Simple Men (1992) User Reviews

Oh the characters!

[Atavisten · 7/10 · 30 March 2006]

What would Hal Hartley's movies be without the eccentric characters? Here is the ex-baseball player hiding in a boat quoting Proudhon to a religiously following Romanian epilectic girl less than half his age that definitely has her own way of dancing to Sonic Youth. Referencing here and there, many lost on me I guess, but the way everything is downplayed makes it so funny at times.

Hal Hartly is so good in casting. I think I liked every actor and actress he has chosen. Here, Elina Lövensohn shines, Karen Sillas is so natural and Robert John Burke is highly dramatic, like he was as the monster in 'No Such Thing'. The rest is seriously deadpan, which is a good thing.

Simply Bizarre, Surreal and Hilarious

[MrLucasWarHero · 8/10 · 8 August 2019]

It's like somebody took a piece of classic cinema and emphasized just how ridiculous and surreal every cliché and stereotype really is. Hal Hartley does a masterful job of giving a classic film narrative a fresh perspective with a hilariously sharp, convoluted, wild and gripping screenplay directed in a style that appears reminiscent of the French New Wave. Loaded with unabashedly random monologues, hysterically quotable moments and a beautifully chaotic plot, this film is certainly a classic in its own right.

The first half is interesting, but later the film becomes less believable.

[Charles-43 · 6/10 · 26 December 1998]

The first half is interesting, but later this film becomes less believable and of less interest.

Sublime and heartfelt

[ellkew · 14 February 2003]

This is a beautifully made film that has dialogue that literally sparkles and puts 90% of Hollywood scripts to shame though that is admittedly not too difficult. I adore Hartley's use of language and the way he lets the actors perform in front of his camera. The post-drinking scene where they dance to Sonic Youth's Kool Thing is inspired cinema, also the scene where Donovan lists his decent bands 'the old Who'. The best scene is at the end though. I find it incredibly moving each time that this man who has constantly denied his feelings and fought his past is drawn to rest his head gently on the breast of the woman he has grown to love. Though surrounded by police the camera focuses only on his face as we hear the words 'Don't move' off-camera. Why would he move when he has finally found where he belongs? Immaculate framing, marvellous pace and a genuinely affecting story all combine to make this my second favourite Hartley film after 'Amateur' which is untouchable as far as I am concerned.

Small-time masterpiece

[kitticat-2 · 10/10 · 27 October 2000]

Like Mr. Hartley's other movies, this film manages to balance humor, romance, drama, emotion, and action. It has a vaguely surreal air to it, wherein the events are plausible, but could only happen on those strange, unsettled days of the year when the sky can't decide whether to rain or not. There is also a bit of camp mixed in.

Also like his other films, Simple Men is quite idealistic, yet without being sappy or 'feel-good' in a cheap or simplistic way. This is a subtle movie, and I found I had to watch it a second and third time before I truly appreciated it. It's hard to compare it to anything else except Hartley's other movies, especially the excellent Henry Fool. I recommend it highly.

Quirky, stylised and watchable movie

[calorne · 6/10 · 16 November 2019]

I have seen this film described as post-modern. I am not sure what that means and if that is a defined era or just a type of film that could be made at any time.

However, one feature of this film is that the dialogue is rather aloof and clipped. There is also something up with the clothes. No character looks as if they are wearing their own clothes. It is as if the wardrobe suppliers were a very small concern with just had two rails - one with some brand new pieces from a catalogue store and the other from a charity shop and they made do.

All living spaces are similarly off. Very minimalist and as if a few items had been bought from a yard sale just to put things on tables and the like.

Nevertheless, I found the film interesting and entertaining. The framing of the action was soothing to me. Very pared down without lots of jumping about. I also liked the music and the Bande a part style dance routine.

I saw this film as one of this month's "Curzon 12".

GREAT Movie

[HalMcCabe · 10/10 · 22 March 2005]

This is one of my favorite HH movies, by far. This, Trust, and Undeniable Truth are I think his three best. This is a total dialoge movie, and HH does a great job in setting moods and playing with settings and music.

