watch it. Highly recommended for sure, its simplicity hides its immense emotional worth, making for a film not to be taken lightly.

a work of art

tt0810784

As any true romantic will tell you, there's more genuine passion to be found in a love that goes unrequited than in any happily-ever-after ending a writer could come up with. Certainly, the Romantic poets understood this - and so, too, does Jane Campion, the acclaimed director of "Sweetie" and "The Piano," whose exquisitely understated film "Bright Star" has as its subject one of the giants of Romantic poetry, John Keats.The movie begins in 1818, when Keats, a young and virtually penniless - though already published - writer meets and falls in love with Fanny Brawne, a woman of some means and family background who prides herself on her way with a needle and her willingness to speak her mind in matters of importance in life. Though monetary concerns and differences in social standing make a match between them a virtual impossibility, the love between the two becomes the defining force of their beings - be they together or apart, in sickness or in health, in life or in death. Fanny, we are told, became the inspiration for some of Keats' most beloved works - including "Bright star, would I as steadfast as thou art," a sonnet from which the movie takes its title - and they, along with the letters the lovers wrote to one another over the course of their three-year courtship, provide the main primary sources for Campion's screenplay (a key secondary source is the biography of Keats by Andrew Motion). And if the story of Keats and Brawne plays like a romantic novel itself, that's undoubtedly part of what drew Campion to the material in the first place. In terms of emotional power alone, she clearly knew what she had with this story.Ironically, the most overtly passionate relationship in the film is not the one between the two lovers but the one between Fanny and Charles Armitage Brown, Keats' devoted friend and fellow writer, who jealously guards the poet and his work, and who sees Fanny as a potentially fatal distraction to both the man and his work. It's hate-at-first-sight for the two of them, with Fanny viewing Brown as little more than a crude, arrogant boor, almost a rival in her love for Keats, and Brown seeing Fanny as a frivolous, flirtatious pseudo-intellectual with nothing of value to contribute to the young genius who seems to have taken such a fancy to her.Unfortunately, many people may avoid seeing this film, in the mistaken belief that, just because it is a high-toned "costume drama," then it must ipso facto be stuffy, inert and boring. But fear not, for despite its being set in the genteel world of the 19th Century British countryside, this is no tea-and-crumpets, lace-and-doily affair, but rather a profoundly moving glimpse into the intricacies and complexities of the human heart - one where human passions roil just beneath the surface of the drama and where star-crossed lovers cannot be separated even by death itself.Abbie Cornish and Ben Whishaw are heartbreaking as the two ill-fated lovers, while Paul Schneider, as Brown, fulfils his role of carping naysayer without ever overplaying his hand.The true beauty of "Bright Star" lies in how splendidly Campion matches the lyricism of the subject matter with the lyricism of her film-making. With her flawless eye for composition - artfully arranged but never stagy - Campion makes the bucolic setting an integral part of the drama. The visuals, coupled with a dramatic use of natural sounds and a haunting score by Marc Bradshaw, allow Campion to break free of the bonds of prosaic reality and set the spirits soaring - much as Keats does with his poetry. I swear, there are times when this movie quite literally takes one's breath away."Bright Star" is a work of art.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810784/reviews-63

ur0375636

title: a work of art review: As any true romantic will tell you, there's more genuine passion to be found in a love that goes unrequited than in any happily-ever-after ending a writer could come up with. Certainly, the Romantic poets understood this - and so, too, does Jane Campion, the acclaimed director of "Sweetie" and "The Piano," whose exquisitely understated film "Bright Star" has as its subject one of the giants of Romantic poetry, John Keats.The movie begins in 1818, when Keats, a young and virtually penniless - though already published - writer meets and falls in love with Fanny Brawne, a woman of some means and family background who prides herself on her way with a needle and her willingness to speak her mind in matters of importance in life. Though monetary concerns and differences in social standing make a match between them a virtual impossibility, the love between the two becomes the defining force of their beings - be they together or apart, in sickness or in health, in life or in death. Fanny, we are told, became the inspiration for some of Keats' most beloved works - including "Bright star, would I as steadfast as thou art," a sonnet from which the movie takes its title - and they, along with the letters the lovers wrote to one another over the course of their three-year courtship, provide the main primary sources for Campion's screenplay (a key secondary source is the biography of Keats by Andrew Motion). And if the story of Keats and Brawne plays like a romantic novel itself, that's undoubtedly part of what drew Campion to the material in the first place. In terms of emotional power alone, she clearly knew what she had with this story.Ironically, the most overtly passionate relationship in the film is not the one between the two lovers but the one between Fanny and Charles Armitage Brown, Keats' devoted friend and fellow writer, who jealously guards the poet and his work, and who sees Fanny as a potentially fatal distraction to both the man and his work. It's hate-at-first-sight for the two of them, with Fanny viewing Brown as little more than a crude, arrogant boor, almost a rival in her love for Keats, and Brown seeing Fanny as a frivolous, flirtatious pseudo-intellectual with nothing of value to contribute to the young genius who seems to have taken such a fancy to her.Unfortunately, many people may avoid seeing this film, in the mistaken belief that, just because it is a high-toned "costume drama," then it must ipso facto be stuffy, inert and boring. But fear not, for despite its being set in the genteel world of the 19th Century British countryside, this is no tea-and-crumpets, lace-and-doily affair, but rather a profoundly moving glimpse into the intricacies and complexities of the human heart - one where human passions roil just beneath the surface of the drama and where star-crossed lovers cannot be separated even by death itself.Abbie Cornish and Ben Whishaw are heartbreaking as the two ill-fated lovers, while Paul Schneider, as Brown, fulfils his role of carping naysayer without ever overplaying his hand.The true beauty of "Bright Star" lies in how splendidly Campion matches the lyricism of the subject matter with the lyricism of her film-making. With her flawless eye for composition - artfully arranged but never stagy - Campion makes the bucolic setting an integral part of the drama. The visuals, coupled with a dramatic use of natural sounds and a haunting score by Marc Bradshaw, allow Campion to break free of the bonds of prosaic reality and set the spirits soaring - much as Keats does with his poetry. I swear, there are times when this movie quite literally takes one's breath away."Bright Star" is a work of art.

"First Love Burns Brightest"

tt0810784

This movie was extraordinary! I was mesmerized from start to finish. Everything about the film was beautiful- the language, the scenery, the words. The film tells the story of the brief romance shared between poet John Keats and Fanny Brawne. Director Jane Campion captures the purity and innocence of a young, forbidden love with both elegance and grace. Abbie Cornish truly shines in her role as the independent, strong-willed Fanny Brawne and Ben Whishaw as the great and free-spirited John Keats was phenomenal. They had such beautiful chemistry together and truly made the film something to be treasured. More than all else, the film was about first love and how that feeling can burn so strongly within a person, and how it inspired one man to write the greatest poetry of all time. Keats was truly talented and had such a mastery over the written word, a fact which is made so evident throughout the entirety of the film. She was his "bright star"- his inspiration in both life and love. It is most difficult to choose a favorite scene but if I had to it would be the scene right before the end where Keats and Brawne share an intimate yet heartbreaking good-bye. Keats knows that he is dying and will probably never see Fanny again, and deep down she knows it too, despite her unwillingness to accept it. But he just holds her in his arms and recites another one of his poems that he's written for her, describing the moment so perfectly. As a writer I had such an appreciation for this film- truly inspiring. "Bright Star" is truly one of a kind- a must see!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810784/reviews-27

ur18177513

title: "First Love Burns Brightest" review: This movie was extraordinary! I was mesmerized from start to finish. Everything about the film was beautiful- the language, the scenery, the words. The film tells the story of the brief romance shared between poet John Keats and Fanny Brawne. Director Jane Campion captures the purity and innocence of a young, forbidden love with both elegance and grace. Abbie Cornish truly shines in her role as the independent, strong-willed Fanny Brawne and Ben Whishaw as the great and free-spirited John Keats was phenomenal. They had such beautiful chemistry together and truly made the film something to be treasured. More than all else, the film was about first love and how that feeling can burn so strongly within a person, and how it inspired one man to write the greatest poetry of all time. Keats was truly talented and had such a mastery over the written word, a fact which is made so evident throughout the entirety of the film. She was his "bright star"- his inspiration in both life and love. It is most difficult to choose a favorite scene but if I had to it would be the scene right before the end where Keats and Brawne share an intimate yet heartbreaking good-bye. Keats knows that he is dying and will probably never see Fanny again, and deep down she knows it too, despite her unwillingness to accept it. But he just holds her in his arms and recites another one of his poems that he's written for her, describing the moment so perfectly. As a writer I had such an appreciation for this film- truly inspiring. "Bright Star" is truly one of a kind- a must see!

beautiful cinema work cannot avoid this film slipping into boredom

tt0810784

It must be quite frustrating for somebody who invested so much art and cinema know-how into making this film, and I suspect holds a lot of passion and tenderness for the heroes and for their times to read such feedback. I cannot however hide the facts. I liked a lot of things in Jane Campion's last film. Almost each scene is a visual masterpiece in setting, in colors, in placement of the actors, in the angles of the camera. It's a beauty to watch. But one does not come to the movies as he comes to a museum, and even for a visit in a museum two hours of continuous beauty without a break are tiring. The actors are well chosen, they are fresh faces and yet beautiful (Abbie Cornish) and expressive (Ben Whishaw' John Keats), and the film also brings the most adorable red-haired kid actor I have ever seen (the name is Edie Martin). Characters develop, and people speak, and fall in love, and love falls apart, and life falls apart, and there is a lot of poetry in all this, loudly read poetry, but then one does not come to the movies as he comes to a poetry reading. Some action is needed, some suspense is deserved - and this is exactly what 'Bright Star' is lacking in my opinion. We know everything that can and will happen in the film from the start, and the only unknown the film can offer is how fast or how slow the 119 minutes will go. Well, they were quite long for me by the end of the film.Jane Campion is back to the period movies genre which made her most famous with 'The Piano'. In-between she made a couple of films in other genres ('Holy Smoke', 'In the Cut') which I liked more than the average critic and IMDb viewers opinion. I looked that the situation is reversed with 'Bright Star'.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810784/reviews-26

ur0547823

title: beautiful cinema work cannot avoid this film slipping into boredom review: It must be quite frustrating for somebody who invested so much art and cinema know-how into making this film, and I suspect holds a lot of passion and tenderness for the heroes and for their times to read such feedback. I cannot however hide the facts. I liked a lot of things in Jane Campion's last film. Almost each scene is a visual masterpiece in setting, in colors, in placement of the actors, in the angles of the camera. It's a beauty to watch. But one does not come to the movies as he comes to a museum, and even for a visit in a museum two hours of continuous beauty without a break are tiring. The actors are well chosen, they are fresh faces and yet beautiful (Abbie Cornish) and expressive (Ben Whishaw' John Keats), and the film also brings the most adorable red-haired kid actor I have ever seen (the name is Edie Martin). Characters develop, and people speak, and fall in love, and love falls apart, and life falls apart, and there is a lot of poetry in all this, loudly read poetry, but then one does not come to the movies as he comes to a poetry reading. Some action is needed, some suspense is deserved - and this is exactly what 'Bright Star' is lacking in my opinion. We know everything that can and will happen in the film from the start, and the only unknown the film can offer is how fast or how slow the 119 minutes will go. Well, they were quite long for me by the end of the film.Jane Campion is back to the period movies genre which made her most famous with 'The Piano'. In-between she made a couple of films in other genres ('Holy Smoke', 'In the Cut') which I liked more than the average critic and IMDb viewers opinion. I looked that the situation is reversed with 'Bright Star'.

Embodiment of Gentility

tt0810784

"Bright Star" is another film I went into based on its good reputation alone, without any knowledge on what it was about. Turns out, this movie is about poet John Keats and his brief love affair with Fanny Brawne. I confess that I only know Keats by name and by his "Ode to a Nightingale", so I welcomed this chance to learn more about his short life.This film is infused in gentility. The entire film is as poetic as the poetry that serves as its backdrop. Director Jane Campion (whose more prominent "The Piano" I did not like) lovingly executed the whole project with beautiful images, beautiful words, beautiful music, beautiful costumes. Despite the absence of name stars, the production succeeds to draw you into its spell by its sheer cinematic artistry.Abby Cornish plays 18 year-old Fanny Brawne with spunk and confidence. James Whishaw (whom I later remembered to have been the same actor playing the lead in "Perfume") plays the fragile Mr. Keats with rare sensitivity and charm. These two have very good chemistry together. Paul Schneider effectively plays Charles Brown, a friend and patron of Keats who is constantly at odds with Fanny. His character provides the necessary tension to the tenuous love story.This movie is not for all tastes. Its slow pace and poetic language may make some viewers to dismiss this as just boring. For me, even as I do not particularly like romance stories, something about this film captured my interest and admiration. I would now count this as one of my favorite period dramas after "A Room With A View", "Dangerous Liaisons" and "Girl with a Pearl Earring."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810784/reviews-55

ur4294858

title: Embodiment of Gentility review: "Bright Star" is another film I went into based on its good reputation alone, without any knowledge on what it was about. Turns out, this movie is about poet John Keats and his brief love affair with Fanny Brawne. I confess that I only know Keats by name and by his "Ode to a Nightingale", so I welcomed this chance to learn more about his short life.This film is infused in gentility. The entire film is as poetic as the poetry that serves as its backdrop. Director Jane Campion (whose more prominent "The Piano" I did not like) lovingly executed the whole project with beautiful images, beautiful words, beautiful music, beautiful costumes. Despite the absence of name stars, the production succeeds to draw you into its spell by its sheer cinematic artistry.Abby Cornish plays 18 year-old Fanny Brawne with spunk and confidence. James Whishaw (whom I later remembered to have been the same actor playing the lead in "Perfume") plays the fragile Mr. Keats with rare sensitivity and charm. These two have very good chemistry together. Paul Schneider effectively plays Charles Brown, a friend and patron of Keats who is constantly at odds with Fanny. His character provides the necessary tension to the tenuous love story.This movie is not for all tastes. Its slow pace and poetic language may make some viewers to dismiss this as just boring. For me, even as I do not particularly like romance stories, something about this film captured my interest and admiration. I would now count this as one of my favorite period dramas after "A Room With A View", "Dangerous Liaisons" and "Girl with a Pearl Earring."

Excellent movie

tt0810784

Bright Star was excellent. Cornish and Whishaw gave great performances. The final scene of the movie with the Cornish reciting the poetry was a really good idea that was executed well. Enjoyed the Cornish/Schneider banter even if Schneiders accent was never clear. Jane Campion really returned to form with this movie. It was by far her best movie since The Piano. I liked Portrait of Lady but it was a step down from The Piano and of course In the Cut was not received well at all. The cinematography, costumes and sets were all top notch. Abbie Cornish was nominated for several awards for her performance but not enough. Oscar and BAFTA nominations were deserved for this very promising young actress.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810784/reviews-78

ur0754399

title: Excellent movie review: Bright Star was excellent. Cornish and Whishaw gave great performances. The final scene of the movie with the Cornish reciting the poetry was a really good idea that was executed well. Enjoyed the Cornish/Schneider banter even if Schneiders accent was never clear. Jane Campion really returned to form with this movie. It was by far her best movie since The Piano. I liked Portrait of Lady but it was a step down from The Piano and of course In the Cut was not received well at all. The cinematography, costumes and sets were all top notch. Abbie Cornish was nominated for several awards for her performance but not enough. Oscar and BAFTA nominations were deserved for this very promising young actress.

Romance

tt0810784

I'd be surprised anyone would wander into "Bright Star" accidentally, so if you purchased a ticket to see something about one of the Romantic Poets, you'll get your money's worth.As Campion's career has matured her edge (some would say "feminist" edge) has become more tempered. In the case of "Bright Star" it's nearly absent. The heroine here is all frills and cleverness turned out well by Abbie Cornish. One of literary history's more tarnished characters, she's simply a modern girl by today's standards. Her transformation through loving one of the Romantic's doesn't get her very far. She decides to read some books...well, at least she says she wants to to read them, but whether she does more than memorize some of her lover's poetry, the film doesn't address.The world here is so small that only once do we get mention of the scandal the relationship created. Her mother mentions Fanny has become the subject of a lot of gossip, but we never see who's saying what.Instead the film focuses solely on the relationship between Fanny Brawne and John Keats with some heavy foreshadowing of the illness that befell him and the relationship. And the only sharp edge here is directed towards Keats' friend, Charles Armitrage Brown. I'm not sure it's a fair depiction, but it adds some leavening to all the dreamy imagery.And it's beautifully filmed with breathtaking formal compositions, appropriate for a film about Keats. But it's also given little more weight than a lot of very ordinary stories of young love, which is probably the most shocking thing about the film since its made by a director known for creating complex stories of feminine struggle.Ben Whitshaw as Keats acquits himself here after his performance in "Brideshead Revisited" (no small feat). And the entire cast is very watchable. However, I had time to study the set decor, color combinations and construction of the gauzy costumes and thought it would be better titled "Martha Stewart's Bright Star" (and actually, that's a compliment).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810784/reviews-7

ur0590820

title: Romance review: I'd be surprised anyone would wander into "Bright Star" accidentally, so if you purchased a ticket to see something about one of the Romantic Poets, you'll get your money's worth.As Campion's career has matured her edge (some would say "feminist" edge) has become more tempered. In the case of "Bright Star" it's nearly absent. The heroine here is all frills and cleverness turned out well by Abbie Cornish. One of literary history's more tarnished characters, she's simply a modern girl by today's standards. Her transformation through loving one of the Romantic's doesn't get her very far. She decides to read some books...well, at least she says she wants to to read them, but whether she does more than memorize some of her lover's poetry, the film doesn't address.The world here is so small that only once do we get mention of the scandal the relationship created. Her mother mentions Fanny has become the subject of a lot of gossip, but we never see who's saying what.Instead the film focuses solely on the relationship between Fanny Brawne and John Keats with some heavy foreshadowing of the illness that befell him and the relationship. And the only sharp edge here is directed towards Keats' friend, Charles Armitrage Brown. I'm not sure it's a fair depiction, but it adds some leavening to all the dreamy imagery.And it's beautifully filmed with breathtaking formal compositions, appropriate for a film about Keats. But it's also given little more weight than a lot of very ordinary stories of young love, which is probably the most shocking thing about the film since its made by a director known for creating complex stories of feminine struggle.Ben Whitshaw as Keats acquits himself here after his performance in "Brideshead Revisited" (no small feat). And the entire cast is very watchable. However, I had time to study the set decor, color combinations and construction of the gauzy costumes and thought it would be better titled "Martha Stewart's Bright Star" (and actually, that's a compliment).

A thing of beauty is a joy forever.

tt0810784

Bright star is probably not going to get any Oscar buzz this Oscar season. Which is a shame. Though it didn't make my top list, it is a very good film. The film is at times beautiful, the acting is superb, and it's a tragic love story. I am sure it's a true story. Cause it's about Keats. But the film is about the three year romance between poet John Keats(played by Ben Winshaw) and Fanny Brawn(played by Abbie Cornish). Throughout their relationship, they experienced heartbreak, sadness, and pure beauty.The film is horribly dramatic in the last part of the film. This is a beautiful film. There is one of two little flaws. Paul Schneider's character in the film is really annoying. and though the film is under two hours long, it goes awfully slow. Director Jane Campion does such a wonderful job with this film. Though it's not going on my favorites of last year list, I still think it deserves a lot of credit. I hope to see it up for something. To quote Keats, A thing of beauty is a joy forever. Or something like that. See Bright star.Bright star: A-

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810784/reviews-66

ur21821220

title: A thing of beauty is a joy forever. review: Bright star is probably not going to get any Oscar buzz this Oscar season. Which is a shame. Though it didn't make my top list, it is a very good film. The film is at times beautiful, the acting is superb, and it's a tragic love story. I am sure it's a true story. Cause it's about Keats. But the film is about the three year romance between poet John Keats(played by Ben Winshaw) and Fanny Brawn(played by Abbie Cornish). Throughout their relationship, they experienced heartbreak, sadness, and pure beauty.The film is horribly dramatic in the last part of the film. This is a beautiful film. There is one of two little flaws. Paul Schneider's character in the film is really annoying. and though the film is under two hours long, it goes awfully slow. Director Jane Campion does such a wonderful job with this film. Though it's not going on my favorites of last year list, I still think it deserves a lot of credit. I hope to see it up for something. To quote Keats, A thing of beauty is a joy forever. Or something like that. See Bright star.Bright star: A-

A Nutshell Review: Bright Star

tt0810784

Just as how Nine failed to garner critical acclaim, I'm quite surprised at the accolades that Bright Star received, for its biographical story of one of the greatest Romantic Poets, John Keats. This should appeal to fans of the poet in watching a film regarding his romantic episode with Fanny Brawne, but for the casual movie goer (ahem like myself), Bright Star was anything like the brightness it got touted, and is pretty much an acquired taste.For a film that proclaims to be that of a romance, and what more one would have thought Keats was a romantic at heart to have churned out some of the greatest poems, Jane Campion somehow sucked the romanticism completely out of her film, and the performance by Ben Whishaw as Keats can be summed up in one word - dry. It didn't help that his character spends a lot of time brooding, while best friend Charles Brown (Paul Schneider) spends a lot of time behaving as the opposite, loud mouthed braggart who thinks the world of himself.It's a period piece, but one which had its plus points drawn from its locales (the Spanish Steps at the end had a lot of significance, and to be filmed on site void of people is simply amazing), and costumes thanks to the plot device of Fanny Brawne (Abbie Cornish) being her own strong-headed fashion designer of sorts who sews and modifies her own clothes. You know the drill by now, man meets woman and they fall in love, much to the opposition from friends and family members.What took the cake was that the film was an extremely long poetry recital. Heck, Keat's poems were read aloud from time to time, by the characters themselves. If I want to know more about the poem, I'd get an audio tape, or read it from a book. Having it done the way it is in the film, just reeks of pure laziness. We neither know nor explore, nor were even given a whiff of a suggestion how his inspiration for his poems came about, other than being hopelessly smitten by Fanny. Letters to Fanny too were read aloud against some dull visuals, and I think someone forgot to remind Campion that we're dealing with film here, so please, let me see something that the movie stills seem to purport - that of Keats and Fanny spending one heck of a time together.This film proves a point though, that putting two eye candy cast together does not automatically spell magic. True that one cannot expect big bang fireworks given the social rules that govern meetings between singles, but surely this is worst than watching paint dry on the wall. Uninspiring, and a Bright Star that's just like a comet, shining bright before crashing and burning. You've been warned, unless you're a poetry fan, and even so I'd advise you to go for a recital instead.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810784/reviews-70

ur0317399

title: A Nutshell Review: Bright Star review: Just as how Nine failed to garner critical acclaim, I'm quite surprised at the accolades that Bright Star received, for its biographical story of one of the greatest Romantic Poets, John Keats. This should appeal to fans of the poet in watching a film regarding his romantic episode with Fanny Brawne, but for the casual movie goer (ahem like myself), Bright Star was anything like the brightness it got touted, and is pretty much an acquired taste.For a film that proclaims to be that of a romance, and what more one would have thought Keats was a romantic at heart to have churned out some of the greatest poems, Jane Campion somehow sucked the romanticism completely out of her film, and the performance by Ben Whishaw as Keats can be summed up in one word - dry. It didn't help that his character spends a lot of time brooding, while best friend Charles Brown (Paul Schneider) spends a lot of time behaving as the opposite, loud mouthed braggart who thinks the world of himself.It's a period piece, but one which had its plus points drawn from its locales (the Spanish Steps at the end had a lot of significance, and to be filmed on site void of people is simply amazing), and costumes thanks to the plot device of Fanny Brawne (Abbie Cornish) being her own strong-headed fashion designer of sorts who sews and modifies her own clothes. You know the drill by now, man meets woman and they fall in love, much to the opposition from friends and family members.What took the cake was that the film was an extremely long poetry recital. Heck, Keat's poems were read aloud from time to time, by the characters themselves. If I want to know more about the poem, I'd get an audio tape, or read it from a book. Having it done the way it is in the film, just reeks of pure laziness. We neither know nor explore, nor were even given a whiff of a suggestion how his inspiration for his poems came about, other than being hopelessly smitten by Fanny. Letters to Fanny too were read aloud against some dull visuals, and I think someone forgot to remind Campion that we're dealing with film here, so please, let me see something that the movie stills seem to purport - that of Keats and Fanny spending one heck of a time together.This film proves a point though, that putting two eye candy cast together does not automatically spell magic. True that one cannot expect big bang fireworks given the social rules that govern meetings between singles, but surely this is worst than watching paint dry on the wall. Uninspiring, and a Bright Star that's just like a comet, shining bright before crashing and burning. You've been warned, unless you're a poetry fan, and even so I'd advise you to go for a recital instead.

Story and suggestion

tt1833844

'Berberian Sound Studio' begins as a banal comedy, a 1970s set story about an inadequate Englishman abroad, working as a sound-man in an Italian horror movie studio. But the film moves beyond cliché, and becomes an increasingly disturbed story of sex, power and nightmares. Director Peter Strickland's previous work, 'Kaitlin Varga', was a harsh tale of peasant life, and this film, richer and more imaginative, is also not quite easy viewing. Ultimately, though, there isn't quite enough story behind the mood of suggestion, not quite enough substance to match the ambition of the film's mood. My guess is that if you love Italian horror, you'll also love this, if taken in a suitably troubled spirit of homage.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1833844/reviews-45

ur2082018

title: Story and suggestion review: 'Berberian Sound Studio' begins as a banal comedy, a 1970s set story about an inadequate Englishman abroad, working as a sound-man in an Italian horror movie studio. But the film moves beyond cliché, and becomes an increasingly disturbed story of sex, power and nightmares. Director Peter Strickland's previous work, 'Kaitlin Varga', was a harsh tale of peasant life, and this film, richer and more imaginative, is also not quite easy viewing. Ultimately, though, there isn't quite enough story behind the mood of suggestion, not quite enough substance to match the ambition of the film's mood. My guess is that if you love Italian horror, you'll also love this, if taken in a suitably troubled spirit of homage.

A pretentious mess

tt1833844

'Berberian Sound Studio' is a film about an English sound technician (Toby Jones) who is used to creating sound effects for children's TV shows, who travels to Italy to work on a horror film. We follow him as he grows more and more homesick and as he gradually becomes hopeless. There isn't much in the way of acting in this film but Toby Jones is a very talented actor and does perform well here. The other actors certainly are not poor, they give decent performances but none of them are particularly memorable. The script is so basic and undeveloped you can practically see the writer shrug and say 'that'll do,' by the end. The first half hour is interesting because you get to see how sound effects are made and the whole dubbing process in general. After 30 minutes this gets tiresome however and I know it is supposed to be cyclical and seem never ending for Toby Jones, but it is so obscure you don't really care. When a film gets to the point where it thinks it's smarter than everyone else it becomes a pretentious mess, leaving you thinking they could have written that same concept with a more understandable and entertaining script. It deliberately tries to confuse you by adding pointless scenes here and there but in the end you realise the film only lasted an hour and a half but seems to last three hours. Overall, this was quite disappointing. I really wanted to like this film; I had read so many great reviews on it and was looking forward to seeing it. Unfortunately it made me question the judgement of so many film critics that I follow.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1833844/reviews-14

ur26267201

title: A pretentious mess review: 'Berberian Sound Studio' is a film about an English sound technician (Toby Jones) who is used to creating sound effects for children's TV shows, who travels to Italy to work on a horror film. We follow him as he grows more and more homesick and as he gradually becomes hopeless. There isn't much in the way of acting in this film but Toby Jones is a very talented actor and does perform well here. The other actors certainly are not poor, they give decent performances but none of them are particularly memorable. The script is so basic and undeveloped you can practically see the writer shrug and say 'that'll do,' by the end. The first half hour is interesting because you get to see how sound effects are made and the whole dubbing process in general. After 30 minutes this gets tiresome however and I know it is supposed to be cyclical and seem never ending for Toby Jones, but it is so obscure you don't really care. When a film gets to the point where it thinks it's smarter than everyone else it becomes a pretentious mess, leaving you thinking they could have written that same concept with a more understandable and entertaining script. It deliberately tries to confuse you by adding pointless scenes here and there but in the end you realise the film only lasted an hour and a half but seems to last three hours. Overall, this was quite disappointing. I really wanted to like this film; I had read so many great reviews on it and was looking forward to seeing it. Unfortunately it made me question the judgement of so many film critics that I follow.

1970s-perfumed metaphysical sound-editing movie

tt1833844

Ingmar Bergman once admitted respect for two films of his contemporary, Michelangelo Antonioni, one of which being the metaphysical thriller Blow-Up. It's a film that drifts freely between reality, dram and imaginary states, showing the tenuousness of the concrete and the plausibility of the conceptual. Naturally, such a work would appeal to the creator of Persona where not only the consciousness but also the very identity of the protagonist is challenged - before the existence of the very film reel itself is called into question (there is a remarkable sequence that directly honours the Bergman's reel meltdown).Peter Strickland's dream-sealed Berberian Sound Studio also twists the idea of consciousness and identity. Toby Jones wanders in - into the studio, although he's actually and more pertinently waling into focus - and is introduced to the film on which he will both engineer and create the sound. During the course of a deliberately shot film in which action and sound are all susceptible to manipulation we learn increasingly less about this character, Gilderoy, and the Latin company with their tripwire tempers with whom he must work and, increasingly emulate.It's an intense 90 minutes. The narrative tubers are a little stubby to offer a coherent story at its close (like Blow-Up). I think the point is to create an internal resonance with the viewer rather than an object for discussion. Chris Dickens' editing is beautiful. 7/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1833844/reviews-3

ur2206551

title: 1970s-perfumed metaphysical sound-editing movie review: Ingmar Bergman once admitted respect for two films of his contemporary, Michelangelo Antonioni, one of which being the metaphysical thriller Blow-Up. It's a film that drifts freely between reality, dram and imaginary states, showing the tenuousness of the concrete and the plausibility of the conceptual. Naturally, such a work would appeal to the creator of Persona where not only the consciousness but also the very identity of the protagonist is challenged - before the existence of the very film reel itself is called into question (there is a remarkable sequence that directly honours the Bergman's reel meltdown).Peter Strickland's dream-sealed Berberian Sound Studio also twists the idea of consciousness and identity. Toby Jones wanders in - into the studio, although he's actually and more pertinently waling into focus - and is introduced to the film on which he will both engineer and create the sound. During the course of a deliberately shot film in which action and sound are all susceptible to manipulation we learn increasingly less about this character, Gilderoy, and the Latin company with their tripwire tempers with whom he must work and, increasingly emulate.It's an intense 90 minutes. The narrative tubers are a little stubby to offer a coherent story at its close (like Blow-Up). I think the point is to create an internal resonance with the viewer rather than an object for discussion. Chris Dickens' editing is beautiful. 7/10

Going off the rails

tt1833844

Ever wondered what a 'dangerously aroused' goblin sounded like or having a red hot poker inserted into the vagina of a witch? Hopefully not, but if you have and it's in a movie then BERBERIAN SOUND STUDIO should go some way to explaining it. Peter Strickland's film is set entirely in the studio of the title or in the drab little room where its 'hero' Gilderoy is staying. He's in Italy to record the sound effects for a horror film called "The Equestrian Vortex" and the experience isn't doing him any good at all. Indeed poor Gilderoy is taking all of this very much to heart and by the end neither he, nor us, can be sure of what's real and what isn't.Cinephiles should appreciate BERBERIAN SOUND STUDIO more than your run-of-the-mill Saturday night crowd. After all, it's a film about making a film and they are more than likely to get the references to Dario Argento and Brian DePalma and even to Antonioni's BLOW UP. I found it both funny and unsettling and I admired its technical virtuosity and Toby Jones' superb performance as the sad little sound recordist going way off the rails but I'm not too sure it's a movie I would want to sit through again, at least not anytime soon.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1833844/reviews-7

ur1683855

title: Going off the rails review: Ever wondered what a 'dangerously aroused' goblin sounded like or having a red hot poker inserted into the vagina of a witch? Hopefully not, but if you have and it's in a movie then BERBERIAN SOUND STUDIO should go some way to explaining it. Peter Strickland's film is set entirely in the studio of the title or in the drab little room where its 'hero' Gilderoy is staying. He's in Italy to record the sound effects for a horror film called "The Equestrian Vortex" and the experience isn't doing him any good at all. Indeed poor Gilderoy is taking all of this very much to heart and by the end neither he, nor us, can be sure of what's real and what isn't.Cinephiles should appreciate BERBERIAN SOUND STUDIO more than your run-of-the-mill Saturday night crowd. After all, it's a film about making a film and they are more than likely to get the references to Dario Argento and Brian DePalma and even to Antonioni's BLOW UP. I found it both funny and unsettling and I admired its technical virtuosity and Toby Jones' superb performance as the sad little sound recordist going way off the rails but I'm not too sure it's a movie I would want to sit through again, at least not anytime soon.

