User Reviews

The premise isn't really that bad, and could have been a pretty mediocre movie if the actors were better. Especially if the guy playing Vincent had had a Dutch accent instead of the Swedish one he put on! *sigh*

The acting in this movie is really sadly more like quickly learned lines for a soap opera, than something that takes a tad more time.

The "reproductions" of what Vincent would have painted today and "secret" paintings of old are really inspiring. But I still feel sad that the acting is so bad, that I am not even interested in how this thing ends! *doublesigh*

Can one cry less convincingly??? Can one have less convincing foreign accents??? Can one act less convincingly???

Skip this movie. It is not worth the time.

Granted, it was a low budget movie, but the concept was a very entertaining, fascinating and heart warming one. For those people who feel the need to trash, are you so ingrained in the grim realities of modern life, that you've forgotten how to just enjoy a simple and enjoyable fantasy? Have you forgotten that movies were originally created to help us escape into another world? Personally, I didn't mind this one despite the admittedly bad acting in many cases, I must admit. In many ways, this corny little piece was far more entertaining than a lot of the bloody dreck that Hollywood's been putting out for the last few years.

This was shown at the Newport Beach Film Festival (April 2000), where it won an Audience Award for Best Feature Film. It's a real delight. Good cinematography and a good story. It's a fantasy/fable in which Van Gogh comes back to life in the present day. When he finds out how much his paintings are worth, he decides to take them back (since he only sold one during his lifetime, the rest are still his) and sell them to raise money for scholarships for art students. Along the way, he runs afoul of art critics and manages to keep one step ahead of the police.

Just caught this movie this morning on cable. I came to the IMDB to see how low the rating was, because I quite honestly thought it was terrible... the acting was especially bad and cheesy...and I agree that the production quality was really subpar. It was so bad I actually thought it was funny! Belongs in that book "Bad Movies We Like", though I didn't really even like it all that much.

I, too, say that if you want to watch a movie about Vincent Van Gogh, watch _Lust for Life_. MUCH MUCH better.

I'm not quite sure how i managed to see this film... Ah yes, i remember. My brother gave it to me as a joke christmas present, because he, having seen it, and repeatedly describing to me just how terrible it was, wanted me to confirm just how right he was.

He was right. The acting, writing, and general execution of this project is so bad, that it is comical to watch. From the first scene with dialogue, it becomes evident that this is going to be an arduous film to watch. The laughably clunking, cliche ridden script, electric keyboard soundtrack, and useless cinematography are topped in awfulness only by the shudderingly bad performances, and rather than a haunting feeling of mystique playing the viewers minds, there is a decided feeling of "what street corner did they scoop these people off?" Abbot Alexander, cast as the flesh creeping "hero" of this piece, is, admittedly, well cast: that is, he is if the makers intended for Vincent Van Gogh to come across as a semi irish, partially swedish, and occasionally glaswegian maniac, prancing around the streets of Hollywood, charitably donating money to "all the starving artists" of the world. And, judging by his performance, one wanders whether this was not what they intended). One can only suppose that he is meant to warm our hearts with his love and idealism, and his apparently selfless actions during his 100 day stay in the modern world. (no remembrance in sight for the general concensus that Van Gogh was, infact, an insane, often violent, and manic depressive homosexual, as opposed to a cuddly, loveable and most definately hetereosexual rogue, with an admirably eccentric lifestyle.) As his love interest, Cathy, (or, as Vincent incessantly, and infuriatingly refers to her: Cat-hee) Lisa waltz displays little to no amount of warmth or affection for her lover; instead, swans around, almost disjointedly, and remaining remarkably undisturbed or otherwise alarmed by her lover's sinister movements, creepy manner, or, worst of all, his frightening mascara. She delivers lines with fatigue and melodrama in equal measure, perhaps (one cannot be sure) experimenting with attempts to compensate for the shockingly stupid dialogue and motivations allotted to her character. However, neither of these two ghastly displays of so-called acting are quite up to challenging Sally Kirkland for the place of "most terrible performance". In the role of the tough, cynical and art detective Brooke Murphy (each introduction she gives to herself in the movie, including her listing all her achievements as an art detective, as well as the scenes inwhich she explains the psychology of "art terrorists" are hilarious) who chases after Vincent throughout the film, She displays a humourless amount of overacting, smouldering with an unreal amount of hatred and anger towards most living beings, particularly Vincent Van Gogh. On the other hand, of course, hers is admittedly, by far the most entertaining performance. Indeed, watching this actress take the possibilities of awfulness in acting to new heights is an all at once engrossing, horrifying, and hilarious spectacle.

