AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
4,6/10
3,8 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Um jovem ator chega a Hollywood em 1969 durante um período de transição na indústria.Um jovem ator chega a Hollywood em 1969 durante um período de transição na indústria.Um jovem ator chega a Hollywood em 1969 durante um período de transição na indústria.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
- Prêmios
- 4 indicações no total
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Elenco e equipe completos
- Produção, bilheteria e muito mais no IMDbPro
Avaliações em destaque
In principle there could be a great movie here. In practice, like others have said, the idea seems to have been to pack multiple movies into one, and that rarely works.
Let's move past the banal question of whether it was "faithful to the book" and consider it on its own merits. There's the kernel of a great idea here, a film that luxuriates in movie trivia and in explaining technical details, while constantly having fun with the idea of ignoring the movie filming timeline of our reality (cf the catchphrase "f$%# continuity", writ large).
The problem is that Franco makes three rookie mistakes.
That's why Juliet, Naked is so much better a movie than High Fidelity (oh shut up, you know it's true!) because they both deal with obsession, but one doesn't make the mistake of going into specifics.
You don't need to explain in a movie! The audience will happily accept magic realism -- the Simpsons have been doing it for 30+ years. Purple Rose of Cairo? True Lies? Neither of them felt a need to justify their magic realism as the product of dreams or mental illness.
Or, of course, Inglorious Basterds and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Again, just tell the story, don't "explain" why it doesn't match consensus reality!
Franco keeps trying with this stuff (compare _The Disaster Artist_) and I appreciate his trying. I just hope he learns from each misfire and next time executes in a more focussed fashion.
There are not enough well-done obsessive movies -- most of them are pathetic shambles, either cautionary tales about "here's how you will suffer", or watered down by including uninteresting stereotypical side plots -- and I think Franco has it in him to do the job right, once he has the courage to do it his way, not the Hollywood way.
Let's move past the banal question of whether it was "faithful to the book" and consider it on its own merits. There's the kernel of a great idea here, a film that luxuriates in movie trivia and in explaining technical details, while constantly having fun with the idea of ignoring the movie filming timeline of our reality (cf the catchphrase "f$%# continuity", writ large).
The problem is that Franco makes three rookie mistakes.
- he doesn't stick to *that* movie; instead he insists on throwing in other stories, most jarringly the Soledad love story. Look, we get it, Megan Fox is pretty. But that doesn't mean she has to be used (and used up) in the most boring way possible. Compare with the much more interesting use of Dottie, not as love interest but as teacher/explainer of Editing.
- movies (and books) about obsession, about "here's how much I love something and why" can be done well. But again, you have to avoid the rookie mistake: the book has to be about obsession *generically*, not about your particular obsession. Once you list details, every person on earth (and that's most of them) who doesn't agree with your exact ranking of first through tenth greatest whatever's loses interest.
That's why Juliet, Naked is so much better a movie than High Fidelity (oh shut up, you know it's true!) because they both deal with obsession, but one doesn't make the mistake of going into specifics.
- third rookie mistake: "explaining" via mental illness, dreams, and visions, the crutches of the lazy and incompetent screenwriter.
You don't need to explain in a movie! The audience will happily accept magic realism -- the Simpsons have been doing it for 30+ years. Purple Rose of Cairo? True Lies? Neither of them felt a need to justify their magic realism as the product of dreams or mental illness.
Or, of course, Inglorious Basterds and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Again, just tell the story, don't "explain" why it doesn't match consensus reality!
Franco keeps trying with this stuff (compare _The Disaster Artist_) and I appreciate his trying. I just hope he learns from each misfire and next time executes in a more focussed fashion.
There are not enough well-done obsessive movies -- most of them are pathetic shambles, either cautionary tales about "here's how you will suffer", or watered down by including uninteresting stereotypical side plots -- and I think Franco has it in him to do the job right, once he has the courage to do it his way, not the Hollywood way.
This film is just mystifying. I don't understand it at all. All the film references may be a film buff's heaven, but not for me.
Can someone explain this movie to me?
The movie seems to be about an artistic, decent, yet disturbed editor. Ironically, the movie itself is horribly edited beyond comprehension. "" seems to be the correct idiom for the end result.
James and Seth should smoke less drugs while working on films.
Appreciate james francos adaptation. If you're into films and enjoyed the book this is decent. Not great but the book is a trip so this was bound to be weird. Some funny moments.
Im so surprised at the IMDb rating. And it actually....can give u hope. I liked all the actors and went into the movie not know anything about it. It was interesting I stayed with it. Then...it became more interesting. Then towards the end I was enthralled and even got chills one moment when I realized that there was whole other level achieved and done so sneaky that it makes u almost want to rewatch it again. But the psych level achieved was just enough to make this movie one to remember and even rewatch. Maybe not right away. But it's worth a rewatch for sure. Great movie.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesFilmed in late 2014. It was going to be released by independent distributor Alchemy in early 2016, but the company filed for bankruptcy shortly after. In April of 2019, it was announced that myCinema would finally release the film in September.
- Erros de gravação(around 1 hr.) Camera shadow visible in one shot of Vikar dancing in the club.
- Citações
Dotty Langer: He senses an untapped reservoir of psychosis. It makes him wet.
- Cenas durante ou pós-créditosDuring the closing credits, Viker appears on a chopper alongside Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper at the end of Easy Rider.
- ConexõesFeatures O Martírio de Joana D'Arc (1928)
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is Zeroville?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- País de origem
- Central de atendimento oficial
- Idioma
- Também conhecido como
- Zeroville
- Locações de filme
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Orçamento
- US$ 6.000.000 (estimativa)
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 69.396
- Tempo de duração
- 1 h 36 min(96 min)
- Cor
- Proporção
- 2.35 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente