1999

1999 contains some witty, well-written dialogue, but the plot eventually stalls leaving the audience unfulfilled. The editing and film quality is also sub-standard creating an ambience of unprofessionalism rather than independence.

This timely film takes place New Year's Eve 1999 -- on the eve of the millenium. The film explores the relationships of a number of 20/30 something New Yorker's attending their last New Year's Eve Party of the century. Sort of an attempt at a Woody Allen-style for the younger indie-film set.

The main plot line revolves around Andrew Goldman (Matt McGrath) the party's host and his relationship with his father (Buck Henry). Unfortunately, this story stalls and the resolution is uninteresting.

The plot line involving a love triangle between Rufus Wild (Dan Futterman), Annabell (Jennifer Garner) and Nicole (Amanda Peet) fares better as the appealing and talented actors carry the day over the pedestrian story line.

Some of the lesser characters in the film provide its most interesting moments. Sandrine Holt excels in the part of Suki. Steven Wright is hillarious as the Goatman. Margaret Devine is fantastic as Sylvia.

While not groundbreaking, and certainly flawed, 1999 has some nice moments and some interesting performances.

A movie about a party on New Year's Eve, 1999. --A party filled with highly irritating people who have highly irritating things to say to each other. Whether that was intentional or not, I have no idea.

I tried to like this movie, as I think Buck Henry and Jennifer Garner are both pretty darn watchable most of the time, but I just couldn't summon up enough like from within me to watch the whole movie in one sitting. I had to take a break and watch the second half the next day.

The weird thing about '1999' is that..well... I kinda like the IDEA of the movie and the way it looks--kinda amateur/arty, and I even like the actors--in other movies, anyway. Unfortunately all of the characters suffer from Tarantinoism-wherein all the different characters' lines sound like they were written by the same person in the same "voice".

It would have been one of the best student films in my film class back in the day, but that's about the most praise I can give it. --That, and that it only cost me eight bucks at the 7-11.

...but not bad for a first time director. In fact, in the beginning of the movie, the director himself tells the camera how broke he was as a result of making the film. I thought that was odd---was it part of the movie? The side of the box said First Rites Series, an independent film thing, so I guess it had something to do with that.

The movie tells a simple story of a group of young adults celebrating New Years on the eve of the year 2000. It had some witty dialogue, but nothing else about it was original, including the Woody Allenesque lead character Rufus. (have you noticed actors who impersonate other actors are very annoying?)

I take it back---just because its a film by a first time director, there's no reason it shouldn't be 'original'. While all directors cannot have the first film appeal of Scorcese, Tarantino, or Spike Lee, they should all take a stab at it and resist directing what has been done before. What have they got to lose?

Best lines include something about a hotel "labia" and signing in with his "penis" and a hippiechick talking about why she wants to be an ear doctor instead of a singer.

5 out of 10

Caught this movie on Sundance Channel, couldn't believe how good it was. Why wasn't it released? Or was it? (There are too many indie movies out there, I guess...) The movie is basically about a bunch of control freaks at a new year's Eve party in New York City, all of whom are fantastically well drawn anxiety-filled New Yorkers. Director Davis has caught New Yorkers' self-absorption perfectly, but unlike, say, Seinfeld, the characters are actually trying to better themselves, and struggling with real, deep issues of identity and self-worth. And unlike Whit Stillman's movies (which I guess this is like, although I enjoyed it way more than Metropolitan), the movie really knows when to laugh at these characters, and when to feel with them.

And then, for good measure, there are Steven Wright and Buck Henry giving unexpected and wonderful performances. Steven Wright is amazingly funny, and Buck Henry really sad and sensitive, kind of in the Jack Lemmon role of the father of the host of the party, only doing a real job of acting, not whining like Lemmon now does.

I haven't heard much about this movie (other than Sundance Channel) or this filmmaker, but I bet that in ten years we'll all be scratching our heads trying to remember who Ed Burns was (wish I could say the same thing for Kevin Smith, but the guy's too much of an operator to go away) and plunking down our cash, if it is cash we're still using (the movie is very funny about what the near future might or might not hold, and has me thinking the same way) to go to movies by Nick Davis.