What was most interesting to me was that they had Subway and Applebee's on the Moon. What also was interesting was that when people arrived on the moon, which was now a commercial attraction, it was like an airport.
The relationship between father and son interesting –– it was estranged, complex, and heart-wrenching. However, the movie moved too slowly, was cold and distant, and left me a little bored at times. And what the heck was the deal with the monkeys? They popped in, way out of flavor with the movie, and were never mentioned again.
Things aren't gray. While there is no clear "good guy" or "bad guy" going on here, this story simply explores a relationship in a realistic way, without guns, without cops, without explosions. Those who need this type of stimulation will get bored. Six Years reveals the complexity of people with their twisted psychology. Mel tells Dan "I love you," then declares "I hate you" hours later.
The writers and actors were spot-on showing young college age kids with their roller-coaster moods, intense feelings, and ambivalent emotions. Kids make bad decisions. They act, then later reflect, instead of doing the opposite. We see them sabotage their relationship (a kiss here, a push there), only to regret it later. When we are young, we do this. We later learn not to, hopefully.
The spontaneous ad-lib dialogue was fresh. Unlike a structured script, Taissa Farminga (who played Mel) and Ben Rosenfeld (who played Dan) acted naturally, often interrupting each other like we do in real life.
Does this film explore domestic violence. Some say yes, but in my personal and humble opinion, I saw the the injuries caused accidentally. Mel pushes Dan, twice, but doesn't mean to make him bleed. Dan pins Mel to the ground to stop her from striking him, not to hurt her. In real life domestic violence cases, they mean harm. Men strike women in the face. This wasn't the case here.
COMMENT ON THE ENDING...
DON'T READ FURTHER...
The ending was open-ended. Will they remain together? Will they work things out and learn to THINK before they act? Are they violent people, or do they simply need to mature? Their love is solid, no doubt. They have little impulse control. They realize this too late.
Dan's change of heart at the end was a bit abrupt (and confusing) when he decided not to go to New York. Mel pushes him into glass, cutting his feet, and while recuperating in the hospital from that push, he decides to hinder his career for her.
Dan's mistakes were that he didn't include Mel on the decision-making when he decided to move to New York. Mel's mistake was that she often was a hot-head, exploding both verbally and physically when Dan upset her, striking out with words like "I hate you" and actions such as pushing him and feebly striking at him.
When Mel says, "I want you to go to New York", does she mean she wants to have a long distance relationship, or does she think their relationship has ended. This is what the viewer must decide.
Very tender display of a passionate but emotionally damaged young attractive teacher's relationship with her students. While this teacher tries to maintain a professional distance, she finds it hard to do when she has a soft spot for one student in particular ï¿ 1/2"ï¿ 1/2" Billy, a very intelligent, sensitive, but troubled teen. Billy "gets" this teacher and sees her for who she is, but Miss Stevens pushes him away to avoid being inappropriate. Billy actually gives Miss Stevens good advice, telling her to take care of herself and not be so cerebral. He jumps on the hotel bed. She thinks he's crazy, until she, too, jumps on the bed. He gets off his meds, and thus, can begin to feel happy (and sad) again, and not just the flatline emotionless void that the meds cause. But Miss Stevens reports him, pushes him away, forces a coldness between the two of them... all so she can be appropriate and professional. It's rather sad.
I did not hate this movie. I did not love this movie. To be honest, I knew little of Marie Antoinette (but I googled her after watching the movie, which shed light on the film). Sofia goes more by feel and is more abstract (more a Picasso than a Rembrandt), and wanted the viewer to experience lush excess and excessive material abundance to the point of where everything was sicky-sweet, which was part of Marie Antoinette's world. I also got that among all the cakes and silk and glitter, there was no soul. So we have this summer/winter contrast of rich/lush/sweet against empty/barren/sour. I found her lack of privacy in her dressing her clothes with an audience, and the royal court knowing her sex life interesting and heart-breaking. She had to get rid of her beloved dog. She was only a child! Then her self-absorbed frigid husband who was little comfort to her appears in her life, but wasn't he also practically a child himself? Interesting how he slowly warmed to her as he finally grew up a bit. I think these two children playing prince and princess, then king and queen, had no realization of the world outside their castle, that France was starving. There was no malice, only ignorance that often comes with the stupidity of youth. I did gain insight from this film, perhaps more abstractly.
