iosu_vakerizzo
Joined Jan 2010
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.
Badges8
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews8
iosu_vakerizzo's rating
Unlike one of the other reviewers here, i dont think they need to get a better camera, I loved the look of this film. The endless shots of architecture are beautiful and they have a haunting quality to them.
The film is a bit too minimalistic in terms of both plot and themes, even for an experimental film, and it does get a bit boring at times. It could have been cut down to 40 minutes, but say what you want about it, it was an unusual film and watching it was an experience and for this kind of film that is enough. I felt like this watch made my life richer in a way that many commercial hits do not. Yes this was more boring, but despite its minimalism it was less empty than a lot of big productions.
This movie is pretentious and dumb at the same time. It talks down at the audience while trying hard to be cool and original but failing completely. A constant "cool" narration makes the film incredibly annoying.
Dont waste your time.
I wanted to like it but the film didn't let me.
I can see that this film was made by a fan the European cinema that I love, but there is a difference between trying to make something similar and making a bad copy.
The film opens with a scene from Godard's Pierrot Le Fou. In Godard's film Belmondo is in the bathtub, reading about Velazquez to his young daughter. In this film Sutherland talks philosophical nonsense in the same fashion. Trying to do a typical Godard dialogue, but failing. It feels flat and uninteresting. The scene goes on way too long too.
Then it cuts to a wonderful tracking shot of the palatial ceiling of a fancy cinema, while the credits run. This is the best thing in this movie. There are other moments perhaps, but none as good as this credit sequence.
As the film develops it quickly becomes apparent that this film wants to be 8 1/2, but does a lousy job it. It also does a lousy job at hiding it's intentions.
Fellini turns up in the film, looking rather embarrassed, as if he already knew how much of a cheap rip off this film was going to be. Honestly, I have never seen him looking like this. Meek. Mousy. Strange. But any footage of him is welcomed.
As the film goes on, every conversation seems dull, the character seem uninteresting, the film is pretentious and self indulgent, the dream sequences look forced, unlike the maestro's. A lot of the dialogue seems to be doing a lousy attempt at being Godard. Trying to sound profound without being so. The Jean Moreau scene too seems like a bad attempt at Godardian musical scenes as played by Ana Karina in Pierrot le Fou or A Woman Is A Woman.
Then to top it all up he goes and uses not one but two pieces of Nino Rota - Fellini music. Come on!!! Have some self respect!
I don't hate this film, but it's bad. It's really bad. I think a lot of the people defending it are probably not familiar enough with the works of the filmmakers he stole from, cause it's hard to see Mazursky's film without cringing at everything he lifted so shamelessly. If at least the dialogue was good... if the characters were interesting... The photography is very good, the acting is fine most of the time, but it just fails to be insightful, and it tries so very hard... and it fails to be profound, and it fails to be interesting. Sutherland's repeating question "desert island, what three foods..." is so inane and uninteresting. There are some questions that may reveal something about people's personality. But that one is not it!
Some people here have said that it's depiction of Hollywood at the time is great. I'd even disagree there. It is incredibly superficial. Someone said it was dated and that maybe it seemed better at the time. I'm sure the creepy friend was perceived as more normal in the culture of the 70s, but notice that i havent even mentioned him for that reason. Being dated has nothing to do with it. Plenty of movies are dated and are still great. Sorry to the fans of this film, it's a 3 star review from me. But hey, there are plenty of films out there i'd give zero stars to, so this aint that bad.
The film opens with a scene from Godard's Pierrot Le Fou. In Godard's film Belmondo is in the bathtub, reading about Velazquez to his young daughter. In this film Sutherland talks philosophical nonsense in the same fashion. Trying to do a typical Godard dialogue, but failing. It feels flat and uninteresting. The scene goes on way too long too.
Then it cuts to a wonderful tracking shot of the palatial ceiling of a fancy cinema, while the credits run. This is the best thing in this movie. There are other moments perhaps, but none as good as this credit sequence.
As the film develops it quickly becomes apparent that this film wants to be 8 1/2, but does a lousy job it. It also does a lousy job at hiding it's intentions.
Fellini turns up in the film, looking rather embarrassed, as if he already knew how much of a cheap rip off this film was going to be. Honestly, I have never seen him looking like this. Meek. Mousy. Strange. But any footage of him is welcomed.
As the film goes on, every conversation seems dull, the character seem uninteresting, the film is pretentious and self indulgent, the dream sequences look forced, unlike the maestro's. A lot of the dialogue seems to be doing a lousy attempt at being Godard. Trying to sound profound without being so. The Jean Moreau scene too seems like a bad attempt at Godardian musical scenes as played by Ana Karina in Pierrot le Fou or A Woman Is A Woman.
Then to top it all up he goes and uses not one but two pieces of Nino Rota - Fellini music. Come on!!! Have some self respect!
I don't hate this film, but it's bad. It's really bad. I think a lot of the people defending it are probably not familiar enough with the works of the filmmakers he stole from, cause it's hard to see Mazursky's film without cringing at everything he lifted so shamelessly. If at least the dialogue was good... if the characters were interesting... The photography is very good, the acting is fine most of the time, but it just fails to be insightful, and it tries so very hard... and it fails to be profound, and it fails to be interesting. Sutherland's repeating question "desert island, what three foods..." is so inane and uninteresting. There are some questions that may reveal something about people's personality. But that one is not it!
Some people here have said that it's depiction of Hollywood at the time is great. I'd even disagree there. It is incredibly superficial. Someone said it was dated and that maybe it seemed better at the time. I'm sure the creepy friend was perceived as more normal in the culture of the 70s, but notice that i havent even mentioned him for that reason. Being dated has nothing to do with it. Plenty of movies are dated and are still great. Sorry to the fans of this film, it's a 3 star review from me. But hey, there are plenty of films out there i'd give zero stars to, so this aint that bad.