Reviews

i loved this film. first and foremost i must say that. on the underside of things, it was of course a personified teaching of philosophy and existentialism and nihilism, mostly from french philosophers (not just the isabelle huppert character) about the interconnectedness of things versus the meaninglessness of things, and how to deal with them, and the notion that most people come to, which is that one should really take a mediation of both sides and combine ways of thought, etc. i thought the acting here was very good; and of course the storyline, apart from being terribly funny, eg. the poetry, the torching of the jetskis, the self-hitting with exercise balls to "numb" and "purify" feeling, the horribly rigid Christian family representing the majority of those who will be voting bush, has been writing to coincide with the philosophy and make it work, eg. how schwartzman's character eventually realizes he is one and the same as jude law's (i guess that is the "blanket" theory of interconnectedness, but of course when schwartzman says with a smile "it works" or something like that we see that there can be a much deeper connotation of all of these philosophies, and that that can in fact work in real life, and that one can apply them to anything) ...

i found the overlaid and general message of the film was perhaps a suggestion to live one's life differently; to look inside oneself separately from any philosophical stuff and to resolve one's issues (eg. the corpse duffel bag/eye blinders/bath scenes of blacking out reality and looking inwardly, the confrontation with the parents); to look at the bigger picture as well, and to "ask questions!" as wahlberg says frequently; overall, therefore, it is advocated to live openly look upon the world fresh and with interest each day. o. russell is of course a master of cinematography (or his cinematographer is) because the shooting was for the most part terribly simplistic, following a face or a bust regardless of where or how they moved, and ever succeeding to keep my interest moving right at his pace.

this refers to the version on the new DVD which may be touched up in more ways than one; it includes the original student film upon which this was based, but i haven't watched that yet ...

at the risk of sounding like a typical reviewer on a typical "thumbs up" piece, i will call this film "masterfully shot": the cinematography was, as has been factually proven, revolutionary ... each image was extremely thoughtful and replete with symbolism, heavily layered ... aside from the new technology both with sound and picture, as well as with special effects, the style itself in which the film was shot, i think was quite unique - leaving many things obscure, from details of numberings and codings to the close ups of various functional machines and things ... every angle, every shadow, every pose/blocking, every framing, every movement, every distance of subject from camera and change in such, was thought and decided upon in ways that were quite non-adherent to formula ways, even for the so-called "wild experimental" ways of the 70s ... all of these shots and framing contributed immensely to an already appropriate drugged-up , and maintained the mood very well of the obvious escapism and claustrophobia, but also of confusion (this also done in the production design), stifled urges, etc. while i did enjoy the ending personally, i think that the film dwindled from a meaningful, pensive piece (not just in its subject matter, but also in the details and, as i have said above, the cinematography) into a sort of chase-action type thing, long before the ending. i was sure the chase would just be one scene, one episode, as the strange prison-thing seemed to be, on his long journey to nowhere (he did not seem fully resolved to escape til late into it, though he sort of almost decided it with his "mate") ... the silver-tongued "friend" of his was quite interesting, as an actor and also as the evident commentary on revolutionary and counter-cultures, etc. so, all in all, great film except the last quarter or so. 8.5/10

this was a fairly enjoyable film, and i must admit better than i expected ... nicholson performs to perfection as usual, and keaton of course is extremely talented and i would say realistic ... however amanda peet's character seemed neither well convicted nor well developed ... this appeared more a writing issue than an acting or directing issue (unless there are simply some removed scenes, but i noticed on the DVD there is only one, and it does not relate) ... her character seems unrealistic in her reactions, eg. ill-explained reactions, motivations unclear and unexpected ... peet has always been an idiosyncratic actor, but she nonetheless offers always a great performance in all of the films i have seen of hers ... 7/10

started out amazingly - i could not stress enough how original the film is, idiosyncratic and very interesting, new to the best of my knowledge, for about the first half or three quarters of the film ... after that it is either stupid and unrealistic or overdone and exaggerated, eg. the level of violence is inappropriate for the rest of the thing, though even that in itself was fairly original in plot etc. ... the main reason i had the impetus to write about this film was that it was likely the only (or one of the only) keanu reeves films in which he actually performs well and gives an engaging and three dimensional character with EMOTIONS ... i want to like him, i really do ... this film definitely helped ... 7.5/10

a little lacking in structure (though braff in interview noted that the narrative went exactly as he had planned it), a terribly extremely funny film, with unique characters and a definitely engaging film technique, eg. much coverage and variety in shots, and closeups very effective (though the acting is mostly the cause of this); i loved the boat on the edge of the abyss, but really i loved all the details in this film. natalie portman redeemed herself 120% from star wars; throughout, i was thinking my god she can act after all! great and idiosyncratic performance from her, near perfect ... the father character (ian holm) was not given enough play and/or development (or simply just screen time), and though the interactions between father and son were somewhat unoriginal (especially the ending speech to his father by braff's character), the delivery and movements and overall acting more than made up for this, and i could barely tell that the "it's going to be OK" speech had been used a thousand times ... this is a praise ... the ending was a bit cliché (at least one of the people i saw it with was thoroughly disgusted with the ending and said it did not fit at all) but i think it worked anyway. wonderful first film (though i have read elsewhere that he has made at least another previously) - 9/10

figgis is a genius at creating mood, that lingering, dwelling, lamenting sort of mood that is so perfectly made ... story of two pathetic people getting together (she even says "i'm using you", while taking him into her home and buying him gifts upon gifts, only further reinforcing the desperation of this sad life they have made for themselves and the small light that is made when they get together ... at the filmschool i was at i was always told that a good movie is one that you can actually say "i wish i had made this" ... out of all of the hundreds or thousands of films i have seen in my short life, i can say that this is a film I WISH I HAD MADE

this is actually a very well done film, so many ideas of relationships with our parents and how they affect us sexually, and vice versa

BETTER THAN "KIDS" ... larry clark knows how to keep us in that "real", that dogme 95 cinema verite feeling ... genius