The Letter

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.

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.

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.

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...

"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-.