Usual cast of characters, and a strange plot, and a surreal setting, make for a moody movie, for sure this is not an 'up' movie but it IS very funny. Very quotable. The first HH movie I ever saw, and still by far my favorite.

And the Kool Thing Dance is funny and bizarre, not a pointless attempt to show his taste in music as the previous comment stated. We all know HH works brilliantly with music in his films, he does not do things to show off.

Trusting Men

[sol- · 6/10 · 18 March 2017]

Double-crossed and forced to flee town to evade the authorities, a small time crook joins his younger brother on a quest to track down their father, a former sporting legend turned anarchist, in this deliberately paced drama from Hal Hartley of 'Trust' fame. The film features some great dialogue as the brothers banter about whether there is any difference between being "in love" and "thinking with your penis" and as they discuss whether certain music artists let themselves be exploited or take control of whether how they are being exploited. Quirky supporting characters include a sarcastic local policeman and a store clerk set on learning French to help make his upcoming date with an Italian woman run smoother (!). The most intriguing character though is the brothers' father, and it never quite makes sense how few scenes he has, all cobbled at the end. Getting his disciples to recite politically charged verses, their father has become a bit of a cult figure, professing answers for all of his followers and yet disconnected from his own flesh and blood. Spending more time on the crook being double-crossed may have also helped since his heartbreak over that is a chief motivation (then again, Mary McKenzie is so amateurish as the woman who crossed him that it is a welcome relief when she disappears from screen). Whatever the case, this is certainly nowhere near as engaging a movie as 'Trust'; similarly though, 'Simple Men' is a film that works best in the scenes where the characters simply interact with one another and share their views.

A Simple Joy

[PaulLondon · 9/10 · 4 November 2000]

Hartley has here created a near masterpiece; a wonderful, autumnally atmospheric and deeply human film. The usual quirks are there (the cyclical dialogues, the silences) but it is imbued with a warmth and love that makes the film unmissable. The fragile nature of relationships comes under the directors scrutiny as two brothers spend a couple of days in Long Island. The all night drinking scene complete with a dance routine to Sonic Youth's "Kool Thing" captures that dusk to dawn and too much Jack Daniels feel as well as any film I have ever seen. But, it is the closing scene which clinches it, a heart stoppingly romantic yet equally depressing end which asserts that through the pains of life, through the "trouble and desire" there is always a belief in other people that can keep us going. Life affirming (without being a saccharine "feel good" movie) and truly wonderful

I gave it 30 minutes (charitably)

[jtur88 · 3/10 · 3 February 2001]

I'm pretty tolerant of films that are off-beat, but really! This is the kind of film that makes one observe that the director might make some pretty good films when he grows up. The first scene gave me the expectation that in a minute or two, a curtain would come down and the audience would clap politely, and the amateur actors would leave the stage and move on to the real movie. But they just moved to other stages, where they kept on reading their lines as if they were dictating to a stenographer. Try to imagine an episode of "Twin Peaks" starring Lindsay Crouse. You got it.

After 30 minutes, I switched and watched something else---then when I came back 2 hours later, another Hartley film was airing ("Amateurs")---which actually did capture my interest. Not great, but I stuck it out to the end. Too many forced bits that made me think of the Aykroyd-Hanks "Dragnet".

I didn't want it to end.

[Curtis G. · 10/10 · 11 June 2003]

"Trust" was so different from anything I'd ever seen that it just knocked me out--the dialog, the meter, the slightly-affected hyper-reality of the performances. "Simple Men" showcased a refinement of writer/director Hal Hartley's style, and I found myself watching rapt, not wanting it to end, ever. Untouched, unblemished, unstained by Hollywood, Hal Hartley makes his own movies his own way. He takes life's "little problems"--the ones that big Hollywood movies only mention in passing as a cinematic trick to achieve emotional buy-in--and examines them in exquisite detail. Now when is the DVD release!?