An Impressive Film, Worth a Second or Third Look

tt1833844

A sound engineer's work for an Italian horror studio becomes a terrifying case of life imitating art.This is the sort of film that jaded horror fans will love. They will love that it was set in the realm of an Italian giallo in the 1970s (one of the most highly regarded subgenres during their finest decade). They will also love the variety of sound effects and how they are accomplished.Some have compared the plot to "Evil Ed", which is fair, but it is not remotely derivative and should not be seen as a ripoff. If anything, I felt the mood was much closer to "Pontypool", one of the best horror films of the past decade.Most fascinating is that while the action takes place during the editing phase of a movie, the film itself is never seen. Not a single frame. We pick up bits and pieces about priests and witches, but really have no idea how terrifying the images are -- it is all sound effects and imagination. Just brilliant.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1833844/reviews-47

ur1234929

title: An Impressive Film, Worth a Second or Third Look review: A sound engineer's work for an Italian horror studio becomes a terrifying case of life imitating art.This is the sort of film that jaded horror fans will love. They will love that it was set in the realm of an Italian giallo in the 1970s (one of the most highly regarded subgenres during their finest decade). They will also love the variety of sound effects and how they are accomplished.Some have compared the plot to "Evil Ed", which is fair, but it is not remotely derivative and should not be seen as a ripoff. If anything, I felt the mood was much closer to "Pontypool", one of the best horror films of the past decade.Most fascinating is that while the action takes place during the editing phase of a movie, the film itself is never seen. Not a single frame. We pick up bits and pieces about priests and witches, but really have no idea how terrifying the images are -- it is all sound effects and imagination. Just brilliant.

Club Silenzio: Peel Sessions of mind

tt1833844

I'm a big fan of films where impressionable protagonists enter a world of images and fictions. The challenge is how to model madness, by what degrees to confuse and clarify. DePalma could do this type of film, fooling with layered placement and identity of the eye—it'd be as cool as this and obvious in its main thrust about madness, but probably not as rich and ambient. Lynch could do it much more powerful, so this is somewhere in the middle between schematic structure and deep personal experience.The story is that a shy sound-man goes to work on an Italian exploitation movie, this is to establish him as a creative person who will have to imagine things, and to establish the things he's going to imagine as of some darkness. He is an introvert, so we can have this conflation of inner and outer sensitivity to phenomena. Funny: shy is here equated with unattractive appearance in the chosen main actor.The film is entirely contained on a soundstage and around the studio where the soundtrack is being prepared. The actual horror movie is never seen (except for the opening credits which serve as the credits to our film), always inferred from what we see of the sound-carpet being fitted, the screams and slashing sounds, and this is a crucial point: the horror movie never quite materializes, so there's widespread negativity in reviews.No, like Peeping Tom and Blowup, this is another film that uses the mystery format to convey phenomena of consciousness.Oh, I'm not a fan of obvious hallucination like we get here in the latter stages, linked to movie screens and borders of reality—it clarifies too much. But there's something else I liked, simple and inventive.All sorts of sound effects are constructed over the course of the film before our eyes, from ordinary means: melons are slashed, pumpkins are splattered, broth is boiling. Usually, the first time we see the effect being recorded, and then an off-screen voice announces what it is supposed to be the sound of, and it's done a second time. It's great fun on a very fundamental level for me, exposing the makings of illusion, the kind of unceremonious but inventive technical work that takes place behind the curtains. But what's really marvelous about it, is exemplifying the mechanism of mind that creates the imagined horror story—the second time the sound becomes the mental image just described to us! By making it so immediate, it's a powerful exhibit, observable in your own self, of the mind acquiring illusory images—the images become what the off-screen voice announces. It's quite clever. Clever because it puts us in the protagonist's shoes, by introducing a disruptive level of imagination.So I think you must have this at one point. Based on his previous film and now this, I have this filmmaker on my short list of talent that I fully expect to be a leading voice a decade from now. I advise you keep an eye on him.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1833844/reviews-23

ur17699578

title: Club Silenzio: Peel Sessions of mind review: I'm a big fan of films where impressionable protagonists enter a world of images and fictions. The challenge is how to model madness, by what degrees to confuse and clarify. DePalma could do this type of film, fooling with layered placement and identity of the eye—it'd be as cool as this and obvious in its main thrust about madness, but probably not as rich and ambient. Lynch could do it much more powerful, so this is somewhere in the middle between schematic structure and deep personal experience.The story is that a shy sound-man goes to work on an Italian exploitation movie, this is to establish him as a creative person who will have to imagine things, and to establish the things he's going to imagine as of some darkness. He is an introvert, so we can have this conflation of inner and outer sensitivity to phenomena. Funny: shy is here equated with unattractive appearance in the chosen main actor.The film is entirely contained on a soundstage and around the studio where the soundtrack is being prepared. The actual horror movie is never seen (except for the opening credits which serve as the credits to our film), always inferred from what we see of the sound-carpet being fitted, the screams and slashing sounds, and this is a crucial point: the horror movie never quite materializes, so there's widespread negativity in reviews.No, like Peeping Tom and Blowup, this is another film that uses the mystery format to convey phenomena of consciousness.Oh, I'm not a fan of obvious hallucination like we get here in the latter stages, linked to movie screens and borders of reality—it clarifies too much. But there's something else I liked, simple and inventive.All sorts of sound effects are constructed over the course of the film before our eyes, from ordinary means: melons are slashed, pumpkins are splattered, broth is boiling. Usually, the first time we see the effect being recorded, and then an off-screen voice announces what it is supposed to be the sound of, and it's done a second time. It's great fun on a very fundamental level for me, exposing the makings of illusion, the kind of unceremonious but inventive technical work that takes place behind the curtains. But what's really marvelous about it, is exemplifying the mechanism of mind that creates the imagined horror story—the second time the sound becomes the mental image just described to us! By making it so immediate, it's a powerful exhibit, observable in your own self, of the mind acquiring illusory images—the images become what the off-screen voice announces. It's quite clever. Clever because it puts us in the protagonist's shoes, by introducing a disruptive level of imagination.So I think you must have this at one point. Based on his previous film and now this, I have this filmmaker on my short list of talent that I fully expect to be a leading voice a decade from now. I advise you keep an eye on him.

A rather disturbing film about sound effects

tt1833844

This rather unusual film centres on Gilderoy; a sound engineer who finds the film he is to work on in Italy isn't family fare he has worked on before; rather it is a particularly gruesome film. He is somewhat shocked but having travelled to Italy he sets about the job. Things don't start well when the studio gives him the run-around when he attempts to get them to reimburse the money he paid for his flights. As time passes he finds the work getting more difficult as he comes under pressure from the producer. The he works on more and more shocking scenes things start to get strange; he believes he is starring in a film featuring his own life since he started working at the studio; then he is suddenly speaking fluent Italian and ultimately becoming as cruel as the producer. He isn't the only one coming under pressure; the actresses dubbing their lines are treated cruelly and one tells Gilderoy that she was molested by the overbearing producer.It was hard to describe this film as it gets deliberately confusing at times; is Gilderoy dreaming, going insane or experiencing real events? We may not see the film he is working on but the sound effects and screaming combined with the claustrophobic way the action stays in the studio and Gilderoy's small room create an uncomfortable feeling… I almost expected it to turn into a horror film rather than just a film about the making of one… there are certainly uncomfortable moments.Toby Jones does a great job as Gilderoy; a man totally out of his comfort zone; conveying his disturbance with his expression rather than always giving voice to them. The rest of the cast put in solid performances too. It is hard to believe that this is director/writer Peter Strickland's first full length film as he manages to create a disturbing film that is mostly disturbing because of what we don't see. It is confusing at times although that just serves to make it more disturbing and the ending leaves one wondering what really happened. Overall I'd certainly recommend this to anybody looking for something rather different; just don't expect to fully understand everything you see!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1833844/reviews-37

ur13977076

title: A rather disturbing film about sound effects review: This rather unusual film centres on Gilderoy; a sound engineer who finds the film he is to work on in Italy isn't family fare he has worked on before; rather it is a particularly gruesome film. He is somewhat shocked but having travelled to Italy he sets about the job. Things don't start well when the studio gives him the run-around when he attempts to get them to reimburse the money he paid for his flights. As time passes he finds the work getting more difficult as he comes under pressure from the producer. The he works on more and more shocking scenes things start to get strange; he believes he is starring in a film featuring his own life since he started working at the studio; then he is suddenly speaking fluent Italian and ultimately becoming as cruel as the producer. He isn't the only one coming under pressure; the actresses dubbing their lines are treated cruelly and one tells Gilderoy that she was molested by the overbearing producer.It was hard to describe this film as it gets deliberately confusing at times; is Gilderoy dreaming, going insane or experiencing real events? We may not see the film he is working on but the sound effects and screaming combined with the claustrophobic way the action stays in the studio and Gilderoy's small room create an uncomfortable feeling… I almost expected it to turn into a horror film rather than just a film about the making of one… there are certainly uncomfortable moments.Toby Jones does a great job as Gilderoy; a man totally out of his comfort zone; conveying his disturbance with his expression rather than always giving voice to them. The rest of the cast put in solid performances too. It is hard to believe that this is director/writer Peter Strickland's first full length film as he manages to create a disturbing film that is mostly disturbing because of what we don't see. It is confusing at times although that just serves to make it more disturbing and the ending leaves one wondering what really happened. Overall I'd certainly recommend this to anybody looking for something rather different; just don't expect to fully understand everything you see!

Not a bad film, just something for a very select few

tt1833844

(37%) This really, really is not a movie for casual film fans, so anyone expecting the simplicity of a slasher flick, or the fun of a horror comedy should give this a wide birth. This is for fans of a certain type of Italian horror with the main focus on sound mixing and creation in a rather bleak looking sound studio. After about 20 minutes it becomes clear that this isn't going to be a plot heavy movie as Toby Jones (the best aspect of the movie) records effects, mixes effects etc while the whole time something is never quite right. The movie is not really fun to watch, or really that rewarding, but a certain audience will find at least something to enjoy here, while everyone else should stay away.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1833844/reviews-53

ur54757473

title: Not a bad film, just something for a very select few review: (37%) This really, really is not a movie for casual film fans, so anyone expecting the simplicity of a slasher flick, or the fun of a horror comedy should give this a wide birth. This is for fans of a certain type of Italian horror with the main focus on sound mixing and creation in a rather bleak looking sound studio. After about 20 minutes it becomes clear that this isn't going to be a plot heavy movie as Toby Jones (the best aspect of the movie) records effects, mixes effects etc while the whole time something is never quite right. The movie is not really fun to watch, or really that rewarding, but a certain audience will find at least something to enjoy here, while everyone else should stay away.

It starts promisingly, but it is ruined by a complete lack of a script

tt1833844

British Foley artist Gilderoy (Toby Jones) goes to Italy to work in a movie. But soon after he arrives, a number of strange things start happening to him: first, contrary to what he claim he was told, he find himself hired to work in a slasher film. Second, the people in the studio treat him very rudely, and no one wants to reimburse him for the plane ticket he took from London to Italy. As things get more and more strange, one starts to realize that some of the things going on might be just him dreaming…This film is meant to be a homage to the atmospheric Italian horror movies of the 70s, the so called giallos. I haven't seen many of those, but I have seen Dario Argento's Deep Red (1975) and Suspiria (1977) and they are great movies. Also, there are not a lot of movies whose main character works as a sound technician (the only one who comes to my mind is Brian de Palma's Blow Out). The acting is fine (Toby Jones is perfect as the meek, mousy, probably virginal middle aged Gilderoy and so is Cosimo Fusco as the very rude engineer Francesco). The direction is OK too. The only thing this film lacks is a decent plot, or any comprehensible plot for that matter. A conventional "killer loose in the studio" script would probably have suffice to make this films pass the grade. Alas, the lack of a plot really ruins this film, and what starts up promisingly ends up being a self-indulgent mess.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1833844/reviews-35

ur0305809

title: It starts promisingly, but it is ruined by a complete lack of a script review: British Foley artist Gilderoy (Toby Jones) goes to Italy to work in a movie. But soon after he arrives, a number of strange things start happening to him: first, contrary to what he claim he was told, he find himself hired to work in a slasher film. Second, the people in the studio treat him very rudely, and no one wants to reimburse him for the plane ticket he took from London to Italy. As things get more and more strange, one starts to realize that some of the things going on might be just him dreaming…This film is meant to be a homage to the atmospheric Italian horror movies of the 70s, the so called giallos. I haven't seen many of those, but I have seen Dario Argento's Deep Red (1975) and Suspiria (1977) and they are great movies. Also, there are not a lot of movies whose main character works as a sound technician (the only one who comes to my mind is Brian de Palma's Blow Out). The acting is fine (Toby Jones is perfect as the meek, mousy, probably virginal middle aged Gilderoy and so is Cosimo Fusco as the very rude engineer Francesco). The direction is OK too. The only thing this film lacks is a decent plot, or any comprehensible plot for that matter. A conventional "killer loose in the studio" script would probably have suffice to make this films pass the grade. Alas, the lack of a plot really ruins this film, and what starts up promisingly ends up being a self-indulgent mess.

Could've been epic valentine to giallo with echoes of Polanski

tt1833844

BERBERIAN SOUND STUDIO (2013) **1/2 Eerie psychological thriller with Toby Jones (sublimely excellent) as a meticulous sound engineer whose employment on an Italian horror film becomes an Olympian testament to his psyche as his cruel and clueless bosses plague him as he attempts to do his job while being the brunt of their disdain. What could've been an epic valentine to Italian giallo horror flicks, the film loses its nerve by the final act of incoherency that has a lost in translation vibe throughout yet a game attempt by green director Peter Strickland with echoes of Roman Polanski's mind f#@ks and a fantastic sound effects design (how appropriate).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1833844/reviews-21

ur0937743

title: Could've been epic valentine to giallo with echoes of Polanski review: BERBERIAN SOUND STUDIO (2013) **1/2 Eerie psychological thriller with Toby Jones (sublimely excellent) as a meticulous sound engineer whose employment on an Italian horror film becomes an Olympian testament to his psyche as his cruel and clueless bosses plague him as he attempts to do his job while being the brunt of their disdain. What could've been an epic valentine to Italian giallo horror flicks, the film loses its nerve by the final act of incoherency that has a lost in translation vibe throughout yet a game attempt by green director Peter Strickland with echoes of Roman Polanski's mind f#@ks and a fantastic sound effects design (how appropriate).

A reasonably fun big-bug movie.

tt1830713

Like Snakes On A Plane, Big Ass Spider AKA Mega Spider is what you might call a 'Ronseal movie': it does exactly what it says on the tin, which in this case means that you get 80 minutes of deliberately cheezy nonsense in which a rampaging over-sized arachnid trashes downtown Los Angeles.This being a low-budget movie that proudly wears its superficiality on its sleeve, the script is incredibly silly, the special effects are not really all that special, and the cast comprises primarily of struggling TV stars or strangely familiar supporting actors.Big Ass Spider's human 'star', Greg Grunberg, is best known as Matt Parkman in unceremoniously canned TV series Heroes, (and he just happens to be one of the film's producers as well), eye-candy comes in the form of hot blonde Clare Kramer, who played Glory in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, while other potentially recognisable faces include prolific character actress Lin Shaye (who also appeared in the aforementioned Snakes On A Plane) and Robocop actor Ray Wise.The humour can be a bit hit and miss, and the film is far from genuinely scary or exciting, but it's still a reasonably fun way to spend the time, especially since the makers saw fit to include a little gratuitous T&A (during a women's volleyball game that is interrupted by the eight-legged menace) and a spot of welcome gore, with victims impaled on the spider's legs and its venomous spray resulting in a couple of juicy facial melt-downs.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1830713/reviews-19

ur0945066

title: A reasonably fun big-bug movie. review: Like Snakes On A Plane, Big Ass Spider AKA Mega Spider is what you might call a 'Ronseal movie': it does exactly what it says on the tin, which in this case means that you get 80 minutes of deliberately cheezy nonsense in which a rampaging over-sized arachnid trashes downtown Los Angeles.This being a low-budget movie that proudly wears its superficiality on its sleeve, the script is incredibly silly, the special effects are not really all that special, and the cast comprises primarily of struggling TV stars or strangely familiar supporting actors.Big Ass Spider's human 'star', Greg Grunberg, is best known as Matt Parkman in unceremoniously canned TV series Heroes, (and he just happens to be one of the film's producers as well), eye-candy comes in the form of hot blonde Clare Kramer, who played Glory in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, while other potentially recognisable faces include prolific character actress Lin Shaye (who also appeared in the aforementioned Snakes On A Plane) and Robocop actor Ray Wise.The humour can be a bit hit and miss, and the film is far from genuinely scary or exciting, but it's still a reasonably fun way to spend the time, especially since the makers saw fit to include a little gratuitous T&A (during a women's volleyball game that is interrupted by the eight-legged menace) and a spot of welcome gore, with victims impaled on the spider's legs and its venomous spray resulting in a couple of juicy facial melt-downs.

An Entertaining Action Black Comedy

tt1830713

In the same mold as Arachnophobia (1990) and Tremors (1990), this sci fi monster action mystery thriller has blacker scenes if not tone than those movies. While not a classic and the special effects not superb, the pacing and the comedic action is pretty decent, even the destruction scenes are adequate for this parody on the monster movie. Greg Grunberg who made his small screen mark on Heroes (2006-2010) stars. Better than expected, the biggest weakness are its death scenes which don't seem consistent with the tone of the movie breaking the parody theme of the movie. The buddy scenes however are some of the strongest, most solid parts of the movie with their humor and fun play and smart witty dialogue.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1830713/reviews-39

ur0972645

title: An Entertaining Action Black Comedy review: In the same mold as Arachnophobia (1990) and Tremors (1990), this sci fi monster action mystery thriller has blacker scenes if not tone than those movies. While not a classic and the special effects not superb, the pacing and the comedic action is pretty decent, even the destruction scenes are adequate for this parody on the monster movie. Greg Grunberg who made his small screen mark on Heroes (2006-2010) stars. Better than expected, the biggest weakness are its death scenes which don't seem consistent with the tone of the movie breaking the parody theme of the movie. The buddy scenes however are some of the strongest, most solid parts of the movie with their humor and fun play and smart witty dialogue.

Not a great movie but undeniably a lot of fun

tt1830713

Big Ass Spider/Mega Spider could have gone either way. It could have been cheap, terribly written and acted and amateurish or it could have been entertaining and likable with a sense that it knows what it wants to be and who it's aimed at. Thankfully while it does have a fair share of flaws Big Ass Spider/Mega Spider belongs in the latter category. The locations are splendidly colourful and atmospheric and the movie is well shot and reasonably edited as well as efficiently and confidently directed. The spider however is a little inconsistent, never terrible but never exceptional at the same time, at points it's menacing and well-designed and at other points it's rather goofy-looking and over-proportioned for an intentionally huge spider. It does at least have a personality and is well used. The music has the right amount of groove and eeriness without feeling out of place and the movie is better than expected in terms of writing. A lot of the supporting cast have very little to do but the writing for Alex and Jose is brilliant, from the hilarious snappy banter to the endearing tongue-in-cheek humour, if there was a choice who fared a little better than the other it would be Jose. The story admittedly does next to nothing new with the concept it has and it is very stretched out in places but it avoids being too campy and it takes an earnest approach without taking it too seriously, considering the concept that is difficult to pull off and the movie makes a decent crack at it. It's never scary but there are some inventive and suspenseful attacks that stops Big Ass Spider/Mega Spider from being too much of one tone, and as acknowledged early on in the review the movie does know who its audience is and what tone it's trying to take, never trying to take on too many ideas or be too simplistic. The characters are a mixed bag, Alex and Jose carry the movie wonderfully and are likable but a lot of the rest of the characters are one-dimensional and annoying. Likewise with the cast, with the best being the likable if goofy Greg Grunberg and the often hysterical Lombardo Boyer. Lin Shaye is amusing if occasionally wooden and Ray Wise is also good. Clare Kramer is laughably bad however with her change from cold to damsel far too sudden while the rest of the cast do nothing with their already thinly-sketched characters and that's including the underused Patrick Bauchau. The ending takes ridiculous to a whole new level as well. In conclusion, not great but still a lot of fun. Oh and the intro is wonderful. 6/10 Bethany Cox

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1830713/reviews-34

ur20552756

title: Not a great movie but undeniably a lot of fun review: Big Ass Spider/Mega Spider could have gone either way. It could have been cheap, terribly written and acted and amateurish or it could have been entertaining and likable with a sense that it knows what it wants to be and who it's aimed at. Thankfully while it does have a fair share of flaws Big Ass Spider/Mega Spider belongs in the latter category. The locations are splendidly colourful and atmospheric and the movie is well shot and reasonably edited as well as efficiently and confidently directed. The spider however is a little inconsistent, never terrible but never exceptional at the same time, at points it's menacing and well-designed and at other points it's rather goofy-looking and over-proportioned for an intentionally huge spider. It does at least have a personality and is well used. The music has the right amount of groove and eeriness without feeling out of place and the movie is better than expected in terms of writing. A lot of the supporting cast have very little to do but the writing for Alex and Jose is brilliant, from the hilarious snappy banter to the endearing tongue-in-cheek humour, if there was a choice who fared a little better than the other it would be Jose. The story admittedly does next to nothing new with the concept it has and it is very stretched out in places but it avoids being too campy and it takes an earnest approach without taking it too seriously, considering the concept that is difficult to pull off and the movie makes a decent crack at it. It's never scary but there are some inventive and suspenseful attacks that stops Big Ass Spider/Mega Spider from being too much of one tone, and as acknowledged early on in the review the movie does know who its audience is and what tone it's trying to take, never trying to take on too many ideas or be too simplistic. The characters are a mixed bag, Alex and Jose carry the movie wonderfully and are likable but a lot of the rest of the characters are one-dimensional and annoying. Likewise with the cast, with the best being the likable if goofy Greg Grunberg and the often hysterical Lombardo Boyer. Lin Shaye is amusing if occasionally wooden and Ray Wise is also good. Clare Kramer is laughably bad however with her change from cold to damsel far too sudden while the rest of the cast do nothing with their already thinly-sketched characters and that's including the underused Patrick Bauchau. The ending takes ridiculous to a whole new level as well. In conclusion, not great but still a lot of fun. Oh and the intro is wonderful. 6/10 Bethany Cox

Good Fun

tt1830713

A giant alien spider escapes from a military lab and rampages the city of Los Angeles. When a massive military strike fails, it is up to a team of scientists and one clever exterminator to kill the creature before the city is destroyed.When a film is titled such as this one is, lower your expectations and just have fun. Some critics have said it is a return to classic Roger Corman style. That is not exactly accurate. This is even more out there than Corman was in his prime. Others have said this is not as good as the SyFy Channel films of a similar nature. Wrong again, this is superior.If a complaint had to be made, it is that the film has a subtle anti-feminist vibe. The female lead, despite being a lieutenant in the military, is utterly helpless most of the time and needs a bumbling exterminator to save her. She just needs to look pretty. Wow.It would be easy to complain about the terrible CGI, but really this is just part of the fun. The creators obviously know it does not look real, but it looks real enough for the purposes of the film -- to entertain. While it could be a "horror comedy", it is more comedy than horror, with the gory scenes far outshadowed by the humor.Just relax and have fun.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1830713/reviews-38

ur1234929

title: Good Fun review: A giant alien spider escapes from a military lab and rampages the city of Los Angeles. When a massive military strike fails, it is up to a team of scientists and one clever exterminator to kill the creature before the city is destroyed.When a film is titled such as this one is, lower your expectations and just have fun. Some critics have said it is a return to classic Roger Corman style. That is not exactly accurate. This is even more out there than Corman was in his prime. Others have said this is not as good as the SyFy Channel films of a similar nature. Wrong again, this is superior.If a complaint had to be made, it is that the film has a subtle anti-feminist vibe. The female lead, despite being a lieutenant in the military, is utterly helpless most of the time and needs a bumbling exterminator to save her. She just needs to look pretty. Wow.It would be easy to complain about the terrible CGI, but really this is just part of the fun. The creators obviously know it does not look real, but it looks real enough for the purposes of the film -- to entertain. While it could be a "horror comedy", it is more comedy than horror, with the gory scenes far outshadowed by the humor.Just relax and have fun.

The title says it all...

tt1830713

"Big Ass Spider!" has everything a monster movie needs, and the title of the movie basically speaks for itself. If you love gargantuan monster movies, then "Big Ass Spider!" is definitely worth your time.The story is about a strange, outer worldly crossbred spider that escapes the clutches of the military and finds a nesting ground in a hospital, where it quickly grows larger and more aggressive. As it escapes the hospital, the spider turns the city into its hunting ground.Storywise, then "Big Ass Spider!" is fairly much like many others of its genre, and that is one of the things that actually makes this movie well worth watching, oddly enough. And also the good amount of comedy and self-irony that the movie is spiced with really helps it along nice.Most of the time, the CGI effects of the spider, regardless of its size, was actually quite good. And for a monster movie, then good CGI (or creature effects) is a must. And the CGI team behind "Big Ass Spider!" really pulled it off quite nicely.If you have seen movies such as "Spiders" or "Eight Legged Freaks", then you know exactly what you are in for here.It should also be noted that there is a good handful of acting talents on the cast list in "Big Ass Spider!". And as a special treat for us who are fanatic about the monster movies of the B-genre, then there is a great appearance by Lloyd Kaufman."Big Ass Spider!" is a fun 80 minutes worth of excitement, fun, action and creepy crawlers. Eight legs, uhm, thumbs up from me, and "Big Ass Spider!" gets a solid 7 out of 10 rating.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1830713/reviews-7

ur22654354

title: The title says it all... review: "Big Ass Spider!" has everything a monster movie needs, and the title of the movie basically speaks for itself. If you love gargantuan monster movies, then "Big Ass Spider!" is definitely worth your time.The story is about a strange, outer worldly crossbred spider that escapes the clutches of the military and finds a nesting ground in a hospital, where it quickly grows larger and more aggressive. As it escapes the hospital, the spider turns the city into its hunting ground.Storywise, then "Big Ass Spider!" is fairly much like many others of its genre, and that is one of the things that actually makes this movie well worth watching, oddly enough. And also the good amount of comedy and self-irony that the movie is spiced with really helps it along nice.Most of the time, the CGI effects of the spider, regardless of its size, was actually quite good. And for a monster movie, then good CGI (or creature effects) is a must. And the CGI team behind "Big Ass Spider!" really pulled it off quite nicely.If you have seen movies such as "Spiders" or "Eight Legged Freaks", then you know exactly what you are in for here.It should also be noted that there is a good handful of acting talents on the cast list in "Big Ass Spider!". And as a special treat for us who are fanatic about the monster movies of the B-genre, then there is a great appearance by Lloyd Kaufman."Big Ass Spider!" is a fun 80 minutes worth of excitement, fun, action and creepy crawlers. Eight legs, uhm, thumbs up from me, and "Big Ass Spider!" gets a solid 7 out of 10 rating.

Thank God the Spider Had a Big Ass

tt1830713

I see what they're doing here. B-movies are cheap and sometimes hit a Twitter feed to get them popular enough to make a profit. Sure worked better several months later for Sharknado than Big Ass Spider!And that's too bad. Obviously, Sharknado would be terrible. It was born that way. A movie about a giant spider attacking (the same city of LA as did the sharks in the tornado) would also be laughably bad had not the talent and comedic timing of former "HERO" Greg Grunberg.Granted, I am biased on Grunberg. Absolutely, I think he's hot, but I also recognize he's talented and cracks me up constantly. He didn't disappoint here.While not a roll-on-the-floor laughfest, Grunberg held the film together with his signature charisma and chemistry with a loyal security guard at his side. Despite the blatant racial stereotypes, the duo were absolutely hilarious together.Beyond them, and the always charming Ray Wise and Lin Shaye, the movie and it's "special effects" were pretty standard for the B-movie crowd or even the Syfy movie of the week.Should I even give a synopsis with this one? Small immigrant spider grows and grows and only Grunberg's exterminator and pal are LA's hope for survival.Big Ass Spider! mercifully delivered on the goods – Bmovie effects, giant monster and cheesy everything, but it is mostly recommended due to Grunberg and his one liners. Watch it for him with the backdrop…both will make you laugh.* * * Final thoughts: Yeah, I have arachnophobia. But, like the fact that "ghost stories/movies" don't scare me, neither do horribly put together CGI spiders. I have to truly believe it could happen for me to be frightened. I guess this is a good thing here, because otherwise I would've been terrorized with this giant spider. Instead, I could just rely on Grunberg for entertainment value.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1830713/reviews-16

ur17825945

title: Thank God the Spider Had a Big Ass review: I see what they're doing here. B-movies are cheap and sometimes hit a Twitter feed to get them popular enough to make a profit. Sure worked better several months later for Sharknado than Big Ass Spider!And that's too bad. Obviously, Sharknado would be terrible. It was born that way. A movie about a giant spider attacking (the same city of LA as did the sharks in the tornado) would also be laughably bad had not the talent and comedic timing of former "HERO" Greg Grunberg.Granted, I am biased on Grunberg. Absolutely, I think he's hot, but I also recognize he's talented and cracks me up constantly. He didn't disappoint here.While not a roll-on-the-floor laughfest, Grunberg held the film together with his signature charisma and chemistry with a loyal security guard at his side. Despite the blatant racial stereotypes, the duo were absolutely hilarious together.Beyond them, and the always charming Ray Wise and Lin Shaye, the movie and it's "special effects" were pretty standard for the B-movie crowd or even the Syfy movie of the week.Should I even give a synopsis with this one? Small immigrant spider grows and grows and only Grunberg's exterminator and pal are LA's hope for survival.Big Ass Spider! mercifully delivered on the goods – Bmovie effects, giant monster and cheesy everything, but it is mostly recommended due to Grunberg and his one liners. Watch it for him with the backdrop…both will make you laugh.* * * Final thoughts: Yeah, I have arachnophobia. But, like the fact that "ghost stories/movies" don't scare me, neither do horribly put together CGI spiders. I have to truly believe it could happen for me to be frightened. I guess this is a good thing here, because otherwise I would've been terrorized with this giant spider. Instead, I could just rely on Grunberg for entertainment value.

Surprisingly fun movie with lots of subtle jokes

tt1830713

I had some expectations of this movie, based on the ridiculous title. It would have been low budget, formulaic, over the top, obvious. It was kind of like that, but also with a subtlety that was both incredibly funny and in good taste.The plot is simple: from Heroes to ... bug exterminator, Greg Grunberg is at the bottom of the barrel. He has no money, no girlfriend and his only quality is an imagined one: he can understand how bugs and vermin think. Suddenly he gets the chance to defeat a mutant spider, kiss the girl and get back to hero status. The references, the jokes, the script itself show that someone really had fun making this movie and I enjoyed that part tremendously. You don't need a big budget and known actors to make something cool and this film proves it. The fact that Ray Wise played the stick-in-the-ass major and Patrick Bauchau played the scientist was more tongue in cheek than actual casting strategy.Bottom line: I expected to fast forward through this film, instead I ended up watching every scene and enjoying it a lot. I love tongue in cheek films and I especially appreciate good scripts in this age of CGI and dumbed down stories. Perhaps the title hurt this film more than it helped, but it is, after all, terribly appropriate (considering the ending, pardon the pun). Watch it, you might enjoy it as well.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1830713/reviews-25

ur3146136

title: Surprisingly fun movie with lots of subtle jokes review: I had some expectations of this movie, based on the ridiculous title. It would have been low budget, formulaic, over the top, obvious. It was kind of like that, but also with a subtlety that was both incredibly funny and in good taste.The plot is simple: from Heroes to ... bug exterminator, Greg Grunberg is at the bottom of the barrel. He has no money, no girlfriend and his only quality is an imagined one: he can understand how bugs and vermin think. Suddenly he gets the chance to defeat a mutant spider, kiss the girl and get back to hero status. The references, the jokes, the script itself show that someone really had fun making this movie and I enjoyed that part tremendously. You don't need a big budget and known actors to make something cool and this film proves it. The fact that Ray Wise played the stick-in-the-ass major and Patrick Bauchau played the scientist was more tongue in cheek than actual casting strategy.Bottom line: I expected to fast forward through this film, instead I ended up watching every scene and enjoying it a lot. I love tongue in cheek films and I especially appreciate good scripts in this age of CGI and dumbed down stories. Perhaps the title hurt this film more than it helped, but it is, after all, terribly appropriate (considering the ending, pardon the pun). Watch it, you might enjoy it as well.

