Avaliações de usuários

Okay... I like movies that challenge me to think. But boring me to death as they lead me, an hour later, to pause it because, by god, both my date and I have fallen asleep...?

Art? Yes, this movie is art BUT, I would rather look at some paintings on a wall.... and watch the paint dry... And this review page requiring me to write 10 lines of review on a movie that can be summarized in five lines is almost as bad as being subjected to this movie in the first place.

Pretty Winona and all of the pretty men in this movie did not compensate for the loss of realization by the production people that the art of movies must have some emotional rewards or they are merely nice paintings 'on celluloid".

Good acting, I suppose, given the demands of this movie's intent to puzzle and intrigue. But endless weaK intrigue and puzzling dialogue with brief hints of the final analysis dd nothing to stop my eyelids from dropping shut. The reality is, me thinks, that most of us will find this movie as something we might add to 'an art collection' that would never make it to our display walls. This would be because we would fear too many of our friends actually beating their head, in frustration, upon 'the painting' so that they would never be subjected to it again... or so curious to watch it again and again, to find 'what did I miss'?, that they finally awaken to realize that they have just wasted hours of their lives.

Or, perhaps, awakening to the realization that this was boring art is not a waste of time for others? It was to me. A movie I would not have wasted my time on had I visited this review page first...

As much as I like both James Franco and Winona Ryder, this may be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. A complete snooze-fest from start to finish. The movie's screenplay was as much of a bore as the play within the movie! The cast looks bored most of the time.

Absolutely nothing of consequence happens in this picture...nothing! I kept looking at the timer on the DVD player thinking something should be happening soon...but it never did! Truly a wasted hour and a half of my life! Thankfully, there were no extras to watch on the disk. Had there been any, I wonder if any explanation of the purpose of the film would have been forthcoming? I gave it 2 stars simply for the audacity of putting the story on film!

This film is super artistic. So artistic I would go as far as to call it artsy fartsy. It's one of those works of art that just goes too far. In being too artistic, it becomes strange. Very strange. So much so that it is hard to appreciate. Hard to even look at. That is what this films problem is. You see it is not that this is a bad movie. It's not that it is poorly done. It is just hard to watch. And it gets harder and harder to watch as it goes on. Even though it is doing its job of being artistic quite well.

It's just that this film is so abstract that it is hard to follow. It also happens in real time so it slow and boring. And is full of awkward silences and such. As well as uncomfortable situations. So those are all things that make it hard to watch. And it only gets harder because as it goes on, the story only gets more convoluted and harder to follow. Not that there's anything wrong with the story, acting, directing, filming, editing, production, etc.... I think the concept of this style of piece was just not executed in an overall manner that made it engaging and stimulating enough for today's crowd. And also it just went too far with certain things that aren't comfortable to watch, and thus made it difficult to get through. And thats not why people watch film, they watch it to be entertained and to enjoy themselves. And this film isn't really fun to watch. It's like the kind of film that super artsy fartsy people would watch just to talk about.

And thats the thing about films like these, is that you can't appreciate them if you haven't studied film and are just looking for entertainment. These types of films can really only be appreciated by those who have taken a film class or read a book on it or studied it in some capacity and can actually see and understand the finer points, and can intellectualize everything about the art of film.

This is a movie about a woman who's reality and who's writing and imagination become blurred. It does a good job of depicting that. It really does. Does that make it a good movie? No.

However, is it a bad movie? No. Is it enjoyable and entertaining? No. Is it artistic? Yes. Did I like it...not really. I felt like it was kinda neat at times, but honestly I also almost turned it off a couple times. And I can see why it gets bad ratings and why the vast majority of people wouldn't like it. I don't think it deserves such a harsh rating though. I'd give it somewhere between a 4 and a 5, I'd give it a 4.5 if I could, but I can't, so I'm rounding down to a 4. My opinion is pretty much middle of the road, maybe slightly more on the negative. Do I recommend watching it? No. Do I regret watching it? No. I think that with the creativity that went into this film it should have turned out better, but perhaps they just got too involved in their own project and were too close to it to be able to tell that it was actually turning out quite boring. These things can happen with artwork sometimes. Oh well.