The nudge-nudge, wink-wink school of film-making

[kgh-3 · 4/10 · 21 December 2000]

The power of the movie camera is its voyeuristic capabilities, peering in at various affairs, public and intimate, of people portrayed by actors. It is undetected by them as they go about their business. Hitchcock brought this metaphor to life in Rear Window as Jimmy Stewart peered into his neighbors' lives with his camera. There is, however, a school of film-making that breaks from this model; let's call it the nudge-nudge, wink-wink school of film-making. In this style the actors are all aware of the camera, behaving not naturally, but rather in a posed way, a way that says, "Look, I'm doing this for you, the viewer." Films in this school often feature stilted dialogue and wooden acting. If this is a style that you enjoy, then Simple Men is for you.

Philosophical suburban grotesque

[Phil-249 · 3 October 1999]

There's Hollywood, there's Dogma... and there's Hal Hartley. The absurd storyline of "Simple Men" reminded me of Pedro Almodóvar, it's visual impact made me think of Hitchcock's suburban nightmares like "Shadow of a doubt" or "The trouble with Harry". It's either a deeply philosophical movie which raises many questions (without providing the answers), or some sort of grotesque (Elina Lowensohn's performance!), depending on how you look at it. "Simple men" is one of those movies which leave you with the impression that there was more than met the eye, and maybe there was. Above all, it's an unusual, tranquil and highly entertaining film with very likeable characters.

One word, "dialogue"

[thefilmeditor86 · 10/10 · 28 June 2003]

Wow, I must say this is probably the best indie film I've seen in years and it has wormed its way into my top 10 movies ever. "Simple Men" is very well written and the dialogue is genius. Plus, anyone doing a dance number to a sonic youth song is a winner in my book.

the movie that sold me on Hal Hartley as a director/writer

[endymion82 · 9/10 · 16 December 2000]

This was my second Hal Hartley film, and the one that made me go out and rent everything else he's ever made. After FLIRT, this is my favorite (I know, TRUST fans are getting angry at me right now) of Hartley's works. Maybe it's because, like FLIRT, I relate very strongly to these people: their intelligence, their fears, their lifestyles and concerns, their triumphs all seem so real to me, and yet rendered in that unique Hartley style that I've come to love so, and ultimately see as a very romantic vision of the normal world. Karen Sillas gives a performance that's a lesson in subtlety, and Robert Burke is brilliantly passionate and cynical at the same time. Elina Lowhenson, William Mackay and Bill Sage are all great too, and each has one or two splendid moments, but Martin Donnavin (no surprise) and Damien Heath steal the movie. The best part is, however, the end. Like FLIRT, it was so subtle, so smart, and so genuine, that it brought tears to my eyes.

Legend

[Freemheart · 10/10 · 23 February 2004]

It was just a little mistake changing the channel, but after watch a few scenes of a low budget film with Robert John Burke talking great dialogue, couldn't move my eyes from the TV till the movie end. It wasn't the good cast or the style of low budget, It was the whole story taking a deep vision about the life and the love. After that I became a fan of Hal Hartley, because every movie of him shows another piece of the life in the hell in a way more realistic and with less violence than many great independent directors. The world of Hartley and Simple men it's the path of loyalty to a vision of the universe, where the pain and the innocence are the main actors of the story.

I must be missing something

[joelmp · 2/10 · 7 December 2002]

Every review I read liked this film. I hated it. Cretinous acting. Monosyllabic dialog. Inane script. Pointless plot. Now I sound like the writer. Minimalism taken to new empty lows. Do yourself a favor. Skip it.