Get what you pay for childish fun

tt1830713

(32%) Yet another self aware modern-day spin on 1950's giant creature horror movies that thanks to much cheaper visual effects are constantly being churned out these days. This it must be said is one of the better examples. The cast is likable, there's very little in terms of filler, and you get the feeling that they at least tried to make an enjoyable product here and not just a quick money spinner that only offers its fun/silly title and nothing really more besides. It's a short sit at just under 1 hour 20 mins which is plenty, there's lots of spider based carnage, a fun cameo, and really if you expected more from this than what you actually get then you're a fool.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1830713/reviews-43

ur54757473

title: Get what you pay for childish fun review: (32%) Yet another self aware modern-day spin on 1950's giant creature horror movies that thanks to much cheaper visual effects are constantly being churned out these days. This it must be said is one of the better examples. The cast is likable, there's very little in terms of filler, and you get the feeling that they at least tried to make an enjoyable product here and not just a quick money spinner that only offers its fun/silly title and nothing really more besides. It's a short sit at just under 1 hour 20 mins which is plenty, there's lots of spider based carnage, a fun cameo, and really if you expected more from this than what you actually get then you're a fool.

Somehow manages to not be horrible...

tt1830713

I wasn't expecting much of this movie. In fact, I was expecting it to suck big time, despite a few well-known names in the cast. However, as bad as the effects were, and as predictable as the plot was, it was saved entirely by the comedy buddy pairing of the exterminator and the security guard.If it wasn't for that character dynamic, the movie would just be a mess. But the pair of them manage to hoist the film above the abyss of awfulness over which the rest of it teeters and give it some entertainment value.Don't get me wrong, you won't watch this twice, but because of Grunberg and Boyar's double-act, the movie is a passable watch-once film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1830713/reviews-6

ur1980092

title: Somehow manages to not be horrible... review: I wasn't expecting much of this movie. In fact, I was expecting it to suck big time, despite a few well-known names in the cast. However, as bad as the effects were, and as predictable as the plot was, it was saved entirely by the comedy buddy pairing of the exterminator and the security guard.If it wasn't for that character dynamic, the movie would just be a mess. But the pair of them manage to hoist the film above the abyss of awfulness over which the rest of it teeters and give it some entertainment value.Don't get me wrong, you won't watch this twice, but because of Grunberg and Boyar's double-act, the movie is a passable watch-once film.

Sci-Fi adventure; fun to watch!

tt1830713

Unbelievable, but true; a Sci-Fi flick that reminds you of a time when horror shared the screen with humor. Mike Mendez directs this story of a cash strapped exterminator, Alex Mathis(Greg Grunberg), who is in for the time of his life. He could be a poster boy for a lonely hearts club, but his life is spiders...and there is very little he doesn't know about them. After being treated at the hospital following a spider bite; there is trouble in the morgue, where a doctor has been attacked by a rodent size spider. It seems that an alien spider has escaped a military lab and is on the loose in Los Angeles. Alex is willing to take care of the problem in exchange for his hospital debt being cleared. Hospital security guard Jose(Lombardo Boyar)offers to help in the search for the poisonous spider. A brief friendship ensues filed with hilarious banter and the new buds are in hot pursuit of the spider that seems to be getting larger and larger. The duo want to join the military search, after all Alex is a spider expert. Major Tanner(Ray Wise) and Lieutenant Karly Brant(Claire Kramer)politely as possible refuse the help. The military is bringing out the big guns, tanks and aircraft to capture the creature before it decides to lay eggs causing future havoc. Alex's line of thinking at this time is...get the creature and get some real attention from the pretty Lieutenant.At times BIG ASS SPIDER appears to have been made on the cheap...but the special effects are really damn good. The giant spider bites and spikes its way around the city and ends up climbing a skyscraper. Real funny dialogue between Alex and Jose; but dimwitted Jose may just have the funnier lines. Although during frantic times, Lt. Brant can look pretty charming trying to appease the more than helpful exterminator. This movie is good enough to watch again, after you tell your friends about it. Rated PG-13 for obvious violence and a bit of gore. Also in the cast: Lin Shaye, Ruben Pia, Alexis Knight and Patrick Bauchau.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1830713/reviews-27

ur0449021

title: Sci-Fi adventure; fun to watch! review: Unbelievable, but true; a Sci-Fi flick that reminds you of a time when horror shared the screen with humor. Mike Mendez directs this story of a cash strapped exterminator, Alex Mathis(Greg Grunberg), who is in for the time of his life. He could be a poster boy for a lonely hearts club, but his life is spiders...and there is very little he doesn't know about them. After being treated at the hospital following a spider bite; there is trouble in the morgue, where a doctor has been attacked by a rodent size spider. It seems that an alien spider has escaped a military lab and is on the loose in Los Angeles. Alex is willing to take care of the problem in exchange for his hospital debt being cleared. Hospital security guard Jose(Lombardo Boyar)offers to help in the search for the poisonous spider. A brief friendship ensues filed with hilarious banter and the new buds are in hot pursuit of the spider that seems to be getting larger and larger. The duo want to join the military search, after all Alex is a spider expert. Major Tanner(Ray Wise) and Lieutenant Karly Brant(Claire Kramer)politely as possible refuse the help. The military is bringing out the big guns, tanks and aircraft to capture the creature before it decides to lay eggs causing future havoc. Alex's line of thinking at this time is...get the creature and get some real attention from the pretty Lieutenant.At times BIG ASS SPIDER appears to have been made on the cheap...but the special effects are really damn good. The giant spider bites and spikes its way around the city and ends up climbing a skyscraper. Real funny dialogue between Alex and Jose; but dimwitted Jose may just have the funnier lines. Although during frantic times, Lt. Brant can look pretty charming trying to appease the more than helpful exterminator. This movie is good enough to watch again, after you tell your friends about it. Rated PG-13 for obvious violence and a bit of gore. Also in the cast: Lin Shaye, Ruben Pia, Alexis Knight and Patrick Bauchau.

Horrifying But Unfunny Horror-Comedy

tt1830713

Not a Bad Homage to the Big Bug Movies of the Fifties. The CGI is OK and there are some Surprisingly Gory Kills for a PG-13. This Sci-Fi Comedy is kind of Shoddy though and it Relies Heavily on the Two Leads Comedic Banter, with One a Determined "Professional Exterminator" who Loves His Job and is Stern Faced Serious, He is Contrasted with a Latino Partner that seems to be Channeling a Cheech and Chong Record.But there is Enough going on with the Big Bug that keeps things on the Go and it is Entertaining Enough on the Whole to Recommend. Nothing is Outstanding, just Pedestrian and will most Likely Satisfy Fans of this Type while Casual Viewers Slumming in the B-Movie Market will be Ripe to Rip it to Shreds. Either Way it is Rewarding if not Completely Satisfying.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1830713/reviews-21

ur33374263

title: Horrifying But Unfunny Horror-Comedy review: Not a Bad Homage to the Big Bug Movies of the Fifties. The CGI is OK and there are some Surprisingly Gory Kills for a PG-13. This Sci-Fi Comedy is kind of Shoddy though and it Relies Heavily on the Two Leads Comedic Banter, with One a Determined "Professional Exterminator" who Loves His Job and is Stern Faced Serious, He is Contrasted with a Latino Partner that seems to be Channeling a Cheech and Chong Record.But there is Enough going on with the Big Bug that keeps things on the Go and it is Entertaining Enough on the Whole to Recommend. Nothing is Outstanding, just Pedestrian and will most Likely Satisfy Fans of this Type while Casual Viewers Slumming in the B-Movie Market will be Ripe to Rip it to Shreds. Either Way it is Rewarding if not Completely Satisfying.

Fun B-Action

tt1830713

Greg Grunberg was not known before this as lead material. And while his friendship with JJ Abrams gave him a few roles, they were mostly cameos or small roles. But he is showing here, that he can pull the weight of a movie. Of course the script is helping a lot, because the jokes are working on almost every level.Is it ridiculous? You bet! Is the CGI obvious? A strong yes here too. But with a movie in that budget range you should know what you are in for. This is not a blockbuster, but therefor can go and do things that a big budget movie would not be allowed to do and get away with. If you are afraid of spiders, you might not want to watch this, but if you are down with some fun and witty horror comedy, that does not take any prisoners? Go on, get it and watch it

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1830713/reviews-28

ur5876717

title: Fun B-Action review: Greg Grunberg was not known before this as lead material. And while his friendship with JJ Abrams gave him a few roles, they were mostly cameos or small roles. But he is showing here, that he can pull the weight of a movie. Of course the script is helping a lot, because the jokes are working on almost every level.Is it ridiculous? You bet! Is the CGI obvious? A strong yes here too. But with a movie in that budget range you should know what you are in for. This is not a blockbuster, but therefor can go and do things that a big budget movie would not be allowed to do and get away with. If you are afraid of spiders, you might not want to watch this, but if you are down with some fun and witty horror comedy, that does not take any prisoners? Go on, get it and watch it

Kind of fun, but it definitely could have been better

tt1830713

Somewhat amusing horror comedy about, well, you know. Greg Grunberg makes an affable hero as an exterminator who comes across a gigantic spider at a hospital. The Army (led by Ray Wise) soon arrives, and Grunberg hopes to kill it and collect a reward before the Army can beat him to it. Meanwhile, the spider continues to feed and grow. This pretty much follows the same template as any giant monster movie. I don't really like CGI effects, and the spider looks pretty awful. What makes this movie almost worth watching is the comedy. It is pretty funny. Grunberg teams up with a Mexican security guard (Lombardo Boyar), and the two have a pretty amusing give and take. Boyar's character might be just a tad too stereotypical, though (an appearance by some black street toughs confirms my suspicion that the director was a little too into racial humor; although, I'd guess by the name that he is Hispanic, so, I don't know, maybe it's okay?). Clare Kramer is pretty good as Grunberg's love interest, an Army lieutenant. Not bad for what it is, and it is very short.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1830713/reviews-37

ur0391152

title: Kind of fun, but it definitely could have been better review: Somewhat amusing horror comedy about, well, you know. Greg Grunberg makes an affable hero as an exterminator who comes across a gigantic spider at a hospital. The Army (led by Ray Wise) soon arrives, and Grunberg hopes to kill it and collect a reward before the Army can beat him to it. Meanwhile, the spider continues to feed and grow. This pretty much follows the same template as any giant monster movie. I don't really like CGI effects, and the spider looks pretty awful. What makes this movie almost worth watching is the comedy. It is pretty funny. Grunberg teams up with a Mexican security guard (Lombardo Boyar), and the two have a pretty amusing give and take. Boyar's character might be just a tad too stereotypical, though (an appearance by some black street toughs confirms my suspicion that the director was a little too into racial humor; although, I'd guess by the name that he is Hispanic, so, I don't know, maybe it's okay?). Clare Kramer is pretty good as Grunberg's love interest, an Army lieutenant. Not bad for what it is, and it is very short.

For People Who Think Blind Jokes Are the Height of Hilarity

tt0278823

A pretty weak one-note joke film from Woody Allen during a period where he made a string of some of his most mediocre movies. It's not as bad as the following year's woeful "Anything Else," perhaps the very worst film he's ever made, but it's close.Allen plays a Hollywood director who's struck with a case of temporary blindness. You can imagine the kinds of jokes that ensue. Allen's reliance on vaudevillian humor had stopped being charming by this point and was just anachronistic. But no worries -- two years later he would experience a creative reboot and give us "Match Point," one of his best films and enough to erase movies like "Hollywood Ending" from our memories.Grade: C-

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0278823/reviews-149

ur4532636

title: For People Who Think Blind Jokes Are the Height of Hilarity review: A pretty weak one-note joke film from Woody Allen during a period where he made a string of some of his most mediocre movies. It's not as bad as the following year's woeful "Anything Else," perhaps the very worst film he's ever made, but it's close.Allen plays a Hollywood director who's struck with a case of temporary blindness. You can imagine the kinds of jokes that ensue. Allen's reliance on vaudevillian humor had stopped being charming by this point and was just anachronistic. But no worries -- two years later he would experience a creative reboot and give us "Match Point," one of his best films and enough to erase movies like "Hollywood Ending" from our memories.Grade: C-

Hollywood Ending (2002) ***

tt0278823

I liked when Woody Allen went back to comedy and starred in his own films again during this period. He started showing his age in the 00's, but in this film he's still a lot of fun and capable of being a physical comic. It's a story about a real down on his luck has-been of a director (Allen) who's so desperate that he's reduced to filming commercials in Canada. So he has no choice but to accept an offer to direct a big movie that could put him back on top - the problem is, the two producers are his ex-wife (Tea Leoni) and her new fiancé who stole her from Allen (Treat Williams). Right before production all the stress gets to Woody and he experiences psychosomatic blindness and has to direct the whole movie without being able to see. He can't blow this important opportunity and has to fake his way through without letting anyone but his trustworthy agent and his Asian cameraman's interpreter know what's happening.This is a sure-fire recipe for laughs, and it mostly delivers. Tea Leoni is perfect for the role of Woody's long-suffering ex who's stuck working with him again under such touchy circumstances. I also enjoy Mark Rydell as his dedicated agent and mentor. Debra Messing plays another in a long line of ditzy young girlfriends who can't seem to resist shacking up with the 66-year-old Allen. The one flaw is that the movie goes on a tad long, and maybe the gag wears thin by the home stretch. *** out of ****

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0278823/reviews-142

ur3441650

title: Hollywood Ending (2002) *** review: I liked when Woody Allen went back to comedy and starred in his own films again during this period. He started showing his age in the 00's, but in this film he's still a lot of fun and capable of being a physical comic. It's a story about a real down on his luck has-been of a director (Allen) who's so desperate that he's reduced to filming commercials in Canada. So he has no choice but to accept an offer to direct a big movie that could put him back on top - the problem is, the two producers are his ex-wife (Tea Leoni) and her new fiancé who stole her from Allen (Treat Williams). Right before production all the stress gets to Woody and he experiences psychosomatic blindness and has to direct the whole movie without being able to see. He can't blow this important opportunity and has to fake his way through without letting anyone but his trustworthy agent and his Asian cameraman's interpreter know what's happening.This is a sure-fire recipe for laughs, and it mostly delivers. Tea Leoni is perfect for the role of Woody's long-suffering ex who's stuck working with him again under such touchy circumstances. I also enjoy Mark Rydell as his dedicated agent and mentor. Debra Messing plays another in a long line of ditzy young girlfriends who can't seem to resist shacking up with the 66-year-old Allen. The one flaw is that the movie goes on a tad long, and maybe the gag wears thin by the home stretch. *** out of ****

Hurray for Hollywood Ending

tt0278823

Hooray for Hollywoody! What is Hollywoody? It is the neurotic world of the great Woody Allen. His latest film `Hollywood Ending' is one of the funniest films of the year! Woody stars as a one-time famous director who is attempting a comeback by directing a big-budget film. However, before the first day of shooting he is stricken by a mad case of psychosomatic blindness. Now he must disguise his unviewed disorder to all the producers, actors, and crew members working on the film. Yes! You can see (except for Woody) what happens next= neurotic laughs at their best! No one does this better than Sir Woody. Tea Leoni, Treat Williams, Debra Messing are a few of the actors that `wood' not pass up the chance to be in a Woody Allen film and make up the fine ensemble acting of `Hollywood Ending'. Leoni roars with high marks with her performance as the ex-wife producer assistant. I cannot think of a more appropriate ending to my film review of `Hollywood Ending' by stating `Hooray for Hollywood Ending'. The End! ***** excellent

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0278823/reviews-64

ur0489763

title: Hurray for Hollywood Ending review: Hooray for Hollywoody! What is Hollywoody? It is the neurotic world of the great Woody Allen. His latest film `Hollywood Ending' is one of the funniest films of the year! Woody stars as a one-time famous director who is attempting a comeback by directing a big-budget film. However, before the first day of shooting he is stricken by a mad case of psychosomatic blindness. Now he must disguise his unviewed disorder to all the producers, actors, and crew members working on the film. Yes! You can see (except for Woody) what happens next= neurotic laughs at their best! No one does this better than Sir Woody. Tea Leoni, Treat Williams, Debra Messing are a few of the actors that `wood' not pass up the chance to be in a Woody Allen film and make up the fine ensemble acting of `Hollywood Ending'. Leoni roars with high marks with her performance as the ex-wife producer assistant. I cannot think of a more appropriate ending to my film review of `Hollywood Ending' by stating `Hooray for Hollywood Ending'. The End! ***** excellent

An entertaining film that is neither one of Allen's best or worst

tt0278823

As said before, Woody Allen is a very acquired taste. To me he has made a lot of great films, a handful of masterpieces and while there have been some disappointments, while there are films of his yet to see, none of them have been terrible. Hollywood Ending has often been considered lesser Allen, and while it is not a masterpiece in any shape or form(like Annie Hall, Manhattan, Crimes and Misdeameanours, Hannah and Her Sisters, Husbands and Wives and Purple Rose of Cairo, Zelig is also very close to being one) and does fall short of great it is not among the bottom(so far What's Up Tiger Lily, To Rome with Love, Celebrity, Anything Else and Cassandra's Dream, although all of them had a fair share of redeeming qualities). Hollywood Ending is imperfect, the blindness joke has been much criticised and I have to agree, it is a joke so stretched out it becomes very tiring, the pacing as a result in the last act lost momentum and credibility went out the window. Much more could have been done with the subplot and relationship of Allen's character and his son, it was pretty much in the background and like a secondary subplot and it was a subplot that if more prominent could have given the film more heart and it would have made their relationship more interesting, in the end it felt under-baked. On the other hand, Hollywood Ending as always with Allen is very well-directed and looks fabulous with cinematography that is colourful and dreamlike. Hollywood Ending aside from the blindness joke is a very entertaining film, the one-liners are just delicious, Val has the best lines and they are just hilarious, and the gags are very characteristic of Allen and are well-engineered. As ever with Woody Allen, the film also has a lot to say about various subjects and explores them in an insightful and sometimes self-mocking way(that is sometimes and understandably considered self-indulgence). The story up till the last act has relationships and issues that we can identify with strongly, is well-paced and there is plenty of compelling story-telling. Hollywood Ending is expertly played with the best performance coming from Tea Leoni, who is immensely charming with very easy comic timing, closely followed by Woody Allen himself, who makes the most of his lines and delivers them in a way that makes them even funnier. Treat Williams is always a joy and Debra Messing looks as though she's enjoying herself. Admittedly some of the cast should have had more to work with, such as George Hamilton, but they are no less impressive. On the whole, Hollywood Ending has its flaws and Allen has done better work but it is an entertaining film in a lot of ways. 7/10 Bethany Cox

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0278823/reviews-161

ur20552756

title: An entertaining film that is neither one of Allen's best or worst review: As said before, Woody Allen is a very acquired taste. To me he has made a lot of great films, a handful of masterpieces and while there have been some disappointments, while there are films of his yet to see, none of them have been terrible. Hollywood Ending has often been considered lesser Allen, and while it is not a masterpiece in any shape or form(like Annie Hall, Manhattan, Crimes and Misdeameanours, Hannah and Her Sisters, Husbands and Wives and Purple Rose of Cairo, Zelig is also very close to being one) and does fall short of great it is not among the bottom(so far What's Up Tiger Lily, To Rome with Love, Celebrity, Anything Else and Cassandra's Dream, although all of them had a fair share of redeeming qualities). Hollywood Ending is imperfect, the blindness joke has been much criticised and I have to agree, it is a joke so stretched out it becomes very tiring, the pacing as a result in the last act lost momentum and credibility went out the window. Much more could have been done with the subplot and relationship of Allen's character and his son, it was pretty much in the background and like a secondary subplot and it was a subplot that if more prominent could have given the film more heart and it would have made their relationship more interesting, in the end it felt under-baked. On the other hand, Hollywood Ending as always with Allen is very well-directed and looks fabulous with cinematography that is colourful and dreamlike. Hollywood Ending aside from the blindness joke is a very entertaining film, the one-liners are just delicious, Val has the best lines and they are just hilarious, and the gags are very characteristic of Allen and are well-engineered. As ever with Woody Allen, the film also has a lot to say about various subjects and explores them in an insightful and sometimes self-mocking way(that is sometimes and understandably considered self-indulgence). The story up till the last act has relationships and issues that we can identify with strongly, is well-paced and there is plenty of compelling story-telling. Hollywood Ending is expertly played with the best performance coming from Tea Leoni, who is immensely charming with very easy comic timing, closely followed by Woody Allen himself, who makes the most of his lines and delivers them in a way that makes them even funnier. Treat Williams is always a joy and Debra Messing looks as though she's enjoying herself. Admittedly some of the cast should have had more to work with, such as George Hamilton, but they are no less impressive. On the whole, Hollywood Ending has its flaws and Allen has done better work but it is an entertaining film in a lot of ways. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Not Allen's best, but entertaining and funny.

tt0278823

Woody Allen has his great movies, he has his good movies, he has his okay movies. Hollywood ending isn't his best, but it's his most underrated. I really don't see why it's so bad. I mean yeah the plot is a little ridiculous, but I was entertained and laughed a lot.Allen plays a has been movie director named Val Waxman. His ex-wife(Tea Leoni), who's fiancé is in the movie biz, offers him to direct a movie that she knows he'll do great with. But complications arrive. Val can't get over the fact that she left him for a dick movie producer. And things get even worse: He goes blind.Alright, so the film isn't great. The plot isn't exactly original, and it is unfeasible. But the film made me laugh. I think it's entertaining to say the least. I am kind when it comes to Woody Allen films. Because he's a rare movie director that can still make funny and entertaining romantic comedies.One thing about his films that has always bothered me are his fantasies. Why in the world would people like Helena Bonham Carter, Debra Messing, or Mira Sorvino ever hook up with him? I prefer the Allen films without him. Like Match point and Vicky Cristina Barcelona, his masterpeices.I like all of his films. Some more than others. I just wish that he wasn't so vain. I like Allen. I think he's a pervert in real life but I like his movies. Same thing goes for Roman Polanski. Allen has done masterpeices. Hollywood ending isn't a masterpiece, but's a solid piece of entertainment.B+

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0278823/reviews-150

ur22881716

title: Not Allen's best, but entertaining and funny. review: Woody Allen has his great movies, he has his good movies, he has his okay movies. Hollywood ending isn't his best, but it's his most underrated. I really don't see why it's so bad. I mean yeah the plot is a little ridiculous, but I was entertained and laughed a lot.Allen plays a has been movie director named Val Waxman. His ex-wife(Tea Leoni), who's fiancé is in the movie biz, offers him to direct a movie that she knows he'll do great with. But complications arrive. Val can't get over the fact that she left him for a dick movie producer. And things get even worse: He goes blind.Alright, so the film isn't great. The plot isn't exactly original, and it is unfeasible. But the film made me laugh. I think it's entertaining to say the least. I am kind when it comes to Woody Allen films. Because he's a rare movie director that can still make funny and entertaining romantic comedies.One thing about his films that has always bothered me are his fantasies. Why in the world would people like Helena Bonham Carter, Debra Messing, or Mira Sorvino ever hook up with him? I prefer the Allen films without him. Like Match point and Vicky Cristina Barcelona, his masterpeices.I like all of his films. Some more than others. I just wish that he wasn't so vain. I like Allen. I think he's a pervert in real life but I like his movies. Same thing goes for Roman Polanski. Allen has done masterpeices. Hollywood ending isn't a masterpiece, but's a solid piece of entertainment.B+

A treat for Woody Allen fans

tt0278823

Though I must admit, I was never an Allen fanatic myself; I still enjoyed 'Hollywood Ending'. Probably Allen's best film since 'Deconstructing Harry' at least, 'Hollywood Ending' is a clever zing directed at Hollywood's studios and film producers, in which Allen plays a characters very obviously based on himself, as he happily bites the hand that feeds him. Since Woody Allen's characters will always look like Woody Allen anyway, it's nice to see him in this very personal and earnest role. 'Hollywood Ending' is classic Woody Allen, a sure pleaser for fans and also for anyone who enjoys a funny, classy and intelligent comedy.Woody plays Val Waxman, an eccentric, hypochondriac has-been acclaimed film director, given one last chance to make his comeback; however, on the first day of the shooting, he develops psychosomatic blindness. That is the premise; the rest is terrific physical comedy, with subtle satirical and cynical humor, in the finest Allen tradition. Although all the actors are terrific - Tea Leoni as Val's ex, the wonderful Mark Rydell as his agent, and Mark Webber ('Storytelling') in one show-stopping scene as his son, Scumbag X (don't ask) - but Allen, admittedly not much of an actor himself, steals the show, making it the most Allen-ish movie since 'Harry', yet also one of his most accessible films. Recommended.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0278823/reviews-125

ur5358902

title: A treat for Woody Allen fans review: Though I must admit, I was never an Allen fanatic myself; I still enjoyed 'Hollywood Ending'. Probably Allen's best film since 'Deconstructing Harry' at least, 'Hollywood Ending' is a clever zing directed at Hollywood's studios and film producers, in which Allen plays a characters very obviously based on himself, as he happily bites the hand that feeds him. Since Woody Allen's characters will always look like Woody Allen anyway, it's nice to see him in this very personal and earnest role. 'Hollywood Ending' is classic Woody Allen, a sure pleaser for fans and also for anyone who enjoys a funny, classy and intelligent comedy.Woody plays Val Waxman, an eccentric, hypochondriac has-been acclaimed film director, given one last chance to make his comeback; however, on the first day of the shooting, he develops psychosomatic blindness. That is the premise; the rest is terrific physical comedy, with subtle satirical and cynical humor, in the finest Allen tradition. Although all the actors are terrific - Tea Leoni as Val's ex, the wonderful Mark Rydell as his agent, and Mark Webber ('Storytelling') in one show-stopping scene as his son, Scumbag X (don't ask) - but Allen, admittedly not much of an actor himself, steals the show, making it the most Allen-ish movie since 'Harry', yet also one of his most accessible films. Recommended.

Woody Hits the Bullseye Again...

tt0278823

Hollywood ENDING is one of Woody Allen's more realistic yet hysterically funny movies that takes a scathingly accurate look at the place Woody hates more than any other...Hollywood. As the Ultimate New Yorker, this film may seem a bit strange for Woody but he really makes it work. Woody plays Val Waxman, an Academy Award winning director who hasn't made a movie in 12 years. Thanks to his ex-wife (Tea Leoni), Val is given the opportunity to direct a big budget private eye film noir drama; however, he has so much anxiety about returning to work after so long, that the day before he begins shooting, he develops psychosomatic blindness and tries to shoot the film while blind, without anyone knowing. This premise is a wonderful set up for a lot of great gags and most are quite effective. Woody's incisive script takes the expected pot shots at Hollywood but stays within the framework of a very amusing story. Woody is surrounded by a strong cast including Debra Messing, very funny as Woody's current girlfriend who demands a role in the movie, Treat Williams as the cold-blooded studio exec who is also engaged to Leoni, director Mark Rydell as Woody's agent, George Hamilton in a surprisingly deft turn as a film exec, Tiffani Theissen as an oversexed starlet and fashion designer Isaac Mzahari as an obsessive set designer, who wants to re-build New York for the movie rather than film there. There are a lot of laughs to be had here in this very funny movie with a lovely and warm ending that will bring a smile to your face.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0278823/reviews-127

ur8042382

title: Woody Hits the Bullseye Again... review: Hollywood ENDING is one of Woody Allen's more realistic yet hysterically funny movies that takes a scathingly accurate look at the place Woody hates more than any other...Hollywood. As the Ultimate New Yorker, this film may seem a bit strange for Woody but he really makes it work. Woody plays Val Waxman, an Academy Award winning director who hasn't made a movie in 12 years. Thanks to his ex-wife (Tea Leoni), Val is given the opportunity to direct a big budget private eye film noir drama; however, he has so much anxiety about returning to work after so long, that the day before he begins shooting, he develops psychosomatic blindness and tries to shoot the film while blind, without anyone knowing. This premise is a wonderful set up for a lot of great gags and most are quite effective. Woody's incisive script takes the expected pot shots at Hollywood but stays within the framework of a very amusing story. Woody is surrounded by a strong cast including Debra Messing, very funny as Woody's current girlfriend who demands a role in the movie, Treat Williams as the cold-blooded studio exec who is also engaged to Leoni, director Mark Rydell as Woody's agent, George Hamilton in a surprisingly deft turn as a film exec, Tiffani Theissen as an oversexed starlet and fashion designer Isaac Mzahari as an obsessive set designer, who wants to re-build New York for the movie rather than film there. There are a lot of laughs to be had here in this very funny movie with a lovely and warm ending that will bring a smile to your face.

a super hero that dishes out hard core violence...

tt1512235

is how I would describe this movie. I thought it was going to be a comedy since Rainn Wilson is the lead, but it's more violent than anything else. Wilson plays fry cook, Frank, whom acts seriously weird after his wife, Sarah, leaves him for a common criminal, Jacques. He has a vision and becomes the Crimson Bolt. He wants to do good by fighting crime, problem is he starts attacking people that haven't done much wrong, such as the guy who breaks line. I don't think he deserved to be beat in the head by a wrench.Comic seller, Libby, catches on to Franks super hero and wants to be his side kick. She's demented. She practically wants to kill a guy for scratching up a friend's car. She's a little too excited about hurting people. Then there is a very uncomfortable scene in which she rapes Frank.And at the end, when Frank and Libby attack Jacques compound, there is very gory, almost silly violence. It's made to look like what you might see in a comic. Not for kids.FINAL VERDICT: This movie was different with weird characters. As long as you know,it's not a comedy, it is worth checking out.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512235/reviews-99

ur1773414

title: a super hero that dishes out hard core violence... review: is how I would describe this movie. I thought it was going to be a comedy since Rainn Wilson is the lead, but it's more violent than anything else. Wilson plays fry cook, Frank, whom acts seriously weird after his wife, Sarah, leaves him for a common criminal, Jacques. He has a vision and becomes the Crimson Bolt. He wants to do good by fighting crime, problem is he starts attacking people that haven't done much wrong, such as the guy who breaks line. I don't think he deserved to be beat in the head by a wrench.Comic seller, Libby, catches on to Franks super hero and wants to be his side kick. She's demented. She practically wants to kill a guy for scratching up a friend's car. She's a little too excited about hurting people. Then there is a very uncomfortable scene in which she rapes Frank.And at the end, when Frank and Libby attack Jacques compound, there is very gory, almost silly violence. It's made to look like what you might see in a comic. Not for kids.FINAL VERDICT: This movie was different with weird characters. As long as you know,it's not a comedy, it is worth checking out.

Empty movie for empty people

tt1512235

Actually it was a nice idea, to make up a superhero that has no superpowers and is a normal person just like Kick Ass or similar movies.But this movie failed on so many levels. I am too lazy to point out all the dull details like how he becomes a superhero. The whole story is written "super" clumsy, the actors are OK, and thats about it. The main problem is the whole emptiness of this movie. It has NO message whatsoever and just like my review here, none of the scenes are connected to each other. Its like every 5 minutes the writer had a whole new idea, but it just didn't fit in the plot. But hey ....just put all those scenes together, and you have "Super". Its like a long depressive story with a "Super" depressing end.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512235/reviews-10

ur10496177

title: Empty movie for empty people review: Actually it was a nice idea, to make up a superhero that has no superpowers and is a normal person just like Kick Ass or similar movies.But this movie failed on so many levels. I am too lazy to point out all the dull details like how he becomes a superhero. The whole story is written "super" clumsy, the actors are OK, and thats about it. The main problem is the whole emptiness of this movie. It has NO message whatsoever and just like my review here, none of the scenes are connected to each other. Its like every 5 minutes the writer had a whole new idea, but it just didn't fit in the plot. But hey ....just put all those scenes together, and you have "Super". Its like a long depressive story with a "Super" depressing end.