But perhaps I have been too cruel. Starry night is, if notihng else, a brave, and might I add, ambitious project, which, with the possible exception of Liza waltz, the cast and crew have approached with incredible enthusiasm. some moments, are, infact,

beggaring in belief ( watch out for margo the peasant woman's most exceptionally weird wink at Vincent, in the first scene). And, for all it's faults (and there be many) starry night is almost , (almost) endearingly terrible. Or, then again, perhaps it is a clever, almost ingenious, but ultimately failed marketing attempt: make a movie so

indescribably awful (ala The Producers) that it will draw in so much incredulous disbelief, and cause audiences to make second, third, or even fourth trips to the cinema, to confirm it's existance.

I watched it for the second time yesterday, and I have to say that "Starry Night" is entertaining. Mostly because it's so bad that its funny - if you have that kind of humor. The acting is bad, the story/script is bad - and basically it seems like the director have no idea on how to create a dramatic situation. The cinematography is also cheap - it seems like the video-quality we see in the TV-news; just a video-camera (Betacam maybe? It seems analog to me..) - and no lightning (or sometimes - just flat lightning). There were nothing that reminded me of any production-design. But there are a lot of makeup - specially on Van Gogh himself - a make up that would work better on a stage than on a film. How they managed to sell this film twice to a Norwegian TV-station is a mystery to me.

But it seems like the film is made with on a very low budget (or maybe no-budget) - so anyway I do admire the filmmakers for their effort on making this with such a ambitious story. And if we look at it as an amateur project (which I do) - I'm impressed that they pulled it off - it is after all a full length feature, and the intentions are good.

I read some of the other comments posted here, and most agrees with me. Others are very positive - but come on - I would be very surprised if the positive comments weren't written by the filmmakers themselves. How can anyone - not attached to the project - say that this is a great film or a masterpiece?

I just don't know where to start with this movie - between the ridiculous accent with strange Irish tones from a man who was supposed to have grown up in Holland to the terrible acting out of a man who in many descriptions was crazy. It's not surprising we don't get to see the left hand side of Van Gogh's face since the budget of this film could not even afford a little make-up for where he was supposed to have chopped off his ear lobe. The story itself was interesting and a good idea but it would have been worth saving up for a few years to cast the right actors and actresses and to get an experienced director on board. Still it was a good laugh on a Sunday afternoon - watch at your own peril.

The plot premise of Starry Night - the trials and tribulations that Vincent Van Gogh might have if he came back to life was appealing enough for me to pick this movie off the rental video shelf. And the movie starts out promisingly enough with Don McLean's song "Starry, Starry Night". Unfortunately that is the high point.

First of all the production values in this movie are sadly lacking. The low point is the scenes "in France" are clearly travelogue interspersed with close-up cuts of the actors. They culminate in a scene in a church crypt that is more like a funeral home casket display room than a crypt. Bizarre.

Then there is the acting which ranges from bad to appalling. None of the actors do very well but particularly of note is Sally Kirkland who plays the meanest policeman to come down the pike. The love angle is strange, given that Van Gogh's status is never addressed - is he a zombie, an apparition or is he just alive again but about to die in a 100 days per the way he was bewitched?

Then there is the credibility angle. Is it really possible for a person to walk into an auction for a $100 million painting, pick up the painting and run out with it?

Finally there is the biggest continuity gaffe I have ever seen. The same scene (actually the same plot point) regarding the first theft of a picture is repeated twice!

Sure after watching it, you'll catch yourself wondering: how did THE WAVES bring (Vincent) from Europe to Hollywood?!, how did the girl love him that easily?!, how on earth he could be that genius as a thief to steal all of his paintings?!!, how come he was that stupid to go to the auction and claim all of that millions?!!, and how his sane girlfriend didn't stop him?!, and what is it with all of that back-projections to make us believe that (Vincent) and his two friends are in Paris?!!, you can say that again about those shots, from 2 cameras, which the news bulletin of the American TV aired for (Vincent) in jail; it was part of the movie, not the news! Ok, don't tire yourself with those questions, since the movie looked like a project of cinema school student with all the faults, videography, and that zero budget; and that's an enough answer!

But, fairly, the story was beautiful. Also the cover version of (Starry Night) at the opening credits was so good and tender like the performance of all the cast. (David Abbott) was fine as the sensitive gentle (Vincent), with the crazy look lasting in his eyes. (Lisa Waltz) was wonderful, despite how her part gave her nothing to do except loving the man and believing in him! (Lou Wagner) was as childish as the movie itself. Actually all the cast was pretty amazing, believing the true fantasy of the situation with a smile on their faces as they're telling a story for a kid, and that's the real purpose of this very tiny movie anyway.

