The Letter

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.

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!

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.

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...

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