Shut up, crime!

tt1512235

"Did you ever wonder if the person in the puddle is real, and you're just a reflection of him?" - Calvin and Hobbes "Super", written and directed by James Gunn, is another attempt to "subvert" the superhero movie genre. It stars Rainn Wilson as a short-order cook who becomes a superhero in order to defeat the gangster who steals his beautiful wife (Liv Tyler). Doning a mask and wielding a large wrench, Wilson proves to be an inept vigilante, until he hooks up with Libby, the foul mouthed store clerk who schools him in all things comic-book.The film's a black comedy in the vein of "Kickass", but like that film is not nearly as transgressive as it thinks it is. Japanese cinema routinely churns out X-rated comic book vigilantes, rife with cos-play chicks and underage hit girls. Some of these are touted as classics despite being classed as illegal child pornography ("Kite", for example, a film which pushes "Kickass" and company to their logical end point), an extreme distinction which "Super" can't hope to meet. Yes Gunn's film is a deliberately sleazy superhero movie, but so what? It doesn't expose the psychotic, mean, psycho-sexually messed up, fascist underside of the superhero genre (our hero cracks skulls, does as he pleases, is raped by hotties etc), so much so that it wallows in the genre's intrinsic baseness. Wilson's character may be inept, Gunn's violence may be ugly, but the film nevertheless still largely functions as your traditional damsel-in-distress, superhero power rush. Like "Death Wish" and "Taxi Driver", like most superhero films in general, the film isn't quite a deconstruction or an allegory of sociopathy and/or fascism, but rather wallows in fascism and invites you to be sociopathic too; to enjoy your Nietzschean cool.Still, the film does one thing well. Wilson's an ineffectual and impotent guy who sees things in flat "black" and "white" terms. This absolutism is what sends him down a path reminiscent of the leads in "Death Wish" and "Taxi Driver". He's been "wronged" and "the world shouldn't be wrong"; so he punishes, going completely over the edge. He then transfers the "injustice" of his failed marriage over onto the larger social "messiness of reality". Significantly, this displacement takes place after being touched/tentacle raped by what is essentially a cartoon God he once saw on TV, a kind of schizophrenic hallucination which Gunn merges with the cheesy TV shows Wilson oft watches (in which right-wing Christians – backward and sexually repressed – attempt to purify kids). Only then does Wilson become a superhero. In other words, the film is aware that Wilson, fascists, superheroes, far-righters, fundamentalists etc are all simultaneously giving in to the very urges they decry in a desire for purity and unified wholeness (ie - resorting to crime to stop crime, decrying sex while raping, or indulging in pornography etc). The problem is the film then goes on to facilitate the same for its audience and then goes on to paint a profile of the world that is as absolutist as Wilson's world-view (goodies vs baddies, criminals are "evil" etc).5/10 – See "Chronicle", "Defendor" and "Special". What's a truly subversive superhero movie? Maybe something like Pasolini's "The Gospel According to St Matthew"? Worth one viewing.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512235/reviews-135

ur4130201

title: Shut up, crime! review: "Did you ever wonder if the person in the puddle is real, and you're just a reflection of him?" - Calvin and Hobbes "Super", written and directed by James Gunn, is another attempt to "subvert" the superhero movie genre. It stars Rainn Wilson as a short-order cook who becomes a superhero in order to defeat the gangster who steals his beautiful wife (Liv Tyler). Doning a mask and wielding a large wrench, Wilson proves to be an inept vigilante, until he hooks up with Libby, the foul mouthed store clerk who schools him in all things comic-book.The film's a black comedy in the vein of "Kickass", but like that film is not nearly as transgressive as it thinks it is. Japanese cinema routinely churns out X-rated comic book vigilantes, rife with cos-play chicks and underage hit girls. Some of these are touted as classics despite being classed as illegal child pornography ("Kite", for example, a film which pushes "Kickass" and company to their logical end point), an extreme distinction which "Super" can't hope to meet. Yes Gunn's film is a deliberately sleazy superhero movie, but so what? It doesn't expose the psychotic, mean, psycho-sexually messed up, fascist underside of the superhero genre (our hero cracks skulls, does as he pleases, is raped by hotties etc), so much so that it wallows in the genre's intrinsic baseness. Wilson's character may be inept, Gunn's violence may be ugly, but the film nevertheless still largely functions as your traditional damsel-in-distress, superhero power rush. Like "Death Wish" and "Taxi Driver", like most superhero films in general, the film isn't quite a deconstruction or an allegory of sociopathy and/or fascism, but rather wallows in fascism and invites you to be sociopathic too; to enjoy your Nietzschean cool.Still, the film does one thing well. Wilson's an ineffectual and impotent guy who sees things in flat "black" and "white" terms. This absolutism is what sends him down a path reminiscent of the leads in "Death Wish" and "Taxi Driver". He's been "wronged" and "the world shouldn't be wrong"; so he punishes, going completely over the edge. He then transfers the "injustice" of his failed marriage over onto the larger social "messiness of reality". Significantly, this displacement takes place after being touched/tentacle raped by what is essentially a cartoon God he once saw on TV, a kind of schizophrenic hallucination which Gunn merges with the cheesy TV shows Wilson oft watches (in which right-wing Christians – backward and sexually repressed – attempt to purify kids). Only then does Wilson become a superhero. In other words, the film is aware that Wilson, fascists, superheroes, far-righters, fundamentalists etc are all simultaneously giving in to the very urges they decry in a desire for purity and unified wholeness (ie - resorting to crime to stop crime, decrying sex while raping, or indulging in pornography etc). The problem is the film then goes on to facilitate the same for its audience and then goes on to paint a profile of the world that is as absolutist as Wilson's world-view (goodies vs baddies, criminals are "evil" etc).5/10 – See "Chronicle", "Defendor" and "Special". What's a truly subversive superhero movie? Maybe something like Pasolini's "The Gospel According to St Matthew"? Worth one viewing.

Vigilanteism goes for a joy ride from Hell

tt1512235

This is one tough movie to critique. It runs the gamut from almost silly to downright nasty. (Imagine Kick Ass meets Hobo With A Shotgun) I don't know that I've ever seen a movie in which the lead character goes from being a pitiable nerd to a psychotic Rambo on PCP over the course of 96 minutes. And his sidekick goes from being adorable/quirky to Tarantino-like perverse right before our very eyes. There's also a pervasive sadness in the form of Liv Tyler's character. And Bacon seems to be perfectly cast as the smarmy drug dealing pimp with a penchant for philosophy while staring death in the eyes.I'm not sure who the target audience is supposed to be for "Super". It's not for the timid, that's for sure. The acting is solid. It's got its ups and downs as far as pacing goes. It's got bunnies and gore. It's got morality; amorality; and immorality -- all rolled into one.Viewer Beware: this is not an easy film to watch or grasp. Grapple is more like it. I'm not sorry I watched it; but I'm not sure I'd care to watch it again.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512235/reviews-100

ur18431344

title: Vigilanteism goes for a joy ride from Hell review: This is one tough movie to critique. It runs the gamut from almost silly to downright nasty. (Imagine Kick Ass meets Hobo With A Shotgun) I don't know that I've ever seen a movie in which the lead character goes from being a pitiable nerd to a psychotic Rambo on PCP over the course of 96 minutes. And his sidekick goes from being adorable/quirky to Tarantino-like perverse right before our very eyes. There's also a pervasive sadness in the form of Liv Tyler's character. And Bacon seems to be perfectly cast as the smarmy drug dealing pimp with a penchant for philosophy while staring death in the eyes.I'm not sure who the target audience is supposed to be for "Super". It's not for the timid, that's for sure. The acting is solid. It's got its ups and downs as far as pacing goes. It's got bunnies and gore. It's got morality; amorality; and immorality -- all rolled into one.Viewer Beware: this is not an easy film to watch or grasp. Grapple is more like it. I'm not sorry I watched it; but I'm not sure I'd care to watch it again.

Dark, twisted, and oddly-endearing. A winner.

tt1512235

This is one that really came outta left field. Up until now, my only exposure to Rainn Wilson was as Dwight Schrute. And he's not even my favorite character on "The Office". But the man deserves high praise for his performance as the jilted lover-turned amateur superhero in "Super" - a movie that (having not known what to make of the trailers) turned out to be a pleasant surprise, indeed.Wilson's seemingly fairytale marriage shatters when his recovering addict wife (Liv Tyler) runs out of the house and into the arms of drug-dealing Kevin Bacon. Believing his wife to be kidnapped (and sick of being perceived as weak) and with the help of an eager comic shop employee (Ellen Page), Wilson stitches a costume, take up a wrench and hits the streets as The Crimson Bolt. Page joins the unlikely enterprise as his overzealous sidekick and the duo arm themselves to the teeth and take the fight to Casa de Bacon.Wilson is impressive as the deeply conflicted Christian who finds himself doling out some seriously violent street justice. It's at times goofy role, but nothing like his signature goofiness on "The Office" (no mean feat). Page is v(she's very likable here). And Bacon brings a hilarious detachment to the asshat dealer, making it a almost ironic performance.I'm pretty sure this movie contains the funniest ass-kicking montage I've ever seen. The early days of The Crimson Bolt's crime-fighting career are spent smacking guys in the head with a wrench ... and more often than not, just running away. That's his shtick. Naturally, the character becomes more earnest as time wears on, adopting an almost Batman-like intensity in his punishment approach, and the movie (as a whole) follows this trajectory as the once-lighthearted and silly premise becomes ever more serious and violent.What began as a dark comedy eventually dims all the way to black and increasingly brutal. But out of the death and destruction emerges an end result that manages to be sweet and, dare I say, poignant.7/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512235/reviews-142

ur1994077

title: Dark, twisted, and oddly-endearing. A winner. review: This is one that really came outta left field. Up until now, my only exposure to Rainn Wilson was as Dwight Schrute. And he's not even my favorite character on "The Office". But the man deserves high praise for his performance as the jilted lover-turned amateur superhero in "Super" - a movie that (having not known what to make of the trailers) turned out to be a pleasant surprise, indeed.Wilson's seemingly fairytale marriage shatters when his recovering addict wife (Liv Tyler) runs out of the house and into the arms of drug-dealing Kevin Bacon. Believing his wife to be kidnapped (and sick of being perceived as weak) and with the help of an eager comic shop employee (Ellen Page), Wilson stitches a costume, take up a wrench and hits the streets as The Crimson Bolt. Page joins the unlikely enterprise as his overzealous sidekick and the duo arm themselves to the teeth and take the fight to Casa de Bacon.Wilson is impressive as the deeply conflicted Christian who finds himself doling out some seriously violent street justice. It's at times goofy role, but nothing like his signature goofiness on "The Office" (no mean feat). Page is v(she's very likable here). And Bacon brings a hilarious detachment to the asshat dealer, making it a almost ironic performance.I'm pretty sure this movie contains the funniest ass-kicking montage I've ever seen. The early days of The Crimson Bolt's crime-fighting career are spent smacking guys in the head with a wrench ... and more often than not, just running away. That's his shtick. Naturally, the character becomes more earnest as time wears on, adopting an almost Batman-like intensity in his punishment approach, and the movie (as a whole) follows this trajectory as the once-lighthearted and silly premise becomes ever more serious and violent.What began as a dark comedy eventually dims all the way to black and increasingly brutal. But out of the death and destruction emerges an end result that manages to be sweet and, dare I say, poignant.7/10

A magnificent and unforgettable film

tt1512235

At the same time that the super-hero films are exploiting in popularity, the more modest sub-genus of the "real" super-heroes flourishes as a more audacious and "artistic" alternative, proposing an examination of the circumstances and consequences the existence of these colorful characters could have in the real world, where nobody can fly and the violent effects of a POW!, a ZAP! or a BIFF! Two movies which addressed those subjects with different perspectives were Kick-Ass (almost as unreal as a comic) and Defendor (super-hero with mental disturbances). The film Super combines the approaches from those two films, and the result is memorable and genuinely extraordinary.The movies belonging to this style share the idea that a person needs to be severely disturbed in order to put on a super-hero suit and fight against the crime in the streets. Super tacitly accepts that premise, but with a reasonably functional main character, who can be accepted as a man who is desperate to get his wife back, and also as a person who is enough distant from reality for the road to being a super-hero seem like something acceptable and even logical. The visions he has (or he believes to have), in which God himself points him as a "chosen" one of a higher destiny, help very much. By the way, those visions are represented by a combination of digital effects and make-up tricks in order to achieve images of a grotesque gore beauty and surrealistic atmosphere.Rainn Wilson brings a perfect performance in the leading role, because he is absolutely honest and credible in a complex character. Meanwhile, Ellen Page backs to prove why she is one of the best contemporary actresses. As for the supporting cast, Kevin Bacon, Nathan Fillion and Michael Rooker stand out, because of the conviction with which they express the essential features from their characters.Among the things I most appreciated from Super, I can mention the multiple layers from the screenplay, as well as the moral and humanist vein it contains on the background. In conclusion, Super is a magnificent film, which I enthusiastically recommend because of its delicious combination of violence, humor, excellent performances and authentic drama. In summary, I think this movie is an underrated gem.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512235/reviews-96

ur6216723

title: A magnificent and unforgettable film review: At the same time that the super-hero films are exploiting in popularity, the more modest sub-genus of the "real" super-heroes flourishes as a more audacious and "artistic" alternative, proposing an examination of the circumstances and consequences the existence of these colorful characters could have in the real world, where nobody can fly and the violent effects of a POW!, a ZAP! or a BIFF! Two movies which addressed those subjects with different perspectives were Kick-Ass (almost as unreal as a comic) and Defendor (super-hero with mental disturbances). The film Super combines the approaches from those two films, and the result is memorable and genuinely extraordinary.The movies belonging to this style share the idea that a person needs to be severely disturbed in order to put on a super-hero suit and fight against the crime in the streets. Super tacitly accepts that premise, but with a reasonably functional main character, who can be accepted as a man who is desperate to get his wife back, and also as a person who is enough distant from reality for the road to being a super-hero seem like something acceptable and even logical. The visions he has (or he believes to have), in which God himself points him as a "chosen" one of a higher destiny, help very much. By the way, those visions are represented by a combination of digital effects and make-up tricks in order to achieve images of a grotesque gore beauty and surrealistic atmosphere.Rainn Wilson brings a perfect performance in the leading role, because he is absolutely honest and credible in a complex character. Meanwhile, Ellen Page backs to prove why she is one of the best contemporary actresses. As for the supporting cast, Kevin Bacon, Nathan Fillion and Michael Rooker stand out, because of the conviction with which they express the essential features from their characters.Among the things I most appreciated from Super, I can mention the multiple layers from the screenplay, as well as the moral and humanist vein it contains on the background. In conclusion, Super is a magnificent film, which I enthusiastically recommend because of its delicious combination of violence, humor, excellent performances and authentic drama. In summary, I think this movie is an underrated gem.

Not as bad as I had heard...

tt1512235

Well made with some nice incidental music; a collection of songs mostly, but nicely chosen. All the performances were very good; Rainn Wilson was excellent as Frank Darrbo/The Crimson Bolt; as was Ellen Page as Libby/Boltie. I felt that both Liv Tyler as Sarah and Kevin Bacon as Jacques were woefully underused. Honourable mentions go to; Gregg Henry as Detective John Felkner, Michael Rooker as Abe and Michael Rooker as Hamilton. Oh, and look out for Nathan Fillion as The Holy Avenger.For me, the star of the show was Ellen Page; she brought such enthusiasm to the role and I have to say, she was also pretty funny. To be honest, given the quality of the rest of the cast I ended up a little disappointed, I expected more somehow. Don't get me wrong, it's still a good movie with some great moments and some nicely done effects; it just seemed to be lacking. I did like that the violence was quite brutal and it wasn't depicted as glamorous in any way. In fact, the consequences of it were plain to see. I didn't much care for the ending; it all got a little too schmaltzy for me. Even so, a decent movie; but most definitely NOT one for the kids.SteelMonster's verdict: RECOMMENDED.My score: 7.1/10IMDb Score: 6.8/10 (based on 32,290 votes at the time of going to press).MetaScore: 50/100: (Based on 26 critic reviews provided by Metacritic.com at the time of going to press).Rotten Tomatoes 'Tomatometer' Score: 47/100 (based on 112 reviews counted at the time of going to press).Rotten Tomatoes 'Audience' Score: 56/100 (based on 18,516 user ratings counted at the time of going to press).You can find an expanded version of this review on my blog: Thoughts of a SteelMonster.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512235/reviews-134

ur29798050

title: Not as bad as I had heard... review: Well made with some nice incidental music; a collection of songs mostly, but nicely chosen. All the performances were very good; Rainn Wilson was excellent as Frank Darrbo/The Crimson Bolt; as was Ellen Page as Libby/Boltie. I felt that both Liv Tyler as Sarah and Kevin Bacon as Jacques were woefully underused. Honourable mentions go to; Gregg Henry as Detective John Felkner, Michael Rooker as Abe and Michael Rooker as Hamilton. Oh, and look out for Nathan Fillion as The Holy Avenger.For me, the star of the show was Ellen Page; she brought such enthusiasm to the role and I have to say, she was also pretty funny. To be honest, given the quality of the rest of the cast I ended up a little disappointed, I expected more somehow. Don't get me wrong, it's still a good movie with some great moments and some nicely done effects; it just seemed to be lacking. I did like that the violence was quite brutal and it wasn't depicted as glamorous in any way. In fact, the consequences of it were plain to see. I didn't much care for the ending; it all got a little too schmaltzy for me. Even so, a decent movie; but most definitely NOT one for the kids.SteelMonster's verdict: RECOMMENDED.My score: 7.1/10IMDb Score: 6.8/10 (based on 32,290 votes at the time of going to press).MetaScore: 50/100: (Based on 26 critic reviews provided by Metacritic.com at the time of going to press).Rotten Tomatoes 'Tomatometer' Score: 47/100 (based on 112 reviews counted at the time of going to press).Rotten Tomatoes 'Audience' Score: 56/100 (based on 18,516 user ratings counted at the time of going to press).You can find an expanded version of this review on my blog: Thoughts of a SteelMonster.

A Shameless, Hilarious, Ultra-Violent and Unapologetic Take on the Superhero

tt1512235

If one more person comments that the film is a rip off of "Kick-Ass" I swear I'm putting on a costume, picking up a wrench and serving some much-needed justice. Mark Millar, creator of "Kick-Ass", has confirmed on several occasions these projects were both being brought up around the same time frame and Millar in fact loves this movie. This film is essentially a black comedy, with emotionally crushing moments and more gore than you can poke a stick at. And yet, the way it builds up you actually feel emotionally connected to the characters presented. It's really quite miraculous.Acting in this film is just top notch. Rainn Wilson is just awesome, delivering right level of comedy and genuine feeling to his performance. Liv Tyler is great and Kevin Bacon is just bad-ass. Ellen Page is also quite awesome as Boltie and I loved her in it.There's a subtle theme to the film that underlies it all, quite a dark one but one I loved: in a world of corruption and malice, sometimes all you can do is serve your own justice. Does it really make the world a better place, maybe not, but it's a start, right? Charm is the film keeps this well-balanced with its comedy. If you're a itchin' for some insensitivity to bloodshed and brutality, well here you go, plenty of that to go around as well. Not for the weak of stomach but I highly recommend it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512235/reviews-129

ur20916867

title: A Shameless, Hilarious, Ultra-Violent and Unapologetic Take on the Superhero review: If one more person comments that the film is a rip off of "Kick-Ass" I swear I'm putting on a costume, picking up a wrench and serving some much-needed justice. Mark Millar, creator of "Kick-Ass", has confirmed on several occasions these projects were both being brought up around the same time frame and Millar in fact loves this movie. This film is essentially a black comedy, with emotionally crushing moments and more gore than you can poke a stick at. And yet, the way it builds up you actually feel emotionally connected to the characters presented. It's really quite miraculous.Acting in this film is just top notch. Rainn Wilson is just awesome, delivering right level of comedy and genuine feeling to his performance. Liv Tyler is great and Kevin Bacon is just bad-ass. Ellen Page is also quite awesome as Boltie and I loved her in it.There's a subtle theme to the film that underlies it all, quite a dark one but one I loved: in a world of corruption and malice, sometimes all you can do is serve your own justice. Does it really make the world a better place, maybe not, but it's a start, right? Charm is the film keeps this well-balanced with its comedy. If you're a itchin' for some insensitivity to bloodshed and brutality, well here you go, plenty of that to go around as well. Not for the weak of stomach but I highly recommend it.

To be honest, I liked this more than "Kick-Ass"

tt1512235

Don't get me wrong, I think that "Kick-Ass" was a pretty good movie, being very well directed and which also was very entertaining to watch.But in what concerns to "realistic" superhero films, I think that I prefer "Super", which in some aspects, is even somber and more pessimistic than "Kick-Ass", but at the same time, more impressive and fascinating.While "Kick-Ass" focused more on the action, "Super" gave more importance to the psychological aspect of the main character (brilliantly played by Rainn Wilson) In that way, this movie does a great job combining in a effective manner the black comedy with drama and violence.Despite the darkness of the story, the end still manages to be something very nice and poignant, and certainly serves to make this film a very satisfying experience.All the actors from this movie were excellent in their respective roles, particularly Wilson. This could be easily the best performance of his entire career. Ellen Page plays a very twisted (And yet, somehow adorable) character in a convincing way, avoiding any kind of cliché or annoying stereotype.The result is an honest, brutal film which doesn't disappoint. I guess that somebody doesn't have to be crazy to put on a shiny costume to fight evil... but it doesn't hurt.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512235/reviews-143

ur13538926

title: To be honest, I liked this more than "Kick-Ass" review: Don't get me wrong, I think that "Kick-Ass" was a pretty good movie, being very well directed and which also was very entertaining to watch.But in what concerns to "realistic" superhero films, I think that I prefer "Super", which in some aspects, is even somber and more pessimistic than "Kick-Ass", but at the same time, more impressive and fascinating.While "Kick-Ass" focused more on the action, "Super" gave more importance to the psychological aspect of the main character (brilliantly played by Rainn Wilson) In that way, this movie does a great job combining in a effective manner the black comedy with drama and violence.Despite the darkness of the story, the end still manages to be something very nice and poignant, and certainly serves to make this film a very satisfying experience.All the actors from this movie were excellent in their respective roles, particularly Wilson. This could be easily the best performance of his entire career. Ellen Page plays a very twisted (And yet, somehow adorable) character in a convincing way, avoiding any kind of cliché or annoying stereotype.The result is an honest, brutal film which doesn't disappoint. I guess that somebody doesn't have to be crazy to put on a shiny costume to fight evil... but it doesn't hurt.

Shut up crime!

tt1512235

Super was a real labour of love for all the people involved. James Gunn started trying to get the project off the ground as early as 2002 and he ended up having to go to indie route and the actors involved ended up working for scale, the acting version of working for minimum wage. Despite mixed critical reaction Super is already on the way of being a cult classic.Frank D'Arbo (Rainn Wilson) is one of lives losers, he works as cook in a bad diner, he has been bullied and humiliated all his life and the only good thing in his live is his beautiful wife Sarah (Liv Tyler). But Sarah is a recovering drug addict and she ends up leaving Frank for drug dealer Jacques (Kevin Bacon). After a lot of crying and depression Frank gets a message from God and the All-Jesus Network superhero the Holy Avenger (Nathan Fillion) to become a superhero and armed with his catchphrase and a wretch sets out to fight crime and get Sarah back.Super has been compared to Kick-Ass, they are both black comedies, they are both about a ordinary guys trying to be superheroes even though they have no powers or skills what so ever and they are very violent. Unlike Kick-Ass Super does follow Frank all the way through, he is not over shadowed by a more powerful character. Unlike Kick-Ass which shot in a bright, colourful stylist way and tried to make itself look like a comic book Super was made looking like a indie film, using hand-held cameras and digital film. It was set in a bland, unremarkable middle American city where not much happens. James Gunn does not flinch from the violent and for a film that cost $2.5 Million it looks good, using great physical effects and even CGI for a dream sequence. The final third was a very well made action sequence with the blood packs in heavy use: it was gory fun.Wilson was excellent in the lead role as Frank, a man who finally takes action and shows that for a chubby middle-age he can pack a punch with the right weapon. Unlike Kick-Ass he does not want to stop crime because he sees injustice in society or fight to stop evil, he does it because of an injustice against him personally and he is rash, someone who finally snaps after all the bullying he suffers, including smashing a bloke in the head with his wretch just for cutting in line. Wilson was at his best when he was serious and he made for a compelling lead, even if he seems like a man with psychological issues. Ellen Page was a complete nutter as a young woman who wants to fulfil her violent comic book fantasies and just really enjoys beating people up when she is finally given the opportunity. Bacon is delightfully slimy as the villain of the piece and like his role in X-Men: First Class shows he does not show restraint. And Liv Tyler is also provides a solid performance in the film. Cult favourite Fillion does have funny moments starring in a bad, cheap TV show.As a comedy it was not funny enough. There was some good moments when it was surreal, providing us with WTF moments and there are good observations, but some other moments do not work, particularly a joke where Frank is wearing a fake beard. But at least the film some superhero clichés and uses it opportunity to make fun of them. You can't help but laugh at the Crimson Bolt telling someone off after smashing their heads in.Tyler Bates, the composer of 300, provides another top score, especially for the action sequences and he deserves a not of recognition for its work.Super is the indie attempt to make a comedy about someone who tries to become a superhero and takes a more grounded approach to Kick-Ass. It is not perfect but it is fun enough and I can see why it is becoming a cult classic.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512235/reviews-125

ur17571044

title: Shut up crime! review: Super was a real labour of love for all the people involved. James Gunn started trying to get the project off the ground as early as 2002 and he ended up having to go to indie route and the actors involved ended up working for scale, the acting version of working for minimum wage. Despite mixed critical reaction Super is already on the way of being a cult classic.Frank D'Arbo (Rainn Wilson) is one of lives losers, he works as cook in a bad diner, he has been bullied and humiliated all his life and the only good thing in his live is his beautiful wife Sarah (Liv Tyler). But Sarah is a recovering drug addict and she ends up leaving Frank for drug dealer Jacques (Kevin Bacon). After a lot of crying and depression Frank gets a message from God and the All-Jesus Network superhero the Holy Avenger (Nathan Fillion) to become a superhero and armed with his catchphrase and a wretch sets out to fight crime and get Sarah back.Super has been compared to Kick-Ass, they are both black comedies, they are both about a ordinary guys trying to be superheroes even though they have no powers or skills what so ever and they are very violent. Unlike Kick-Ass Super does follow Frank all the way through, he is not over shadowed by a more powerful character. Unlike Kick-Ass which shot in a bright, colourful stylist way and tried to make itself look like a comic book Super was made looking like a indie film, using hand-held cameras and digital film. It was set in a bland, unremarkable middle American city where not much happens. James Gunn does not flinch from the violent and for a film that cost $2.5 Million it looks good, using great physical effects and even CGI for a dream sequence. The final third was a very well made action sequence with the blood packs in heavy use: it was gory fun.Wilson was excellent in the lead role as Frank, a man who finally takes action and shows that for a chubby middle-age he can pack a punch with the right weapon. Unlike Kick-Ass he does not want to stop crime because he sees injustice in society or fight to stop evil, he does it because of an injustice against him personally and he is rash, someone who finally snaps after all the bullying he suffers, including smashing a bloke in the head with his wretch just for cutting in line. Wilson was at his best when he was serious and he made for a compelling lead, even if he seems like a man with psychological issues. Ellen Page was a complete nutter as a young woman who wants to fulfil her violent comic book fantasies and just really enjoys beating people up when she is finally given the opportunity. Bacon is delightfully slimy as the villain of the piece and like his role in X-Men: First Class shows he does not show restraint. And Liv Tyler is also provides a solid performance in the film. Cult favourite Fillion does have funny moments starring in a bad, cheap TV show.As a comedy it was not funny enough. There was some good moments when it was surreal, providing us with WTF moments and there are good observations, but some other moments do not work, particularly a joke where Frank is wearing a fake beard. But at least the film some superhero clichés and uses it opportunity to make fun of them. You can't help but laugh at the Crimson Bolt telling someone off after smashing their heads in.Tyler Bates, the composer of 300, provides another top score, especially for the action sequences and he deserves a not of recognition for its work.Super is the indie attempt to make a comedy about someone who tries to become a superhero and takes a more grounded approach to Kick-Ass. It is not perfect but it is fun enough and I can see why it is becoming a cult classic.

Very possibly Gunn's best script...

tt1512235

...which also very possibly isn't much of a recommendation, "Super" follows the exploits of Frank, a schlub (Rainn "The Office" Wilson) who isn't so super at all. In fact, he's more than a bit of a dolt, and if you think about it too hard, you realize how unlikable he really is, along with his eventual sidekick, Libby (Ellen "Juno" Page), a psychotic little nerd girl who teaches him the world of superheroes according to comic books. Nestled somewhere between the mainstream satire of "Kick- Ass" and the indie paranoid fantasies of Bob Goldthwait's "God Bless America," "Super" doesn't seem to be able to decide which way to go, tries to go both, and thus dilutes its ostensible artistic point, if indeed it had one to begin with.That point does seem to be the deconstruction of the superhero fantasy, so seemingly ubiquitous these days. Writer/director James "Scooby-Do" Gunn wants to let us know how unrealistic that vigilante fantasy is, despite his failure to go the distance. His anti-hero is plainly a nutjob, a self-pitying narcissist who ultimately learns nothing of value, fails to grow as a character, leaving the film's audience frustrated and disappointed. Well, this one, anyway.Frank offers us nothing to latch onto, nothing to sympathize with; we recognize immediately that he has no moral authority whatsoever. He plainly doesn't even deserve to keep the wife he supposedly loves; it's sheer possessiveness that motivates him to pursue her. Truth is, no crime has been committed for Frank to avenge; he turns out to be nothing more than a vengeful child operating outside the law, and in the end he doesn't even pay for it. Perhaps that was Gunn's intention in the first place, but somehow I doubt it. All in all, it makes for a disappointing storytelling experience.Still, "Super" is worth a watch, if only to confront the issues raised. In some ways it's a more honest film than, say, "Kick-Ass," even if it's nowhere near as slick. At least it won't ever spawn a sequel.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512235/reviews-168

ur0431565

title: Very possibly Gunn's best script... review: ...which also very possibly isn't much of a recommendation, "Super" follows the exploits of Frank, a schlub (Rainn "The Office" Wilson) who isn't so super at all. In fact, he's more than a bit of a dolt, and if you think about it too hard, you realize how unlikable he really is, along with his eventual sidekick, Libby (Ellen "Juno" Page), a psychotic little nerd girl who teaches him the world of superheroes according to comic books. Nestled somewhere between the mainstream satire of "Kick- Ass" and the indie paranoid fantasies of Bob Goldthwait's "God Bless America," "Super" doesn't seem to be able to decide which way to go, tries to go both, and thus dilutes its ostensible artistic point, if indeed it had one to begin with.That point does seem to be the deconstruction of the superhero fantasy, so seemingly ubiquitous these days. Writer/director James "Scooby-Do" Gunn wants to let us know how unrealistic that vigilante fantasy is, despite his failure to go the distance. His anti-hero is plainly a nutjob, a self-pitying narcissist who ultimately learns nothing of value, fails to grow as a character, leaving the film's audience frustrated and disappointed. Well, this one, anyway.Frank offers us nothing to latch onto, nothing to sympathize with; we recognize immediately that he has no moral authority whatsoever. He plainly doesn't even deserve to keep the wife he supposedly loves; it's sheer possessiveness that motivates him to pursue her. Truth is, no crime has been committed for Frank to avenge; he turns out to be nothing more than a vengeful child operating outside the law, and in the end he doesn't even pay for it. Perhaps that was Gunn's intention in the first place, but somehow I doubt it. All in all, it makes for a disappointing storytelling experience.Still, "Super" is worth a watch, if only to confront the issues raised. In some ways it's a more honest film than, say, "Kick-Ass," even if it's nowhere near as slick. At least it won't ever spawn a sequel.