It's about honoring, even in an unassuming way, the memory of (Vincent Van Gogh), and teaching us some sweet messages too; for instance, how to believe in miracles and not to be that logical all the time; like the detective who loses because of this very reason, love your friend; (Vincent) - here - cut off his earlobe as a regret for insulting his friend (Paul Gauguin)!, have faith in your dreams, high art is not for the rich people only who must ensure sponsorship for the young unknown artistes, and the good message about the late evaluation of the artist, and how that mustn't delay the artist's resolution or make him doubt his talent; to shoot himself like (Vincent).

It's a childish movie; with the worst and the best meanings of the word. So it's naive, some kind of poor, but nice, and well-meaning for any child around, including the one inside every one of us.

Starry night was the funniest film i have ever seen. The comedy acting was right up there with American Pie. The actor who played vinvcent van gogh reminded me of a young richard burton. His interpretation of a well known historical figure was inspired. The script reflected literary genius, and i do not understand why it was not nominated for an Oscar. Over the years i have seen many films come and go but starry night will remain a classic for all time. Any true fan of vincent van gogh should get a true insight into the life of an artistic genius. It works on two levels the pain of a tortured soul and the pain of a tortured actor.

Producer Paul Davids is an artist and independent film maker who is strongly influenced by Van Gough and has conceived a delightful fantasy film. Vincent returns to the modern world in wonderment of the acceptance and prices of his works. Entertaining personal and artistic adventures ensue.

In a word amazing.

This movie is highly entertaining and the guy who plays vincent van gogh is no less a genius. He sounds exactly like the guy from bo selecta apart from when he goes astray and starts to sound irish. I watched this film twice in two days it made me laugh so much. I think this movie could one day become a cult classic.

The idea that van gogh would come back from the past is an amazing concept and i think the writers tackled the subject very well. I was captivated by the acting and the fact that they showed his original work in the movie was a great idea. It does make you think what would Van gogh do if he was alive in the present?

I switched channels the other night, and came upon this masterpiece of evil movie-making. This is utter utter crap people. From casting, to plot, to scenography, this movie is so terrible I suspect Americans are using it in Iraq and on Guantanamo as torture.

The plot is in fact so thin, that I suspect the writer, Paul Davids who has previously written Transformers (oh that's where he got his skills from!), wrote down a few lines on a piece of paper, intended to throw it to the abyss, but instead, sent it to a whomever paid for this terrifying coagulation of scenes, while they in turn liked it.... What?

Why this movie presently has 4,7 points, is beyond me. Which is why I suggest to all whom may read this, watch it, and give it a clear and crisp 1 here on IMDb.com!

This is SOOOOO BAD. I have so many problems with this movie. #1 How does van Gogh know how to speak English? #2 Why of all places is he reincarnated in Hollywood? How does he steal all these paintings when not all of his paintings are located in the Los Angeles area? The overacting by the police officers who think he's an "Art terrorist" is painful to watch. This is a puff piece for people who want to show off how much they know about van Gogh. Also, the production values seem quite low.

I am truly STUNNED that anyone gave this pile of steaming excrement a release in ANY format. It beggars belief that there are films out there that didn't get a release because of crap like this masquerading as film-making. The actors can't, the blue screen is just ridiculous, the sets look as cheap as the budget is microscopic, it was filmed in wobblyvision and even the premise is laughable. The lead actors accent nearly made me wet myself, he's Swedish...no,no, he's Irish...wait, was that a hint of Groundskeeper Willy in the mix? Sally Kirkland gives the kind of performance Bela Lugosi would have been proud of...OOH the barely suppressed rage at crimes against actin....erm, sorry art and the directors biker mates popping up in stern faced cameos here and there bring home the desperation that he must've faced trying to get people to fill small roles. This complete black hole of a sub-student film should be required viewing on film courses across the world as a teaching aid...How NOT to make a movie in 1hr and 42 excruciatingly cringe-worthy minutes! Seriously, the good reviews on here are you Mr Davids...aren't they? Nobody in their right mind....in fact anyone with eyes, ears and the slightest scrap of artistic sensibility could think this turkey was anything other than a fantastically...nay laughably...NAY horrendously awful first attempt at film-making by a pretentious, sadly misguided fool! We need more dross like this to balance out the truly worthy stuff that's out there. If only the director hadn't been owed a favour, (I can't imagine any other reason for Universal giving this the time of day!!), someone who actually has an ounce of talent could have got their film released instead! You know what, I'm never getting the time I spent watching this toss back!

I rented this because the premise seemed kind of fun. But when I got home and started watching this, I thought to myself, "How in the name of God did this end up with distribution?" It was awful. It was shot on video, I think, and every scene feels like the build-up to a sex scene in a poorly written porno movie. I give the filmmakers credit for working with what was probably a very small budget, but I blame everyone else, Universal Studios and my video store to name names, for making this publicly available.