The Letter (2012)

Wow, such mixed reviews on this movie. Either all thumbs up or bomb? No, but it is weirdly both terrific and horrible at once. Here's my explanation why.

This is a re-shaped reality movie in the same big (and growing) genre as "Memento" and "Pulp Fiction." As the movie progresses you are made to figure out what's going on in the most basic sense, separating reality from hallucination from moviemaker's trickery. This is a gripping game at its best that draws you into the dilemma from the character's standpoint, and that also messes with the viewer's basic ability to create sense of it for it's own sake.

But what these movies require is a combination of characters you care about and a logic that is purely cemented by the end. The two earlier examples are brilliant at it. Not so "The Letter."

This movie has the bones of an excellent, lower-budget variation on a reality bending plot, but it fails to make the characters significant (or sympathetic in any way) and it never makes the illogic within the movie reasonable.

This might give something away, but near the end a big sweeping explanation is frankly provided by a doctor, and I told myself I've been wasting an hour making sense of what is really a series of fairly jumbled impressions. They don't quite make sense, I think, though you might be able to chart out the various mixed up sections on a piece of paper if you watched it a couple more times. Maybe.

But no one would have the stamina. It's a movie with an exterior of brilliance but it's so stripped down in its other components it's actually, oddly, boring. For one thing, most of the action happens on a theater stage, which allows a kind of reality within a reality (and this ain't new, as lovers of Shakespeare know). Quickly we see that the characters are getting mixed up with the actors—that is, from the point of view of the writer/director of the play in the film, played by Winona Ryder, the expressions and frustrations in the script of the play echo the reality of the real people. When scenes shift (often suddenly) to an apartment or other outside space, the same kinds of personae are at work. The people are the characters.

But they have almost nothing to do, no real baggage to explore, no narrative elements that matter. So there is an implied infidelity (who knows?) and a bit of concern about that, and maybe an infidelity that grows as the film is being assembled, perhaps (who knows?). But so what?

The final insult to all this is that film's low budget feel and its unwillingness to accept that—it tries to look bigger than it is. It's often filmed in a stale way, and then pumped up with tonal effects or with startling (or confusing) edits. You wish it would add up to something, but it doesn't.

Other reviewers have said that it all makes sense by the end. I think not. I think it's explained away at the end, but that's different. And either way it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

This film tells the story of a female playwright, who is preparing for the opening of her play. She experiences weird occurrences, and she begins to doubt her sanity.

"The Letter" tries to be super artistic, as evidenced by super slow pace and the substitution of scenes with narration by the main character, I wish there was no narration, and they just show the events normally. The narration is plain and devoid of emotion, it does not give the first person emotional account that is expected. Winona Ryder does not look convincing as a playwright or as a crazy person. In fact, she looks to pretty and too sane for her role. The so called suspense fails miserably, because the strange events are presented in such subtle manner. There is no intensity, engagement or thrill. The whole film is a complete bore. I don't understand the beginning, middle or the end. The suppose twist at the end is so laughable and unbelievable, because there is no motive described anywhere in the film. Even when taking the low budget into account, "The Letter" could have bee so much better.

"On that first night of course we didn't know who you were, or what you would do to us, or what you would do to me." Martine (Ryder) is a New York playwright who is getting a chance to direct her boyfriend in a new play she wrote. Soon after rehearsals begin an unknown actor, Tyrone (Franco) shows up and begins to cause tension. His acting is good but he is hostile to everyone except Martine. While the rehearsals are going on Martine begins to become paranoid and thinks someone is trying to kill her. Her re-writes of the play begin to confuse the actors and the line between life and paranoia are blurred. First of all I will say this is not terrible but this is another movie that tries to be artsy for the sake of being artsy. I find the easiest way to describe movies sometimes are to compare them to others that many have seen. I open with that because it seemed like this movie tried it's hardest to be like "Black Swan" but never quite making it. Very limited scenery and actors but the main focus is on Martine's slow descent into madness. You begin to question if she is just overly paranoid or if her concerns are legit. This is the type of movie that keeps you wondering about that which helps you make it through. Overall, an OK movie but tried to be artsy for the sake of being artsy. I give it a B-.