Likely to divide opinion with its multitude of genres, "Super" will become a cult fave

tt1512235

The superhero film craze has led to a lot of ordinary main characters taking justice into their own hands. In that sense, nothing will strike you as original about "Super," the latest film from James Gunn ("Slither") and one made on a shoestring budget. Rainn Wilson stars as Frank, a man who loses his cool when a drug kingpin (Kevin Bacon) steals away his wife (Liv Tyler). After having a vision in which his brain is quite literally "touched by the finger of God," Frank decides to create his own superhero, the Crimson Bolt, a force against all that is evil in the world, or at least the small town he lives in.Much like last year's "Kick-Ass," which re-examined superhero tropes using unlikely and subversive heroes, "Super" specializes in being deliberately perverse and relishes in the violation of genre expectation. James Gunn's film is foul, hilarious, real and campy all at different times. The film's disapproving critics will undoubtedly argue that down-to-earth characters and a gritty context cannot coexist with excessive, comical violence. Gunn likely believes that these two universes can be reconciled into one film, but nevertheless, the film delivers roaring entertainment with surprising moments of poignancy despite being a complete brain-scrambler."Super" begins like a typical narrated indie comedy. It portrays Frank as a bit of a dreamer, a slightly unrealistic person with a slight but charming naïveté. He finds oddly religious sources of inspiration to become a hero, such as the Holy Avenger (Nathan Fillion), a made-up TV superhero used to promote Christian messages to children. Although Gunn brings Frank's overactive imagination to life, the film stays grounded in its "real person seriously considers being a superhero" concept. As Frank's world comes crashing down, we develop a definitive sense of pity and support his revenge fantasy. Then Gunn blows the lid open.First off, the Crimson Bolt's weapon of choice is a pipe wrench. It seems goofy and kind of silly at first, but then he's actually bashing people over the head with a pipe wrench until they're bleeding and/or unconscious. Eventually, sweet lovable frank becomes a morally ambiguous hero, especially after he decides to teach the guy who butted in line at the movie theater a thing or two. This certainly makes "Super" a more complicated film, but it also creates a definite discomfort. Enter Ellen Page as the over-zealous comic book shop girl who inserts herself into the equation as Frank's kid sidekick Boltie. She not only attempts to seduce Frank, but she has an even more unrealistic notion of the violence she seeks to create. Together, they serve as a catalyst for the black comedy elements and the campy gore.Both Wilson and Page push themselves in positive ways with their roles. Page leaves her dry wit comfort zone for some outrageous antics and Wilson shows some range with Frank's emotional side. Their radically different notions of what being a superhero is about leads to great hilarity and disturbing conflict.Gunn chooses to sacrifice communicating the great depth of these characters by violating viewer expectation with the violence. Some of the gore stays realistic but uncomfortable while other deaths go over the top. The inconsistencies jar the tone of the film and suggest to the audience that they should take the film more or less seriously depending. It can become very difficult to remain engaged in the character sub-plots and the script's other strengths with this distraction. The other issue is the lack of realism with Frank being able to pull of his superhero. He drives around with his own license plates, for example and does a terrible job of concealing his identity. For a film that chooses to create down-to-earth characters, it becomes a bit hypocritical to ignore obvious truths.Yet the fun, the humor, the strength of character and the way Gunn challenges thematic notions raised by most superhero films definitely elevates "Super" in a way that suggests its future will be as "cult favorite" as opposed to "lauded superhero spoof." The way it toys so carelessly with realism and cartoony realism makes the ride a bit bumpy, but judging it purely on entertainment value it's a hilariously good time. One simply must be able to reconcile its various genre elements in order to remain engaged in Gunn's unique and well-intentioned story that deconstructs our previously unquestioned love of superheroes.~Steven C

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512235/reviews-22

ur2496397

title: Likely to divide opinion with its multitude of genres, "Super" will become a cult fave review: The superhero film craze has led to a lot of ordinary main characters taking justice into their own hands. In that sense, nothing will strike you as original about "Super," the latest film from James Gunn ("Slither") and one made on a shoestring budget. Rainn Wilson stars as Frank, a man who loses his cool when a drug kingpin (Kevin Bacon) steals away his wife (Liv Tyler). After having a vision in which his brain is quite literally "touched by the finger of God," Frank decides to create his own superhero, the Crimson Bolt, a force against all that is evil in the world, or at least the small town he lives in.Much like last year's "Kick-Ass," which re-examined superhero tropes using unlikely and subversive heroes, "Super" specializes in being deliberately perverse and relishes in the violation of genre expectation. James Gunn's film is foul, hilarious, real and campy all at different times. The film's disapproving critics will undoubtedly argue that down-to-earth characters and a gritty context cannot coexist with excessive, comical violence. Gunn likely believes that these two universes can be reconciled into one film, but nevertheless, the film delivers roaring entertainment with surprising moments of poignancy despite being a complete brain-scrambler."Super" begins like a typical narrated indie comedy. It portrays Frank as a bit of a dreamer, a slightly unrealistic person with a slight but charming naïveté. He finds oddly religious sources of inspiration to become a hero, such as the Holy Avenger (Nathan Fillion), a made-up TV superhero used to promote Christian messages to children. Although Gunn brings Frank's overactive imagination to life, the film stays grounded in its "real person seriously considers being a superhero" concept. As Frank's world comes crashing down, we develop a definitive sense of pity and support his revenge fantasy. Then Gunn blows the lid open.First off, the Crimson Bolt's weapon of choice is a pipe wrench. It seems goofy and kind of silly at first, but then he's actually bashing people over the head with a pipe wrench until they're bleeding and/or unconscious. Eventually, sweet lovable frank becomes a morally ambiguous hero, especially after he decides to teach the guy who butted in line at the movie theater a thing or two. This certainly makes "Super" a more complicated film, but it also creates a definite discomfort. Enter Ellen Page as the over-zealous comic book shop girl who inserts herself into the equation as Frank's kid sidekick Boltie. She not only attempts to seduce Frank, but she has an even more unrealistic notion of the violence she seeks to create. Together, they serve as a catalyst for the black comedy elements and the campy gore.Both Wilson and Page push themselves in positive ways with their roles. Page leaves her dry wit comfort zone for some outrageous antics and Wilson shows some range with Frank's emotional side. Their radically different notions of what being a superhero is about leads to great hilarity and disturbing conflict.Gunn chooses to sacrifice communicating the great depth of these characters by violating viewer expectation with the violence. Some of the gore stays realistic but uncomfortable while other deaths go over the top. The inconsistencies jar the tone of the film and suggest to the audience that they should take the film more or less seriously depending. It can become very difficult to remain engaged in the character sub-plots and the script's other strengths with this distraction. The other issue is the lack of realism with Frank being able to pull of his superhero. He drives around with his own license plates, for example and does a terrible job of concealing his identity. For a film that chooses to create down-to-earth characters, it becomes a bit hypocritical to ignore obvious truths.Yet the fun, the humor, the strength of character and the way Gunn challenges thematic notions raised by most superhero films definitely elevates "Super" in a way that suggests its future will be as "cult favorite" as opposed to "lauded superhero spoof." The way it toys so carelessly with realism and cartoony realism makes the ride a bit bumpy, but judging it purely on entertainment value it's a hilariously good time. One simply must be able to reconcile its various genre elements in order to remain engaged in Gunn's unique and well-intentioned story that deconstructs our previously unquestioned love of superheroes.~Steven C

Nothing super about it

tt1512235

"Actually, the guy's kinda got a point. I mean, I wonder all the time why no-one's never just stood up and become a real superhero."Before getting excited about James Gunn's upcoming superhero film, Guardians of the Galaxy, I decided to check out his earlier work which also happened to be a superhero movie, although it counted with a much lower budget. Super is a gritty film that suffers from being over the top and extremely violent at times. The major weakness of this film is that it never quite manages to balance the comedic moments with the drama. The entire film felt cheap and cheesy and I just never fell for this dark comedy. This proves once again that what Quentin Tarantino does isn't easy at all, and films like this end up feeling like they glorify violence too much. I was actually more of a fan of Kick Ass which actually managed to balance these themes, but in Super the violence never works. From the opening cheesy credits this film just felt completely out of place and the only thing that redeems Super are the strong performances from Rainn Wilson and Ellen Page. I'm a huge Page fan, and she was hilarious in this film, but it wasn't enough for me to enjoy the dark humor. The shaky camera didn't work for me either as it has in the past with other films like Cloverfield or The Bourne Supremacy. I was disappointed with this film considering I had heard great things about it. The films centers on a cook named Frank (Rainn Wilson) who has felt like a loser most of his life until he found his true joy when he met and married Sarah (Liv Tyler). Sarah is a former junkie who fell for Frank right after being rehabilitated, but after a while she had a relapse and ended up leaving Frank for a drug dealer named Jacques (Kevin Bacon). Frank becomes depressed once again, but after having a vision he decides to become a superhero to fight evil in the streets and try to rescue Sarah from the evil men that have seduced her. Frank becomes a street vigilante who wears a red mask and uses a pipe wrench as a weapon calling himself the Crimson Bolt. A clerk from a comic book store who he befriends becomes his sidekick. She calls herself Boltie (Ellen Page) and due to her eccentric personality and her thirst for blood she is excited to team up with The Crimson Bolt. Together they decide to fight crime and bring justice back to the streets. Super suffers from having a split personality and not really knowing what tone it should have. At times it feels cartoonish and extremely violent, while at other moments it begins to take itself seriously and is more dramatic. This is a film that suffers from what I like to call a bipolar disorder. Despite some great performances the story never is executed correctly and at the end I felt completely disappointed with this film. It is funny at times, but then you realize it is actually a one joke movie as it beats you over the head with the same joke over and over again only shifting in tones dramatically at random moments. Nathan Fillion does have a funny small role here as the Holy Avenger who inspires Frank to become The Crimson Bolt, but it wasn't enough to save this movie. I really didn't like the tone of the film and felt uncomfortable watching this.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512235/reviews-175

ur13566917

title: Nothing super about it review: "Actually, the guy's kinda got a point. I mean, I wonder all the time why no-one's never just stood up and become a real superhero."Before getting excited about James Gunn's upcoming superhero film, Guardians of the Galaxy, I decided to check out his earlier work which also happened to be a superhero movie, although it counted with a much lower budget. Super is a gritty film that suffers from being over the top and extremely violent at times. The major weakness of this film is that it never quite manages to balance the comedic moments with the drama. The entire film felt cheap and cheesy and I just never fell for this dark comedy. This proves once again that what Quentin Tarantino does isn't easy at all, and films like this end up feeling like they glorify violence too much. I was actually more of a fan of Kick Ass which actually managed to balance these themes, but in Super the violence never works. From the opening cheesy credits this film just felt completely out of place and the only thing that redeems Super are the strong performances from Rainn Wilson and Ellen Page. I'm a huge Page fan, and she was hilarious in this film, but it wasn't enough for me to enjoy the dark humor. The shaky camera didn't work for me either as it has in the past with other films like Cloverfield or The Bourne Supremacy. I was disappointed with this film considering I had heard great things about it. The films centers on a cook named Frank (Rainn Wilson) who has felt like a loser most of his life until he found his true joy when he met and married Sarah (Liv Tyler). Sarah is a former junkie who fell for Frank right after being rehabilitated, but after a while she had a relapse and ended up leaving Frank for a drug dealer named Jacques (Kevin Bacon). Frank becomes depressed once again, but after having a vision he decides to become a superhero to fight evil in the streets and try to rescue Sarah from the evil men that have seduced her. Frank becomes a street vigilante who wears a red mask and uses a pipe wrench as a weapon calling himself the Crimson Bolt. A clerk from a comic book store who he befriends becomes his sidekick. She calls herself Boltie (Ellen Page) and due to her eccentric personality and her thirst for blood she is excited to team up with The Crimson Bolt. Together they decide to fight crime and bring justice back to the streets. Super suffers from having a split personality and not really knowing what tone it should have. At times it feels cartoonish and extremely violent, while at other moments it begins to take itself seriously and is more dramatic. This is a film that suffers from what I like to call a bipolar disorder. Despite some great performances the story never is executed correctly and at the end I felt completely disappointed with this film. It is funny at times, but then you realize it is actually a one joke movie as it beats you over the head with the same joke over and over again only shifting in tones dramatically at random moments. Nathan Fillion does have a funny small role here as the Holy Avenger who inspires Frank to become The Crimson Bolt, but it wasn't enough to save this movie. I really didn't like the tone of the film and felt uncomfortable watching this.

Don't compare it to Kick-Ass.

tt1512235

This film is about an ordinary man who decides to start fighting crime, even though he has no special skills or powers. It also takes place in the "real" world, where of course nobody has done this before.The similarity to Kick-Ass ends there.Believe me, this film is definitely a comedy, I laughed out loud many times. What happens, though, is that the film gets so dark and unforgiving that the "morality" of the film is hard to decipher. In that sense, it is very different from Kick-Ass. It's a great "spiral" from a literary point of view, but the movie doesn't make the transition smoothly.Rain Wilson is funny in spite of himself throughout the film, although he does try to be serious quite often. Is this basically watching "Dwight" be a super-hero? Yes...to the same degree The Rocker was about "Dwight" playing in a rock band.Ellen Page is fun, although her story "arc" is the weak link in the film. It's completely believable. Everything that she does (and what gets done to her) is pretty realistic for a "superhero" movie. That said, it's almost too low-key, and ultimately I found her role in the movie unsatisfying (though well-acted).Kevin Bacon is great. This movie actually made me miss him of late. He provides a much-needed credibility to this film...it's hard to put it any other way. I wanted more of him.And of course, there's Nathon Fillion. He's only in the movie about 2 minutes or so, but while he's on it's wonderful. Keep this man in comedies, Hollywood!Ultimately, fans of superhero movies, dark comedies, and even cheesy horror films (Slither) will enjoy it immensely.Casual movie goers may get turned off by the gritty violence and somewhat convoluted message.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512235/reviews-2

ur3118126

title: Don't compare it to Kick-Ass. review: This film is about an ordinary man who decides to start fighting crime, even though he has no special skills or powers. It also takes place in the "real" world, where of course nobody has done this before.The similarity to Kick-Ass ends there.Believe me, this film is definitely a comedy, I laughed out loud many times. What happens, though, is that the film gets so dark and unforgiving that the "morality" of the film is hard to decipher. In that sense, it is very different from Kick-Ass. It's a great "spiral" from a literary point of view, but the movie doesn't make the transition smoothly.Rain Wilson is funny in spite of himself throughout the film, although he does try to be serious quite often. Is this basically watching "Dwight" be a super-hero? Yes...to the same degree The Rocker was about "Dwight" playing in a rock band.Ellen Page is fun, although her story "arc" is the weak link in the film. It's completely believable. Everything that she does (and what gets done to her) is pretty realistic for a "superhero" movie. That said, it's almost too low-key, and ultimately I found her role in the movie unsatisfying (though well-acted).Kevin Bacon is great. This movie actually made me miss him of late. He provides a much-needed credibility to this film...it's hard to put it any other way. I wanted more of him.And of course, there's Nathon Fillion. He's only in the movie about 2 minutes or so, but while he's on it's wonderful. Keep this man in comedies, Hollywood!Ultimately, fans of superhero movies, dark comedies, and even cheesy horror films (Slither) will enjoy it immensely.Casual movie goers may get turned off by the gritty violence and somewhat convoluted message.

Superheroes - Troma-/"Taxi Driver"-style!

tt1512235

For those familiar with "The Toxic Avenger" (1985), "Super" should come as no surprise. If you remember "The Toxic Avenger," Troma's blood-soaked spoof of superhero movies, a meager 95-pound janitor is transformed by a vat of misplaced toxic waste into a mutant crime-fighter obsessed with ridding the world of evil. As a comic book reader and having watched "Super," I couldn't help but be reminded of "The Toxic Avenger."But "Super" is actually quite different from its Troma-produced/-inspired brethren. Although it shares many of such qualities including outrageous humor and bloody violence, "Super" has a great production behind it (despite its limited budget), first-rate actors, first-rate performances, humorous new satire ultimately aimed at the tried & true superheroes-in-the-real-world approach and extremely graphic, bloody violence.Viewers familiar with Troma should have no problem with the last part. The violence here is indeed brutal and bloody, but ultimately gets to a point where it's almost too outrageous and comic to be truly believable. "Super" was written and directed by James "'Dawn of the Dead remake'/'Slither'" Gunn, the same James Gunn who is also an alumnus of Troma and their catalog of low-budget bad-good movies. He applies what he learned from Troma and the "Toxic Avenger" movies to create his own unique superhero satire. Gunn has effectively taken a "Taxi Driver"-style approach to "Super," lending the film a brutality and darkly comic edge not before seen in films about superheroes.Admittedly when I first heard of "Super" earlier this year, I immediately thought of the graphic novel series "Kick-Ass" by Mark Millar and John Romita, Jr., which dealt with a comic book-obsessed New York City teenager who takes his superhero obsession too far and decides to become a real-life superhero himself, with disastrous - albeit hilarious and brutal - consequences. I hate to say it, but "Super" is even more "real" than "Kick-Ass," and this is from someone who just absolutely LOVES the comic (I thought the 2010 movie was so-so because they "sanitized" it).For one, what makes "Super" even more realistic than "Kick-Ass" is how utterly pathetic and mentally unstable Frank Darbo (Rainn Wilson) truly is. Frank is a short-order cook with a loving and beautiful wife named Sarah (Liv Tyler). The first of many wrinkles in the story comes from the fact that not only has their marriage soured and the two have grown apart, but Sarah is also a recovering drug addict, saved from her former life by her marriage to Frank. When she is presumably kidnapped by Jacques (Kevin Bacon), a suave, smooth-talking local drug dealer, that's when Frank decides to dawn a home-made costume and become a real-life superhero, The Crimson Bolt.Like Kick-Ass before him, Frank/The Crimson Bolt has no real superpowers but unlike Kick-Ass, he does have a real and noble reason for wanting to fight crime. Frank's main weapon is a pipe wrench, which he effectively applies to wrong-doers major and minor (like a couple who cut into a long line at a movie theater). He is joined in his battles by Libby (hilarious Ellen Page), a local comic shop employee who also has an obsession with superheroes and soon becomes his sidekick, Boltie.What is clear in "Super" is that even though Frank Darbo/The Crimson Bolt is indeed a hero - rightfully earning the love and respect of the public and the ire of the police in equal amounts - and we can sympathize with his noble intentions, he is also a deeply disturbed individual with a frightening concept of right and wrong (like the episode I described earlier with the couple in line at the movie theater). What ultimately seems to drive Frank to become The Crimson Bolt is a hazy vision in which he is mentally raped by phallic-shaped tentacles from God and is further edged into super-heroics by The Holy Avenger (Gunn's "Slither" alumnus, Nathan Fillion)."Super" does unfortunately seem to lend credence to a commonly-held belief that people who decide to become real-life superheroes are mentally disturbed loners teetering on the edge of explosive violence. In this regard, The Crimson Bolt is actually a lot closer to "Taxi Driver's" Travis Bickle than he is other non-super-powered heroes like Kick-Ass or Batman.This does not mean that "Super" is in any real way a bad film. In fact, it's quite the opposite: it's actually a very good film with some really great acting from its principal cast members. Rainn Wilson's portrayal of Frank, while semi-psychotic in nature, is nonetheless sympathetic and we hope that he accomplishes his task, even though it's also quite clear that he has no idea what he's doing (there are indeed echoes of Robert De Niro's ticking time-bomb Travis Bickle in his performance here); at least Ellen Page's comic book-obsessed Libby/Boltie is able to provide some measure of guidance. And Kevin Bacon has always found some way to make the most loathsome of characters likable and slimy, as he does here with Jacques, who in the end is ultimately revealed here to be timid and somewhat of a coward - despite everything we think we've come to know about the character.And like "Taxi Driver" (and most other Troma productions), "Super" ends in a bloodbath at Jacques's house in which The Crimson Bolt and Boltie storm the place looking for Sarah. The way "Super" ends, is on a note of bittersweetness. Rest-assured, though, all the bad guys die in a horrible bloody mess, Sarah is rescued and evil is finally vanquished, but at what cost? Frank's marriage? Frank's sanity? Frank's innocence? Frank's mental stability? Did his super-heroics really accomplish anything?It's a note that "Super" was not expected to end on, but it nonetheless proves that James Gunn is maturing as a filmmaker and has gleamed what he's learned from the great superhero movies of the past to finally make a superhero flick that truly earns the title of a superheroes-in-the-real-world superhero movie.8/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512235/reviews-63

ur0892646

title: Superheroes - Troma-/"Taxi Driver"-style! review: For those familiar with "The Toxic Avenger" (1985), "Super" should come as no surprise. If you remember "The Toxic Avenger," Troma's blood-soaked spoof of superhero movies, a meager 95-pound janitor is transformed by a vat of misplaced toxic waste into a mutant crime-fighter obsessed with ridding the world of evil. As a comic book reader and having watched "Super," I couldn't help but be reminded of "The Toxic Avenger."But "Super" is actually quite different from its Troma-produced/-inspired brethren. Although it shares many of such qualities including outrageous humor and bloody violence, "Super" has a great production behind it (despite its limited budget), first-rate actors, first-rate performances, humorous new satire ultimately aimed at the tried & true superheroes-in-the-real-world approach and extremely graphic, bloody violence.Viewers familiar with Troma should have no problem with the last part. The violence here is indeed brutal and bloody, but ultimately gets to a point where it's almost too outrageous and comic to be truly believable. "Super" was written and directed by James "'Dawn of the Dead remake'/'Slither'" Gunn, the same James Gunn who is also an alumnus of Troma and their catalog of low-budget bad-good movies. He applies what he learned from Troma and the "Toxic Avenger" movies to create his own unique superhero satire. Gunn has effectively taken a "Taxi Driver"-style approach to "Super," lending the film a brutality and darkly comic edge not before seen in films about superheroes.Admittedly when I first heard of "Super" earlier this year, I immediately thought of the graphic novel series "Kick-Ass" by Mark Millar and John Romita, Jr., which dealt with a comic book-obsessed New York City teenager who takes his superhero obsession too far and decides to become a real-life superhero himself, with disastrous - albeit hilarious and brutal - consequences. I hate to say it, but "Super" is even more "real" than "Kick-Ass," and this is from someone who just absolutely LOVES the comic (I thought the 2010 movie was so-so because they "sanitized" it).For one, what makes "Super" even more realistic than "Kick-Ass" is how utterly pathetic and mentally unstable Frank Darbo (Rainn Wilson) truly is. Frank is a short-order cook with a loving and beautiful wife named Sarah (Liv Tyler). The first of many wrinkles in the story comes from the fact that not only has their marriage soured and the two have grown apart, but Sarah is also a recovering drug addict, saved from her former life by her marriage to Frank. When she is presumably kidnapped by Jacques (Kevin Bacon), a suave, smooth-talking local drug dealer, that's when Frank decides to dawn a home-made costume and become a real-life superhero, The Crimson Bolt.Like Kick-Ass before him, Frank/The Crimson Bolt has no real superpowers but unlike Kick-Ass, he does have a real and noble reason for wanting to fight crime. Frank's main weapon is a pipe wrench, which he effectively applies to wrong-doers major and minor (like a couple who cut into a long line at a movie theater). He is joined in his battles by Libby (hilarious Ellen Page), a local comic shop employee who also has an obsession with superheroes and soon becomes his sidekick, Boltie.What is clear in "Super" is that even though Frank Darbo/The Crimson Bolt is indeed a hero - rightfully earning the love and respect of the public and the ire of the police in equal amounts - and we can sympathize with his noble intentions, he is also a deeply disturbed individual with a frightening concept of right and wrong (like the episode I described earlier with the couple in line at the movie theater). What ultimately seems to drive Frank to become The Crimson Bolt is a hazy vision in which he is mentally raped by phallic-shaped tentacles from God and is further edged into super-heroics by The Holy Avenger (Gunn's "Slither" alumnus, Nathan Fillion)."Super" does unfortunately seem to lend credence to a commonly-held belief that people who decide to become real-life superheroes are mentally disturbed loners teetering on the edge of explosive violence. In this regard, The Crimson Bolt is actually a lot closer to "Taxi Driver's" Travis Bickle than he is other non-super-powered heroes like Kick-Ass or Batman.This does not mean that "Super" is in any real way a bad film. In fact, it's quite the opposite: it's actually a very good film with some really great acting from its principal cast members. Rainn Wilson's portrayal of Frank, while semi-psychotic in nature, is nonetheless sympathetic and we hope that he accomplishes his task, even though it's also quite clear that he has no idea what he's doing (there are indeed echoes of Robert De Niro's ticking time-bomb Travis Bickle in his performance here); at least Ellen Page's comic book-obsessed Libby/Boltie is able to provide some measure of guidance. And Kevin Bacon has always found some way to make the most loathsome of characters likable and slimy, as he does here with Jacques, who in the end is ultimately revealed here to be timid and somewhat of a coward - despite everything we think we've come to know about the character.And like "Taxi Driver" (and most other Troma productions), "Super" ends in a bloodbath at Jacques's house in which The Crimson Bolt and Boltie storm the place looking for Sarah. The way "Super" ends, is on a note of bittersweetness. Rest-assured, though, all the bad guys die in a horrible bloody mess, Sarah is rescued and evil is finally vanquished, but at what cost? Frank's marriage? Frank's sanity? Frank's innocence? Frank's mental stability? Did his super-heroics really accomplish anything?It's a note that "Super" was not expected to end on, but it nonetheless proves that James Gunn is maturing as a filmmaker and has gleamed what he's learned from the great superhero movies of the past to finally make a superhero flick that truly earns the title of a superheroes-in-the-real-world superhero movie.8/10

Funny and disturbing, with some memorable moments and great lines

tt1512235

"Super" is brilliant in its madness. Every character feels like a real person you've seen that one time on the bus and your instincts told you "Stay away!" but they never feel phony or cartoonish. Although the film is fictional and some parts of it are pretty improbable, it mostly stays in the realm of realism and that is what makes the movie interesting. It's about a guy named Frank (Rainn Wilson) whose wife Srah (Liv Tyler) used to be in drug rehab. When she comes into contact with a strip club owner and drug dealer named Jacques (Kevin Bacon) she leaves her husband and gets back into the dangerous addiction. Heartbroken, Frank suddenly has an epiphany and becomes "The Crimson Bolt", with an equally disturbed young woman named Libby (Ellen Page) joining his crusade against crime as his sidekick.What I like about this film is the outlandish concept set in the realistic world. You know that the characters in the movie are just people with problems (or in the case of the antagonist, total scumbags and completely accurate to real life) and that if any of them take a bullet, they're done. There aren't any moments where a character is able to do something superhuman like smash through a window by running at it or any scenes where a man that's totally out-of-shape manages to hop the distance between two buildings while evading gunfire. Our heroes are totally in over their heads because they're just two barely functioning adults who decide to put on costumes and beat up criminals. As the plot progresses, the madness keeps escalating. Just when you think the movie can't top itself, it does. It's a really dark, violent and incredibly funny dark comedy. I found a lot of satisfaction in seeing Frank dispense his vigilante justice on "criminals" that may or may not deserve it because sometimes you do feel like telling "Shut up crime!" at the top of your lungs and there are the odd days when you get tired of seeing injustice around you and you just want to do something about it... until you realize that being a real-life superhero would be a terrible idea.Everyone in the movie gives a great performance. Rainn Wilson particularly stands out as a man who lets it all out. Towards the beginning of the movie we hear him say something along the lines of "People look stupid when they cry" and when you see him pouring out his heart in despair, it feels completely genuine and yes, he does look stupid. Here's a reality check for you Hollywood, people seldom look sexy when they cry, so why do I always see female actors and actresses shed a single tear and then turn their heads away when they have to display emotion on screen? Wilson is a terrific actor that isn't trying to look good for the camera, he's doing everything he can to sell his part in the movie. Kevin Bacon, Ellen Page and Liv Tyler are also excellent and it's the best work some of them have all done in a long time. You can tell that these actors read the script and really believe in this project because they sell it completely.There are many memorable and iconic scenes (some funny, some thrilling and some disturbing) and more than a few lines that are very quotable and so perfectly placed in the film that they will stick with you for a long time (even though "Shut up, crime!" is great any way you say it). I thought the film also ended on the perfect note, and I think it will really stick with you, if dark comedies are your kind of thing. (Dvd, July 2, 2012)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512235/reviews-193

ur55782634

title: Funny and disturbing, with some memorable moments and great lines review: "Super" is brilliant in its madness. Every character feels like a real person you've seen that one time on the bus and your instincts told you "Stay away!" but they never feel phony or cartoonish. Although the film is fictional and some parts of it are pretty improbable, it mostly stays in the realm of realism and that is what makes the movie interesting. It's about a guy named Frank (Rainn Wilson) whose wife Srah (Liv Tyler) used to be in drug rehab. When she comes into contact with a strip club owner and drug dealer named Jacques (Kevin Bacon) she leaves her husband and gets back into the dangerous addiction. Heartbroken, Frank suddenly has an epiphany and becomes "The Crimson Bolt", with an equally disturbed young woman named Libby (Ellen Page) joining his crusade against crime as his sidekick.What I like about this film is the outlandish concept set in the realistic world. You know that the characters in the movie are just people with problems (or in the case of the antagonist, total scumbags and completely accurate to real life) and that if any of them take a bullet, they're done. There aren't any moments where a character is able to do something superhuman like smash through a window by running at it or any scenes where a man that's totally out-of-shape manages to hop the distance between two buildings while evading gunfire. Our heroes are totally in over their heads because they're just two barely functioning adults who decide to put on costumes and beat up criminals. As the plot progresses, the madness keeps escalating. Just when you think the movie can't top itself, it does. It's a really dark, violent and incredibly funny dark comedy. I found a lot of satisfaction in seeing Frank dispense his vigilante justice on "criminals" that may or may not deserve it because sometimes you do feel like telling "Shut up crime!" at the top of your lungs and there are the odd days when you get tired of seeing injustice around you and you just want to do something about it... until you realize that being a real-life superhero would be a terrible idea.Everyone in the movie gives a great performance. Rainn Wilson particularly stands out as a man who lets it all out. Towards the beginning of the movie we hear him say something along the lines of "People look stupid when they cry" and when you see him pouring out his heart in despair, it feels completely genuine and yes, he does look stupid. Here's a reality check for you Hollywood, people seldom look sexy when they cry, so why do I always see female actors and actresses shed a single tear and then turn their heads away when they have to display emotion on screen? Wilson is a terrific actor that isn't trying to look good for the camera, he's doing everything he can to sell his part in the movie. Kevin Bacon, Ellen Page and Liv Tyler are also excellent and it's the best work some of them have all done in a long time. You can tell that these actors read the script and really believe in this project because they sell it completely.There are many memorable and iconic scenes (some funny, some thrilling and some disturbing) and more than a few lines that are very quotable and so perfectly placed in the film that they will stick with you for a long time (even though "Shut up, crime!" is great any way you say it). I thought the film also ended on the perfect note, and I think it will really stick with you, if dark comedies are your kind of thing. (Dvd, July 2, 2012)

Awesome

tt1512235

This movie is freaking awesome. Honestly, I was kind of shocked when I logged on to check the IMDb rating after watching this movie and saw the measly 6.8. What a clueless group of movie goers. However, I was glad to read some reviews who appreciated the genius of this movie. One review hit this movie on the head: people go into movies with expectations of what a movie is supposed to be or what a movie is not supposed to be.If you are reading this review prior to watching the movie here's my advice: go into this movie with NO EXPECTATIONS. That's how I went in: I was flipping channels one night and caught this movie on Showtime like 2 minutes into the movie and just started watching. I had no idea what the hell I was watching... it was funny, hilarious at times in fact, sad at times, great action, great gore, ridiculous over-the-top mockery of super heroes and even religion at times. Plus, the acting was absolutely FLAWLESS for this sort of movie. Love Liv Tyler doped up and the dude from the Office was spot on.I mean honestly how could this movie not be awesome? It had it all: a powerless superhero who's fat and stupid dressed in a red costume (calling himself the crimson bolt) and bashing people with a wrench. Non-stop gore fest. Awesome. Plus the soundtrack was perfect (I know that's a weird critique but the soundtrack really stood out to me wherein most movies it doesn't). Plus there are some ridiculously awesome/bizarre/hilarious sex scenes: Liv Tyler riding out the guy from the Office with tearing streaming down her fact (LMFAO). Plus a quasi rape scene that involved a female raping a man later in the movie which was strangely awesome. I suggest you go see this movie ASAP.SPOILER ALERT: If I had to give this movie a real review it's a 9.5. The only two issues I had with this movies were the ending- it was sad for no real reason other than to be sad--> the guy has his sidekick killed with a shotgun blast to the eyesocket and his wife leaves him for the SECOND time. Neither of these two events had to happen...didn't ruin the movie but the movie could have been perfect without either of those two things.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512235/reviews-126

ur18170002

title: Awesome review: This movie is freaking awesome. Honestly, I was kind of shocked when I logged on to check the IMDb rating after watching this movie and saw the measly 6.8. What a clueless group of movie goers. However, I was glad to read some reviews who appreciated the genius of this movie. One review hit this movie on the head: people go into movies with expectations of what a movie is supposed to be or what a movie is not supposed to be.If you are reading this review prior to watching the movie here's my advice: go into this movie with NO EXPECTATIONS. That's how I went in: I was flipping channels one night and caught this movie on Showtime like 2 minutes into the movie and just started watching. I had no idea what the hell I was watching... it was funny, hilarious at times in fact, sad at times, great action, great gore, ridiculous over-the-top mockery of super heroes and even religion at times. Plus, the acting was absolutely FLAWLESS for this sort of movie. Love Liv Tyler doped up and the dude from the Office was spot on.I mean honestly how could this movie not be awesome? It had it all: a powerless superhero who's fat and stupid dressed in a red costume (calling himself the crimson bolt) and bashing people with a wrench. Non-stop gore fest. Awesome. Plus the soundtrack was perfect (I know that's a weird critique but the soundtrack really stood out to me wherein most movies it doesn't). Plus there are some ridiculously awesome/bizarre/hilarious sex scenes: Liv Tyler riding out the guy from the Office with tearing streaming down her fact (LMFAO). Plus a quasi rape scene that involved a female raping a man later in the movie which was strangely awesome. I suggest you go see this movie ASAP.SPOILER ALERT: If I had to give this movie a real review it's a 9.5. The only two issues I had with this movies were the ending- it was sad for no real reason other than to be sad--> the guy has his sidekick killed with a shotgun blast to the eyesocket and his wife leaves him for the SECOND time. Neither of these two events had to happen...didn't ruin the movie but the movie could have been perfect without either of those two things.

