The Hungry Ghosts

If you like watching unsympathetic, at times seedy characters messing up their own lives and those of the people around them, then this is the movie for you. It's about people in New York, struggling with their life and character. No less, but certainly nothing more. There's nasty divorce, drugs, perversity, troubled-son-who-can't-communicate-with-dad stuff, the usual. Overall I found it totally unengaging, pretty predictable and without any real purpose. The actors are not to blame, as most of them, despite the occasional over-the-top scene, did a good job.

The movie itself wasn't all bad as it did have one interesting character, Gus (great performance by Nick Sandow), who has at least a few interesting observations. He has by far the best scene in the movie when he confronts a girl who after a month of Yoga lessons thinks she has 'discovered who she really is', and that she now 'knows'. Gus ruthlessly dissects her reasoning and shows her she knows absolutely nothing.

I'm afraid this character Gus would have had no trouble ripping a movie like Hungry Ghosts completely to pieces.

Saw this last night at the Quad Theater in NYC largely based on the review in the Village Voice (and because of some curiosity on what Michael Imperioli would do as a writer/director)---i think the plot synopsis makes it sound much more interesting then it actually was---its all right as an actor's exercise, but as a narrative film-- none of the characters ever really emerge as fully fleshed out characters--and none of the ongoing plot lines seem to actually go anywhere despite the sense that they just might if only we can just stick around long enough to find out.

Steven Schirripa's drug addicted late night radio talk show host is more or less the main character here (and he plays it well enough to keep you more or less invested in the outcome of his character) but its outpatient (and 90 day chip holder) Nick Sandow who absolutely stands out at the beginning as the character to keep your eye on--the movie's wild card if you will---and every time he appeared back on screen i kept thinking we were finally gonna go somewhere really interesting with him--but after a while he becomes not so much a character as much as a mouthpiece for the movie's beat poetry and philosophical rhapsodies---the last half of the movie his plot line is largely reduced to scenes of him quoting poetry into his cellphone while trying to reach his ex girlfriend--who's stuck in an even more uninvolved plot line of her own.

Anjunae Ellis (as Sandow's ex) is another wasted character--she spends most of the movie wandering around trying to find a place to crash--mostly avoiding attempts at interaction including frequent phone calls from Sandow's character--all of which begs the question--what the heck is she doing with a cellphone in the first place?--the woman is a virtually homeless nomad--her most memorable scene is almost getting into a fight with the owner of a building whose stoop she's eating dinner and resting on, nearly beating her up with a garbage can-- the longer the film played the more i kept wondering what exactly was the plight of her character aside from being used as a narrative device??? Easily the most well defined plot line as well as the most well defined character would be Schirripa's and he's all right enough of an actor to make you feel something for the self punishing schlub--but its frustrating as hell for his plot line to be the only one that gets somewhat of a resolution--not to mention having him be the only character that actually gets to go on to a third act resolution of some sorts when the other two main characters never do. (which is all the more disappointing when you remember that Nick Sandow started out the film as the most interesting character.)That Schirripa's problematic character recalled to my mind the comedian Artie Lange who has had some seemingly similar kinds of problems-would've actually made the film (and his character) far more interesting then it ultimately ended up being.

I wanted to like this film--the premise and Cassavettes like atmosphere held promise (The Hungry Ghosts obviously have to do with all 3 of the main characters' various addictions and how all of em are loathe to escape 'em right? right? no seriously that's right right?) but aside from the occasional non-sequituous scene--movie is quite the non-starter. One of the other comments mentioned Sandow's ripping apart of this young woman whom he comes into contact with--and that is indeed a great scene (definitely you-tube worthy) if only the film had come to sharp witted life like that more often--it could've really been amazing.

This film is like many, many indie films, in that it follows some desperate separate lives as they wrestle with their addictive behaviors and regrets. As this kind of film, Hungry Ghosts is good. That's my review.

I've seen a zillion films like this. Just last week I watched Powder Blue with Ray Liotta and Jessca Biel, same kind of thing. Or go see 13 Moons with Steve Buscemi. The Life Before This with Catherine O'Hara and Joe Pantoliano. Shrink with Kevin Spacey. Dancing at the Blue Iguana with Sanda Oh. Crash, that piece of garbage movie that was so popular 6 years ago, was this kind of movie but with an inexplicably larger budget. The thing about movies like this is that if you've seen them you know what they are and what to expect. In the first minute, you know what you're dealing with. Desperate people, aimless lives, some intersections, some deaths, no story structure, nothing much is going to happen. You know this in the first minute. If you have complaints after that you're being ridiculous. It's like complaining about your face hurting after you smash your head against a cement wall. It's like complaining about the wall.

I saw this at Rotterdam last night, and like almost everyone I talked to afterwards, couldn't understand how it was selected as opening film. The best explanation, from a festival employee, referred wearily to the mindless 'mechanics' of the process.

The new director of the 'art' festival, who himself comes from outside film, introduced it by talking about breaking down the boundaries between traditional media forms.

But his choice, here, would in fact provide a great laboratory for Film & TV Studies students to explore fundamental differences between a TV series funded by commercials that has to keep a viewer engaged over 24 hour-long slots with meandering and intersecting plot-lines held together by familiar 'characters' - and an artwork that must stand by itself as it reconfigures our perceptions and realities over 2 uninterrupted hours.

Actually, this 'film' would probably work better as a 4-hour American TV miniseries with 16 long commercial breaks (maybe that's the underlying logic). It looks like a way-overlong unedited amateur pilot for a series, and trying to 'read' it as a 90-minute (though it seemed like 3 hours) 'film' became frustrating after a couple of minutes.

To call the script and direction 'amateurish' is to be polite. The kindest take would be to imagine there was no direction at all, and that the TV actors, camera, lighting & sound and editing crew were just assembled over lunch one day, then left to themselves to churn out their usual mechanical product dominated by smallscreen closeups and dialogue.

I think that might in fact have provided a better result. But the script (by the first-time 'director') was so self-absorbed, cliché-ridden and undisciplined that it's very, very easy to see the same confused signature throughout this incoherent, flaccid, misconceived and misdirected mess (no, I didn't say that about Altman, too).

If this is the future of 'film' and film festivals, then goodbye film. As for festivals, the audience (or those who hadn't walked out) gave it a standing ovation.