Review: What a complete load of rubbish! With a name like Obsessed and a cast with James Franco and Winona Ryder, I was expecting something interesting and entertaining, but this was really bad. Most of the film was set on stage with Winona Ryder directing a play, which was really bad, and on top of that, you've got Winona Ryder narrating the whole story. I really can't see what the director was trying to achieve with this film because there isn't much point to it. I can understand the twist which comes out at the end, but by that time I deliberately made myself busy so I could get through the annoying pile of rubbish. The stupid piano that's going through the whole movie is really annoying and the mood if depressing. Just stay away from the film!

Round-Up: I darn see why the hell James Franco and Winona Ryder agreed to doing this film because the script is appalling. Maybe they were just paying bills. Ever since Winona Ryder got caught thieving, her career has gone from bad to worse, and this movie isn't going to so her any favours. She's need a film like Beetlejuice 2 to bring her our of the dark. As for James Franco, I always knew that he does quirky movies, but I really can't see why he would want this film on his filmography. Anyway, I really can't find anything good to say about this film because there is nothing interesting or entertaining about it.

Budget: $10million (Waste Of Money!) Worldwide Gross: N/A

I recommend this movie anyone that wants to get bored to death. 1/10

I'm not surprised that such a movie is underrated in the culture of the hunger games and 3d Movies. I never expected I would ever see again a high standard movie and after the movie was over I was shocked.. without spoiling this movie reflects almost accurately that 'situation' Martin finds herself in. I longed for such films which leave a need to think and criticize reality as it is.. what is a dream..are we real..do we see everything as we should..This movie is no less then dogville in style. I hail Winona ryder for her honest and excellent acting. I think this is her best movie!

Definitely worth watching!

Well, hard to pile on anything more in the way of making fun of this thing.

So, I'll tack on my two cents regarding the various characters' hair pieces - which, for me were atrociously distracting and took up all my concentration.

For example, Josh Hamilton - as a younger but nonetheless middle aged man, why is it so horrible to just show his naturally receding hairline - why add a "piece" on top and then comb strands of that piece down over his forward such that all you spend your watching time doing is trying to figure what he'd look like without the piece.

And James France - again, understandably - and quite comfortably, naturally - thinning on top - but, oh no, let's first, stick a hair piece on top and - brace yourself - hot curl that sucker into "boyish" twirlicues. And, to add insult to injury, his whole head of hair - real and toupe - is dyed a shiny greasy shoe polish black - every time he leaned back on any of the stage furniture upholstery I pictured a big black stain residue.

And the women -first, I don't know if Katherine Waterson just naturally has a lot of hair, but if they did add extensions then they way overdid it - she often looks like nothing else so much as "Thing" on the Addams family.

And does Winona escape this hair piece Armageddon? Oh no, - there is one chunk of a very strangly strand of wiry hair that is consistently combed from sort of the top of her head down over the middle of her forehead down over her eyes - like more of a forelock of some sort rather than just bangs - it's quite bizarre - not sure what cosmetic effect it was intended to achieve. And, btw, Winona's various dye jobs are also way too dark - more shoe polish.

Well, you get the idea - of course, there's all the other stuff that makes this thing utterly insufferable - the plinking piano notes score, the ever pretentious in-focus/out-of-focus shots of random New York City tree foliage, the claustrophobic "Greenwich Village theatre scene denizens" of it all, the incredibly tedious dreamlife, and incessant articulation of and fixation on, Wynona's character's dreams, etc etc.