Great film!! Lives up to it's title!

tt1512235

Super is a fantastic little film about a guy who decides to fight crime in much the same vein as Kick-Ass & Defendor. Rainn Wilson is excellent as Frank who decides to become The Crimson Bolt and Ellen Page is hilarious as his eventual sidekick Boltie as they attempt to tackle all manors of criminals and cause bodily harm. I don't want to go into the story but i felt the film was amazing and had great acting, nice direction, a smart and sincere script and a brilliant score by Tyler Bates to give it a great atmosphere. There was great support from Liv Tyler, Michael Rooker, Nathan Fillion and Gregg Henry but Kevin Bacon is his usual reliable self and is not only funny but adds a bit of flair to his scenes. I can't say anything but the finale to the film was absolutely tremendous and there were some really violent gory scenes alongside some very funny scenes along with a heartfelt message and terrific action!!! If you liked Kick-Ass then you will LOVE this ( at least you should do! ) but it was a terrible shame this film was largely overlooked in the cinema as it deserves a lot of credit for what it is and it IS Super!! Shut up, Crime!! :]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512235/reviews-64

ur11330850

title: Great film!! Lives up to it's title! review: Super is a fantastic little film about a guy who decides to fight crime in much the same vein as Kick-Ass & Defendor. Rainn Wilson is excellent as Frank who decides to become The Crimson Bolt and Ellen Page is hilarious as his eventual sidekick Boltie as they attempt to tackle all manors of criminals and cause bodily harm. I don't want to go into the story but i felt the film was amazing and had great acting, nice direction, a smart and sincere script and a brilliant score by Tyler Bates to give it a great atmosphere. There was great support from Liv Tyler, Michael Rooker, Nathan Fillion and Gregg Henry but Kevin Bacon is his usual reliable self and is not only funny but adds a bit of flair to his scenes. I can't say anything but the finale to the film was absolutely tremendous and there were some really violent gory scenes alongside some very funny scenes along with a heartfelt message and terrific action!!! If you liked Kick-Ass then you will LOVE this ( at least you should do! ) but it was a terrible shame this film was largely overlooked in the cinema as it deserves a lot of credit for what it is and it IS Super!! Shut up, Crime!! :]

What Kick-Ass should have been

tt1512235

A cast used to superhero movies joins together to create this dramatic comedy about people taking control of their lives, with dubious results. I really liked how the main actor was not cool at all. I mean, not like in Kick-Ass, where he just behaved dopey. Ellen Page really went all the way to play the psychotic Libby, who got off on costumes and killing people, so she became a sidekick. Kevin Bacon was actually fantastic as the charismatic sleaze-bag who steals Liv Tyler from Frank.But this is not an as straightforward movie as it sounds. Frank becomes the Crimson Bolt for all the wrong reasons: he watches an idiotic Christian show that has Nathan Fillion (Captain Hammer from Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog, LOL) being a superhero for God who stops teenagers from having sex and not keeping up with homework. He then gets a vision that contains, among other things, a tentacle rape theme, and starts smashing people's faces with a wrench. Libby is even worse, she does it because she thinks it is cool and she likes righteously killing people. The villain is an egotistic drug dealer, but Bacon puts all the charm he has in the guy, making him difficult, yet necessary to hate. Liv Tyler as the damsel in distress didn't have much of a role, but she is pivotal to the story. I found her final reaction quite realistic, too.In the not so happy ending, you get to wonder, is this a comedy or a drama? All of the characters in the film are damaged beyond repair and the final monologue, defining Liv Tyler as the one who was chosen, sounds both idealistic and self-serving. In fact, beyond the ridiculousness of the wrench wielding superhero and of his TV religious inspiration, nothing is funny. The main character is a joke and even if he becomes a superhero, he still remains such.Bottom line: I still wonder if this film was supposed to be amusing at all. Certainly it would feel awkward to see anyone laughing good-heartedly at someone's psychotic break.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512235/reviews-191

ur3146136

title: What Kick-Ass should have been review: A cast used to superhero movies joins together to create this dramatic comedy about people taking control of their lives, with dubious results. I really liked how the main actor was not cool at all. I mean, not like in Kick-Ass, where he just behaved dopey. Ellen Page really went all the way to play the psychotic Libby, who got off on costumes and killing people, so she became a sidekick. Kevin Bacon was actually fantastic as the charismatic sleaze-bag who steals Liv Tyler from Frank.But this is not an as straightforward movie as it sounds. Frank becomes the Crimson Bolt for all the wrong reasons: he watches an idiotic Christian show that has Nathan Fillion (Captain Hammer from Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog, LOL) being a superhero for God who stops teenagers from having sex and not keeping up with homework. He then gets a vision that contains, among other things, a tentacle rape theme, and starts smashing people's faces with a wrench. Libby is even worse, she does it because she thinks it is cool and she likes righteously killing people. The villain is an egotistic drug dealer, but Bacon puts all the charm he has in the guy, making him difficult, yet necessary to hate. Liv Tyler as the damsel in distress didn't have much of a role, but she is pivotal to the story. I found her final reaction quite realistic, too.In the not so happy ending, you get to wonder, is this a comedy or a drama? All of the characters in the film are damaged beyond repair and the final monologue, defining Liv Tyler as the one who was chosen, sounds both idealistic and self-serving. In fact, beyond the ridiculousness of the wrench wielding superhero and of his TV religious inspiration, nothing is funny. The main character is a joke and even if he becomes a superhero, he still remains such.Bottom line: I still wonder if this film was supposed to be amusing at all. Certainly it would feel awkward to see anyone laughing good-heartedly at someone's psychotic break.

A frustrating and schizophrenic indie-version of "Kick Ass" - 65%

tt1512235

Just around the corner from my flat, we used to have an independent video rental store which stuck posters in its window of films you've never heard of - which probably explains why it's no longer there. The poster for this film intrigued me for reasons I can't put my finger on but when it popped up in the schedules, I figured that I would take a punt on it. Little realising that it is basically an indie-version of "Kick Ass", I can't help but feel somewhat let down by this schizophrenic and very dark comedy which is peppered with swearwords, excessive moments of violence and gore and possibly the sexiest and most disturbed sidekick in history.Perpetual loser Frank (Rainn Wilson) lives in his own little world as loving husband to recovering alcoholic Sarah (Liv Tyler). But when Sarah falls under the spell of local drug pusher Jacques (Kevin Bacon), Frank spirals into a deep depression. Seeking guidance from God (despite being an apparent atheist), he is inspired by a superhero on Christian TV to become the Crimson Bolt and fight crime. Making himself a costume and arming himself with a wrench, Frank begins his one-man crusade against evil in order to get his wife back and soon finds himself joined by comic-store employee Libby (Ellen Page) who takes her role as Frank's sidekick Boltie very seriously indeed.It's difficult to know what to make of "Super" which lacks the humour of "Kick Ass" and makes its lead character a strange and sometimes unfathomable loner that's tricky to identify with. We don't cheer Frank on - not because he's clearly out of his depth but because at heart, he's an angry and bitter man taking his frustrations out on anybody who slights him. This then gets worse when Boltie joins the fray because, if anything, she's just as disturbed as Frank as she simply laughs at people who suffer from her increasingly psychotic actions. Maybe the film is trying to get us asking questions about vigilantes and the morality of becoming a crime fighter yourself but personally, I get the feeling that writer and director James Gunn is secretly in favour of smacking someone with a wrench for pushing into a queue. Wilson, who I've only seen in trailers for "The US Office", actually does really well as Frank as he goes from an emotional wreck to hard-nosed fanatic as the movie progresses. Page is also good as the wannabe sidekick although this character is very different from her other indie flick, "Juno"!I wanted to like "Super" because somewhere in there is a great film trying to get out. But like "Kick Ass", it spends too much time splattering the viewer with gore and dropping f- and c-words like confetti. It's like Gunn had the idea but gave up on it halfway through once he encounters the same issues "Kick Ass" did which is what do you do with your everyday-hero when the baddies produce guns. But the film's biggest problem is that I simply couldn't get with it. It didn't feel like a comedy because I didn't find it that funny aside from the odd scene such as when the Crimson Bolt begins his crusade crouched behind a wheelie bin waiting for crime to come to him. The only other thing I found funny was why the likes of Liv Tyler and Ellen Page would be attracted to Rainn Wilson (no offence!) but "Super" exists in its own world, laughing at its own jokes and justifying its ridiculous levels of violence by shrugging its shoulders and saying "It's OK, they're bad guys!". By the end, the Crimson Bolt felt like a warped serial killer in a funky costume rather than a hero. It's a tough film to like although I can at least respect Gunn for asking the questions, even if he has none of the answers.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512235/reviews-174

ur3035115

title: A frustrating and schizophrenic indie-version of "Kick Ass" - 65% review: Just around the corner from my flat, we used to have an independent video rental store which stuck posters in its window of films you've never heard of - which probably explains why it's no longer there. The poster for this film intrigued me for reasons I can't put my finger on but when it popped up in the schedules, I figured that I would take a punt on it. Little realising that it is basically an indie-version of "Kick Ass", I can't help but feel somewhat let down by this schizophrenic and very dark comedy which is peppered with swearwords, excessive moments of violence and gore and possibly the sexiest and most disturbed sidekick in history.Perpetual loser Frank (Rainn Wilson) lives in his own little world as loving husband to recovering alcoholic Sarah (Liv Tyler). But when Sarah falls under the spell of local drug pusher Jacques (Kevin Bacon), Frank spirals into a deep depression. Seeking guidance from God (despite being an apparent atheist), he is inspired by a superhero on Christian TV to become the Crimson Bolt and fight crime. Making himself a costume and arming himself with a wrench, Frank begins his one-man crusade against evil in order to get his wife back and soon finds himself joined by comic-store employee Libby (Ellen Page) who takes her role as Frank's sidekick Boltie very seriously indeed.It's difficult to know what to make of "Super" which lacks the humour of "Kick Ass" and makes its lead character a strange and sometimes unfathomable loner that's tricky to identify with. We don't cheer Frank on - not because he's clearly out of his depth but because at heart, he's an angry and bitter man taking his frustrations out on anybody who slights him. This then gets worse when Boltie joins the fray because, if anything, she's just as disturbed as Frank as she simply laughs at people who suffer from her increasingly psychotic actions. Maybe the film is trying to get us asking questions about vigilantes and the morality of becoming a crime fighter yourself but personally, I get the feeling that writer and director James Gunn is secretly in favour of smacking someone with a wrench for pushing into a queue. Wilson, who I've only seen in trailers for "The US Office", actually does really well as Frank as he goes from an emotional wreck to hard-nosed fanatic as the movie progresses. Page is also good as the wannabe sidekick although this character is very different from her other indie flick, "Juno"!I wanted to like "Super" because somewhere in there is a great film trying to get out. But like "Kick Ass", it spends too much time splattering the viewer with gore and dropping f- and c-words like confetti. It's like Gunn had the idea but gave up on it halfway through once he encounters the same issues "Kick Ass" did which is what do you do with your everyday-hero when the baddies produce guns. But the film's biggest problem is that I simply couldn't get with it. It didn't feel like a comedy because I didn't find it that funny aside from the odd scene such as when the Crimson Bolt begins his crusade crouched behind a wheelie bin waiting for crime to come to him. The only other thing I found funny was why the likes of Liv Tyler and Ellen Page would be attracted to Rainn Wilson (no offence!) but "Super" exists in its own world, laughing at its own jokes and justifying its ridiculous levels of violence by shrugging its shoulders and saying "It's OK, they're bad guys!". By the end, the Crimson Bolt felt like a warped serial killer in a funky costume rather than a hero. It's a tough film to like although I can at least respect Gunn for asking the questions, even if he has none of the answers.

An awesomely fun and twisted little fantasy

tt1512235

Despite enjoying other films like it, I was never a fan of James Gunn's Slither. It just came off as being average to me, and despite multiple tries, I have never ventured back to give it a second chance. Keeping that in mind, I ventured into a screening of Super at the Toronto International Film Festival hoping to be surprised, and not to come away disappointed. Thankfully, it turned out to be quite the awesome surprise.Frank D'Arbo (Rainn Wilson) lives a pretty miserable existence. He has just two happy memories in his entire life – marrying his wife Sarah (Liv Tyler) and pointing a police officer in the right direction of a suspect. So when Sarah, a stripper and former junkie, leaves him for her boss Jacques (Kevin Bacon), he loses all faith. But during a chance epiphany, he realizes his true calling is to be a superhero – the Crimson Bolt – and fight against those committing any sort of crime, whether it be drug dealing, underage rape or even butting in-line at the movies.While I figured the film would have a hurdle to face making it feel different than any other movie about ordinary people donning costumes and fighting crime (in the past few years alone, see Special, Defendor, Kick-Ass and to a point, even Batman Begins and The Dark Knight), but Super is a much different beast. From the epilogue through the totally ridiculous (in a good way) animated song and dance credit sequence on, you know you are in for something different. This is a film that embraces the absurd and the full-blown psychopathic, and delivers a twistedly hilarious comic gem that lacks the seriousness (mostly) that plagues the other films previously mentioned. And any movie about someone using a pipewrench to wreak havoc on crime is immediately enough to make me forget Defendor even existed.I think the element that sets Gunn's twisted fantasy apart from other films is that it is decidedly not mainstream. D'Arbo truly becomes the superhero we all wish we were by taking out anyone who is committing crimes. He has the vendetta against Jacques taking his wife hanging over his head throughout the movie, but in the meantime, he ensures that no crime goes unpunished – in increasingly graphically violent ways. I knew that using a pipewrench could only lead to a bloody mess, but I did not expect the movie to become the nasty bloodbath it quickly does. If you remember being disappointed at how much blood got cut between the conversion of Kick-Ass from a comic to a film, you will be delighted at just how much is spilt here. I knew Gunn was a graduate of the Troma film academy (Lloyd Kaufman makes a cameo late in the film), but I never expected to see just as much violence as I did. Thankfully, every injury and blood spurt is more hilarious and ridiculous than the last.Wilson is amazing from start to finish as D'Arbo. I have never been a fan of his zany humour, but it fits this role perfectly. He jumps from being the pathetic loser to being the invigorated crime fighter with ease. And despite playing the role seriously, you never once think he is descending into parody. The film is a parody, but he never hams it up in the role deliberately looking for laughs. He has a very strong comic presence that he maintains throughout the film, and brings a rather poignant touch to more than a few scenes. If he sticks to more roles like these, and stays away from being the best thing in downright awful movies like The Rocker and My Super Ex-Girlfriend, he might have quite the career ahead of him.The supporting cast is all very good and very funny in their smaller roles. Bacon is just as good as he always is, injecting the right amount of style and finesse into his scumbag of a character. Tyler could have done a bit more as the damsel in distress, but she remains quite memorable in her role. Smaller turns by Gregg Henry, Michael Rooker and especially Nathan Fillion all pay off wonderfully within the film. But if anyone can even stand close to Wilson's performance, it is Ellen Page as the off-the-rails comic nerd Libby. While she has found fame playing Juno and derivatives of the same character in the majority of her roles, she actually is quite different here. She alternates between being anxiety-ridden and being a complete psychopath, often in the same scene, and practically steals the film from Wilson. And when she finally becomes his sidekick Boltie, she truly is able to embrace the absurd.If I have any problem with the film (outside of a rather bizarre and horrendous looking CGI sequence early in the film), it is that it never stays consistent with its tones. The humour remains intact throughout, but its absurdity starts to waver as the film goes on. It remains ridiculous, but it becomes a bit too serious in some sections. It feels more like Gunn did not want to truly push the film into the realm of comic fantasy, and still wanted some semblance of realism to stay within the film. He explained his tonal shift choices to the audience, but it still is not enough to make up for the film never knowing which way it wants to go. I loved its unpredictability of what D'Arbo would do next, but loathed never knowing what the next shift would be. It never destroys the film, but it weakens the film cohesively.Super is an awesome film, and one whose dark humour never truly overtakes it. Wilson and Page are amazing in their roles, and the rest of the supporting cast does a great job backing them up. I just hope everyone can experience and have as much fun as I did.9/10.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512235/reviews-1

ur1622466

title: An awesomely fun and twisted little fantasy review: Despite enjoying other films like it, I was never a fan of James Gunn's Slither. It just came off as being average to me, and despite multiple tries, I have never ventured back to give it a second chance. Keeping that in mind, I ventured into a screening of Super at the Toronto International Film Festival hoping to be surprised, and not to come away disappointed. Thankfully, it turned out to be quite the awesome surprise.Frank D'Arbo (Rainn Wilson) lives a pretty miserable existence. He has just two happy memories in his entire life – marrying his wife Sarah (Liv Tyler) and pointing a police officer in the right direction of a suspect. So when Sarah, a stripper and former junkie, leaves him for her boss Jacques (Kevin Bacon), he loses all faith. But during a chance epiphany, he realizes his true calling is to be a superhero – the Crimson Bolt – and fight against those committing any sort of crime, whether it be drug dealing, underage rape or even butting in-line at the movies.While I figured the film would have a hurdle to face making it feel different than any other movie about ordinary people donning costumes and fighting crime (in the past few years alone, see Special, Defendor, Kick-Ass and to a point, even Batman Begins and The Dark Knight), but Super is a much different beast. From the epilogue through the totally ridiculous (in a good way) animated song and dance credit sequence on, you know you are in for something different. This is a film that embraces the absurd and the full-blown psychopathic, and delivers a twistedly hilarious comic gem that lacks the seriousness (mostly) that plagues the other films previously mentioned. And any movie about someone using a pipewrench to wreak havoc on crime is immediately enough to make me forget Defendor even existed.I think the element that sets Gunn's twisted fantasy apart from other films is that it is decidedly not mainstream. D'Arbo truly becomes the superhero we all wish we were by taking out anyone who is committing crimes. He has the vendetta against Jacques taking his wife hanging over his head throughout the movie, but in the meantime, he ensures that no crime goes unpunished – in increasingly graphically violent ways. I knew that using a pipewrench could only lead to a bloody mess, but I did not expect the movie to become the nasty bloodbath it quickly does. If you remember being disappointed at how much blood got cut between the conversion of Kick-Ass from a comic to a film, you will be delighted at just how much is spilt here. I knew Gunn was a graduate of the Troma film academy (Lloyd Kaufman makes a cameo late in the film), but I never expected to see just as much violence as I did. Thankfully, every injury and blood spurt is more hilarious and ridiculous than the last.Wilson is amazing from start to finish as D'Arbo. I have never been a fan of his zany humour, but it fits this role perfectly. He jumps from being the pathetic loser to being the invigorated crime fighter with ease. And despite playing the role seriously, you never once think he is descending into parody. The film is a parody, but he never hams it up in the role deliberately looking for laughs. He has a very strong comic presence that he maintains throughout the film, and brings a rather poignant touch to more than a few scenes. If he sticks to more roles like these, and stays away from being the best thing in downright awful movies like The Rocker and My Super Ex-Girlfriend, he might have quite the career ahead of him.The supporting cast is all very good and very funny in their smaller roles. Bacon is just as good as he always is, injecting the right amount of style and finesse into his scumbag of a character. Tyler could have done a bit more as the damsel in distress, but she remains quite memorable in her role. Smaller turns by Gregg Henry, Michael Rooker and especially Nathan Fillion all pay off wonderfully within the film. But if anyone can even stand close to Wilson's performance, it is Ellen Page as the off-the-rails comic nerd Libby. While she has found fame playing Juno and derivatives of the same character in the majority of her roles, she actually is quite different here. She alternates between being anxiety-ridden and being a complete psychopath, often in the same scene, and practically steals the film from Wilson. And when she finally becomes his sidekick Boltie, she truly is able to embrace the absurd.If I have any problem with the film (outside of a rather bizarre and horrendous looking CGI sequence early in the film), it is that it never stays consistent with its tones. The humour remains intact throughout, but its absurdity starts to waver as the film goes on. It remains ridiculous, but it becomes a bit too serious in some sections. It feels more like Gunn did not want to truly push the film into the realm of comic fantasy, and still wanted some semblance of realism to stay within the film. He explained his tonal shift choices to the audience, but it still is not enough to make up for the film never knowing which way it wants to go. I loved its unpredictability of what D'Arbo would do next, but loathed never knowing what the next shift would be. It never destroys the film, but it weakens the film cohesively.Super is an awesome film, and one whose dark humour never truly overtakes it. Wilson and Page are amazing in their roles, and the rest of the supporting cast does a great job backing them up. I just hope everyone can experience and have as much fun as I did.9/10.

Wilson is Super in SUPER

tt1512235

SUPER is the next in a line of films that approach the whole superhero genre from a different angle: what if a regular person decided to don a costume and battle crime? Yes, KICK-ASS did the same in 2010 and it was an awesome film. Then there was DEFENDOR, which I haven't seen and therefore have no opinion. Just because SUPER tackles a now-familiar premise that has been done before doesn't mean it's a rip-off. It's a fun story with some seriously messed up characters and it comes off as a more serious imagining of a "real-life" superhero. Rainn Wilson is Frank D'Arbo, a diner cook with nothing going for him in life with the exception of his beautiful ex-junkie wife Sarah. When Sarah is lured away by the drug dealer Jacques, Frank breaks down. He's got nothing left to live for until some cable-access Christian television inspires him to rescue Sarah from the life of drugs she'd returned to. Frank pieces together a costume, wields a pipe wrench, and begins hunting crime as the Crimson Bolt. Teaming with an equally disturbed comic book store clerk as his sidekick Boltie, Frank is on a mission to rescue Sarah.The characters are what really sold this movie for me. KICK-ASS was great but even though it was supposed to be about "real-world people", it still felt a little too fantastic. It was still a "comic book" movie. I mean, come on...a jetpack...Hit Girl...there were a lot of elements that anchored it in the same style as most modern superhero films. SUPER does away with all that. Frank is just a depressed, meek loser who attempts to become something larger than himself with no real training whatsoever. He's a psycho with a pipe wrench. And he really is a psycho. The movie doesn't sugarcoat this. Early in the movie, it's established that Frank's suffered from religious visions all his life. He can see "demons". This is not a healthy mind. So when the audience is cheering for his adoption of the Crimson Bolt persona, we almost forget that this man is certifiable. Boltie (Ellen Page) is no different. She seems normal enough when we first meet her at the comic store but she's revealed to have a severely violent disposition. When she finds out Frank is the Crimson Bolt, he's more than ready to start bashing in heads indiscriminately. As crazy as the Frank and Libby/Boltie are, it makes the bad guys come across as the sane, normal ones. Sure they're drug dealers and bad people but at least they're not running around in spandex and cracking skulls for the smallest of courtesy infractions.This can be an incredibly dark film at times, so some viewers might want to be aware of what they're walking in to. As dark as the subject matter can be, I was surprised at how well Rainn Wilson does in this movie. Most people are only really familiar with Wilson from his role on TV's "The Office" (or in my case as Fishboy in Rob Zombie's HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES...I can't be the only one). Wilson can obviously do strange but here we see he's capable of a lot more. Frank is a very complex character when you think about it, and it wasn't long into the film when I completely forgot I was watching Dwight Schrute. I've got to give Wilson some real credit here. Ellen Page, on the other hand, did not really fit here for some reason. Don't get me wrong, she was beyond hot in her Boltie costume, but her lines never felt legitimate. She sounded like a chick who had no real knowledge or interest in comics pretending to know what she was talking about. Even her later violent mental outbursts felt too goofy. Kevin Bacon is the antagonist, Jacques, and he was an awesome choice on behalf of the casting team here. Bacon is absolutely great here; his character has no real interest in Frank or his troubles. He just sees it as Sarah leaving Frank to be with him, and it's just business as usual. No hard feelings. He's the best sort of bad guy: charismatic. And then there's Liv Tyler. Yup...there she is. Not much to say about her, since she spends most of the movie in a drug-fueled haze.There are a lot of people throwing around comparisons between this film and KICK-ASS, but I'm going to go out there as saying I'm on the fence. I really enjoyed both movies and I think they're different enough in how they were presented that the argument is moot anyway. If you enjoyed KICK-ASS, then you will undoubtedly find enough to enjoy here.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512235/reviews-85

ur3947986

title: Wilson is Super in SUPER review: SUPER is the next in a line of films that approach the whole superhero genre from a different angle: what if a regular person decided to don a costume and battle crime? Yes, KICK-ASS did the same in 2010 and it was an awesome film. Then there was DEFENDOR, which I haven't seen and therefore have no opinion. Just because SUPER tackles a now-familiar premise that has been done before doesn't mean it's a rip-off. It's a fun story with some seriously messed up characters and it comes off as a more serious imagining of a "real-life" superhero. Rainn Wilson is Frank D'Arbo, a diner cook with nothing going for him in life with the exception of his beautiful ex-junkie wife Sarah. When Sarah is lured away by the drug dealer Jacques, Frank breaks down. He's got nothing left to live for until some cable-access Christian television inspires him to rescue Sarah from the life of drugs she'd returned to. Frank pieces together a costume, wields a pipe wrench, and begins hunting crime as the Crimson Bolt. Teaming with an equally disturbed comic book store clerk as his sidekick Boltie, Frank is on a mission to rescue Sarah.The characters are what really sold this movie for me. KICK-ASS was great but even though it was supposed to be about "real-world people", it still felt a little too fantastic. It was still a "comic book" movie. I mean, come on...a jetpack...Hit Girl...there were a lot of elements that anchored it in the same style as most modern superhero films. SUPER does away with all that. Frank is just a depressed, meek loser who attempts to become something larger than himself with no real training whatsoever. He's a psycho with a pipe wrench. And he really is a psycho. The movie doesn't sugarcoat this. Early in the movie, it's established that Frank's suffered from religious visions all his life. He can see "demons". This is not a healthy mind. So when the audience is cheering for his adoption of the Crimson Bolt persona, we almost forget that this man is certifiable. Boltie (Ellen Page) is no different. She seems normal enough when we first meet her at the comic store but she's revealed to have a severely violent disposition. When she finds out Frank is the Crimson Bolt, he's more than ready to start bashing in heads indiscriminately. As crazy as the Frank and Libby/Boltie are, it makes the bad guys come across as the sane, normal ones. Sure they're drug dealers and bad people but at least they're not running around in spandex and cracking skulls for the smallest of courtesy infractions.This can be an incredibly dark film at times, so some viewers might want to be aware of what they're walking in to. As dark as the subject matter can be, I was surprised at how well Rainn Wilson does in this movie. Most people are only really familiar with Wilson from his role on TV's "The Office" (or in my case as Fishboy in Rob Zombie's HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES...I can't be the only one). Wilson can obviously do strange but here we see he's capable of a lot more. Frank is a very complex character when you think about it, and it wasn't long into the film when I completely forgot I was watching Dwight Schrute. I've got to give Wilson some real credit here. Ellen Page, on the other hand, did not really fit here for some reason. Don't get me wrong, she was beyond hot in her Boltie costume, but her lines never felt legitimate. She sounded like a chick who had no real knowledge or interest in comics pretending to know what she was talking about. Even her later violent mental outbursts felt too goofy. Kevin Bacon is the antagonist, Jacques, and he was an awesome choice on behalf of the casting team here. Bacon is absolutely great here; his character has no real interest in Frank or his troubles. He just sees it as Sarah leaving Frank to be with him, and it's just business as usual. No hard feelings. He's the best sort of bad guy: charismatic. And then there's Liv Tyler. Yup...there she is. Not much to say about her, since she spends most of the movie in a drug-fueled haze.There are a lot of people throwing around comparisons between this film and KICK-ASS, but I'm going to go out there as saying I'm on the fence. I really enjoyed both movies and I think they're different enough in how they were presented that the argument is moot anyway. If you enjoyed KICK-ASS, then you will undoubtedly find enough to enjoy here.

Confounding Plot Proves Difficult to Pin Down

tt1512235

No matter what you're expecting this movie to be like, you're wrong: every ten minutes, like clockwork, it changes gears unexpectedly and bucks the audience. It defies categorization, seeming to take delight in confusing its viewers. The similarities to Kick-Ass are there, with the nerdy DIY superhero learning the world's a pretty dirty place after dark, but Super also manages to be as gratuitously gory and continuously off color as a Troma film. Its awkward timing and confounding sense of humor, though, make comparisons to both styles less apt. By the climactic, explosion-filled finale, its transgressions from goofball comedy to creepy drama leave its viewers debating whether they want to laugh or cry. An intensely uncomfortable experience you'll either love or hate.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512235/reviews-81

ur26266323

title: Confounding Plot Proves Difficult to Pin Down review: No matter what you're expecting this movie to be like, you're wrong: every ten minutes, like clockwork, it changes gears unexpectedly and bucks the audience. It defies categorization, seeming to take delight in confusing its viewers. The similarities to Kick-Ass are there, with the nerdy DIY superhero learning the world's a pretty dirty place after dark, but Super also manages to be as gratuitously gory and continuously off color as a Troma film. Its awkward timing and confounding sense of humor, though, make comparisons to both styles less apt. By the climactic, explosion-filled finale, its transgressions from goofball comedy to creepy drama leave its viewers debating whether they want to laugh or cry. An intensely uncomfortable experience you'll either love or hate.

Shut up crime!

tt1512235

When I first heard about the premise to this movie, I expected something along the lines of the movie "Defendor" which is a dark and yet semi-realistic superhero movie. With some dud running around in some lame superhero costume but has no powers. I like Rainn Wilson and Woody Harrelson equally as actors, but I thought this movie was a bit better. The idea is similar but the direction of the story is a lot different and I prefer this direction more although the budget seem way more less. Mainly because of the style of it all, even if it's a mix between goofy and serious. So in another words it's a dark comedy that isn't all that predictable. The way it shows how a normal man becomes a wannabe superhero by just putting on a costume and trying to fight crime was done realistically and yet entertaining for the most part. Overall it's a wannabe superhero movie with a very low budget, but it's still good.7.4/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512235/reviews-39

ur22171966

title: Shut up crime! review: When I first heard about the premise to this movie, I expected something along the lines of the movie "Defendor" which is a dark and yet semi-realistic superhero movie. With some dud running around in some lame superhero costume but has no powers. I like Rainn Wilson and Woody Harrelson equally as actors, but I thought this movie was a bit better. The idea is similar but the direction of the story is a lot different and I prefer this direction more although the budget seem way more less. Mainly because of the style of it all, even if it's a mix between goofy and serious. So in another words it's a dark comedy that isn't all that predictable. The way it shows how a normal man becomes a wannabe superhero by just putting on a costume and trying to fight crime was done realistically and yet entertaining for the most part. Overall it's a wannabe superhero movie with a very low budget, but it's still good.7.4/10

"You don't butt in line!"

tt1512235

Surprisingly good movie, especially for an independent film, and "graphic violence" or "outlandish dark comedy" would definitely be appropriate ways of describing the movie. Granted, this movie was definitely not the typical 7/10 quality movie. It's budget was obviously low and there were parts, mainly towards the beginning, that feel pretty dull. Essentially, this is a movie about Dwight Schrute becoming a superhero. He's the same borderline crazy... no, completely deranged and out of touch with society type of character as he is in The Office. That makes it interesting and funny in a weird way but the movie really takes off and becomes, not only watchable but very entertaining and intriguing when Ellen Page's character, Libby, comes into the fold in a major way. Not only does she provide nearly all of the laughs with her sociopathic sense of humor but Ellen Page is also freaking beautiful and her character has this "thing" about her that she brings to a lot of her roles. Almost like she provides the film with this sophisticated innocence, if that makes any sense at all. I hate what befell her character in the end, though. I think that kinda goes to show how much you actually get into the film though when your reaction doesn't differ much from Rainn Wilson's character. In case my first sentence regarding graphic violence wasn't enough warning, this movie is not for everyone. However, if you don't mind arms being blown off, you might appreciate the realism hidden in the film's chaos.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512235/reviews-139

ur23843983

title: "You don't butt in line!" review: Surprisingly good movie, especially for an independent film, and "graphic violence" or "outlandish dark comedy" would definitely be appropriate ways of describing the movie. Granted, this movie was definitely not the typical 7/10 quality movie. It's budget was obviously low and there were parts, mainly towards the beginning, that feel pretty dull. Essentially, this is a movie about Dwight Schrute becoming a superhero. He's the same borderline crazy... no, completely deranged and out of touch with society type of character as he is in The Office. That makes it interesting and funny in a weird way but the movie really takes off and becomes, not only watchable but very entertaining and intriguing when Ellen Page's character, Libby, comes into the fold in a major way. Not only does she provide nearly all of the laughs with her sociopathic sense of humor but Ellen Page is also freaking beautiful and her character has this "thing" about her that she brings to a lot of her roles. Almost like she provides the film with this sophisticated innocence, if that makes any sense at all. I hate what befell her character in the end, though. I think that kinda goes to show how much you actually get into the film though when your reaction doesn't differ much from Rainn Wilson's character. In case my first sentence regarding graphic violence wasn't enough warning, this movie is not for everyone. However, if you don't mind arms being blown off, you might appreciate the realism hidden in the film's chaos.