A Hal Hartley classic, totally successful

[robert-temple-1 · 10/10 · 6 February 2015]

This is one of Hartley's most successful films. Every aspect is perfect: the comedic timing, the pace, the direction, the framing, the whole thing just works. Hartley wrote the screenplay as well as directed. In trying to think what it is about Hartley's films (when they work) that seems so immediate to our lives, despite the fact that they are fantasies, I have evolved a theory. Wait for it. This is it. He is not merely filming caricatures of humans, he is filming caricatures of the human situation, and that is a different thing. Possibly the closest affinity he has within modern literature is Wyndham Lewis (THE APES OF GOD, etc.) One can go back further and think of Jonathan Swift. Hartley's tongue-in-cheek satire runs so deep, it could be called The Grand Canyon of Cartoon Land. His characters can sometimes be no closer to reality than Dick Tracy or Batman, but unlike those comic book creations, we seem to know them all too well: they are us. Every one of us has buried deep inside the capacity to become a Hartley character. That is the Hartley magic. He can see the invisible caricatures we can all become shifting around inside us like translucent leprechauns waiting to spring out of our frozen faces and commence frenetic action, action which can be catastrophic, even criminal, but certainly unpredictable. Hartley knows that buried deep within all the apparent certainties of human existence are infinite uncertainties. It is these he teases out, renders visible to us in deadpan comedic form, and wonders whether we will laugh uncontrollably or otherwise run away with the horror of recognition. In this particular film, Hartley decides to show men what they really think of women, and see if they recognise themselves. The amazing elfin creature known as Elina Löwensohn, proud as always to boast of being a Romanian ('A what??), given her chance, as always by Hartley, to proclaim her origins no matter what character she plays, is inevitably present. What actress ever born was made more perfectly for a Hal Hartley film than she? For she is both real and unreal at the same time, and apparently cannot help it. Transylvanian magic! Along the way, Hartley is able to make a sarcastic joke about the American obsession with baseball, by having a glowering and sullen character who 'is just a baseball player', having been 'the best shortstop America ever had', and now a cold and heartless criminal who does not even want to speak to his two sons who have found him at last after many years. Take that, baseball! The whole cast are superb, Robert Burke, Bill Sage, Karen Sillas, and the rest. As usual, Hartley's casting is impeccable. Watch this film, study its semi-penetrable gnomic humour, and marvel at the work of a master.

A HUGE disappointment

[susansweb · 2/10 · 20 December 2001]

Boy, was I looking forward to this film. Hal Hartley was returning with most of the cast of "The Unbelievable Truth" with what sounded like an even better film. A couple of criminals go searching for their father, a former pro baseball shortstop turned anarchist. Well, all I got was boring dialogue and lots of it. And to me the impression was given that Hartley was trying to outdo himself on the screenplay but all that came out was a lot of pretension. Then to jazz up the film, throw in a lot of quirkiness which really doesn't make any sense: dancing to Sonic Youth's "Kool Thing" (hey, look at how cool my taste in music is), the guitar playing and the depressed sheriff bit. This film was definitely not one of Hartley's better moments. I have since seen, "Amateur", which is much better, so hopefully, this was just an aberration.

That person is sooo wrong

[asia-3 · 21 January 1999]

This movie is amazing. In a lot of ways it is an extremely painful movie to watch, watching people create their own destruction, watching the action play out a certain inevitability. But it's different also from a lot of stories, in that this kind of arc does not just continue on to its logical conclusion. The characters do not simply hurtle forth, but are always capable of thinking, changing. Really, really good.

Hal Hartley's Magnum Opus

[lordnimbo · 9/10 · 3 November 2012]

I could have sworn that I had already written a review of this, my favorite Hal Hartley film, but apparently have not.

I first watched the film when it was broadcast on the New York PBS station in the early 1990's, and had recorded it (using the high-tech method of the time, with a VCR). When I initiated my hosting of "Weird Movie Night" as a recurring event for my friends and coworkers, 'this' was the first film shown. Like myself, most of the viewers were shocked, having never seen anything like it before. A film where the dialog is as much of the effect as the visual portion. Some of the viewers writhed and yelled out in pain, others laughed at specific scenes (I always laugh at the parts when "Stu the bus driver", I mean 'the sheriff' talks about his relationship issues).

I feel that this is Hal's most 'intelligent' film, with the scenes, script, and background music all syncing up perfectly. It is not a film to watch just to let your mind 'blank' and be fed without question, but makes 'you' think and analyze what you're watching. If that's not the viewing experience you're looking for, one can always rent/download "Die Hard 3".

