MovieChat Forums > Holy Smoke (1999) Discussion > Ending too agonizing for anyone else to ...

Ending too agonizing for anyone else to view in one sitting?

posted 21 years ago by beautifulbooks
17 replies | jump to latest

Hello,

It has been a few years since I watched this film. I really appreciate Harvey Keitel as an actor and this one did not let me down. However, by the time he was in the "frock", and out in the desert... did anyone else find it to painful to keep watching? Seriously, I turned it off and watched the ending the next morning, once I had a chance to cope with the idea of what he would do to try to love her. I look forward to watching it again... will probably buy the DVD.

Kristin

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] audrey_horne 21 years ago

I thought this film was too much, way too much. I've only seen two Jane Campion films, this and The Piano. I thought The Piano was great, I really enjoyed it. So I thought I'd watch another of Campion's films. Bit of a mistake, by the time I'd finsihed watching Holy Smoke I felt like I'd over done it a bit, it was like being spoon fed something really sickly when you're already full. The feminism theme/s are way over the top, it's thrusted right in your face, which she may intentionally have done, but I really found it far too much. The last third of this film is ridiculous. Men in dresses? Could you make it anymore obvious??? Jeeez its sickening. Just for the record I'm a female and have no problems with feminism whatsoever. Think I'll wait a while before watching Sweetie, I certainly don't plan on seeing In the cut anytime soon.

[–] Garmonboziaa 21 years ago

WOW !

The feminism theme is mainly why I loved the Movie so much.To be quit honest I wish there were more movies like this. I loved Kate as Ruth, I thought she was amazing. Ruth is definitely someone I'd like to hangout with.

[–] BlueLeaves 21 years ago

I just happened to be checking out this message board and thought I might suggest to you to rent, if you can find it, An Angel at My Table. This is one of Campions first films, (I think it was actually made for T.V.), and is wonderful. It is the true story of Janet Frame, New Zealand poet and novelist who was misdiagnosed for years as a schizophrenic. It is certainly Kerry Fox's finest performance and might restore your faith in Campion as a good director after the somewhat disappointing and over-the-top Holy Smoke.

"If a king can't sing, it ain't worth being king."

[–] cillastar 20 years ago

I just saw the movie and feel exactly the same way.

[–] martin_UK 21 years ago

the end. err....right. it was like a reeves and mortimer sketch. him in a dress and one boot wearing lipstick and her with 4 books tied to each foot with blue plastic bags you get from the offlicence. i was pissing myself. the funniest thing i've seen in a long time!
i was really disappointed that it wasn't like the trailer portrayed it. i thought it was going to be more like hideous kinky, instead it just treated the whole spirituality thing as rubbish. and the odd scene with the family in felt like they had spliced in some episodes of 'neighbors'.
there was some nice cinematography in it, and kate winslet gets her kit off, but the story was absurd, crass, insulting and very very very pretentious.
give this one a miss (unless u fancy kate winslet)

[–] unqualifiedcommentor 20 years ago

I liked the "ending" of this movie and felt it was wholly appropriate and necessary.

However, what I found disconcerting was the coda, or the tacked-on "one year later" scene. It seems Campion sold out and added this happy ending or whatever in order to please commercial audiences. It almost ruined the entire movie, but I still enjoyed it for the most part.

[–] Shining_One 20 years ago

I loved this movie, including the "one year later" ending. I thought it was shot brilliantly and certainly was a unique story outside of the Hollywood popcorn machine. 4/5 stars.

[–] littlesphinx 19 years ago

this movie was totally pathetic. i'm glad i'm not the only one who felt like throwing up whenever ruth opened her mouth. she slept with harvey keitel because she wanted to, but the movie never exposes her hypocrisy. her spiritual journey was an insult to religion itself. on top of that, the movie makes a joke of hinduism and indian culture. so many details, like the way ruth wore her sari, were wrong.

[–] maitreyned 19 years ago

Littlesphinx, I agree with you how the film takes the religious/spiritual aspect lightly, and her "devotion" was more annoying than anything else (but maybe that was the point).

I do think that the film does reveal her hypocrisy to a degree; she did sleep with PJ(Keitel) because she wanted to, but also because she was a really mean bitch and wanted to mess with his head. When PJ wrote on her forehead "BE KIND" I think that she understood what he meant, that she was a hypocrite, both in her religion and in her life.

Or maybe that's just the way I understood it, and I got it all wrong. Oh well...

"One minute I'm a leper with a trade, next minute my livelihood's gone."

[–] oztinseptember 19 years ago

On one hand they protest the WTO advances, the next they are spoiling and rotting the cultures they are so embracing. The Western travelers decide to put their spins on everything they touch, being so fashionable in their comfortable sunglasses, also including all the things that Ruth did. She is that complete oxymoron. In one instant she is gazing at herself praying and the next burning up a smoke.

You should be annoyed and angry at her take of the Hindu cultures. You should also laugh and feel pity for the Exiter character and as well, the kaleidoscope of characters that was made available for our viewing. Men were made into buffoons no doubts as too women into frightful creatures and bored and horny housewives. The feminist spin is evident but acceptable and not overwhelming.

There are so many things I can go on about this and even at the fact that the Exiter at the end become a victim of "ultimate love" as Ruth had. The battle of the sexes and so forth.

Love this film. Love it everytime I watch it.

-sit down and get mad-

[–] fanaticita 18 years ago

There were a lot of things I didn't like about this film, but I watched it to the end. Harvey Keitel is a favorite of mine and so I'm obligated to see his films -by choice that is.

[–] Bluefort 17 years ago

I loved everything about this film except the "one year later" bit at the end. That was lame. But it was shot beautifully, and Kate Winslet is incredible.

[–] MovieBuff1414 17 years ago

I don't think that this is taking a negative stance on Hindu culture, but on a Hindu cult. It is trying to show the effects of cults on people. This is not about religion, but about blind devotion to a potentially dangerous organization. The film, I am guessing, is not trying to say that Hinduism is bad or dangerous, but that cults are.

[–] Mermaid77 16 years ago

I think it was more of a satire on how westerners see Hinduism--I'm Hindu and I understood perfectly--ruth had all the props but lost the truth of Baba's message--I don't think it was really about whether or not Baba was running a cult or not--honestly, if he was, Ruth would never have been able to come home, but he was probably just a charlatan. Either way, Ruth got away from enlightenment!

[–] iryse 17 years ago

I watched "Holy Smoke" for the first time last night. I'm watching it again this evening. With some profound movies, I have to watch twice, so I can process what's happening, going to happen and what everyone knew etc.

This second time through, I'm having difficulty watching it straight through. I keep pausing it or backing up to rewatch another scene. I know what's coming and it's harder to take, knowing in advance. I didn't know anything about the movie before watching it last night.

I had to come on IMDB and read thru the board here before I can continue and finish the movie. There were so many little things that I just wasn't sure how to interpret. With some movies, I need to come and see others' viewpoints before I can fully understand how I felt.

I wish now that I did have the DVD with commentary; that would be something interesting to hear the director's take on the movie.

[–] Later-Procrastinator 16 years ago

I felt the same thing! It started off amazing, and after tht it just went bizarre and retarded, and i didnt feel like i was watching the same movie, they shud've stuck to concentrating on her "recovery"

I have to add though, that though i understand the perspective is strictly from...to put it crudely "a white man's" visual-and from tht aspect it makes sense and is cohesive. As an Indian, I didnt quite agree or appreciate some of the comments! ;|

ާÿ©µ¤ ާ©µî© §î§tꮧ