For People Who Like Their Comedy Very Dark,

tt1512235

Super is a decent movie with a comedic set up (very similar to Kick Ass) that kind of falls flat and the comedy of a normal guy trying to be a superhero gets tiring after a while (unlike Kick Ass).The humour in this is very dark and some of the jokes are just way too vulgar and disgusting,and did laugh a good bit during the movie,but there are certainly no jokes that don't go too far,James Gunn clearly just wrote exactly what he felt like writing and got away with a lot of it.I had never heard of this previously,but I saw it on television and decided to watch it because I really like Rainn Wilson on the Office,and I found him to be the just enjoyable part of the movie,if you like Dwight Shrute then you'll like Frank Darbo,they but have the same kind of weird and unique personality.Super is funny at times,but if you prefer more easy to watch comedy like myself you should avoid it,but if you like very black comedy,this is definitely the movie for you.Frank Darbo (Rainn Wilson) dons a superhero garb and turns vigilante after his wife leaves him for another man.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512235/reviews-167

ur23055365

title: For People Who Like Their Comedy Very Dark, review: Super is a decent movie with a comedic set up (very similar to Kick Ass) that kind of falls flat and the comedy of a normal guy trying to be a superhero gets tiring after a while (unlike Kick Ass).The humour in this is very dark and some of the jokes are just way too vulgar and disgusting,and did laugh a good bit during the movie,but there are certainly no jokes that don't go too far,James Gunn clearly just wrote exactly what he felt like writing and got away with a lot of it.I had never heard of this previously,but I saw it on television and decided to watch it because I really like Rainn Wilson on the Office,and I found him to be the just enjoyable part of the movie,if you like Dwight Shrute then you'll like Frank Darbo,they but have the same kind of weird and unique personality.Super is funny at times,but if you prefer more easy to watch comedy like myself you should avoid it,but if you like very black comedy,this is definitely the movie for you.Frank Darbo (Rainn Wilson) dons a superhero garb and turns vigilante after his wife leaves him for another man.

Grandstanding piffle

tt0379725

To begin with, how you feel about Capote the movie will depend almost entirely on how you feel about Philip Seymour Hoffman's portrayal of him. Some will find his highly mannered performance to be highly grating, while others will note that that's how the real Capote looked and sounded.I fall into the former group. I just couldn't stomach Hoffmann's high-pitched whine. I also didn't care for the breakneck editing, or even the long, tiresome shots of nothing in particular happening. I felt the movie was pretty poorly put together, to be quite frank about it.Although it's a biography of the writer, the film covers the time Capote spent researching and writing his magnum opus, In Cold Blood, from his assignment by The New Yorker to cover the legal proceedings to the final publication of his "nonfiction novel," several years later. The focus is on Capote's relationship with the murderers of the title, particularly Perry Smith (Clifton Collins Jr.). Capote figures if he gets close to Smith and Dick Hickock, he'll get information he can use in his book. Is he using the killers, or does he really care for him? You wouldn't know from a movie whose script has Capote constantly talking about himself, no matter what the topic is. What, you killed four people in their beds? Pshaw, you should hear about my upbringing. And on it goes.As I said, Hoffman's performance is quite mannered - some might say flamboyant - and there will no doubt be plenty of you out there who will think he was spot on, quite a show, and all that. And there will be plenty others who think about five minutes of hearing him "talk Capote" would be about four minutes too long.So on to the others in the cast. Catherine Keener, who's been so great in movies like Being John Malkovich and The Interpreter, acts circles around Hoffman. Yes, circles. Keener plays novelist Harper Lee, she of To Kill a Mockingbird fame, and she absolutely disappears into the role - with two exceptions, her dazzling, dancing eyes. Keener is superb, clearly deserving of her Oscar nomination. Lee has a pretty good idea of what Capote's all about, as does his lover, Jack Dunphy (Bruce Greenwood). Chris Cooper is along as the sheriff in charge of the case, and Bob Balaban is Capote's publisher.There's far too much focus on the Wonder That Is Truman Capote for a film that insists on covering only one period in his life. Capote is manipulative, egotistical, and constantly condescending. Not an appealing guy, to be sure. And that's fine, but we never really get a sense of what he was about, just how this one event affected him.Interminable and overwrought, Capote is not worthy of its many accolades.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-149

ur0543054

title: Grandstanding piffle review: To begin with, how you feel about Capote the movie will depend almost entirely on how you feel about Philip Seymour Hoffman's portrayal of him. Some will find his highly mannered performance to be highly grating, while others will note that that's how the real Capote looked and sounded.I fall into the former group. I just couldn't stomach Hoffmann's high-pitched whine. I also didn't care for the breakneck editing, or even the long, tiresome shots of nothing in particular happening. I felt the movie was pretty poorly put together, to be quite frank about it.Although it's a biography of the writer, the film covers the time Capote spent researching and writing his magnum opus, In Cold Blood, from his assignment by The New Yorker to cover the legal proceedings to the final publication of his "nonfiction novel," several years later. The focus is on Capote's relationship with the murderers of the title, particularly Perry Smith (Clifton Collins Jr.). Capote figures if he gets close to Smith and Dick Hickock, he'll get information he can use in his book. Is he using the killers, or does he really care for him? You wouldn't know from a movie whose script has Capote constantly talking about himself, no matter what the topic is. What, you killed four people in their beds? Pshaw, you should hear about my upbringing. And on it goes.As I said, Hoffman's performance is quite mannered - some might say flamboyant - and there will no doubt be plenty of you out there who will think he was spot on, quite a show, and all that. And there will be plenty others who think about five minutes of hearing him "talk Capote" would be about four minutes too long.So on to the others in the cast. Catherine Keener, who's been so great in movies like Being John Malkovich and The Interpreter, acts circles around Hoffman. Yes, circles. Keener plays novelist Harper Lee, she of To Kill a Mockingbird fame, and she absolutely disappears into the role - with two exceptions, her dazzling, dancing eyes. Keener is superb, clearly deserving of her Oscar nomination. Lee has a pretty good idea of what Capote's all about, as does his lover, Jack Dunphy (Bruce Greenwood). Chris Cooper is along as the sheriff in charge of the case, and Bob Balaban is Capote's publisher.There's far too much focus on the Wonder That Is Truman Capote for a film that insists on covering only one period in his life. Capote is manipulative, egotistical, and constantly condescending. Not an appealing guy, to be sure. And that's fine, but we never really get a sense of what he was about, just how this one event affected him.Interminable and overwrought, Capote is not worthy of its many accolades.

Well made, but super boring

tt0379725

Like many Oscar movies, which are nominated on merit for the technical art of film-making, there is little to no consideration to if the film is actually interesting.I watched both Good Night & Good Luck and Capote recently and in both cases wished I hadn't bothered. It's not that there is anything technically wrong with either film; in fact they are both very well made. It's just that there is no entertainment, no emotion, and no passion at all. In fact they were both very boring and painful to watch.In my opinion Capote was such a pointless film. How can anyone find this rather uninteresting tale of a period of someone's life that can only be described as rather dull; an interesting thing to watch.Films can be intelligent, well acted and well made, but ultimately they have to give something to the viewer. This does not do that.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-152

ur0382572

title: Well made, but super boring review: Like many Oscar movies, which are nominated on merit for the technical art of film-making, there is little to no consideration to if the film is actually interesting.I watched both Good Night & Good Luck and Capote recently and in both cases wished I hadn't bothered. It's not that there is anything technically wrong with either film; in fact they are both very well made. It's just that there is no entertainment, no emotion, and no passion at all. In fact they were both very boring and painful to watch.In my opinion Capote was such a pointless film. How can anyone find this rather uninteresting tale of a period of someone's life that can only be described as rather dull; an interesting thing to watch.Films can be intelligent, well acted and well made, but ultimately they have to give something to the viewer. This does not do that.

The Truman Show!

tt0379725

As I read the script on-line, I thought "Capote" needed a trim. Having just seen it on PPV, I can tell you it wasn't trimmed, it was butchered like that poor family! Example: in the script, Truman dubs Shawn "Adorable One"; here, he is "Mr. Shawn".Bad enough the amateurs behind this movie de-flame Capote and bash his circle (are we to really believe they thought so little of Nelle, they mangled her little opus like an obnoxious in-joke?), they turn Perry Smith into this oh-so-sensitive victim, even as he's shown dispatching the Clutters. It's one thing to fudge the facts, it's another to drop the ball: the executions were carried out between 12:45-1:19 AM, April 14; Truman is shown at the prison 22 HOURS LATER!I was totally underwhelmed by the "acting". Keener doesn't even try to sound like an Alabama native. The way Cooper kept shouting "Alvin!", I was waiting for the Chimpmunks to show up! Hoffman gives us not the charming gadfly, but a pathetic suck-up who sees an horrific act as his ticket to the big time. When Hoffman whines about being "tortured" by the endless appeals, I wanted to give him a shotgun so he could do us both a favor and blow his brains out!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-288

ur0557788

title: The Truman Show! review: As I read the script on-line, I thought "Capote" needed a trim. Having just seen it on PPV, I can tell you it wasn't trimmed, it was butchered like that poor family! Example: in the script, Truman dubs Shawn "Adorable One"; here, he is "Mr. Shawn".Bad enough the amateurs behind this movie de-flame Capote and bash his circle (are we to really believe they thought so little of Nelle, they mangled her little opus like an obnoxious in-joke?), they turn Perry Smith into this oh-so-sensitive victim, even as he's shown dispatching the Clutters. It's one thing to fudge the facts, it's another to drop the ball: the executions were carried out between 12:45-1:19 AM, April 14; Truman is shown at the prison 22 HOURS LATER!I was totally underwhelmed by the "acting". Keener doesn't even try to sound like an Alabama native. The way Cooper kept shouting "Alvin!", I was waiting for the Chimpmunks to show up! Hoffman gives us not the charming gadfly, but a pathetic suck-up who sees an horrific act as his ticket to the big time. When Hoffman whines about being "tortured" by the endless appeals, I wanted to give him a shotgun so he could do us both a favor and blow his brains out!

Beware of counter transference - it can warp your judgment

tt0379725

In this movie a writer is assigned to cover a story of an entire family brutally slaughtered by two men; the two men are apprehended, incarcerated, tried, convicted and sentenced to death. The two men committed a crime that was as senseless as it was heinous. These men deserve no special consideration or attention whatsoever, except as it relates to the horrible crime they committed. Yet the writer befriends one of the murderers - in fact the one who actually did the killing - and now has to deal with the fact that he now has an intimate relationship with a cunning and deceitful mass murderer, who is so nasty that his own sister wants nothing to do with him. The writer knows that yet he can't help himself. No matter how much he tries, he can't stop thinking about this murderer. Well, what does that say about the writer? The movie shows how the writer, who is urbane, mild-mannered, well-liked, and respected, recognizes the unacceptability of transforming this work assignment into something personal, but he simply can't help it, and now he is stuck with having to deal with the consequences for the rest of his life. For by writing an entire book about these two no-account murderers, is the writer in a way really writing about himself? Is the writer in a way condoning, glamorizing or at least excusing, what these two men did? Indeed, the writer even goes so far as to obtain legal counsel for these dangerous characters. This movie shows what happens when a professional person who is expected to maintain professional objectivity loses that objectivity and becomes enmeshed in the subject matter that he is examining. Once the boundary that separates the job from the personal is crossed, the consequences can be emotionally devastating, which is what happens to the writer as the writer, who was a successful and gifted author, never writes another book and drinks for the rest of his life.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-20

ur6458242

title: Beware of counter transference - it can warp your judgment review: In this movie a writer is assigned to cover a story of an entire family brutally slaughtered by two men; the two men are apprehended, incarcerated, tried, convicted and sentenced to death. The two men committed a crime that was as senseless as it was heinous. These men deserve no special consideration or attention whatsoever, except as it relates to the horrible crime they committed. Yet the writer befriends one of the murderers - in fact the one who actually did the killing - and now has to deal with the fact that he now has an intimate relationship with a cunning and deceitful mass murderer, who is so nasty that his own sister wants nothing to do with him. The writer knows that yet he can't help himself. No matter how much he tries, he can't stop thinking about this murderer. Well, what does that say about the writer? The movie shows how the writer, who is urbane, mild-mannered, well-liked, and respected, recognizes the unacceptability of transforming this work assignment into something personal, but he simply can't help it, and now he is stuck with having to deal with the consequences for the rest of his life. For by writing an entire book about these two no-account murderers, is the writer in a way really writing about himself? Is the writer in a way condoning, glamorizing or at least excusing, what these two men did? Indeed, the writer even goes so far as to obtain legal counsel for these dangerous characters. This movie shows what happens when a professional person who is expected to maintain professional objectivity loses that objectivity and becomes enmeshed in the subject matter that he is examining. Once the boundary that separates the job from the personal is crossed, the consequences can be emotionally devastating, which is what happens to the writer as the writer, who was a successful and gifted author, never writes another book and drinks for the rest of his life.

The Journalist and the Murderer

tt0379725

Truman Capote wrote "In Cold Blood" in 1966, a novel which detailed the horrible 1959 murders of Herbert Clutter, a Kansas farmer, and his wife and two kids. Capote would travel to Kansas in an effort to learn everything about the crime. Accompanying him was Harper Lee (author of "To Kill a Mockingbird"), a writer who assisted Capote with interviews and note-taking. The Clutter's killers were arrested some six weeks after the murders. Capote's book was published six years after he arrived in Kansas. Many regard "In Cold Blood" as having popularised the "faction" or "true crime" novel, which typically mixes fictional elements with traditional investigative reporting (Gonzo journalism would be borne shortly afterwards).Capote's book was largely an exercise in whetting the reader's appetite for murder, page after page dwelling on ominous scenery, the author's thick-with-atmosphere prose heralding an onslaught of doom and gloom. What elevated the novel somewhat was Capote's sympathy for Dick Hickock and Perry Smith, the two men responsible for the Clutter murders. As a homosexual and outsider, Capote found himself drawn to these two men, and became particularly infatuated with Perry, who was half-white, half-Cherokee, his dark skin and ancestry as much of a social stigma as Capote's homosexuality and fey, oddball mannerisms. Indeed, both Capote and Perry's families were riddled with suicides, and it was not lost on Capote that had he not been embraced by New York's literati he too may have, like Perry, tumbled into some abyss. What "In Cold Blood" thus unconsciously suggested is that the unsettled outsider exists precisely because the Clutters are "settled", comfortably embedded in rural America. The novel doesn't absolve the murderers, but nevertheless always implies that Perry and Dick are perpetually homeless, tormented, excluded and perhaps even driven to criminality because the Clutters have a home; are a long-embraced part of white America. But "Capote", a 2003 film by director Bennett Miller, doesn't delve into these aspects of the novel. "You are a kind and generous man," Capote, played by actor Philip Seymour Hoffman, says sarcastically at one point to a Kansas sheriff who "graciously" offers to categorise Perry as being "officially white", but for the most part such social/racial avenues are left unexplored.Still, the film has other things on its mind. Though based on a book by Gerald Clarke, screenwriter Dan Futterman did much of his own research and was heavily influenced by a 1989 New Yorker article by Janet Malcolm (along with her subsequent book, "The Journalist and the Murderer"). Malcolm's thesis was that journalists inevitably betray the subjects they saddle up to; they suck up to the subject, flatter it, get close, exploit it for news, then cut all ties. Malcolm, who was interested in the ethical and psychological consequences of "journalist" and "subject" relationships, specifically focused on author Joe McGinniss's relationship with Jeffrey MacDonald, an Army doctor convicted of murdering his family in the 1970s. McGinniss, like Capote, would befriend "his" convict and write a book ("Fatal Vision") based on the murder he investigated. And like Capote, Mcginniss would lead "his" convict on, acting like he believed MacDonald was an innocent victim and acting like his prose would help MacDonald's case in and out of court.So much of Miller's film revolves around Capote's guilt at having befriended killers in order to facilitate a book which benefits not the killers but Capote's own reputation (the film's title now has a double meaning: Capote's cold blooded treatment of Perry). Capote, the film argues, exploited these criminals, manipulated them, led them on and then gave them the sudden cold shoulder, a betrayal which Miller argues led to Capote being consumed by guilt. "I did all I could to help you," a self-pitying Capote tells Perry at one point. But we know it's a lie. Because of his emotionally and morally exhaustive experience, Miller would have us believe, a shameful Capote never wrote another book. A postscript tells us he died an alcoholic, of a drug overdose.Miller and Futterman over-estimate "In Cold Blood's" effect on Capote, but assuming they're right, this is still a very thin film. Social relations in America are downplayed, Capote and Perry's similarities aren't substantially delved into, and the ethical questions raised by Capote's "journalism" (he appropriates suffering at best, lies and manipulates at worst) aren't really fleshed out. The film doesn't go far enough. Still, in its own low-key way, "Capote" is preferable to the sentimental, preachy 1967 version of "In Cold Blood", and Miller's misty landscapes, haunting chords and greyish blue, near monochromatic palette captures well the brooding, southern Gothic tone of Capote's novel.Interestingly, Miller's narrative structure loosely echoes that of Capote's novel, which waits and waits for Perry's own description of the grisly murders, until scenes of awesomely vicious, shocking violence hit us hard in the face. The rest of the film is comprised of gloomy shadows, forlorn faces and long shots of rural Kansas, all evocative of Capote and Perry's shared loneliness. For a better, somewhat similar film, see "Flesh and Bone".Beyond all this, Philip Seymour Hoffman gives a convincing performance as Capote (this really was how Capote spoke and behaved). The film's ancillary characters are mostly cardboard, particularly Harper Lee, played by Catherine Keener. Like "In Cold Blood" and "Gone With The Wind", Lee's "Mockingbird" is another cherished American novel that's become a "classic" for all the wrong reasons. Touted as a book about "racism" and "progressivism", it was largely a reactionary work. Lee, a gradualist, believed the South should be allowed to sacrifice justice, that it was capable of progress if left to slowly evolve alone. Hoffman would pick up a Best Actor Academy Award for his portrayal of Capote.7.9/10 – Very good and at times haunting. See "Infamous", "Flesh and Bone", "Murder on a Sunday Morning", "Paradise Lost 1 and 2" and 1967's "In Cold Blood". Worth two viewings.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-421

ur4130201

title: The Journalist and the Murderer review: Truman Capote wrote "In Cold Blood" in 1966, a novel which detailed the horrible 1959 murders of Herbert Clutter, a Kansas farmer, and his wife and two kids. Capote would travel to Kansas in an effort to learn everything about the crime. Accompanying him was Harper Lee (author of "To Kill a Mockingbird"), a writer who assisted Capote with interviews and note-taking. The Clutter's killers were arrested some six weeks after the murders. Capote's book was published six years after he arrived in Kansas. Many regard "In Cold Blood" as having popularised the "faction" or "true crime" novel, which typically mixes fictional elements with traditional investigative reporting (Gonzo journalism would be borne shortly afterwards).Capote's book was largely an exercise in whetting the reader's appetite for murder, page after page dwelling on ominous scenery, the author's thick-with-atmosphere prose heralding an onslaught of doom and gloom. What elevated the novel somewhat was Capote's sympathy for Dick Hickock and Perry Smith, the two men responsible for the Clutter murders. As a homosexual and outsider, Capote found himself drawn to these two men, and became particularly infatuated with Perry, who was half-white, half-Cherokee, his dark skin and ancestry as much of a social stigma as Capote's homosexuality and fey, oddball mannerisms. Indeed, both Capote and Perry's families were riddled with suicides, and it was not lost on Capote that had he not been embraced by New York's literati he too may have, like Perry, tumbled into some abyss. What "In Cold Blood" thus unconsciously suggested is that the unsettled outsider exists precisely because the Clutters are "settled", comfortably embedded in rural America. The novel doesn't absolve the murderers, but nevertheless always implies that Perry and Dick are perpetually homeless, tormented, excluded and perhaps even driven to criminality because the Clutters have a home; are a long-embraced part of white America. But "Capote", a 2003 film by director Bennett Miller, doesn't delve into these aspects of the novel. "You are a kind and generous man," Capote, played by actor Philip Seymour Hoffman, says sarcastically at one point to a Kansas sheriff who "graciously" offers to categorise Perry as being "officially white", but for the most part such social/racial avenues are left unexplored.Still, the film has other things on its mind. Though based on a book by Gerald Clarke, screenwriter Dan Futterman did much of his own research and was heavily influenced by a 1989 New Yorker article by Janet Malcolm (along with her subsequent book, "The Journalist and the Murderer"). Malcolm's thesis was that journalists inevitably betray the subjects they saddle up to; they suck up to the subject, flatter it, get close, exploit it for news, then cut all ties. Malcolm, who was interested in the ethical and psychological consequences of "journalist" and "subject" relationships, specifically focused on author Joe McGinniss's relationship with Jeffrey MacDonald, an Army doctor convicted of murdering his family in the 1970s. McGinniss, like Capote, would befriend "his" convict and write a book ("Fatal Vision") based on the murder he investigated. And like Capote, Mcginniss would lead "his" convict on, acting like he believed MacDonald was an innocent victim and acting like his prose would help MacDonald's case in and out of court.So much of Miller's film revolves around Capote's guilt at having befriended killers in order to facilitate a book which benefits not the killers but Capote's own reputation (the film's title now has a double meaning: Capote's cold blooded treatment of Perry). Capote, the film argues, exploited these criminals, manipulated them, led them on and then gave them the sudden cold shoulder, a betrayal which Miller argues led to Capote being consumed by guilt. "I did all I could to help you," a self-pitying Capote tells Perry at one point. But we know it's a lie. Because of his emotionally and morally exhaustive experience, Miller would have us believe, a shameful Capote never wrote another book. A postscript tells us he died an alcoholic, of a drug overdose.Miller and Futterman over-estimate "In Cold Blood's" effect on Capote, but assuming they're right, this is still a very thin film. Social relations in America are downplayed, Capote and Perry's similarities aren't substantially delved into, and the ethical questions raised by Capote's "journalism" (he appropriates suffering at best, lies and manipulates at worst) aren't really fleshed out. The film doesn't go far enough. Still, in its own low-key way, "Capote" is preferable to the sentimental, preachy 1967 version of "In Cold Blood", and Miller's misty landscapes, haunting chords and greyish blue, near monochromatic palette captures well the brooding, southern Gothic tone of Capote's novel.Interestingly, Miller's narrative structure loosely echoes that of Capote's novel, which waits and waits for Perry's own description of the grisly murders, until scenes of awesomely vicious, shocking violence hit us hard in the face. The rest of the film is comprised of gloomy shadows, forlorn faces and long shots of rural Kansas, all evocative of Capote and Perry's shared loneliness. For a better, somewhat similar film, see "Flesh and Bone".Beyond all this, Philip Seymour Hoffman gives a convincing performance as Capote (this really was how Capote spoke and behaved). The film's ancillary characters are mostly cardboard, particularly Harper Lee, played by Catherine Keener. Like "In Cold Blood" and "Gone With The Wind", Lee's "Mockingbird" is another cherished American novel that's become a "classic" for all the wrong reasons. Touted as a book about "racism" and "progressivism", it was largely a reactionary work. Lee, a gradualist, believed the South should be allowed to sacrifice justice, that it was capable of progress if left to slowly evolve alone. Hoffman would pick up a Best Actor Academy Award for his portrayal of Capote.7.9/10 – Very good and at times haunting. See "Infamous", "Flesh and Bone", "Murder on a Sunday Morning", "Paradise Lost 1 and 2" and 1967's "In Cold Blood". Worth two viewings.

The Truman No-Show

tt0379725

This is one of the most boring movies I have ever seen that can still be extremely obnoxious and uninteresting at the same time. This, perhaps is its achievement. A well-mounted and expensive piece of crap.The main character, author Truman Capote, comes off as a self-applauding intellectual twit verging on flaming queen, albeit a talented one. Played by Hoffman with all the depth of two-line obituary, Capote leaves us wondering just what on earth he sees redeeming in this murderer. Hoffman resembles Capote, but does not sound like anything more than a lounge comic doing a poor impression.The movie is lovingly filmed with extreme attention to detail, and emulates The Shawshank Redemption right down to the tinkly piano notes and camera angles. The director clearly thinks that good cinema is found in actionless long shots, held for excruciatingly long periods of time.I must confess to having watched only 3/4 of the picture, not being able to withstand another moment of my life lost on this dreck and its completely uninteresting subject matter. Perhaps Mr. Capote was a brilliant writer (the movie pounds that down our throats), but as the subject of a movie he fails to excite. That is odd, as the real Truman Capote was rather fun to watch, animated and witty. This guy comes off as the gay reaper.I rated it a five for its good production values and cinematography.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-284

ur4205035

title: The Truman No-Show review: This is one of the most boring movies I have ever seen that can still be extremely obnoxious and uninteresting at the same time. This, perhaps is its achievement. A well-mounted and expensive piece of crap.The main character, author Truman Capote, comes off as a self-applauding intellectual twit verging on flaming queen, albeit a talented one. Played by Hoffman with all the depth of two-line obituary, Capote leaves us wondering just what on earth he sees redeeming in this murderer. Hoffman resembles Capote, but does not sound like anything more than a lounge comic doing a poor impression.The movie is lovingly filmed with extreme attention to detail, and emulates The Shawshank Redemption right down to the tinkly piano notes and camera angles. The director clearly thinks that good cinema is found in actionless long shots, held for excruciatingly long periods of time.I must confess to having watched only 3/4 of the picture, not being able to withstand another moment of my life lost on this dreck and its completely uninteresting subject matter. Perhaps Mr. Capote was a brilliant writer (the movie pounds that down our throats), but as the subject of a movie he fails to excite. That is odd, as the real Truman Capote was rather fun to watch, animated and witty. This guy comes off as the gay reaper.I rated it a five for its good production values and cinematography.

Fairly interesting, but no match for Brooks's "In Cold Blood"

tt0379725

How much you enjoy this film may depend in part on whether or not you've already seen Richard Brooks's 1967 adaptation of "In Cold Blood". Sure, there are some fine performances here, particularly from Hoffman, Cooper & Keener, and while Clifton Collins Jr. is no match for Robert Blake as Perry Smith that isn't a major detraction since the killers aren't given the central role that they deserve. Therein lies my main problem with the picture: I find that the story suffers from a lack of focus, or rather a case of misplaced focus. Frankly, I didn't care about Capote's relationship with these men, partly because the film-makers didn't convince me that I *should* care. Instead, I kept asking myself, "Why shift the focus to Capote when the really compelling characters are the killers, particularly Perry Smith?" If that's the angle that appeals to you then I urge you to seek out "In Cold Blood". If, however, you are looking for a peek into Capote's life and creations, then you may appreciate this film more than I have.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-390

ur17822437

title: Fairly interesting, but no match for Brooks's "In Cold Blood" review: How much you enjoy this film may depend in part on whether or not you've already seen Richard Brooks's 1967 adaptation of "In Cold Blood". Sure, there are some fine performances here, particularly from Hoffman, Cooper & Keener, and while Clifton Collins Jr. is no match for Robert Blake as Perry Smith that isn't a major detraction since the killers aren't given the central role that they deserve. Therein lies my main problem with the picture: I find that the story suffers from a lack of focus, or rather a case of misplaced focus. Frankly, I didn't care about Capote's relationship with these men, partly because the film-makers didn't convince me that I *should* care. Instead, I kept asking myself, "Why shift the focus to Capote when the really compelling characters are the killers, particularly Perry Smith?" If that's the angle that appeals to you then I urge you to seek out "In Cold Blood". If, however, you are looking for a peek into Capote's life and creations, then you may appreciate this film more than I have.

A triumph of the screen craft.

tt0379725

In the natural world there is the Pacific Salmon that swims back from the sea for miles up rivers and streams, often jumping waterfalls in order to reproduce. We've all seen depictions of this phenomenon on film and just this past summer were awed by MARCH OF THE PENGUINS, essentially the same theme; the death of a flower as it yields its seeds.In this quietly powerful film we see exactly the same story but on a human scale. Coming of age one of the most talked about writers of the late 1950s was Truman Capote. He was then celebrated as a NEW YORKER short story writer. He became very famous through television appearances but you are likely to remember Blake Edwards' film based on his story, BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S. The Edwards film was good but not really Truman Capote.CAPOTE the movie is based on a 1988 biography by Gerald Clark. It's a superbly written screenplay in which Capote's character is fleshed out with great nuance and detail as he researches and writes his most famous work, a commanding, seminal "nonfiction novel" that influenced novelists thereafter, IN COLD BLOOD. If we are to believe this filmic presentation then Truman Capote's six year dedication to the research and writing of this book, his emotional involvement with the killers, who were human after all, especially one, a part American Indian who had brains and whose childhood story paralleled Capote's then the production of this book killed Capote in the long term. He died in 1984 mostly due to liver damage caused by drinking. Although he wrote some 20 additional works after that, none were novels nor attained as much fame as the book.The film CAPOTE is a triumph of the screen craft. Its subtle intelligence and powerful human emotion is rare in films. Highly recommended, it is not without some violence since it depicts to some extent the killings in Kansas. However if you are a fan of great American films, this one is not to be missed.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-132

ur0028288

title: A triumph of the screen craft. review: In the natural world there is the Pacific Salmon that swims back from the sea for miles up rivers and streams, often jumping waterfalls in order to reproduce. We've all seen depictions of this phenomenon on film and just this past summer were awed by MARCH OF THE PENGUINS, essentially the same theme; the death of a flower as it yields its seeds.In this quietly powerful film we see exactly the same story but on a human scale. Coming of age one of the most talked about writers of the late 1950s was Truman Capote. He was then celebrated as a NEW YORKER short story writer. He became very famous through television appearances but you are likely to remember Blake Edwards' film based on his story, BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S. The Edwards film was good but not really Truman Capote.CAPOTE the movie is based on a 1988 biography by Gerald Clark. It's a superbly written screenplay in which Capote's character is fleshed out with great nuance and detail as he researches and writes his most famous work, a commanding, seminal "nonfiction novel" that influenced novelists thereafter, IN COLD BLOOD. If we are to believe this filmic presentation then Truman Capote's six year dedication to the research and writing of this book, his emotional involvement with the killers, who were human after all, especially one, a part American Indian who had brains and whose childhood story paralleled Capote's then the production of this book killed Capote in the long term. He died in 1984 mostly due to liver damage caused by drinking. Although he wrote some 20 additional works after that, none were novels nor attained as much fame as the book.The film CAPOTE is a triumph of the screen craft. Its subtle intelligence and powerful human emotion is rare in films. Highly recommended, it is not without some violence since it depicts to some extent the killings in Kansas. However if you are a fan of great American films, this one is not to be missed.

