Jac-15
Joined Jun 1999
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews7
Jac-15's rating
"Behind the scenes" look at a presidential debate where the moderator and panelists decide to abandon the debate format and instead level accusations of wife/child/employee abuse at the Republican candidate.
The whole premise is pretty stupid, and no real candidate, nor the networks, would have allowed any of this to happen. The rest of the story involves a reporter trying to uncover the mystery of where the information came from and why they did it.
Poorly directed, and unnecessary sidebars including the conservative panelist who is in the closet, but other than showing a male-male kiss, this is never developed, and is rather pointless.
James Garner is solid as usual, but no one else is able to make their character anything but one-dimensional.
The whole premise is pretty stupid, and no real candidate, nor the networks, would have allowed any of this to happen. The rest of the story involves a reporter trying to uncover the mystery of where the information came from and why they did it.
Poorly directed, and unnecessary sidebars including the conservative panelist who is in the closet, but other than showing a male-male kiss, this is never developed, and is rather pointless.
James Garner is solid as usual, but no one else is able to make their character anything but one-dimensional.
The idea is interesting. Follow a group of slackers interacting with each other and then cut away to new group when new passerbys come on-screen. The problems are in execution.
The point is well-taken after only a few of these interactions and new digressions. But the exercise goes on far too long. This would have worked much better as a movie short. There is nothing new to gain from seeing 40 interactions as opposed to just the first few.
The second problem is that the characters are not interesting. They are all, every single one, simply annoying. They go on at long length about conspiracies, and make many idiotic statements throughout (both young and old), but never offer any new insights. Since all the characters (and there are many) are slackers of one variety or another, it makes it appear that the entire town of full of nothing but weirdos. As a former resident (and student) of Austin in the mid-to-late 80s, I can attest that there are *some* individuals like this, but they are certainly in the minority and not at all representative of the city. The only interesting thing for me was seeing the various Austin locales.
The point is well-taken after only a few of these interactions and new digressions. But the exercise goes on far too long. This would have worked much better as a movie short. There is nothing new to gain from seeing 40 interactions as opposed to just the first few.
The second problem is that the characters are not interesting. They are all, every single one, simply annoying. They go on at long length about conspiracies, and make many idiotic statements throughout (both young and old), but never offer any new insights. Since all the characters (and there are many) are slackers of one variety or another, it makes it appear that the entire town of full of nothing but weirdos. As a former resident (and student) of Austin in the mid-to-late 80s, I can attest that there are *some* individuals like this, but they are certainly in the minority and not at all representative of the city. The only interesting thing for me was seeing the various Austin locales.
This film is quite boring. There are snippets of naked flesh tossed around in a lame attempt to keep the viewer awake but they don't succeed.
The best thing about the movie is Lena Olin--she does a masterful job handling her character, but Day-Lewis garbles most of his lines.
Kaufman clearly had no idea how to film this. The incongruities in bouncing between domestic household/marriage issues and political crises are badly matched. Character attitudes change without explanation throughout. Badly disjointed.
The best thing about the movie is Lena Olin--she does a masterful job handling her character, but Day-Lewis garbles most of his lines.
Kaufman clearly had no idea how to film this. The incongruities in bouncing between domestic household/marriage issues and political crises are badly matched. Character attitudes change without explanation throughout. Badly disjointed.