Heard good things about this, love Raymond Carver and like alternative films. So thought this would be ideal for me.
But this film left me cold and disappointed. Thought alot of the scenes were contrived, the acting affected and the directing slow and uninspiring.
I don't see how people can compare this to magnolia or say amore perros.In my view far better films. This film just seemed to be a good idea (adapting carver's stories) gone wrong. Anyone else agree?
I'm gonna have to agree.
I usually love all of Altman's work, but I could barely make it through this 3-hour borefest.
There were way too many characters to keep them all straight, and many seemed to behave similarly anyway.
They could've cut this cast (and duration) waaaay down by simply combining characters.
I agree. Too many bits and pieces of Carver thrown in at random. If you've read a lot of Carver and then watch this movie, it's distracting because it takes parts from one story and applies them to charcters from a different story.
tomfanferek
I first saw this film in 1994, and I thought it was dull, pretentious and excruciatingly overlong.
It's now my favourite ever film - so go figure.
But as a Carver fan, you might want to check out 'Jindabyne', which adapts one of the stories in 'Short Cuts' (the 'dead girl found in the river' one).
I thought it was great actually. I wouldn't say it was really that contrived, especially compared to other ambitious "meaning of it all" ensemble pieces like Crash, Grand Canyon, and the very good if bloated Magnolia. I haven't seen Amores Perros, but I plan to. The situations were for the most part very realistic and the performances were great. But hey, that's just me.
shareEveryones entitled to their opinion, even if its wrong!
God will forgive them, He'll forgive them and allow them into Heaven. I can't live with that.
you might want to check out 'Jindabyne', which adapts one of the stories in 'Short Cuts' (the 'dead girl found in the river' one).
I noticed "Jindabyne" had a similar storyline and I wondered if it was intentional. Thanks for the confirmation.
You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi
It's just too long. Everything could've been done in two hours. It would make thing much more concise.
shareI trust Altman and believe that every scene thats in the film is there for a reason. The overly long argument gets old. If your not willing to put in the time to watch it then don't. Not all ideas can be shrunk down into a 2 hr film. Sometimes you need an extra hour. It certainly engaged me for the full length of the film.
shareI agree. I thought it was a good movie, but too long. It should have been carved down to about two hours. Especially Jack Lemmon's long, long monologue in the hospital cafeteria about how he cheated on his wife. I kept wanting to fast forward at that part, but I didn't because I thought the monologue would come to an end at any moment, but it just kept going.
shareI think there was too much crammed into one movie; sometimes it's very confusing and frustrating to watch.
"...truth against the world..." - attributed to Boudicca of the Iceni
I personally like movies that take their time with the narrative - Meet Joe Black, The Green Mile, Seven Samurai, The Good The Bad and The Ugly, Once Upon A Time In America, Das Boot - so I'm quite enamoured of this little picture, too.
shareI understand what you mean. I do like this film; I've read the book (which is indeed different) and I guess what I wanted to say was that I would have liked to see more about each vignette and its "backstory."
Green Mile has been one of my favorites for many years. I think this is one of the few Stephen King novels that translated well into film.
"...truth against the world..." - attributed to Boudicca of the Iceni
this is my favorite film of all time, so i definitely do not agree. i caught the last two hours of this on tv one night because the description mentioned andie macdowell, who i like, so i thought id turn it on for a few minutes just to see what it was. little did i know i would be sucked in for the remainder of it, finding the characters and the story/editing of the picture extremely fascinating. three hours is a long time, but i love every single scene, and i dont think the movie can afford to lose any of them. with the short clips of the many characters, it seems to go by faster and not be as boring as many other long movies, for me anyway. i dont understand how you wouldnt be able to follow all the characters, unless you either werent paying enough attention or maybe if you didnt know any of the actors before hand which might make it a little more difficult. i think maybe if you have read the books or stories (i have not) you might not enjoy the movie as much, that seems to be the case here. however, i think this script is excellent, and as a whole this movie is very emotional, interesting, entertaining, and very cleverly put together, with a superb top notch ensemble cast to top it off.
shareOne thing I found interesting was the scene in Lyle Lovett's bakery when Anne Archer (dressed as the clown) is there at the same time as Peter Gallagher. And wasn't Andie MacDowell there too, ordering her son's cake? And we the audience know they are connected in a Six Degrees of Separation kind of way, but of course they don't. It made me think of all the "strangers" I am in stores with every day, and what connections we'd discover if we ever did talk to each other.
There were several scenes like that of course. One thing I thought the movie did very well was to unfold more and more of the connections as it went on.
You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi
[deleted]
What do you mean 'overrated'
The ratings given don't mean anything except they are the average of people's opinons - they have no scientific value whatsoever, concensus means nothing and neither do those numbers (though useful as a general guide).
By asking is this overrated all you are doing is saying you would rate it lower than that average.
I personally enjoyed this piece of art and i find it very worthy, Altman is a fine director.
I also agree with you. I've heard a lot of good things about this film and my friend reccomended that I watch it since i love Magnolia and films of that sort.
I didn't really enjoy this film. I feel disturbed by it and a little sickened. I thought this movie was actually heartbreaking and I don't think I would ever watch it again. I don't understand how this could be classified as a comedy in any way. People have compared this style of "comedy" to be similar to Tarantino's, but it is nothing like that. I've watched every Tarantino film many times, and none have left me jaded and upset like this film.
Poor thing you. And SC isn´t "classified as a comedy", either.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
[deleted]