IMDb रेटिंग
6.4/10
4 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंThree women's escapes from their afflicted lives. Each struggles to flee from the men who confine their personal freedom.Three women's escapes from their afflicted lives. Each struggles to flee from the men who confine their personal freedom.Three women's escapes from their afflicted lives. Each struggles to flee from the men who confine their personal freedom.
- पुरस्कार
- 6 जीत और कुल 5 नामांकन
John Ventimiglia
- Narrator
- (वॉइस)
Joel de la Fuente
- Thavi Matola
- (as Joel De La Fuente)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
I don't know why there are so many recent attempts at this sort of thing: individual episodes that approach and overlap the same concept. Perhaps it is because it is easier to craft episodes with power rather than worry about an arc of 90 minutes or more.
But we do have them. Some work amazingly well. I found 'Things you can tell' nearly lifealtering because of the crafty way all the actresses picked up each others' mannerisms to merge into the same woman. '!0 Conversations' was a different take, with the action all occurring in the same world. Less effective overall (with a more overt politics) but well structured.
This, however, is a mess. It bludgeons. It repeats. It insists on obviousness. No subtly is allowed: either an effect shouts or is bleached away. And the worst thing, the most damaging thing that can be said: there is no reward, no insight, no enrichment for the rawness we experience.
Wallace Shawn and a talented cinematographer wasted as well. Shame.
The reliable Parker Posey has a line so wonderful, so noticeably superior to all else, I am convinced she made it up: she says she needs to get an underwater camera.
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 4: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
But we do have them. Some work amazingly well. I found 'Things you can tell' nearly lifealtering because of the crafty way all the actresses picked up each others' mannerisms to merge into the same woman. '!0 Conversations' was a different take, with the action all occurring in the same world. Less effective overall (with a more overt politics) but well structured.
This, however, is a mess. It bludgeons. It repeats. It insists on obviousness. No subtly is allowed: either an effect shouts or is bleached away. And the worst thing, the most damaging thing that can be said: there is no reward, no insight, no enrichment for the rawness we experience.
Wallace Shawn and a talented cinematographer wasted as well. Shame.
The reliable Parker Posey has a line so wonderful, so noticeably superior to all else, I am convinced she made it up: she says she needs to get an underwater camera.
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 4: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
as you probably have heard, this is a movie that consists of three portraits. three very contrived, hard-to-watch portraits.
this movie charges out of the gate with incredible potential, including a great cast, an effective score, and nearly disorienting (yet, rather successful) camera work. additionally, at the start of the first portrait, the narrative freezes, and the narrator urges the viewer to, "wait!" so he can explain something about what's going on. this device is wonderful, and immediately gives the viewer a healthy shot of intrigue. additionally, at this point, you'll probably be really excited at the unorthodox pacing that the film seems to be setting up.
that's all in the first few minutes. and this movie literally screamed in a nosedive downward from there.
while "personal velocity" bucks conventions in many ways, it bucks the concept of storytelling so much that it is simply contrived. want to see development, plot, resolution? not here. this movie tries HARD to dodge all these things, and relentlessly starves the viewer of any of these elements with its spare dialogue.
but in the absence of these elements, what's left is - quite frankly - repetition. the characters simply keep doing what they did in the first moments of their portrait (or at least what the filmmakers set them up to do). and while they rather gratingly repeat their actions, there is no true character development.
to combat this (and surely the problem of converting short stories to film), the movie employs a narrator. this (and the repetition) is the downfall. first of all, who is the narrator? well, it's a male, which is strange since this is mainly a story about three women. ok, but why is he male? and why is he speaking so conversationally at some points? and why does he know of all these women? none of these questions are answered, and the viewer is forced to contend with this narrator who speaks incessantly throughout the entire film.
now this narrator suffers from an additional problem, which plagues the film: heavy-handedness. the narrator says things like, "she could feel the emotion like a vortex pulling her soul inward." that's actually not a direct quote, but it's very close. i am not exaggerating. at one point a character says, "you look you're waiting for something." and the narrator breaks in, "she was, she always has been." this movie can't afford such lead-weighted narration. and it certainly does not fall in line with the narrator's other parts where he's talking about how great kyra sedgewick's ass looks in jeans.
in the end, you've got however many minutes (i don't know 90ish?) of superb acting and inventive cinematography. but anchoring it down without an inch of slack to go anywhere is an overbearing narrator, and three equally overbearing and repetitious movements of what could have probably been a compelling film.
this movie charges out of the gate with incredible potential, including a great cast, an effective score, and nearly disorienting (yet, rather successful) camera work. additionally, at the start of the first portrait, the narrative freezes, and the narrator urges the viewer to, "wait!" so he can explain something about what's going on. this device is wonderful, and immediately gives the viewer a healthy shot of intrigue. additionally, at this point, you'll probably be really excited at the unorthodox pacing that the film seems to be setting up.
that's all in the first few minutes. and this movie literally screamed in a nosedive downward from there.
while "personal velocity" bucks conventions in many ways, it bucks the concept of storytelling so much that it is simply contrived. want to see development, plot, resolution? not here. this movie tries HARD to dodge all these things, and relentlessly starves the viewer of any of these elements with its spare dialogue.