For those who feel that the film is 'unreal' regarding the character portrayals, I'd counter that they are 'more real' than those shown in the standard Hollywood-released films, which either 'smooth out' their character's personalities, or push them to the extreme. This film doesn't try to make the characters or their interactions 'perfect', but shows them as they are, and what occurs when different personalities are placed together.

Some reviewers state that the film had no meaning or resolution, but I find it (at least at the end) to be very obvious. So I don't spoil it for those who haven't viewed the film yet, or figured out the ending, I'll just suggest that you look at the older brother's coat and think about what 'he' is about to do, just before his final decision.

If you are a fan of Hal Hartley, and want to raise your children with an appreciation of his type/genre of film, obtain the 2 DVD sets of "The Adventures of Pete and Pete" (seasons 1 and 2) which were filmed around the same time period as "Simple Men", and have at least 2 actors from the film in at least 1 episode (not difficult to pick them out).

Artistic nonsense

[carlmr · 1/10 · 5 February 2011]

I can't imagine how people can rate this movie so high. To start with the acting is bad, I don't know where they got these actors or if it was the directors will to make them act this way, but most soap opera actors seem to have more talent than these guys. Secondly the dialog is annoying or sometimes even funny because of the nonsense the people are talking. Yet the worst thing of all is that this movie is "artistic" in the sense that if it weren't almost 2 hours long you'd believe it was written by a high school movie club. In my opinion this movie is a pure waste of time, but see for yourself. If you watch it, try not to make the same mistake as me and hope it will get better after the first ten minutes...

Good Try, But no Cigar - Simple Men

[arthur_tafero · 4/10 · 6 March 2021]

A Pinteresque attempt at Long Island drama/fantasy has some very good dialogue, but not much else. The characters are paper thin and synthetic, the production values are minimalist, at best. and the acting is more wannabe Hollywood than the actual stage actors and actresses of Long Island that these people really are. Long Island, unfortunately, is not really a hotbed of film and film talent. It has good theater, and wonderful bands for Jones Beach, but the real grit needed for good films is just not there. Long Island films are always trying to be pithy, oh-so-sophisticated, and deeply philosophical, but usually wind up being cartoonish. There are exceptions, like LIE, but most flounder. By trying to get real and become a fantasy at the same time, a film producer achieves neither. This film falls into that category as well. With such good writing skill, however, there is always hope for a better product in the future.

Reminds me of a Sam Shepard play...

[Dickles-2 · 9 October 1999]

On first viewing, I could have sworn this was a Sam Shepard play. It has the short lilting dialogue for much of the film and sounds as though it were written for the stage. It is directed very much in that fashion and is a fascinating, captivating set of performances...understated and full of deeper meanings that don't shout at you in the more typical "Hollywood" tradition!

Now I learned a new term: deadpan

[SilverDiamond1987 · 1/10 · 8 December 2009]

The biggest problem of the movie is that the movie has no effect at all which I recently learned that they call it deadpan. The reactions of the characters are extremely soulless. The movie is not humorous because of those except the famous dance scene and the guy who helps Kate. This short part is the only interesting part and the guy is the only acceptable character of the movie, as said, all the other characters are too emotionless. This cannot be explained by nihilism or Godard's 'anti-cinema' style. Simple Men is not a road movie, despite the main story is that two brothers leave the city to find their father. I had expected an interesting and colorful road movie, at least a movie. There is an emptiness feeling throughout the movie, so if you expect any kind of dramatic or stunning material, you disappoint seriously. Again because of this deadpan style of the director, no art, no entertainment. Cinematography is just OK, but owing to the problems mentioned above, finally the film is lack of an impressive cinema experience. The director puts up a solid wall between the movie and audiences, I don't mean catharsis or I don't mean empathy, these are not must, but this wall makes the movie distasteful and soulless. Some people complain about acting in the movie, but acting was not weak, there is no problem with acting, it was plausible. The thing makes them think like that is probably deadpan that the director likes. By the way, Simple Men is not predictable, but does not include any twist or surprise.