SPOILER ALERT: Do *not* read any further if you don't want the ending revealed. I will attempt to explain the meaning of the movie.
Jonah loves his wife and his toddler daughter, but he is over-worked, over-stressed, and an under-achiever as he works the night-shift at a hotel. He walks through life in a zombie-like way hoping for a better life for his family, seeing unreachable goals as living free in the country. But he cannot afford this, and he cannot lift himself from his rut. He is seriously sleep-deprived, and this slowly leads to mental delusions, possibly a split in personalities.
Jonah meets a drifter (DJ) who comes into the hotel, asking to stay in a room for free. DJ is obsessed with conspiracy ideas. He believes he's a prophet. DJ rants his psychotic ideas to Jonah, who listens silently, until he's had enough. Jonah yells at DJ, telling him to stop. However, DJ doesn't exist. DJ is only in Jonah's head. The security cameras at the hotel prove this. Jonah's history with homeless suggests he has always had some level of mental illness.
While Jonah loves his family, he feels trapped by them. He also feels guilty that he cannot provide the life he dreams for. He needs money, and gets DJ to steal jewelry from hotel guests, not realizing that he himself is stealing, because the real Jonah (a sweet and kind man) would never do such a thing. Jonah feels trapped by "the system", his job, and his family. His serious sleep deprivation develops into a personality split, where DJ takes over, doing what Jonah cannot. "DJ" kills his wife and daughter.
Jonah grieves. The police and investigators begin to suspect Jonah when things don't add up (they discover that there is no drifter who entered the hotel, as Jonah claimed) and gather evidence to arrest Jonah, but Jonah flees before that happens. He goes to the mountains and lives free as a hermit under a third personality (first Jonah, then DJ, now Buster), breaking into empty vacation homes, eating their food, bathing, and perhaps getting revenge on the rich who have "mastered the system", something he was unable to do. At the funeral, he says, "I don't believe it" because he hasn't 100% convinced himself of his lies to himself, yet.
The authorities become aware of this hermit and hunt him down. But Buster is smart and avoids capture. Meanwhile, Buster is obsessed with conspiracy theories, an alternate universe, and an inversion which he predicts will come soon. At the same time, he is conflicted and haunted by memories and flashbacks of his former life as a loving husband and father.
The sheriff eventually catches up with him and hunts him down, shooting at him as he emerges from a cave. But their bullets miraculously miss his body, and he escapes in the dust.
Totally out of his mind now, and after seeing his religious mother plead for him on TV, he takes a row boat out on a spiritual journey to his death. There are several religious images - the boat at sea, frogs fallen from the sky, xxx. Before he dies, he confront his true self, Jonah, who tries to kill Buster in revenge for killing his family. Him waking up on the beach is showing his belief that he somehow sent his family through the inversion that he imagined to be real.
There is enough ambiguity to have several interpretations. There is a vague hint that the daughter drowned. Perhaps this guilt and anger fed into his killing his wife. Another interpretation is that he has always been clean-cut hard-working Jonah, but imagines another life.
This movie will not be a top-seller simply because it is too "out there" to be appealing to the masses.
Different, intelligent, and refreshing, but very weird. The credits are pink, suggesting a light-hearted chick-flick film, but it didn't quite match the tone of this movie. Ted, an old fart of a man, is a washed-up cynical poet and a drunk who surprisingly has a superior attitude. He's a total British snob who was once a famous poet, but hasn't written a poem in years. When the movie begins, Ted works as a theatre critic, but is rude and mouths off to his boss. Thus, his boss fires him. A pretty young woman (daughter of a woman who Ted had a past relationship with) pays him handsomely to find a cure for her leukemia at a relative's lush estate where his godson resides. Ted's godson, David, (an odd but sweet 16-year-old boy), is thought to be able to cure people with his hands, an idea that Ted scorns. The movie shows the relationship between Ted, his godson, and the people who reside in the mansion, some of who lost favor with Ted years ago, with good reason. Ted is despicable. I was curious about the boy, the godson, and this kept me watching. The boy adored Ted even though Ted discarded and neglected his grandson. I also liked the older dark-haired woman who actually liked Ted, the lady who had asthma. I thought she was the best actor/actress in the film. Sometimes funny, often quirky and off-beat, this unusual film kept my interest, despite my Ted being an unlikable and grotesque character.
