It's hard to know how to react to this movie. I guess the most accurate description I could give it is that the experience of watching it was like having one of those dreams that's almost coherent and even approaches being cinematic, but has just a few too many non sequitur peculiarities, so intrinsic to any dream, that the whole mess just doesn't quite hold together.
Bizarrely, this movie has no shortage of reasonably name-brand actors. Matthew Broderick, Robert Forster, strangely beautiful Camilla Bell and even a small cameo with the legendary Robert Vaughn are in this movie, and they make no more impact upon it than a collection of talking head shots. Even Janeane Garofalo, whose presence in a movie usually elicits SOME sort of emotional response from me by virtue of the fact I find her so detestable as a person and an actor, doesn't make a dent in this picture.
And who is Greg Stuhr, the lead, and how did he get to BE the lead with so many recognizable actors relegated behind him as background scenery?
Only adding to the Kafkaesque sense of this movie are the collection of sparkling reviews from other viewers. Some of them as much as admit that they gave the movie a high review because they are either from or really like Buffalo or both. Alrighty then.
So how does such a peculiar, oddly distorted movie get made? I have a theory. Of course I do.
There are certain topics that just naturally result in cinematic peculiarities. UFOs, Loch Ness, Bigfoot and so on are just frequently going to result in movies that are a little pressed off- center. The organizers behind the movie are possessed of certain thinking patterns and cherished belief systems that are a little half-baked resulting in plot lines that are a little half-baked resulting in depictions that are a little half-baked. The underlying thinking is not rigorous or structured, with lots of gaps and holes that if carefully examined might result in some undesirable questions or illuminations, and so goes the picture that gets made. Nonlinear thinking and disconnected thought patterns unfettered by the notions of cause and effect, basic physics or plain old reality tend to result in peculiar scripts and, shall we say, "innovative filmography".
Nikola Tesla is DEFINITELY one such topic. His inventions, his insights, his intelligence and the events of his life are equal parts genius and nutcase. SOME of what he did was genius and so amongst the true-believers EVERYTHING he did was genius. SOME dirty tricks and manipulation and subterfuge were perpetrated upon him and so ALL his unrealized miracle inventions have been suppressed by "evil echelons". Lather, rinse, ad nauseam. People believe in Tesla like they believe in UFOs and Bigfoot and angels and a seemingly endless parade of conspiracies. The fact that a handful are true constitutes all the veracity needed for ALL the rest.
And you end up with a movie that was made by true-believers for true-believers. All the appropriate conspiracy checkboxes get ticked off in the context of the canon scenery. And then it's called "noir" to spackle over all the holes. And the crowd goes wild.
And while they may be name brand, if you re-examine that cast list, none of the "big" names are really all that big anymore. I'm guessing some of them needed the money. Looking at many of the scenes with the name-brand actors in them, and making note of the isolated context and the blocking, I often get a distinct sense of, "I go on, I get off, I get paid."
Watch the scene with Robert Vaughn and see what feeling YOU get about it.
As an exercise, see if you can get a grip on what the "unlimited energy of the ionosphere" and their description of the use of "the life energy" in the "tin man" project actually MEANS. Had to get an insider reference to Kirlian auras in there SOMEHOW, didn't we? And for bonus credit, stand on any busy street corner and yell "free energy" and watch what happens.
If you're a fan of this kind of "thinking", I BELIEVE you'll probably love this movie. Proof is for party poopers. Say it with me.
For the rest of us, it's pretty much confusing or irritating or both.
Bizarrely, this movie has no shortage of reasonably name-brand actors. Matthew Broderick, Robert Forster, strangely beautiful Camilla Bell and even a small cameo with the legendary Robert Vaughn are in this movie, and they make no more impact upon it than a collection of talking head shots. Even Janeane Garofalo, whose presence in a movie usually elicits SOME sort of emotional response from me by virtue of the fact I find her so detestable as a person and an actor, doesn't make a dent in this picture.
And who is Greg Stuhr, the lead, and how did he get to BE the lead with so many recognizable actors relegated behind him as background scenery?
Only adding to the Kafkaesque sense of this movie are the collection of sparkling reviews from other viewers. Some of them as much as admit that they gave the movie a high review because they are either from or really like Buffalo or both. Alrighty then.
So how does such a peculiar, oddly distorted movie get made? I have a theory. Of course I do.
There are certain topics that just naturally result in cinematic peculiarities. UFOs, Loch Ness, Bigfoot and so on are just frequently going to result in movies that are a little pressed off- center. The organizers behind the movie are possessed of certain thinking patterns and cherished belief systems that are a little half-baked resulting in plot lines that are a little half-baked resulting in depictions that are a little half-baked. The underlying thinking is not rigorous or structured, with lots of gaps and holes that if carefully examined might result in some undesirable questions or illuminations, and so goes the picture that gets made. Nonlinear thinking and disconnected thought patterns unfettered by the notions of cause and effect, basic physics or plain old reality tend to result in peculiar scripts and, shall we say, "innovative filmography".
Nikola Tesla is DEFINITELY one such topic. His inventions, his insights, his intelligence and the events of his life are equal parts genius and nutcase. SOME of what he did was genius and so amongst the true-believers EVERYTHING he did was genius. SOME dirty tricks and manipulation and subterfuge were perpetrated upon him and so ALL his unrealized miracle inventions have been suppressed by "evil echelons". Lather, rinse, ad nauseam. People believe in Tesla like they believe in UFOs and Bigfoot and angels and a seemingly endless parade of conspiracies. The fact that a handful are true constitutes all the veracity needed for ALL the rest.
And you end up with a movie that was made by true-believers for true-believers. All the appropriate conspiracy checkboxes get ticked off in the context of the canon scenery. And then it's called "noir" to spackle over all the holes. And the crowd goes wild.
And while they may be name brand, if you re-examine that cast list, none of the "big" names are really all that big anymore. I'm guessing some of them needed the money. Looking at many of the scenes with the name-brand actors in them, and making note of the isolated context and the blocking, I often get a distinct sense of, "I go on, I get off, I get paid."
Watch the scene with Robert Vaughn and see what feeling YOU get about it.
As an exercise, see if you can get a grip on what the "unlimited energy of the ionosphere" and their description of the use of "the life energy" in the "tin man" project actually MEANS. Had to get an insider reference to Kirlian auras in there SOMEHOW, didn't we? And for bonus credit, stand on any busy street corner and yell "free energy" and watch what happens.
If you're a fan of this kind of "thinking", I BELIEVE you'll probably love this movie. Proof is for party poopers. Say it with me.
For the rest of us, it's pretty much confusing or irritating or both.