Capote

tt0379725

Capote is based on the book of the same name by Gerald Clarke. The film tells the true life story of author Truman Capote who would later write his biggest hit of all time entitled In Cold Blood. In the movie Truman goes to Kansas in 1959 to research and find out about several people slain in their own house. Eventually the two criminals responsible are caught and Truman goes to interview one of them. His name is Perry Smith. Once they get talking the two of them become friends and Truman can really sympathize with Perry. While getting more information for the book Truman keeps coming back to see Perry even though that due to Perry's jail sentence it won't be for a long time. He also knows that to show his relationship with Perry and what he has learned that he has to write one incredible book. Winner of The BSFC Award for Best Actor (Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who plays Truman Capote), Best Screenplay and Best Supporting Actress (Catherine Keener, who plays Harper Lee) at The Boston Society of Film Critics Awards; The BFCA Award for Best Actor at The Broadcast Film Critics Association Awards; The CFCA Award for Best Actor and Most Promising Filmmaker (Bennett Miller) at The Chicago Film Critics Association Awards; The DFWFCA Award for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actress at The Dallas Fort Worth Film Critics Association Awards; The Golden Globe Award for Best Performance By An Actor In A Motion Picture Drama at The Golden Globe Awards; The Best Film and Breakthrough Director Award at The Gotham Awards; The LAFCA Award for Best Actor, Best Screenplay and Best Supporting Actress at The Los Angeles Film Critics Association Awards; The NBR Award for Best Actor at The National Board of Review; The NSFC Award for Best Actor and Best Film at The National Society of Film Critics Awards; The NYFCC Award for Best First Film at The New York Film Critics Circle Awards; The OFCS Award for Best Actor at The Online Film Critics Society Awards; The Satellite Award for Outstanding Actor In A Motion Picture Drama at The Satellite Awards; The Actor Award for Outstanding Performance By A Male Actor In A Leading Role at The Screen Actors Guild Awards; The SEFCA Award for Best Actor at The Southeastern Film Critics Association Awards and The TFCA Award for Best First Feature, Best Male Performance and Best Female Performance Supporting at The Toronto Film Critics Association Awards. Capote has good direction, a good adapted screenplay, good performances by the entire cast (and I' am positive Phillip Seymour Hoffman will win this year's Oscar for Best Actor for his portrayal of Truman Capote), good original music, good cinematography and good film editing. The film is well crafted and well made and really focuses on its story and characters showing their good and bad sides and concentrates on what makes them do the things they do. The film also had some very good character study. I also found that the movie had a good pace and was absorbing and compelling. While watching this film I became interested in what was going on and this is one movie where the characters and the things they do and the choices they makes fascinates you. The film is also riveting and a stylishly made film that looks like it just came out of the 50's time period. Overall a compelling and very well made film that I'm sure will continue to win more awards and get the attention of more theatre goers.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-139

ur1471623

title: Capote review: Capote is based on the book of the same name by Gerald Clarke. The film tells the true life story of author Truman Capote who would later write his biggest hit of all time entitled In Cold Blood. In the movie Truman goes to Kansas in 1959 to research and find out about several people slain in their own house. Eventually the two criminals responsible are caught and Truman goes to interview one of them. His name is Perry Smith. Once they get talking the two of them become friends and Truman can really sympathize with Perry. While getting more information for the book Truman keeps coming back to see Perry even though that due to Perry's jail sentence it won't be for a long time. He also knows that to show his relationship with Perry and what he has learned that he has to write one incredible book. Winner of The BSFC Award for Best Actor (Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who plays Truman Capote), Best Screenplay and Best Supporting Actress (Catherine Keener, who plays Harper Lee) at The Boston Society of Film Critics Awards; The BFCA Award for Best Actor at The Broadcast Film Critics Association Awards; The CFCA Award for Best Actor and Most Promising Filmmaker (Bennett Miller) at The Chicago Film Critics Association Awards; The DFWFCA Award for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actress at The Dallas Fort Worth Film Critics Association Awards; The Golden Globe Award for Best Performance By An Actor In A Motion Picture Drama at The Golden Globe Awards; The Best Film and Breakthrough Director Award at The Gotham Awards; The LAFCA Award for Best Actor, Best Screenplay and Best Supporting Actress at The Los Angeles Film Critics Association Awards; The NBR Award for Best Actor at The National Board of Review; The NSFC Award for Best Actor and Best Film at The National Society of Film Critics Awards; The NYFCC Award for Best First Film at The New York Film Critics Circle Awards; The OFCS Award for Best Actor at The Online Film Critics Society Awards; The Satellite Award for Outstanding Actor In A Motion Picture Drama at The Satellite Awards; The Actor Award for Outstanding Performance By A Male Actor In A Leading Role at The Screen Actors Guild Awards; The SEFCA Award for Best Actor at The Southeastern Film Critics Association Awards and The TFCA Award for Best First Feature, Best Male Performance and Best Female Performance Supporting at The Toronto Film Critics Association Awards. Capote has good direction, a good adapted screenplay, good performances by the entire cast (and I' am positive Phillip Seymour Hoffman will win this year's Oscar for Best Actor for his portrayal of Truman Capote), good original music, good cinematography and good film editing. The film is well crafted and well made and really focuses on its story and characters showing their good and bad sides and concentrates on what makes them do the things they do. The film also had some very good character study. I also found that the movie had a good pace and was absorbing and compelling. While watching this film I became interested in what was going on and this is one movie where the characters and the things they do and the choices they makes fascinates you. The film is also riveting and a stylishly made film that looks like it just came out of the 50's time period. Overall a compelling and very well made film that I'm sure will continue to win more awards and get the attention of more theatre goers.

Malice aforethought

tt0379725

Prior to seeing this film I had high regard for Capote's 'In Cold Blood', a slightly flawed yet impressive read. I knew just a little of the man himself but it wasn't until this film that I realised there might have been a second (intentional) reason for his use of the title 'In Cold Blood'. If this is an accurate portrayal of the man then I am convinced of his mendacity in tinkering in the fate of the two murderers. In this respect this is a fabulous feat of cinematography, story telling, documentary making and acting. Is it ground breaking? No, it is of its time, subtly tying up the loose ends we may have been unaware of....a great tribute to Capote's own effort. An evergreen film for all time.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-219

ur6499406

title: Malice aforethought review: Prior to seeing this film I had high regard for Capote's 'In Cold Blood', a slightly flawed yet impressive read. I knew just a little of the man himself but it wasn't until this film that I realised there might have been a second (intentional) reason for his use of the title 'In Cold Blood'. If this is an accurate portrayal of the man then I am convinced of his mendacity in tinkering in the fate of the two murderers. In this respect this is a fabulous feat of cinematography, story telling, documentary making and acting. Is it ground breaking? No, it is of its time, subtly tying up the loose ends we may have been unaware of....a great tribute to Capote's own effort. An evergreen film for all time.

Powerful Performance

tt0379725

I have long been an admirer of Philip Seymour Hoffman from his roles in Magnolia and Boogie Nights amongst others. This film really belongs to him and he was a worthy recipient of the gong for best actor. This is very much a film for people who like to see a strong acting performance rather than a blockbuster film with lots of special effects.The film chronicle's the writing of the author Truman Capote's most popular book "In Cold Blood". The film shows Capote's research with the people involved in a mass murder and with the murderer's in particular. The film is very understated and I suspect people will apply their own values to the film and take away quite different things. As for myself I believe the film to show the early development of the media's exploitation of people, but as I said I'm sure other people may pick up quite different interpretations. Personally I preferred the films I mentioned earlier to Capote, but I still believe it's quite an interesting piece and well worth checking out - unless of course you're into bubblegum movies.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-211

ur2449095

title: Powerful Performance review: I have long been an admirer of Philip Seymour Hoffman from his roles in Magnolia and Boogie Nights amongst others. This film really belongs to him and he was a worthy recipient of the gong for best actor. This is very much a film for people who like to see a strong acting performance rather than a blockbuster film with lots of special effects.The film chronicle's the writing of the author Truman Capote's most popular book "In Cold Blood". The film shows Capote's research with the people involved in a mass murder and with the murderer's in particular. The film is very understated and I suspect people will apply their own values to the film and take away quite different things. As for myself I believe the film to show the early development of the media's exploitation of people, but as I said I'm sure other people may pick up quite different interpretations. Personally I preferred the films I mentioned earlier to Capote, but I still believe it's quite an interesting piece and well worth checking out - unless of course you're into bubblegum movies.

Snooooozzzzzzzzzzzzeeeeeeee

tt0379725

This is the most incredibly boring and stupid movie I have seen in a long time. Endless lisping mumbles, uninspired camera work, confusing scenarios. And, most significantly, it is a movie about a bitchy, self-obsessed, limp-wristed, thoroughly unlikeable and overrated writer and two savage, worthless killers, an aggregation of humanity I want nothing to do with, much less watch an empathetic movie about. Capote is dead. The killers are dead. Let them all rest in peace, undisturbed and forgotten, without disinterring them and giving them an extra fifteen minutes of fame with a dreadful nd pointless movie such as this.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-303

ur0593719

title: Snooooozzzzzzzzzzzzeeeeeeee review: This is the most incredibly boring and stupid movie I have seen in a long time. Endless lisping mumbles, uninspired camera work, confusing scenarios. And, most significantly, it is a movie about a bitchy, self-obsessed, limp-wristed, thoroughly unlikeable and overrated writer and two savage, worthless killers, an aggregation of humanity I want nothing to do with, much less watch an empathetic movie about. Capote is dead. The killers are dead. Let them all rest in peace, undisturbed and forgotten, without disinterring them and giving them an extra fifteen minutes of fame with a dreadful nd pointless movie such as this.

Great

tt0379725

"Capote" was very good. I really enjoyed the performance of Philip Seymour Hoffman. He nailed Truman Capote's speech and fawning manner. I recently read "In Cold Blood" and I was very entertained by the movie's portrayal of the events from the book. There were many fine performances. Catherine Keener was great as Harper Lee and Clifton Collins as Perry Smith. Actually Clifton Collins' portrayal was a bit too sympathetic for me. Perry Smith was a brutal killer with real psychological problems and the movie's portrayal only hinted at that. The movie was wonderfully photographed and the screenplay was intelligently written. Well worth seeing.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-286

ur0608898

title: Great review: "Capote" was very good. I really enjoyed the performance of Philip Seymour Hoffman. He nailed Truman Capote's speech and fawning manner. I recently read "In Cold Blood" and I was very entertained by the movie's portrayal of the events from the book. There were many fine performances. Catherine Keener was great as Harper Lee and Clifton Collins as Perry Smith. Actually Clifton Collins' portrayal was a bit too sympathetic for me. Perry Smith was a brutal killer with real psychological problems and the movie's portrayal only hinted at that. The movie was wonderfully photographed and the screenplay was intelligently written. Well worth seeing.

A rather slow and quiet account

tt0379725

As others have noted, this movie tends to bias toward the view of the killers rather than the killed which I find bothersome. I do not find killers of helpless families to be interesting or romantic. However, that's only part of the film and hardly the center of it.The center is, in fact, the title character. The movie covers several years of Capote's life during which he wrote the book which did change many things in publishing. It made the author the most celebrated author in the US and maybe the world. However, what he had to go through to write the book as well as he did destroyed him utterly.The movie chronicles the destruction of the killers, to some extent the killed and most completely, the author who lost his detachment entirely. It is a picture of an artist, Capote, who sacrificed himself for his art. The art work is great, but it took everything from the artist to create it.My problems with the movie remain mostly directorial. We are often treated to jump mood shots supposed to convey the barrenness of the Kansas USA scenery where the crime took place, but the movie short shrifts how that barrenness played with the people of the area who were affected by the crime. Instead, we're shown seemingly hours of what in reflection, is unrelated Capote verbiage with his companion or with others in the town or prison.Thus the two most affected by the crime, the dead family and the townspeople are ignored in favor of us 'learning about' the criminals and Capote's love life.However, the worst complaint I have about this movie is simple: it's mostly inaudible. This is by far the worst sound I've heard in a modern movie. Capote as a man spoke in a mumbly high lisp which the player does well, but it's frustrating to miss at least 30% of what he says. Ditto the other characters because the director has chosen a documentary hand held camera look to the movie.The sound isn't any better than you'd get with a Super 8 home movie camera crippled by a $3 mic and in a windstorm. That may be the intent of the director, but it means that the movie which is 70% script and 30% performances loses much of the script.Very much worth a viewing or two, but clean your ears well before and pump up the volume.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-372

ur0346035

title: A rather slow and quiet account review: As others have noted, this movie tends to bias toward the view of the killers rather than the killed which I find bothersome. I do not find killers of helpless families to be interesting or romantic. However, that's only part of the film and hardly the center of it.The center is, in fact, the title character. The movie covers several years of Capote's life during which he wrote the book which did change many things in publishing. It made the author the most celebrated author in the US and maybe the world. However, what he had to go through to write the book as well as he did destroyed him utterly.The movie chronicles the destruction of the killers, to some extent the killed and most completely, the author who lost his detachment entirely. It is a picture of an artist, Capote, who sacrificed himself for his art. The art work is great, but it took everything from the artist to create it.My problems with the movie remain mostly directorial. We are often treated to jump mood shots supposed to convey the barrenness of the Kansas USA scenery where the crime took place, but the movie short shrifts how that barrenness played with the people of the area who were affected by the crime. Instead, we're shown seemingly hours of what in reflection, is unrelated Capote verbiage with his companion or with others in the town or prison.Thus the two most affected by the crime, the dead family and the townspeople are ignored in favor of us 'learning about' the criminals and Capote's love life.However, the worst complaint I have about this movie is simple: it's mostly inaudible. This is by far the worst sound I've heard in a modern movie. Capote as a man spoke in a mumbly high lisp which the player does well, but it's frustrating to miss at least 30% of what he says. Ditto the other characters because the director has chosen a documentary hand held camera look to the movie.The sound isn't any better than you'd get with a Super 8 home movie camera crippled by a $3 mic and in a windstorm. That may be the intent of the director, but it means that the movie which is 70% script and 30% performances loses much of the script.Very much worth a viewing or two, but clean your ears well before and pump up the volume.

And the Oscar goes to...

tt0379725

The Great Phillip Seymour Hoffman is, in my personal opinion, one of the best actors the industry has ever seen. I admire him so much that I recall little moments of some of his movies sometimes, and I start to laugh. I've got his image stuck on me, but not because of the actor in person, but because of the characters he creates and the impression they leave in me.Daddy's boy in "Scent of a woman", the unpleasant doctor in "Patch Adams" (the first time he actually impressed me), the singular Freddie in "The Talented Mr. Ripley", the crazy music man in "Almost Famous", the drifted widower in "Love Liza", the noisy journalist in "Red Dragon", the good friend in "25th Hour", the incredibly funny Sandy in "Along Came Polly", the angry boss in "Punch-Drunk Love"; not to forget Dan Mahowny in "Owning Mahowny"…Now Truman Capote.He is going to win the Academy Award on March 5th, and it will be well earned. A performance is more recognized when it portrays something out of the ordinary than something common; therefore a character like the controversial Capote attracts attention. The change the actor goes through is remarkable, but sometimes there's more than a physical change. I'm not in the mood of giving examples, but Hoffman's is a complete transformation; and that's what actually counts.You see it in the way he puts the cigarette in his mouth, the way he grabs the phone, or he walks and places his body parts; not to mention his voice and way of speaking: it's disturbing. You find more about the character as the years pass by. He has only one trusted friend who's been with him all along: Nelle Harper Lee (a flawless delivery by the always good Catherine Keener); they understand themselves perfectly.. "I don't lie", he tells her. But he does; he is a journalist. By the time the movie enters his life, he was a celebrity, and it is funny to see him the way he is, around his fellow journalists, telling jokes, being the attraction. There's a tremendous respect for him."In Cold Blood" was the name of his unfinished book that told the story of a family murdered by Perry Smith (Clifton Collins Jr., don't forget about him) and Dick Hickock (Mark Pellegrino). "It's the non-fiction book of the decade", Capote declared. What did "non-fiction" mean? The writer was creating a genre in the world of novels. "This will change the way of writing", William Shawn (Bob Balaban) told him. The film goes through the five years it took Capote to write the book. The facts are detailed; the screenplay by Dan Futterman is accurate and true to the main character…I mean, it's five years within an hour and a half.Capote became close with Perry Smith while working, the movie tells; his couple Jack (underused Bruce Greenwood) spent time alone in Spain by himself while the writer traveled to Kansas almost unconsciously, to the point of waking up in trains in a way you could tell he didn't know where he was. Even though there were emotions running through, the man knew his priority. He got into the private files of Detective Alvin Dewey (genius Chris Cooper) because of the trust the detective's wife had on him. This could have brought him consequences, in fact, everything could.One way or the other, every story finishes… "Capote" goes for the black screen in every situation. It is too confident on its material, because it should be. Its director, Bennet Miller, presents his baby (alongside him, Hoffman and Futterman made it come true). Here is a man who understands and, even better, appreciates silences. He witnesses the landscapes with the camera, he focuses his characters with still shots, no music; he lets them talk. Sometimes he observes what's around; but then, when there's something we better not listen to, the music plays…And now it talks.It's a relief when once in a while you see a film and you know the people involved in it wanted to do it. Phillip Seymour Hoffman got the role of his career, or he said so at the SAG Awards; but that doesn't me it is the best role he's ever played…He knows that, but in "Capote", there's not one frame without his presence; it's a showcase of the man's talent: he's grateful for it…I am personally grateful for it.With the last lines, the movie leaves written an epigraph. Think about it, and try to be in Capote's place. He wanted it to happen; he couldn't cope with it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-163

ur4751428

title: And the Oscar goes to... review: The Great Phillip Seymour Hoffman is, in my personal opinion, one of the best actors the industry has ever seen. I admire him so much that I recall little moments of some of his movies sometimes, and I start to laugh. I've got his image stuck on me, but not because of the actor in person, but because of the characters he creates and the impression they leave in me.Daddy's boy in "Scent of a woman", the unpleasant doctor in "Patch Adams" (the first time he actually impressed me), the singular Freddie in "The Talented Mr. Ripley", the crazy music man in "Almost Famous", the drifted widower in "Love Liza", the noisy journalist in "Red Dragon", the good friend in "25th Hour", the incredibly funny Sandy in "Along Came Polly", the angry boss in "Punch-Drunk Love"; not to forget Dan Mahowny in "Owning Mahowny"…Now Truman Capote.He is going to win the Academy Award on March 5th, and it will be well earned. A performance is more recognized when it portrays something out of the ordinary than something common; therefore a character like the controversial Capote attracts attention. The change the actor goes through is remarkable, but sometimes there's more than a physical change. I'm not in the mood of giving examples, but Hoffman's is a complete transformation; and that's what actually counts.You see it in the way he puts the cigarette in his mouth, the way he grabs the phone, or he walks and places his body parts; not to mention his voice and way of speaking: it's disturbing. You find more about the character as the years pass by. He has only one trusted friend who's been with him all along: Nelle Harper Lee (a flawless delivery by the always good Catherine Keener); they understand themselves perfectly.. "I don't lie", he tells her. But he does; he is a journalist. By the time the movie enters his life, he was a celebrity, and it is funny to see him the way he is, around his fellow journalists, telling jokes, being the attraction. There's a tremendous respect for him."In Cold Blood" was the name of his unfinished book that told the story of a family murdered by Perry Smith (Clifton Collins Jr., don't forget about him) and Dick Hickock (Mark Pellegrino). "It's the non-fiction book of the decade", Capote declared. What did "non-fiction" mean? The writer was creating a genre in the world of novels. "This will change the way of writing", William Shawn (Bob Balaban) told him. The film goes through the five years it took Capote to write the book. The facts are detailed; the screenplay by Dan Futterman is accurate and true to the main character…I mean, it's five years within an hour and a half.Capote became close with Perry Smith while working, the movie tells; his couple Jack (underused Bruce Greenwood) spent time alone in Spain by himself while the writer traveled to Kansas almost unconsciously, to the point of waking up in trains in a way you could tell he didn't know where he was. Even though there were emotions running through, the man knew his priority. He got into the private files of Detective Alvin Dewey (genius Chris Cooper) because of the trust the detective's wife had on him. This could have brought him consequences, in fact, everything could.One way or the other, every story finishes… "Capote" goes for the black screen in every situation. It is too confident on its material, because it should be. Its director, Bennet Miller, presents his baby (alongside him, Hoffman and Futterman made it come true). Here is a man who understands and, even better, appreciates silences. He witnesses the landscapes with the camera, he focuses his characters with still shots, no music; he lets them talk. Sometimes he observes what's around; but then, when there's something we better not listen to, the music plays…And now it talks.It's a relief when once in a while you see a film and you know the people involved in it wanted to do it. Phillip Seymour Hoffman got the role of his career, or he said so at the SAG Awards; but that doesn't me it is the best role he's ever played…He knows that, but in "Capote", there's not one frame without his presence; it's a showcase of the man's talent: he's grateful for it…I am personally grateful for it.With the last lines, the movie leaves written an epigraph. Think about it, and try to be in Capote's place. He wanted it to happen; he couldn't cope with it.

Good film

tt0379725

The only reason to make a film about someone as controversially repugnant as Truman Capote would be to illuminate his greatest quality- his superb prose writing. At his best, Capote was one of last century's greatest wordsmiths. Instead, the current film, Capote, focuses on the lesser things the man was known for- his showmanship, sensationalism, and homosexuality- although in that last category what is shown is tame and watered down. Now, I'm not saying that a full fledged swordfight between Philip Seymour Hoffman (who plays Capote) and Bruce Greenwood (who plays his lover Jack Dunphy) was necessary, but since the film focuses on the six years Capote was researching and writing his 1965 non-fiction novel In Cold Blood, because of his homoerotic attraction for one of the two killers the book follows, Perry Smith (Clifton Collins, Jr.), it would have illuminated something more about the man. Of course, what creative processes were behind Capote's creation of what he termed 'a whole new form of writing'- the 'non-fiction novel'- would have been even better.That said, these elements, which are the fault of the screenplay by Dan Futterman, adapted from Gerald Clarke's biography Capote, are the only things that keep this good film from greatness. All the rest of it, including the direction by Bennett Miller, is superb, starting with Hoffman's stab at the icon. This is not a hagiography, and the film makes several wise choices, of which showing Capote's flaws is one. Another excellent choice is to not do a cradle to grave biopic. By focusing only on a few year period it allows us a look at a pivotal point in the character's life. But why, then, not go deeper into the creative processes of the artist? Why not try to provide some insight into why this meek, little man would be so attracted to an amoral thug? Manifestly, there is nothing left to get at with the November 15th, 1959, Holcomb, Kansas murders of the Clutter clan by Smith and Dick Hickock (Mark Pellegrino). As with Leopold and Loeb, before them, and any number of spree killers after them, they are relative ciphers. So, why Capote's need to 'understand' them, especially Smith, if not the homo-eroticism? Unless the whole point of the film is to show us Capote as a vampire, waiting for the pair's execution so he could have a good ending for his book.Yet, there was so much more to be mined- Capote's relationship with Jack Dunphy- both as a lover and artist. Considering that Dunphy was not in a league with Capote as a writer would have made their dynamic all the more interesting, as well giving the criminally underrated Greenwood (so good in the cult TV series Nowhere Man and as JFK in the Kevin Costner film Thirteen Days) a chance to show his considerable acting chops in a major role, in an arts house film. Another waste was the whole presence of Capote's childhood friend, Catherine Keener's (Nelle) Harper Lee character, despite her solid portrayal, especially considering her own one hit wonder, To Kill A Mockingbird, was big right at this time…. A final point, though, and that is with the title of the film. Given the wise decision to not go cradle to grave, why such an all-encompassing title? Why not something more specific and germane to what is on screen? As with much else in the film, such as Hoffman's over-hyped, but solid, performance, it is these little niggles and wrong turns that make so much of what the film does right go wrong enough to just miss being something truly great.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-398

ur12394529

title: Good film review: The only reason to make a film about someone as controversially repugnant as Truman Capote would be to illuminate his greatest quality- his superb prose writing. At his best, Capote was one of last century's greatest wordsmiths. Instead, the current film, Capote, focuses on the lesser things the man was known for- his showmanship, sensationalism, and homosexuality- although in that last category what is shown is tame and watered down. Now, I'm not saying that a full fledged swordfight between Philip Seymour Hoffman (who plays Capote) and Bruce Greenwood (who plays his lover Jack Dunphy) was necessary, but since the film focuses on the six years Capote was researching and writing his 1965 non-fiction novel In Cold Blood, because of his homoerotic attraction for one of the two killers the book follows, Perry Smith (Clifton Collins, Jr.), it would have illuminated something more about the man. Of course, what creative processes were behind Capote's creation of what he termed 'a whole new form of writing'- the 'non-fiction novel'- would have been even better.That said, these elements, which are the fault of the screenplay by Dan Futterman, adapted from Gerald Clarke's biography Capote, are the only things that keep this good film from greatness. All the rest of it, including the direction by Bennett Miller, is superb, starting with Hoffman's stab at the icon. This is not a hagiography, and the film makes several wise choices, of which showing Capote's flaws is one. Another excellent choice is to not do a cradle to grave biopic. By focusing only on a few year period it allows us a look at a pivotal point in the character's life. But why, then, not go deeper into the creative processes of the artist? Why not try to provide some insight into why this meek, little man would be so attracted to an amoral thug? Manifestly, there is nothing left to get at with the November 15th, 1959, Holcomb, Kansas murders of the Clutter clan by Smith and Dick Hickock (Mark Pellegrino). As with Leopold and Loeb, before them, and any number of spree killers after them, they are relative ciphers. So, why Capote's need to 'understand' them, especially Smith, if not the homo-eroticism? Unless the whole point of the film is to show us Capote as a vampire, waiting for the pair's execution so he could have a good ending for his book.Yet, there was so much more to be mined- Capote's relationship with Jack Dunphy- both as a lover and artist. Considering that Dunphy was not in a league with Capote as a writer would have made their dynamic all the more interesting, as well giving the criminally underrated Greenwood (so good in the cult TV series Nowhere Man and as JFK in the Kevin Costner film Thirteen Days) a chance to show his considerable acting chops in a major role, in an arts house film. Another waste was the whole presence of Capote's childhood friend, Catherine Keener's (Nelle) Harper Lee character, despite her solid portrayal, especially considering her own one hit wonder, To Kill A Mockingbird, was big right at this time…. A final point, though, and that is with the title of the film. Given the wise decision to not go cradle to grave, why such an all-encompassing title? Why not something more specific and germane to what is on screen? As with much else in the film, such as Hoffman's over-hyped, but solid, performance, it is these little niggles and wrong turns that make so much of what the film does right go wrong enough to just miss being something truly great.

Meticulously Crafted -- See the Movie or Read the Reviews?

tt0379725

Going into this film, I knew the following, from clips of the film on TV, clips of the real Truman Capote on TV, reviews of the film, and, just, cultural osmosis: * PS Hoffman does a bang up job of imitating Truman Capote.* Truman Capote was a charming wordsmith who could wrap people around his little finger and get whatever he wanted from them.* Truman Capote wrote a "non-fiction novel," "In Cold Blood," about the murder of an innocent family in Kansas, and the killers of that family.* Capote exploited others' tragedy to gain fame.* "In Cold Blood" was hugely successful and its success catapulted Capote into superstar status. Success went to his head; he became an alcoholic and a self-parody, and never finished another book.I mean ... just from cultural osmosis ... you know all that going in to this movie.So, why bother seeing the movie? I can't think of any good reason. This movie didn't deliver more than what I got from seeing clips of it on awards shows, or reading reviews of it.There is really nothing else there. You do get stewed in 1960s architecture and fashions. It's like you are in a time capsule. But that's not what art is supposed to do.The film itself is meticulously crafted. There are scenes that look like Edward Hopper paintings, scenes that look like stills from Film Noir ... so what? There weren't any scenes that offered me any insights into the main characters that I didn't have before I saw the film. I got no new insights into Capote, or into fame, or into Capote's relationship with Harper Lee, or into Perry Smith, the killer the film focuses on. I learn more about the mind of a killer by watching a TV tabloid program like "Dateline NBC." So, all in all, this is a very pretty movie, and if you are into 1960s kitsch, you'll really want to see this.But this is also a film that deals with the murder of four innocent people -- these murders are shown, on screen -- if you keep your eyes open, you will see a man with his throat cut, writhing as his neck spurts blood, as he dies -- it's a veritable Al Qaeda decapitation video -- and this is a film that features the capital punishment of two characters. Perry Smith is shown being hung by the neck until dead.And this film's pretty 1960s nostalgia, and PS Hoffman's meticulously crafted imitation of Truman Capote, are not enough to honor the weight of the subject matter the film attempts to handle, but fails to present with any new insights.After watching this entire film, I did not once cry, or even feel sad, not even for a moment, not for a single character, but I did experience admiration for whomever found all those 1960s cars and ashtrays. Given the subject matter, that reaction is not a good sign.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-324

ur2366009

title: Meticulously Crafted -- See the Movie or Read the Reviews? review: Going into this film, I knew the following, from clips of the film on TV, clips of the real Truman Capote on TV, reviews of the film, and, just, cultural osmosis: * PS Hoffman does a bang up job of imitating Truman Capote.* Truman Capote was a charming wordsmith who could wrap people around his little finger and get whatever he wanted from them.* Truman Capote wrote a "non-fiction novel," "In Cold Blood," about the murder of an innocent family in Kansas, and the killers of that family.* Capote exploited others' tragedy to gain fame.* "In Cold Blood" was hugely successful and its success catapulted Capote into superstar status. Success went to his head; he became an alcoholic and a self-parody, and never finished another book.I mean ... just from cultural osmosis ... you know all that going in to this movie.So, why bother seeing the movie? I can't think of any good reason. This movie didn't deliver more than what I got from seeing clips of it on awards shows, or reading reviews of it.There is really nothing else there. You do get stewed in 1960s architecture and fashions. It's like you are in a time capsule. But that's not what art is supposed to do.The film itself is meticulously crafted. There are scenes that look like Edward Hopper paintings, scenes that look like stills from Film Noir ... so what? There weren't any scenes that offered me any insights into the main characters that I didn't have before I saw the film. I got no new insights into Capote, or into fame, or into Capote's relationship with Harper Lee, or into Perry Smith, the killer the film focuses on. I learn more about the mind of a killer by watching a TV tabloid program like "Dateline NBC." So, all in all, this is a very pretty movie, and if you are into 1960s kitsch, you'll really want to see this.But this is also a film that deals with the murder of four innocent people -- these murders are shown, on screen -- if you keep your eyes open, you will see a man with his throat cut, writhing as his neck spurts blood, as he dies -- it's a veritable Al Qaeda decapitation video -- and this is a film that features the capital punishment of two characters. Perry Smith is shown being hung by the neck until dead.And this film's pretty 1960s nostalgia, and PS Hoffman's meticulously crafted imitation of Truman Capote, are not enough to honor the weight of the subject matter the film attempts to handle, but fails to present with any new insights.After watching this entire film, I did not once cry, or even feel sad, not even for a moment, not for a single character, but I did experience admiration for whomever found all those 1960s cars and ashtrays. Given the subject matter, that reaction is not a good sign.

Outsdanding!

tt0379725

I write this review, as I found out that actor Philip Seymour died. R.I.P.This was one of the excellent films which came out in 2005.Amazingly plot deals with death and death sentence. When you deal with a subject of death it has a way of creeping into your life, which it was well portrayed in the film Capote. Capote, although trying to stay neutral in his tryout of writing a book about prisoners and death sentence, he is drawn into it. You simply can not stay out of that horrible circle in which you are drawn when working on such a subject.No wonder Philip won an Oscar for the portrayal of Capote, he does it so well. The moment when he tells us that scarf he is wearing is of a certain brand will always stay in my mind.It is a must see, especially with a demise of Philip, for he has left a masterpiece behind.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379725/reviews-432

ur6879155

title: Outsdanding! review: I write this review, as I found out that actor Philip Seymour died. R.I.P.This was one of the excellent films which came out in 2005.Amazingly plot deals with death and death sentence. When you deal with a subject of death it has a way of creeping into your life, which it was well portrayed in the film Capote. Capote, although trying to stay neutral in his tryout of writing a book about prisoners and death sentence, he is drawn into it. You simply can not stay out of that horrible circle in which you are drawn when working on such a subject.No wonder Philip won an Oscar for the portrayal of Capote, he does it so well. The moment when he tells us that scarf he is wearing is of a certain brand will always stay in my mind.It is a must see, especially with a demise of Philip, for he has left a masterpiece behind.