The Letter

Okay... I like movies that challenge me to think. But boring me to death as they lead me, an hour later, to pause it because, by god, both my date and I have fallen asleep...?

Art? Yes, this movie is art BUT, I would rather look at some paintings on a wall.... and watch the paint dry... And this review page requiring me to write 10 lines of review on a movie that can be summarized in five lines is almost as bad as being subjected to this movie in the first place.

Pretty Winona and all of the pretty men in this movie did not compensate for the loss of realization by the production people that the art of movies must have some emotional rewards or they are merely nice paintings 'on celluloid".

Good acting, I suppose, given the demands of this movie's intent to puzzle and intrigue. But endless weaK intrigue and puzzling dialogue with brief hints of the final analysis dd nothing to stop my eyelids from dropping shut. The reality is, me thinks, that most of us will find this movie as something we might add to 'an art collection' that would never make it to our display walls. This would be because we would fear too many of our friends actually beating their head, in frustration, upon 'the painting' so that they would never be subjected to it again... or so curious to watch it again and again, to find 'what did I miss'?, that they finally awaken to realize that they have just wasted hours of their lives.

Or, perhaps, awakening to the realization that this was boring art is not a waste of time for others? It was to me. A movie I would not have wasted my time on had I visited this review page first...

As much as I like both James Franco and Winona Ryder, this may be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. A complete snooze-fest from start to finish. The movie's screenplay was as much of a bore as the play within the movie! The cast looks bored most of the time.

Absolutely nothing of consequence happens in this picture...nothing! I kept looking at the timer on the DVD player thinking something should be happening soon...but it never did! Truly a wasted hour and a half of my life! Thankfully, there were no extras to watch on the disk. Had there been any, I wonder if any explanation of the purpose of the film would have been forthcoming? I gave it 2 stars simply for the audacity of putting the story on film!

"On that first night of course we didn't know who you were, or what you would do to us, or what you would do to me." Martine (Ryder) is a New York playwright who is getting a chance to direct her boyfriend in a new play she wrote. Soon after rehearsals begin an unknown actor, Tyrone (Franco) shows up and begins to cause tension. His acting is good but he is hostile to everyone except Martine. While the rehearsals are going on Martine begins to become paranoid and thinks someone is trying to kill her. Her re-writes of the play begin to confuse the actors and the line between life and paranoia are blurred. First of all I will say this is not terrible but this is another movie that tries to be artsy for the sake of being artsy. I find the easiest way to describe movies sometimes are to compare them to others that many have seen. I open with that because it seemed like this movie tried it's hardest to be like "Black Swan" but never quite making it. Very limited scenery and actors but the main focus is on Martine's slow descent into madness. You begin to question if she is just overly paranoid or if her concerns are legit. This is the type of movie that keeps you wondering about that which helps you make it through. Overall, an OK movie but tried to be artsy for the sake of being artsy. I give it a B-.

The Letter (2012)

Wow, such mixed reviews on this movie. Either all thumbs up or bomb? No, but it is weirdly both terrific and horrible at once. Here's my explanation why.

This is a re-shaped reality movie in the same big (and growing) genre as "Memento" and "Pulp Fiction." As the movie progresses you are made to figure out what's going on in the most basic sense, separating reality from hallucination from moviemaker's trickery. This is a gripping game at its best that draws you into the dilemma from the character's standpoint, and that also messes with the viewer's basic ability to create sense of it for it's own sake.

But what these movies require is a combination of characters you care about and a logic that is purely cemented by the end. The two earlier examples are brilliant at it. Not so "The Letter."

This movie has the bones of an excellent, lower-budget variation on a reality bending plot, but it fails to make the characters significant (or sympathetic in any way) and it never makes the illogic within the movie reasonable.

This might give something away, but near the end a big sweeping explanation is frankly provided by a doctor, and I told myself I've been wasting an hour making sense of what is really a series of fairly jumbled impressions. They don't quite make sense, I think, though you might be able to chart out the various mixed up sections on a piece of paper if you watched it a couple more times. Maybe.

But no one would have the stamina. It's a movie with an exterior of brilliance but it's so stripped down in its other components it's actually, oddly, boring. For one thing, most of the action happens on a theater stage, which allows a kind of reality within a reality (and this ain't new, as lovers of Shakespeare know). Quickly we see that the characters are getting mixed up with the actors—that is, from the point of view of the writer/director of the play in the film, played by Winona Ryder, the expressions and frustrations in the script of the play echo the reality of the real people. When scenes shift (often suddenly) to an apartment or other outside space, the same kinds of personae are at work. The people are the characters.

But they have almost nothing to do, no real baggage to explore, no narrative elements that matter. So there is an implied infidelity (who knows?) and a bit of concern about that, and maybe an infidelity that grows as the film is being assembled, perhaps (who knows?). But so what?

The final insult to all this is that film's low budget feel and its unwillingness to accept that—it tries to look bigger than it is. It's often filmed in a stale way, and then pumped up with tonal effects or with startling (or confusing) edits. You wish it would add up to something, but it doesn't.

Other reviewers have said that it all makes sense by the end. I think not. I think it's explained away at the end, but that's different. And either way it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Review: What a complete load of rubbish! With a name like Obsessed and a cast with James Franco and Winona Ryder, I was expecting something interesting and entertaining, but this was really bad. Most of the film was set on stage with Winona Ryder directing a play, which was really bad, and on top of that, you've got Winona Ryder narrating the whole story. I really can't see what the director was trying to achieve with this film because there isn't much point to it. I can understand the twist which comes out at the end, but by that time I deliberately made myself busy so I could get through the annoying pile of rubbish. The stupid piano that's going through the whole movie is really annoying and the mood if depressing. Just stay away from the film!

Round-Up: I darn see why the hell James Franco and Winona Ryder agreed to doing this film because the script is appalling. Maybe they were just paying bills. Ever since Winona Ryder got caught thieving, her career has gone from bad to worse, and this movie isn't going to so her any favours. She's need a film like Beetlejuice 2 to bring her our of the dark. As for James Franco, I always knew that he does quirky movies, but I really can't see why he would want this film on his filmography. Anyway, I really can't find anything good to say about this film because there is nothing interesting or entertaining about it.

Budget: $10million (Waste Of Money!) Worldwide Gross: N/A

I recommend this movie anyone that wants to get bored to death. 1/10