Christopher_Reid

I'll have to rewatch this one in the future to see how I feel. For now, I was generally impressed by the style and many of the shots. The story is appealing at first but starts to feel a bit too slow and ponderous. My attention started to waver a bit and I felt like it was hard to understand who some of the characters were or why it mattered.

Overall, the story feels very slight. And the ending is famously "too good to be true", let's say. I think it just needed some more plot developments. A bit more concrete meaning to the events rather than a vague meditation on an older gentleman losing his job and feeling forgotten.

Some shots were really effective and memorable, but they only came here and there between less memorable sections. It's funny how silent movies are often more visually appealing because the director had nothing else to do. I do like the fact that the movie almost completely avoids titles for the speech, but I also think it would have helped at a few points to clarify what characters were feeling or saying to each-other.

The movie could also use more meaning. We get little insight into the main character and his life. I would have liked more contrast between good and evil characters or the choices they make and the impacts those choices have. It all felt a bit too vague and drawn out for me. And it's a simple reality of life that sometimes you lose a job or that you're getting older. So it lacks a strong moral reason for me to be particularly moved by this character and his situation.

Anyway, it was still pretty entertaining and nice. Just a bit cheapened by the ending and being a little too slow and empty. And the main character having some unnecessary flaws. Many of the visuals were really good though.

This is a very patient, contemplative movie. I really loved a lot of the shots, the mood, all these human moments of delicacy. I don't know how to put it. Many of the shots are from a diagonal behind the character, kind of silhouetting them but showing some of the face. Up close but kind of respecting their privacy. Very intimate and effective in my opinion.

The cinematography and acting are the main strengths of Paris, Texas. The pacing is good and bad. Good in the sense of taking its time and having a lot of wonderful scenes and time to reflect and absorb the mood of the movie. But bad in the sense that it's a bit slow and risks being boring or pretentious. I don't think it ever crosses that line, but at times I was apprehensive about where it was all leading.

That's the other key thing. The movie is a mystery to some degree, so the details of the story are really important once they're revealed. Are the hidden secrets worth it? Is this a wild goose chase? Should I like or dislike these characters? How did they get here? Will I even care by the end?

It's always a gamble with a mystery. Some pay off big time, some leave the audience very unsatisfied. I recall that Ebert hated The Usual Suspects, feeling that it was pointless. I loved it. Paris, Texas does have some pivotal scenes and something to say. It has some commitment and resolution and climax. But it didn't leave a purely positive taste.

In essence, the main characters are not that noble or interesting, in the past or present. They do feel very real, though. Very "human". I was reminded of my own family. All the weird, awkward moments, the connections but also the tension. The forgotten memories which an photo, item or place might bring back.

Harry Dean Stanton is really good in the main role. The girl is good too, although she has far less screen time. I liked the brother but I found his wife's accent (she's French) a bit annoying. The son is pretty cool. Not a great actor, but directed well and pretty natural. The bonding between Stanton and his son is the main highlight and crux of the movie.

Ultimately, I feel conflicted because I don't really approve of what the main characters do. At least not in full. And maybe I'm not meant to. I was affected by the story and many of the really nicely filmed and acted parts. Maybe if I had more pain, separation or regret, it would resonate with me more.

I guess another way to put it is that their story feels so trivial in the scheme of things. It lacks a deeper message. Bruce Wayne may be fictional, but I find his story much more engaging and positive, and he doesn't have to be mute for 20 minutes.

The music works fine - sparse blues capturing the time and place, the vast, empty west. Or something like that. But it lacks the gorgeous music of many other classic films. Maybe that could have lifted it.

Anyway, I'm glad I saw this. Wim Wenders is an interesting director. I saw Wings of Desire but don't remember it. I wish more directors could be like this. He respects his characters and lets them breathe. He slowly creeps in on them with the camera and pays close attention to their face and body language. He just needed a slightly more rewarding story and maybe some element of excitement or a great score. Still, a pretty nice movie.

This feels more like a Twilight Zone episode than a movie. To be fair, I haven't even watched The Twilight Zone, but I think most people understand the concept. In other words, it feels like a good idea for a short story or a short film or a TV episode, but not so much a feature-length film.

Let's start with a couple of obvious things. This movie has one of the most hilariously, ridiculously long fight scenes in any movie ever. I randomly saw that part on pay TV many years ago and was astounded. Equal parts impressed, laughing out loud and kind of disturbed and confused. I don't want to say too much. If you haven't seen it, you're in for a treat.

The movie also has one of the greatest one-liners of all time. Very cheesy and simply, but really effective. One of the ultimate bad arse lines.

The concept is also pretty cool and familiar. A bit like The Matrix, The Thirteenth Floor or even The Invasion of the Body Snatchers. This feeling that something's not right. Hell, Noam Chomsky's documentary Manufacturing Consent basically makes the claim that it's not even fiction, although I mostly disagree with him. Subliminal messages everywhere.

It's like we all know we're being played somehow. There's something out there, under the surface. We just need a way to see through. Or are we all just paranoid? It's ironic, I suppose. Advertisers trying to manipulate us, or maybe just promoting innocent stuff we probably should buy. Is the person trying to sell the idea that everyone's manipulating you any better? Politicians claiming that businessmen are greedy - what, and politicians are better? Every other business is trying to trick you, buy our product instead! Everyone does it, it seems.

Anyway, the movie lacks depth and longevity, that's the problem. It's second-tier Carpenter, which is still pretty good, but leaves a lot to be desired. It builds some solid tension and mystery, but as I've been realising, suspense and mystery are only really as good as the revelations which eventually come. Forget the music, acting and filmmaking overall, if the "twist" or the way the plot unfolds isn't satisfying or imaginative or consistent, you'll be disappointed.

In this case, the concept just doesn't go that far. It feels like a joke, especially by the end. I think that's deliberate, but since the joke's on us, we're not laughing that hard. I prefer an intense, well-thought-out sci-fi thriller that's also satirical over a silly comedy masquerading as a sci-fi thriller.

Roddy Piper and Keith David are effective in their roles. The music is serviceable. The effects are pretty good overall but wear off over time. The disappointment is that it devolves into more of a straight action, horror movie rather than a deeper, sci-fi exploration, especially considering the themes it has available, along the lines of The Thing (who is real, who can be trusted) or The Matrix (is this world even real, how long have I been lied to, can I escape, do I even want to be red-pilled). Oh well. A fun one-off piece of entertainment.