I was wondering if this was going to be one of those stupid slapstick comedies that's supposed to be funny but misses. It wasn't. I loved this movie! Nadine is a Junior in High School and is insecure, immature, yet we sympathize and forgive her, because she has such spirit and passion. She sees the world as having two types of people - those who are privileged with oodles of confidence, and those who are pathetic. Her older brother is in the first category, while she is in the second. Her mother is self-absorbed, and her lovable father dies when she's in sixth grade. Her one saving grace is her best friend and her only friend, until this best friend starts dating Nadine's brother. Nadine demands that her best friend choose between her and her brother. Her best friend, being reasonable, refuses to choose. So Nadine becomes alienated and vents to her seemingly apathetic teacher, who appears so unfeeling to her drama, it's hilarious. The character who stole the show is this Asian school-mate of hers, who befriends her. He's awkward, charming, bright, and adorable, and we root for Nadine to be with him, but she chooses this bad-boy loser, who she idealizes and highly misreads. Nadine, as with anyone who finally matures, comes to realize that no one has it made, not even her perfect brother. She learns that the world is gray, not black and white, not bi-polar, and not a place where you can categorize people as either being privileged or pathetic, but always a blend of the two.
Many thought this movie was boring. I don't watch movies just to be entertained. I don't need car chase scenes or guns or superheroes. I also watch movies to learn something, or to get insight into another life or another culture, so I enjoyed this movie. What held my interest was the dysfunctional family, and seeing how the mother handled abuse. I did not see warning signs of these evil men when the mother was dating them, so she didn't seem to be one of those idiot-women who let themselves be shoved around by some ogre-of-a-man. I experienced an emotionally abusive husband (he was never physically abusive), so I'm so very curious to see how other women handle this. I had wonderful parents, so it was hard for me to understand what the kids were going through. I tried to put myself in the kids' shoes, and wondered how I would handle such a bully of a father. I'd like to think I'd say, "Go away, you slob!" and report him, but easier said than done. A good film won't depict a character as all good or all bad, so as a kid, you're confused when they are kind. Abusers apologize a lot and give flowers. At first, I wondered if the the father was just disciplining the kids, making them do their homework and chores. You do have to get on kids. Then it went too far. I was glad when the mother took her kids out of the abusive home. I wanted to shake the daughter who whined because she now didn't have her own room and had to go to a different school. Teens can be so very self-absorbed. It made me wonder if I was this selfish when I was a teen.
Ethan Hawk's character was interesting. He seemed hyper, always "on" with his inner pistons going full throttle. While he was a screw-up when he was young, he had a kind heart and matured throughout the movie. His latest wife calmed him.
It was interesting to me to see the aging process all in one movie. I was surprised the boy was solid and light-haired as a young boy, then extremely skinny and black-haired as an older teen. He went from 'average kid' to 'super cool dude.'
All in all, this movie did what it sought out to accomplish - showing an ordinary life of a boy.
We see a new world order that brings its society back to the soil, damning technology, applauding the simple life. This totalitarian world parallels Hitler's pride, where the community stands for hours in grocery lines, eat bread and watered soup if they don't have connections with the higher ups, and wear their only 2 or 3 outfits if they haven't contributed to the recent revolution. Twelve-year-old Djata, who tells the story, gets a glimpse of a technically advanced wealthy world full of crowded highways and gleaming skyscrapers, where food and wealth are in abundance. I find it interesting where the technical world is put in a higher light. What a switch!
My good GOD, Dev... your HAIR! I soooooo much wanted to cut his looooooong Jesus hair! But getting on with this review - I enjoyed the movie, mostly because I got a better glimpse into the culture of India. I found it surprising that a 5-year-old boy could wander around without being picked up by the authorities, but I suppose with the overwhelming number of homeless children, they go untouched. I wanted to learn why Soroo's adopted brother had issues, and what it was he did that hurt his mother. I found the first half of the film more interesting, when he was a poor boy, then homeless in India. The second half with him as a young adult searching for his roots and alienating his girlfriend was a bit drawn out.
