Andro-3
Joined Dec 1999
Welcome to the new profile
We're making some updates, and some features will be temporarily unavailable while we enhance your experience. The previous version will not be accessible after 7/14. Stay tuned for the upcoming relaunch.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews4
Andro-3's rating
I wanted to adore this movie. Having just seen Sling Blade and been EXTREMELY impressed by Billy Bob Thornton, I was ready for A Simple Plan to match or even top it in quality.
Not a chance. The promise that the film built up was disrupted, over and over, by unbelievable scenes that kept me from getting lost in the story. Oh, I was squirming all right when Hank was sitting in the sheriff's office waiting for his wife to call, and when the four men all went out into the woods together, but what about the ending? Jacob's final plea to Hank wasn't quite feasible, and Hank's voice-over at the very end really ruined it for me. When I see a movie, I don't like to have the moral rehashed, compressed, and shoved in my face in the last 60 seconds.
Nonetheless, a few terrific performances made this film worth watching. Billy Bob Thornton, as I had hoped, made playing Jacob look easy. I doubt many other actors could pull that role off and make Jacob believable. Bridget Fonda was also amazingly good. Her character may not have seemed like anyone I know personally -- yes, the acting was a bit contrived -- but she was mesmerizing whenever she was on camera. Bill Paxton, on the other hand, was anything but impressive. I guess I was supposed to despise his character in the end, but I started in the first five minutes. Those pathetic faces he kept making never drew an ounce of sympathy from me.
I was going to give the film a 6, but then I thought about all the pure crap Hollywood is turning out these days and I decided to make it an 8. This is an extremely interesting film, and one I would recommend to anyone who can stomach off-kilter stories and slightly slow-paced action. It's worth the two hours it takes to see it... it just wouldn't be worth two more to see it again.
Not a chance. The promise that the film built up was disrupted, over and over, by unbelievable scenes that kept me from getting lost in the story. Oh, I was squirming all right when Hank was sitting in the sheriff's office waiting for his wife to call, and when the four men all went out into the woods together, but what about the ending? Jacob's final plea to Hank wasn't quite feasible, and Hank's voice-over at the very end really ruined it for me. When I see a movie, I don't like to have the moral rehashed, compressed, and shoved in my face in the last 60 seconds.
Nonetheless, a few terrific performances made this film worth watching. Billy Bob Thornton, as I had hoped, made playing Jacob look easy. I doubt many other actors could pull that role off and make Jacob believable. Bridget Fonda was also amazingly good. Her character may not have seemed like anyone I know personally -- yes, the acting was a bit contrived -- but she was mesmerizing whenever she was on camera. Bill Paxton, on the other hand, was anything but impressive. I guess I was supposed to despise his character in the end, but I started in the first five minutes. Those pathetic faces he kept making never drew an ounce of sympathy from me.
I was going to give the film a 6, but then I thought about all the pure crap Hollywood is turning out these days and I decided to make it an 8. This is an extremely interesting film, and one I would recommend to anyone who can stomach off-kilter stories and slightly slow-paced action. It's worth the two hours it takes to see it... it just wouldn't be worth two more to see it again.
Lately I've been seeing just about every movie that someone recommends to me, and "the Sweet Hereafter" has been on quite a few of my friends' lists. I was excited about finally seeing the movie.
What I found was less compelling than I expected. None of the characters were really engaging, and perhaps that's the aim of the film. But I honestly can't understand how this movie could have made people cry. Who did they identify with? Ian Holm's character, whose grimacing and silence set my teeth on edge, and whose attitude toward the families of the accident victims was so entirely self-serving? Sarah Polley's character, who almost never displayed any spark of life? And even if I had begun to identify with one character or another, I would have been instantly put off by the trite lines that kept coming out of their mouths. "Let me direct your rage?" Give me a break.
Not to imply too much of a connection between the films, but if you want to feel the terror and rage surrounding a tragedy as though you were there living through it, see "Boys Don't Cry." The words that go unsaid in that film are worth much more than those voiced-over or spoken all too clearly in "the Sweet Hereafter."
What I found was less compelling than I expected. None of the characters were really engaging, and perhaps that's the aim of the film. But I honestly can't understand how this movie could have made people cry. Who did they identify with? Ian Holm's character, whose grimacing and silence set my teeth on edge, and whose attitude toward the families of the accident victims was so entirely self-serving? Sarah Polley's character, who almost never displayed any spark of life? And even if I had begun to identify with one character or another, I would have been instantly put off by the trite lines that kept coming out of their mouths. "Let me direct your rage?" Give me a break.
Not to imply too much of a connection between the films, but if you want to feel the terror and rage surrounding a tragedy as though you were there living through it, see "Boys Don't Cry." The words that go unsaid in that film are worth much more than those voiced-over or spoken all too clearly in "the Sweet Hereafter."
I'm going to have to go out on a limb here and say that I enjoyed "Sling Blade" far more than this short, which preceded the feature film by three years. Maybe it was the snotty, hands-on-hips, childish performance by Molly Ringwald that bothered me here. Or maybe it was the horribly stereotyped view of the residents of what, in the full-length, Karl calls the "nervous hospital." Yes, the short strongly resembles the opening of the full-length film, but I think it's weaker in many ways. The cinematography is better in the feature film (and I have no problem with black and white); Molly Ringwald's performance really sours the whole 25 minutes; and left on its own, this opening really implies things I don't like. Rather than actually speculating on how Karl will deal with living unsupervised, it seems to portray all the residents of the hospital as soulless victims. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to feel at the end of the film. At the end of "Sling Blade," I felt I had gotten to know a man. At the end of "Some Folks Call It a Sling Blade," I just thanked my lucky stars that Billy Bob Thornton decided to direct a version of it himself.