In sum, this thing is mainly a joke on itself. I mean with dialogue lines like "And then I heard birds" delivered with absolutely breathless self-awareness, how can you not do a spit-take of your popcorn laughing out loud. Lol.

When I first saw the trailer for this movie on YouTube, I like many thought are you joking.

The quality of the trailer was shockingly bad but I was still intrigued because I loved James Franco's work and as well as a welcome return in a leading role by Winona Ryder, since I have been a fan of her work for many years.

Though, as it has already been stated, this movie is not to everyone's taste, but I'm not sure why this movie has such a low rating either? When you actually watch the movie, the quality seems to be alright.

Yes, it has extremely complex levels of dreams by Winona's character (Martine), yet still very much entertaining. I thought the whole cast acted strongly and were great.

It kind of reminded me somewhat of elements of Black Swan, Inception and Francophrenia especially in terms of levels.

Sometimes, people classify movies as bad, if they can't breakdown the story quickly but I still felt the character's were warm.

However, I appreciate a movie that makes you think, and if a repeat viewing is necessary then why not? Anyway, I don't really want to give any spoilers away but I do think more people should view this movie and form their own opinions on the conclusion.

It's actually not the worst movie you could ever see and I enjoyed it but maybe, I'm biased because I love James and Winona. Seriously, it deserves a higher rating.

If you saw the trailer and thought it was interesting then don't bother; you'll hate this film. I mean it. Don't even think about watching.

If, on the other hand, you saw the trailer and thought "oh great, another forgettable thriller about a creepy guy and clueless chick. When will anyone try anything new for chrissake??" then hold your horses because this movie might be just for you.

"The Letter" marks the 2nd pairing of the phenomenal acting/directing team of James Franco and his professor Jay Anania (the first being the excellent film "Vincent" aka "Shadows & Lies"). This time Winona Ryder joins the group and adds her own perfect eccentricity to the mix. Ryder plays the part of "Martine" a playwright who is putting on a production with 5 actors including a shadowy newcomer "Tyrone" (Franco).

As the play progresses, reality begins to wrap itself around imagination and vice versa. Some have compared this to other recent mindbenders like "Black Swan" and "Memento", but I would say this film outshines them all due to Anania's fierce, stylistic approach which really gets into your head. There aren't really any shocks, thrills, chills, gore or other cheapshots to make you spill your popcorn. Instead, it's a very insidious, unsettling visual approach, as well as disjoint audio, that draws you into the mounting tension and confusion of Martine's mentally unbalanced psyche. No monsters or broken mirror shards required. That's one thing to remember about this film: it doesn't stoop to cheap thrills but instead stands by its somber, anti-Hollywood approach.

Something else to know about this film; it moves at the speed of reality, that is "slowly" by movie standards. So if you get bored easily, you might want to look elsewhere. There are scenes of dialogue with actual pauses between people speaking, like in real life, how about that? Sometimes there are periods of silence that might make the audience feel uncomfortable if they're expecting some sort of rapid fire, scripted tit-for-tat. But if you're prepared for a voyeuristic experience of watching other people's lives, this nails it. Don't get me wrong; not a single scene is wasted and there's no fluff or filler. It's just that Anania allows the scenes to breathe a little. The pacing is similar to something you might get in from a European director (Kieslowsky, Tarkovsky, maybe Bela Tarr after a few cups of coffee) and the visual poetry is reminiscent of the Japanese masters Kurosawa & Teshigahara with a distinct, hip, modern look (extreme saturation, contrast and exposure) as you might see in Aronofsky or Paul Thomas Anderson. The overall package is distinctly Anania.

And how can I end this without a word about Franco. Although his role may strike you as being smaller than you'd expect (Winona Ryder is the star), each time he graces the camera it's done with so much poise and confidence you find yourself wondering who would win in a cool-off between Franco & Bogart. Hate to admit it, but I think Franco would win by a hair.

Beautifully made, well-performed and thought-provoking film.

