Frownland

Ronald Bronstein wrote and directed this movie. He is one of my favorite screenwriters, best known for his collaborations with the Safdie brothers. Here he tries his hand at directing as well, and while he's not in his finest form, that's okay. You can see the mark of a strong storyteller here, and his work since this one has proved that he learned from this one and just kept getting better.

In a year of pretentious muck like "Synecdoche, New York" a film born out of Charlie Kaufman's own self-indulgence, comes a film that is similarly hard to watch but about three times as important. "Frownland" is a labor of love by the crew, the actors and the filmmaker, shot over years by friends. It traces a man who cannot communicate through his thoroughly authentic, REAL Brooklyn world. The people that you see are a step beyond even the stylization of the "mumblecore" movement. They are real people, painfully trapped in their own self-contained neuroses, unwilling to change, unable. The real world to them is their own set of delusions and because this is a film about people who are so profoundly out of touch, it is very difficult to watch. It is 16mm film-making without proper light, money or any of the other factors that would make a film "slick", but its honesty can not be understated, a fact that would cause a room full of people to dismiss it and for Richard Linklater to give it an award as he did at SXSW. This does remind of films like "Naked" or the best of the "mumblecore". It is a film that is not for everyone, but one that challenges you to watch and grows on you the longer you think about it.

I wavered between loving and hating this movie as I watched it. The movie has some good, offbeat humorous moments, but they're a bit few and far between. The main character is a schlub who is virtually completely incapable of effectively communicating with anyone around him. This is a type of character that doesn't generally get any attention in film, so focusing on him is an intriguing idea, but it only half works for me. The movie brings up the question sometimes faced by independent movies focusing on unlikeable individuals: Why would you want to spend nearly two hours with such a person? On the other hand, after it was over, a former roommate said, "Thank you for being SUCH a good roommate!" while another friend commented that he appreciates all his existing friends much more after having seen this movie, because the characters were so screwed-up and annoying. The movie has some funny scenes also focusing on the main character's roommate, who is much more articulate but also a total deadbeat. Perhaps the movie could use some judicious editing from its current form (roughly 109-115 minutes at a screening in NYC in April 2007). Interestingly, the movie doesn't spell out the relationships between various characters -- I suspect perhaps as a way of avoiding "exposition anvils" and keeping things as realistic as possible. I would've liked to learn more about the character of Laura, who remains reticent and mysterious.

Also, kudos to the movie for redressing the total lack of mucus in modern cinema. There is a decent amount of realistic and well-placed snot in this film. In one case, the snot is totally hilarious and unexpected. Maybe it should have been called "Snotland."

A very strange and compelling movie. It's about a very awkward and tightly wound man who attempts to navigate his life as a door-to-door fundraiser/salesman. The director was able to capture a very unnerving tone that really served the story well. Original and unsettling while also finding a great deal of humor in the pain that accompanies life. There is a sequence at a testing facility that really stood out and made me laugh out loud which is not something I do as frequently as I should. One of the more memorable films I've seen in a long while. Hasn't left my mind and I look forward to future efforts by Bronstein. Fantastic performances all around. The simple line "I really appreciate it." is now iconic to me.

This is a film about a few New Yorkers who are struggling in life. It is actually very good at moments, but not great at others. The tone of the film is very uneven and unbalanced, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it feels unintentional here. At first we think maybe this is a comedy but we realize slowly that it is not.

The acting is actually very good. It feels strange at first until we realize that these are not the kinds of characters we normally see in films. But they exist in real life and here we get a chance too see them on the screen.

The writer and director of this movie stated that he was influenced by the highly acclaimed film Naked, and it is clearly evident here. In both films the characters speak fluently to each other about philosophy and their opinions on life. I felt like it actually felt more real in this one. It was better done. But it never felt completely real in either film, in my opinion. But maybe that's just because I don't encounter people who talk like that in real life. Maybe they're out there.

I like the camerawork a lot. The film felt a lot like Slackers at times, but maybe that's just because of the grainy 16mm look and the clothing the characters wore. The characters at times felt like they could have come from the world of that film, but at other times they felt like they belonged more in a John Cassavetes film.

It feels a bit like a Cassavetes film in several ways, particularly toward the end. The ending is very good and gritty and raw and not your typical Hollywood ending by any stretch. And while I feel like the story itself could have been revised and made better, the story as it was could not have been told any better.