This movie had no clichés. It was intelligent, unique, mind-boggling. At the same time, it was a bit boring, though its originality was interesting. However, it missed somewhere. What was refreshing was its realistic take on aliens visiting earth. The chances of an English-speaking alien having two arms and two eyes with height roughly six feet tall is one to a million. This alien, a cross between an oceanic giant hand and an octopus, showed no violence, which was a welcomed change from most Hollywood films. But this movie missed human connection somehow. Ian was supposed to be this top scientist, but the film TOLD us that; they did not show us. All he did was ooh and ahh to Dr. Banks, who never cracked a smile and who was an alien to any sense of humor. This top linguistic doctor could roam around the military base at whim, where military officials didn't or couldn't stop her.
I don't like to hate, and it isn't often that I do. But I do believe I feel hatred towards the Ayatollah Khomeini and his regime, and all he did in the name of religion. A rather timid yet bright and successful business man, Isaac, lives in a mansion with his pampered wife, Farnez, along with his 18-year-old son, 12-year old daughter, and a few servants who Isaac had rescued from absolute poverty. The time is 1979, just prior to the Iranian revolution when all religions were allowed to be expressed. The movie opens with the father proudly sending his son off to college in America. Soon after, Isaac is arrested by Revolutionary Guards. He is blindfolded and led, by motorcycle to some abandoned warehouse, where he is kept in a filthy concrete cell, questioned daily, beaten at times, and once even placed before a firing squad who shot bullets all around him where Issac was so terrified, he defecated in his pants. His wife asks about him but is told nothing. The family's not-so-loyal servants loot Isaac's business and their home, claiming the inequities that exist between the rich and poor give them every right to do so, in God's eyes. What is touching is Isaac's demeanor while interrogated and tortured, how he stays calm, seems sincere, is forced to call his captors "Brother", and does what it takes to survive. Another fine point in the film was Farnez's longtime servant, Habibeh, and the conflict going on inside her. While almost (but not quite) friends with Fanez, Habibeh reveals that she was never invited to their dinner table, and her chances of living the good life were never available, due to the vast gap between the rich and the poor under the Shah's rule. It makes you think. Still, what happened with Isaac's family was not deserved and was an abomination.
So refreshing to see a movie depicting a hero who isn't a cartoonish Super Hero. I found this movie to be realistic, intelligent, and interesting. I don't need car chase scenes or explosions to hold my interest. My favorite line of the movie was when the hotel maid hugged Sully, and he asked, "What just happened?" Most viewers wanted to throw tomatoes at the aviation panel and their witch hunt. What I wanted to see was all the people stand up and salute when it became apparent at the final hearing when it was proved, way beyond a shadow of a doubt, that no human being could have landed the plane at LaGuardia's runway. I had to control myself not to stand up and cheer. The crash was not overplayed, thus, more tragic. The rescue scene was so very realistic without crocodile tears. Viewers could not but help to put themselves in their shoes. Amazing.
While I think most cub scouts have better survival skills, this movie was unique and intriguing. It held my interest. If you turn your brain off and just sit back and enjoy the psychological turmoil, it's quite enjoyable, despite its delicious darkness. The Barbie-doll girls were annoying, as were the testosterone fight-scenes and the blatant stupidity, but still, I surprisingly really enjoyed this movie!
I was happy to see that another reviewer equated this movie to 'To Kill a Mockingbird'. While 'To Kill a Mockingbird' is a classic on a much larger scale, both movies depict small children coming of age, innocent but exposed to prejudice, and mother-less with a caring father. The way the author shows moments of childhood is raw, not over-stated, or "Hollywood"... just honest. However, I did not like the title. It was a turn-off. Nor am I a Danny DeVito fan, but I did like him in this movie. Glad I watched this movie anyway. Many people rave about DeVito's acting, but it was the two children who amazed me. HOW did they get a toddle to act so naturally?!? Usually, little kids over-act (and are annoying), but not these two. When older brother stuck his younger brother by the evil dogs, the toddler cried in fear, and it was so realistic, it was frightening. And when the older boy cried, "Daddy!" on the tree limb near the end, again, it was so realistic, so it wasn't corny. However, there were a few flaws. Mostly, the older brother's haircut was painful to see. And when the children were laughing hysterically to DeVito's jokes, it felt a little forced, because he wasn't that funny. And why did the girlfriend dump Jack so suddenly? Maybe because this is what happens in real life, and this movie was all about r-e-a-l l-i-f-e... no Hollywood. That's also why it had a Mockingbird feel.
