So I found the VHS tape of this film (with a discount sticker from Blockbuster on it) outside a dumpster with a bunch of other videos. Being up on my films and what is released, it caught my interest since I'd never recalled hearing about it.
I watched it. Painful. Pretty much from the get-go. The primary thing that makes any film painful to sit through, whether it's a "realist" or "surrealist" drama, is the absence of anything that would resemble truthfulness (truthfulness in behavior, truthfulness in dialogue, etc.) A filmmaker can make the most bizarre, esoteric film ever, provided there's some kind of human truth in it. If there is, the audience will be drawn in. I could not find it here. It is reminiscent of another film dealing with the seamier side of the gay nightlife scene of NYC's Village, 1980's "Cruising", but at least that film had Pacino to liven it up, and more skilled direction by Exorcist & French Connection director, William Friedkin.
This film is painfully vague and obtuse, making a David Lynch film seem like Sesame Street, and the dialogue is written in a way that is hard to imagine that anyone actually speaks. The actors struggle through a sub-par script, however the script may not appear so sub-par if it had better direction. But there is obvious miscasting, including the bartender and the homeless man. I've never encountered a NY bartender quite that timid or blundering, or a homeless guy that could've just as easily been cast in a Wendy's commercial (of course, he also has to stutter and be mentally challenged, though that is far from representative of a true NY homeless person). I would say if you're going to make something up, that doesn't reflect the reality of time & place, make it more interesting.
I did notice that Alan Cumming was in the movie, so I waited for his (albeit brief) appearance, to see what a truly talented actor could do with a bad script. Though his scene was one of the few that was not badly written, it was still pleasantly surprising to see what a fine job he did with it. His behavior was completely believable and made for one of the few bright spots in the film.
However, even though there's a painful pretentiousness to this film, (and very little honesty), I was quite surprised when I checked out rottentomatoes.com that it had gained some decent reviews, especially from Stephen Holden in the NY Times. He must've seen something I clearly missed.
I watched it. Painful. Pretty much from the get-go. The primary thing that makes any film painful to sit through, whether it's a "realist" or "surrealist" drama, is the absence of anything that would resemble truthfulness (truthfulness in behavior, truthfulness in dialogue, etc.) A filmmaker can make the most bizarre, esoteric film ever, provided there's some kind of human truth in it. If there is, the audience will be drawn in. I could not find it here. It is reminiscent of another film dealing with the seamier side of the gay nightlife scene of NYC's Village, 1980's "Cruising", but at least that film had Pacino to liven it up, and more skilled direction by Exorcist & French Connection director, William Friedkin.
This film is painfully vague and obtuse, making a David Lynch film seem like Sesame Street, and the dialogue is written in a way that is hard to imagine that anyone actually speaks. The actors struggle through a sub-par script, however the script may not appear so sub-par if it had better direction. But there is obvious miscasting, including the bartender and the homeless man. I've never encountered a NY bartender quite that timid or blundering, or a homeless guy that could've just as easily been cast in a Wendy's commercial (of course, he also has to stutter and be mentally challenged, though that is far from representative of a true NY homeless person). I would say if you're going to make something up, that doesn't reflect the reality of time & place, make it more interesting.
I did notice that Alan Cumming was in the movie, so I waited for his (albeit brief) appearance, to see what a truly talented actor could do with a bad script. Though his scene was one of the few that was not badly written, it was still pleasantly surprising to see what a fine job he did with it. His behavior was completely believable and made for one of the few bright spots in the film.
However, even though there's a painful pretentiousness to this film, (and very little honesty), I was quite surprised when I checked out rottentomatoes.com that it had gained some decent reviews, especially from Stephen Holden in the NY Times. He must've seen something I clearly missed.