MovieChat Forums > The Sum of Us (1995) Discussion > Interesting movie...

Interesting movie...

posted 19 years ago by shoeihell
12 replies | jump to latest

I had seen a part of it before out of context and wasn't particularly interested in seeing more...but....it rolled around again many months later and I saw it start to finish. I liked it a lot actually....I'm not sure I care for the film style where the characters break off dialogue and talk to the camera. American cinema is criticized the world over by many as always having to give the viewers all the answers-like they were idiots who couldn't figure it all out. So given the tact of this down under movie, I would say the criticisms for explaining everything to the viewer/camera seem surprising absent?? Crowe did a great job reading his lines with emotion, but I never bought him for even a second as 'gay'. Just looked like a straight guy trying to play a gay guy...liked the plot though and the humble setting. I'd also say the last eleven yrs haven't been that kind to his looks....

reply

[–] austendw 19 years ago

I'm not sure I care for the film style where the characters break off dialogue and talk to the camera.

The talking to the audience is a rather theatrical device and clearly derives from the original stagplay, from which this was adapted by the original playwright. But what works in the theatre doesn't of course necessarily work on screen.

I saw this film for the first time before Russell Crowe was famous in the UK and I didn't get that feeling about him just "playing" gay, but I think I felt rather differently when I saw it a second time. I reckon my knowledge of the actor intervened and changed my perceptions.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] shoeihell 19 years ago

"It's the subsequent career and notoriety, I think, that makes "newbies" to this film less accepting of Russell playing gay. Those of us who weren't encumbered by those preconceptions had/have no problem with it."

I don't agree...I haven't seen Crowe in much, didn't even bother to finish "Gladiator". Like I said, he read his lines well and has good screen demeanor, but convincing me he was gay, nah. My point about his looks was that he looked like a kid then in this vehicle and now he looks middle aged. That's not a bad thing at all, I'm middle aged, but we're just talking 11yrs.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] shoeihell 19 years ago

LOL...it's OK, so we disagree. I still liked the movie a lot but only x2....which means (for me) that's a movie best seen two times and no more.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] shoeihell 19 years ago

Kewl...I suspect you're a Crowe fan, of which I am not. I mean I don't dislike the man, just don't get moved by anything he does...sort of like Kevin Costner. I love a lot of his movies, but hate him IN them. “Beautiful Mind” I own and have seen just once....I was enamored with the concept that it was based on real life events, but have to remind myself, 'Crowe, did the lead (?), yeah that's right'.

Macaulay on the other hand, who is disputably not the best young actor out there, is such a piece of hot, exquisite eye candy that I'm drawn to anything he does, along with Emile Hirsch-who actually IS one of the better young actors out there....

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] shoeihell 19 years ago

Hirsch has only done 'boy' parts to date. That was point, he has incredible potential and I cannot think of a 'boy' actor any better at present. He's old enough now for adult parts and it will be interesting to see what he does.

That movie was called "Party Monster" with Macaulay....close enough. I find him incredible eye candy, yet I'm not sure of what roles he will take in the future. He's an icon in Hollywood because of his child acting alone. As an adult he's never really had to 'stretch' for anything yet except the bizarre. Plus he's plagued with drug charges, although they've been minor. I honestly don't know if he's capable of anything with 'range', but I'll gladly pay to see his naked butt and legs again.;-)

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] shoeihell 19 years ago

"But seriously, it's ever more common these days for child actors to make the switch and develop mature careers. So Culkin's chances will be determined, I suppose, by his own intelligence and that of his management. He looks odd though, to me at least. I wonder whether he will settle for the sorts of character roles that might dictate."

Macaulay's face is almost cartoon like...especially his smile. That's the attraction for me-that sensitive vulnerability and the non-traditional Michael J. Fox Hollywood 'head' look. I honestly can't say much about his adult career...I was blown away that he showed up as an adult and started acting again. If he insists on doing the Robert Downey drug thing however, it's going to be a long road for him.

reply

[–] shoeihell 19 years ago

"The talking to the audience is a rather theatrical device and clearly derives from the original stagplay, from which this was adapted by the original playwright. But what works in the theatre doesn't of course necessarily work on screen."

Well then, that makes much more sense to me...I didn't know it had been a stageplay before. I though the director had taken some liberties in letting the actors speak to the audience. I'm not saying it didn't "work"...it just isn't my thing and I didn't need the explanation.

reply