Only a cold heart cannot warm to Virgil Oldman, a lonely elderly man who eats dinner alone on his birthday, even after learning that he is a fraud and a swindler. Oldman does not reveal that some of the paintings he analyzes are masterpieces. He does this so he, with the aid of his friend Billy (Donald Sutherland) can later buy them at a lower price. He keeps his masterpieces of womens' faces locked away in a room, where he, during his lonely moments, looks at but doesn't touch. Oldman is filthy rich, but still, he cannot live life in the real world, the same way he is not able to love a real woman. He loves canvas, not flesh. He can't even TOUCH flesh; he can't touch anything with his bare hands. He wears gloves and looks at the world alone, through transparent canvas.
The cast was well-selected, except for Claire. Sylvia Hoeks was too "Hollywood." A better choice was to have cast a more seemingly innocent woman, one who was more "girl-like" than seductive.
SPOILER ALERT. Please do not read any further if you do no wish to have the ending revealed and questioned.
The ending was as open-ended as a drunk's beer can. At the last scene, why did Oldman visit the NIGHT AND DAY café? It was the only place Claire felt loved in the past. Did he go there because he couldn't let his relationship go and hoped to see her again, or was it for revenge?
Oldman recollects Claire saying, "No matter what happens to us, know that I loved you."
He also remembers saying that every forgery, every fake, leaves its real mark and can be found. So when Oldman tells the waiter, "I'm waiting for someone" in the last scene, what exactly did he mean?
How shocking to learn that the creepy savant dwarf was the real Claire! She rented out her Villa across the street, and Billy, Robert (the young guy who fixed the gears) and the groundskeeper were all in on this master plot to destroy Virgil and to rob him of his fortune. But by doing so, did they not give him a fortune... the ability to love? While Billy's motive is apparent, Robert's is not. Billy was an artist and felt undervalued by Oldman. Why did Robert cruelly destroy Virgil? There were easier ways to rob him, if money was all he was after.
One huge question remains... Was Virgil at the Mental Institution BEFORE or AFTER his visit to the NIGHT AND DAY café in Prague? Did he have a mental breakdown right after being conned, and then pull himself together? Or was the whole story him being in the institution reflecting on past events?
This movie oozes sex, from the sandy feet that sensually slide into beach sandals, to Tilda licking her fingers as if she was doing something naughty, to camera shots of teenage milk-white hips under low-hanging terry-cloth shorts. It was dripping in sex so much it was gross. Good cinematography. I can't say I was bored, but I can say I was confused. I had little idea of what was going on half the time, perhaps because I couldn't understand half the dialogue, unless Italian was spoken with subtitles. Every character was extremely weird, from finger-licking deadpan-eyed Tilda, to over-excitable Ralph who seemed to inhale a gallon of cocaine every hour, to sex-oozing Dakota. The only seemingly normal person was the murderer. I suppose it's in style now for critics to rave about confusing sex-saturated weird movies. They call it art. Especially if it takes place in an Italian villa.
I'm shocked people aren't amazed at the child actor. Most kids over-act, and it's very annoying. This kid was phenomenal. It's refreshing when a movie has no car chase scenes, explosions, and no one getting shot. Just real life.
I think you have to be male to like this movie. How's THAT for being sexist! I watched most of the movie with popcorn grease-stained napkin bits shoved in my ears. Anyway, this was the kind of movie where you see Mr. Testosterone blast and kill with his M-47 machine gun as if he were in this high intensity video game, where "the bad guys" (in this case, Arabs) come at him a billion at a time, for ten full minutes. BORING! Also, you see a man whose hands are tied behind his back get full-powered punched in the face about six times, then, a half hour later, he's just dandy, with perfect white shiny teeth. People survive when their car flips and rolls, when they run through fire, and when twenty "bad guys" are firing at them. Simply amazing! Our American hero tortures "a bad guy" with a knife, twisting it grotesquely between his two ribs, and later the President asks him, "Was that necessary?", to which he replies, "No." I didn't know whether to laugh or to duck in shame.