but in the absence of these elements, what's left is - quite frankly - repetition. the characters simply keep doing what they did in the first moments of their portrait (or at least what the filmmakers set them up to do). and while they rather gratingly repeat their actions, there is no true character development.
to combat this (and surely the problem of converting short stories to film), the movie employs a narrator. this (and the repetition) is the downfall. first of all, who is the narrator? well, it's a male, which is strange since this is mainly a story about three women. ok, but why is he male? and why is he speaking so conversationally at some points? and why does he know of all these women? none of these questions are answered, and the viewer is forced to contend with this narrator who speaks incessantly throughout the entire film.
now this narrator suffers from an additional problem, which plagues the film: heavy-handedness. the narrator says things like, "she could feel the emotion like a vortex pulling her soul inward." that's actually not a direct quote, but it's very close. i am not exaggerating. at one point a character says, "you look you're waiting for something." and the narrator breaks in, "she was, she always has been." this movie can't afford such lead-weighted narration. and it certainly does not fall in line with the narrator's other parts where he's talking about how great kyra sedgewick's ass looks in jeans.
in the end, you've got however many minutes (i don't know 90ish?) of superb acting and inventive cinematography. but anchoring it down without an inch of slack to go anywhere is an overbearing narrator, and three equally overbearing and repetitious movements of what could have probably been a compelling film.
Closeup- Beth in Car Door Window-Door handle opening as someone gets in-Closeup of his handsome face--Beth: Can you excuse me, I have to stop for donuts. Closeup of Shop Door, Beth walking in then ignition key turning as hitch hiker moves her car. Beth looks away. Beth: Hurry with that couple of dozen, I'm pregnant. She carries the donut box out, gets into the car. The Hitch Hiker's hand grabs a donut from the box, Closeup of a donut hole. His mouth munches one down. Cut to Rain falling on car back window, steam rising and groans from within while he makes out with her. Later, interior, apartment, Beth's hand is seen picking up a script. The cover page reads, "Never use close camera angles or other devices so often it makes the viewer lose interest in the characters and story. Try to film a movie the way you'd like a live audience to watch it. Grade F, see me. Professor Hollywood Hack."
The best thing about this film are the three superb performances by the lead actresses in each segment. It's also a chance to explore the potential for short form film narrative by putting three short films together to create a full length feature. If these three films had been produced individually, almost no one would ever see them. The film is exciting too, as an example of the artistic possibilities of low budget digital film making. As others have mentioned the narration almost sinks the movie. I'd love to see a DVD alternative version without it.
There's a point about an hour and twenty-five minutes into this film where the credits begin to roll. At this moment the viewer realizes "Personal Velocity" has come to a close. There's no plot to this film and, therefore, no ending. "PV" is a trio of vignettes, each about a young woman with some sort of sex/relationship crisis. Delia is the high school tramp turned battered housewife. Greta is a Jewish-American princess bored with her WASP husband. And Paula is a pregnant punker chick trying to mother a teen boy runaway who sucks his thumb. Yes, this is an arthouse project. It screams "We're an indie production! We can't afford light kits and tripods! We're all working for scale or for free! We made this film because we LOVE it!" In defense of Rebecca Miller: she wrote a book, adapted it for the screen, and cobbled together the funding and talent to turn it into a movie. Of course she has A-list family connections, but this is her own work. And it's a lot more than most of us could ever do. You go, girl! But unfortunately, it is a boring piece of work. The three lead characters are just plain dull and unsympathetic. It's hard to like them, and harder to identify with any of them. They've all made their own poor choices and now spend their screen time plotting an escape.
The male voice narration doesn't work. It's heavy-handed and annoying in a bad documentary way. Why can't the ladies narrate their own stories? What's wrong with Delia telling us in her own words how she spent most of high school entertaining the boys? Story line and characters aside, there's some potent acting here. Ms Miller enlisted top quality players Kyra Sedgwick, Parker Posey, and Fairuza Balk to perform the leads. Collectively, they are a knock-out. The supporting cast is spot-on. But you can only do so much with a one-note song. I really wanted to like this little movie. But I didn't.
The male voice narration doesn't work. It's heavy-handed and annoying in a bad documentary way. Why can't the ladies narrate their own stories? What's wrong with Delia telling us in her own words how she spent most of high school entertaining the boys? Story line and characters aside, there's some potent acting here. Ms Miller enlisted top quality players Kyra Sedgwick, Parker Posey, and Fairuza Balk to perform the leads. Collectively, they are a knock-out. The supporting cast is spot-on. But you can only do so much with a one-note song. I really wanted to like this little movie. But I didn't.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाMaria Elena Ramirez's debut.
- भाव
Greta Herskowitz: How could he still love me? If he does, it's because he doesn't know me. I'm rotten with ambition, a lusty little troll, the kind of demon you'd find at the bottom floor of hell pulling fingernails off the loansharks.
- क्रेज़ी क्रेडिटTo my mother
- कनेक्शनFeatured in Personal Velocity: Creating 'Personal Velocity' (2003)
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is Personal Velocity?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $1,25,000(अनुमानित)
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $8,11,299
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $29,943
- 24 नव॰ 2002
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $8,90,502
- चलने की अवधि1 घंटा 26 मिनट
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.85 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें
टॉप गैप
By what name was Personal Velocity: Three Portraits (2002) officially released in India in English?
जवाब