Bowman-7
A rejoint le avr. 1999
Bienvenue sur nouveau profil
Nos mises à jour sont toujours en cours de développement. Bien que la version précédente de le profil ne soit plus accessible, nous travaillons activement à des améliorations, et certaines fonctionnalités manquantes seront bientôt de retour ! Restez à l'écoute de leur retour. En attendant, l’analyse des évaluations est toujours disponible sur nos applications iOS et Android, qui se trouvent sur la page de profil. Pour consulter la répartition de vos évaluations par année et par genre, veuillez consulter notre nouveau Guide d'aide.
Badges2
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d'aide sur les badges.
Avis6
Note de Bowman-7
I stand by my theory that there are no worse movies than unfunny comedies. That being said, this wasn't totally unfunny (i.e. the cameos were nice, especially BK), but it was about 80% unfunny, which 80% of it utterly excruciating. Who thinks that in going to see an Adam Sandler movie we have to sit through his hysterical confession of love to Marisa Tomei in Yankee stadium? Gag me.
I'm sorry. I can't quite say I LIKED this movie. But, if nothing else, I... appreciated it. NO ONE can accuse Cassavetes of being unoriginal in any aspect of the production. Every frame of the film is remarkably unconventional. And furthermore, the performances were so starkly real it makes the prospect that there even WAS a script seem impossible to me. Now, I don't know any back story about this movie, but I'm sure there had to have been some script involved somewhere. What I'm saying is that the way the actors played it, the lines seemed... unwriteable. It's as if we were watching a documentary, but one where we can be certain those involved didn't know they were being filmed.
Basically, except for the poor dubbing that makes literally MOST of the dialogue in the film incomprehensible, I can't say there's anything about any individual sequences in the film that I disliked. HOWEVER, what I did have a problem with is this: the vanguard style of filmmaking, the characters, the situations they are in, the dialogue (if you want to call it that): does it all really come together to SAY anything? I didn't come away with any kind of an interesting or coherent message from the film. Which is fine if the scenes flow nicely together, but they really don't. Each scene as an entity unto itself is wonderful, but their juxtaposition together gets especially tiresome. I mean, for roughly 80% of the film, ALL of the characters onscreen are inebriated. Now, this makes it extremely difficult to get to know the characters beyond their buffoonish drunken altar egoes. Maybe, that was the point. I don't know. What I do know is that Cassavetes stubbornly refuses to reveal to us anything that even approximately resembles, plot, forward motion, or even... any kind of... an event... a happening until the last twenty minutes of the film when some interesting stuff finally happens. And this definitely alienates most audiences. Do you want to know why this movie has such a high rating? Because the people that didn't like it left after twenty-forty minutes. I know in the theater that I saw it in (a student film organization that watches intellectually stimulating independent fare weekly with warm response), the crowd of twenty people had been reduced by the end of the film to me, the president of the club (who was reading), and one other guy (whom I have a suspicion, fell asleep during at least part of the film) in the theater. EVERYBODY else got frustrated. Draw your own conclusions.
Basically, except for the poor dubbing that makes literally MOST of the dialogue in the film incomprehensible, I can't say there's anything about any individual sequences in the film that I disliked. HOWEVER, what I did have a problem with is this: the vanguard style of filmmaking, the characters, the situations they are in, the dialogue (if you want to call it that): does it all really come together to SAY anything? I didn't come away with any kind of an interesting or coherent message from the film. Which is fine if the scenes flow nicely together, but they really don't. Each scene as an entity unto itself is wonderful, but their juxtaposition together gets especially tiresome. I mean, for roughly 80% of the film, ALL of the characters onscreen are inebriated. Now, this makes it extremely difficult to get to know the characters beyond their buffoonish drunken altar egoes. Maybe, that was the point. I don't know. What I do know is that Cassavetes stubbornly refuses to reveal to us anything that even approximately resembles, plot, forward motion, or even... any kind of... an event... a happening until the last twenty minutes of the film when some interesting stuff finally happens. And this definitely alienates most audiences. Do you want to know why this movie has such a high rating? Because the people that didn't like it left after twenty-forty minutes. I know in the theater that I saw it in (a student film organization that watches intellectually stimulating independent fare weekly with warm response), the crowd of twenty people had been reduced by the end of the film to me, the president of the club (who was reading), and one other guy (whom I have a suspicion, fell asleep during at least part of the film) in the theater. EVERYBODY else got frustrated. Draw your own conclusions.
"Memento" is quite possibly the most amazing film experience I've had in a movie theater (I've seen "Citizen Kane" and "2001" only on video). I daresay (though there is not much risk involved) I will not see a better movie this year, and I say this even with my excitement over the upcoming "AI" and "Fellowship of the Ring." "Memento" is a remarkably complex, beautiful, blistering, masterpiece of a movie. I would recommend it to anyone and everyone everywhere in the world. I am not even going to comment on the plot, because I think you should go in totally fresh as I did and willing to take an active interest in the movie. This is not your typical popcorn machine movie, where the plot is easy enough that you can fall asleep through half of it and still know what's going on. "Memento" transcends what going to the movies is all about: its complexity and method of storytelling make it almost some kind of a revolutionary audience participation spectacle. It's twists and turns are not gimmicky like "The Sixth Sense" and "Fight Club" but gradual and calculated. I can not possibly sing this movie's praises enough, so now I am going to give a word to its detractors: LEARN TO THINK AT THE MOVIES. Stop watching Candycorn Crap like "Bring it On" and "Charlie's Angels" and invest in a movie that has ideas and wants to challenge you.
ALSO: a major complaint (read no further if you want to go into the movie fresh) is that the film's method of backwards storytelling is just a gimmick and that the movie would not be as interested if it went from start to finish in regular order. Well, gee, thanks! I didn't realize that watching a movie the way it's intended to be watched is more entertaining than watching it backwards. You can also make the argument that watching "The Bicycle Thief" in rewind isn't as entertaining as watching it the way it was filmed. DUH! Of course, the backwards chronology is essential to the plot: the idea is to distort reality and confuse identity. The movie is like looking in a mirror where everything is distorted and backwards. You're not supposed to grasp all this in one sitting. Just think about it a while after you leave the theater and you should understand. For those of you who haven't seen it, though, GO SEE IT NOW! I beg you.
Px
ALSO: a major complaint (read no further if you want to go into the movie fresh) is that the film's method of backwards storytelling is just a gimmick and that the movie would not be as interested if it went from start to finish in regular order. Well, gee, thanks! I didn't realize that watching a movie the way it's intended to be watched is more entertaining than watching it backwards. You can also make the argument that watching "The Bicycle Thief" in rewind isn't as entertaining as watching it the way it was filmed. DUH! Of course, the backwards chronology is essential to the plot: the idea is to distort reality and confuse identity. The movie is like looking in a mirror where everything is distorted and backwards. You're not supposed to grasp all this in one sitting. Just think about it a while after you leave the theater and you should understand. For those of you who haven't seen it, though, GO SEE IT NOW! I beg you.
Px