I just finished watching this and cannot say for sure what happened to Winona Ryder's character. But you know what, that's not necessarily a liability. Is she suffering a schizophrenic breakdown, did she die and now she's talking to us from the afterlife, was she the victim of a murderous conspiracy by her cheating boyfriend--I don't know, but I look forward to watching this again and trying to figure it out.

For those who gave this film 1 star and couldn't appreciate what the writer/director was doing with the slow pacing, the fading sound, the out-of-focus shots, etc., go see The Expendables 2: they keep things REAL SIMPLE there, just the way you likes 'em!

This movie is most certainly not trash. You must, however, be willing to give it your undivided attention. There is a plot and if you pay attention you will pick up on the subtle contributors to the plot. All of the performances are excellent and raw. Though the movie is very artsy I think it is for good reason and not just for the sake of being artsy. I believe all of the elements of the film are crucial to the storyline. I am a huge fan of James Franco and of course he delivers, as does Winona Ryder. For fans of either actors this is certainly a film to add to your must sees. Movies that are thought provoking may not be as exciting as some but they are worthwhile. This is one such film and should be recognized for its merit. I recommend it for film buffs everywhere!

I read the IMDb description of the movie and obviously the one who wrote it either didn't watch or didn't understood what the movie is about. Martin was never a playwright *no spoiling* but come on..is that the top of your understanding ? do not watch this film if you can't think or don't want to, it will be a waste of time for those who never knew what real theater is all about. when seeing this movie I felt at first sorry for Winona Ryder, it seems that she brings her confusion to the stage, it took me a while to understand what is going on and why it's like that. in that the director did an excellent job for I thought I have a problem in connecting the plot when actually Martin faced the same problem. Amazing film and one of a kind!

This movie is a challenge for people who loves to watch good movies. The plot it is so interesting because it showed the development of the madness of the protagonist due to a poison effects.

Winona and James Franco are a very good actors. I love to see films with Franco because they are always very good performing.

While I found this obliquely structured, sporadically unsettling, independent feature to be both fascinating, fitfully frustrating and in part, more than a little bit confusing, 'Obsessed' aka 'The Letter' ultimately proved to be an altogether engrossing, plainly ambitious, densely layered psychodrama that might well reward the more diligent, esoterically-minded movie fan. The tricky, ceaselessly claustrophobic narrative is primarily a doomy decent into the beleaguered existence of an emotionally disordered playwright, 'Martine' (Winona Ryder); her increasingly paranoid state given a disturbing verisimilitude with a bravura performance by the still adorably elfin film & TV icon, Winona Ryder. No doubt some may find the overtly 'stagy' dynamics of this demonstratively theatrical piece a little forced, illogical, or even alienating, but I enjoyed the pervasive strangeness maintained throughout, and the film's febrile sense of dramatic dislocation frequently reignited my waning interest in the profoundly insular travails of Ryder's uncomfortably fragile, noticeably desperate retreat from normality; her seemingly inexorable attraction to moody, taciturn hunk, James Franco's darkly ambivalent persona proving no less irresistible to me too! This patently wasn't to be a readily digestible time-waster, as there was a steely integrity to the work that continually rewarded my curiosity with a modicum of intrigue over the truly baffling nature of these quixotic characters wholly bizarre motivations, both on and off Winona's increasingly disordered stage! While there is, on occasion, the niggling sensation of enduring a film student's over-earnest graduation project, it was, perhaps, this undeniably charming naïveté that finally won me over, and either way, I'm always mustard keen to watch sophisticated, multifaceted dramas that aren't afraid to keep at least one of its myriad secrets to itself, thereby actively encouraging the viewer to formulate their own unique interpretations. And the inspired casting of the preternaturally empathic Winona as the luminous lead in this crepuscular, reality-warping, existential nightmare lessened the film's very own burgeoning identity crisis; as by creating such a fragmented, wilfully interior world, no matter how artfully presented, almost certainly engenders its own unique set of issues! (It cannot go unsaid that the truly odious DVD artwork and incongruous trailer are not at all representative of the film's far more subtle sensibilities.)