Francis Coppola said in an interview once that if a filmmaker aspires to ask and answer great questions with a film and fails to convince, then it is (expletive) and people will walk on it as such. Starry Night is such a film.

While I was watching this film, my wife could hear the dialogue from the other room. She asked if I was watching some of my student films (I teach media studies in a high school). I regretfully told her that no, Universal spent millions on this film. We agreed that this fact made this film a shame rather than a disappointment.

Davids' screenplay seems to have been written with a complete disregard for even rudimentary forensics, and the relationship between Van Gogh and the art student demands a suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience that only one's spouse might be expected to deliver.

Sally Kirkland's diatribes of indignation wrapped in a history of the world's great art thefts are interesting if taken in isolation, but here they seem to be the smug musings of a poor detective. Her passion, however, is not enough to distract us from the fatal plot flaws. Only Star Trek can get away with that. My severe reaction to this film would be mitigated if this were a first effort (which it is not), or if the rest of the movie was substandard (which it is not).

There are beautiful shots and interesting scenes in this film, but they serve only to show what might have been done with this great idea.

Whoever came up with the idea, whoever decided to be part of the project of this film should be deeply ashamed. I never knew the beloved medium of film could be as awful on so many different levels of awfulness. I did not even finish watching this tripe. I was not even a member of imdb until today,I joined just so I could share the unbelievable repugnancy of this movie. Paul Davids should never be allowed near a word processer or even allowed to talk to intelligent human beings again as long as he lives. Even any attempt for kitsch value, in much the same way as the Ed Wood films, is flawed as it is bad beyond kitsch. Putrid, would be a compliment.Whoever funded this film should be garroted. To quote the simpsons comic book store guy "WORST FILM EVER!"

Now, I know people say "I feel like I've been robbed of 2 hours of my life" by a movie. Well, I've only said that about one movie and actually meant it. Unfortunately, it was this movie. Sadly, I can't even name anything specific that made me feel that way. The movie was simply BAD. And I don't say that easily. I always try to give movies, writers, actors, and directors a chance and keep an open mind. But as I watched "Stary Night" I kept thinking, "It has to get better, right?!" I watched the entire movie, and as the credits rolled, I just stared at the TV screen, dumbfounded. No, the movie didn't get better. In fact it continued to get worse as it went along. I would suggest seeing this movie, but only to appreciate the movies that you've thought were bad and a waste of time in the past. If you are a fan of van Gogh, this movie will possibly anger you. (I can't go into specifics, spoiler rules you know).

13 August 2001. "Starry Night" is a rather odd piece of work because it is obviously a very low budget film with mediocre acting and no name stars, however, the power in this story is its sincerity, its concept, and its simplicity. While never doubt that this movie is really bad in its performance mostly due to the budget I imagine, somehow the magic of the main character rubs off rest of the cast, and the movie becomes entertaining. Who cares how cheesy it is. I enjoyed the movie. It was entertaining. It had a feel good plot. It had suspense. I would recommend this fantasy because it had elements of truth and well it's too bad more movies don't have the heart that this movie has.

The liner notes are intriguing in describing the absurdity in the contrast between Van Gogh's utter failure as a commercial painter in his lifetime, and the incredible prices his paintings fetch in the 80s-90s. HOWEVER, this is the worst acting in a feature movie that I have ever seen. Vincent's accent goes from Dutch to Irish to Scottish all in the space of one monologue. Most of the other actors say their lines like they are making speeches for the hard of hearing. Their facial expressions are over the top. It would be funny if this were being played for campiness. The story jumps around without any apparent reason. This is the first movie out of hundreds that I have seen that I turned off the video.

Starry Night is the perfect family film. I would recommend it to anyone who would enjoy a non-violent, optimistic and charming film with great acting and direction.

It is clear why it is the first movie, with a budget well under one million, to be released by Universal Pictures since the days of the silent film.

Well done Universal and Paul Davids.

MH

This movie is one of the worst I've ever seen. The "acting" is laughable. The story is cheesy. The overall quality of the production is very poor. Location shots were too expensive, so they just used a bluescreen to make it seem like the characters were in France. Van Gogh's accent changes throughout the film. The audio was all recorded later and dubbed over the video, so it looks like you're watching a foreign film even though you aren't. It is just overall very, very bad. However, I enjoy watching it because it makes me laugh. The actors take the ridiculous story so seriously, you can't help but be amused. Rent it and watch it with friends - you'll be laughing at it rather than with it, but it makes for great entertainment. Bottom line - very bad movie, but fun to watch because it's so bad.

I have always been drawn to Vincent Van Gogh's work, and I think this film brings his vision to life. His paintings like Starry Starry Night have always touched me. Yes it has a low budget and the related flaws that follow. But the Producers believed in Vincent and the film brings his story to life. The paintings are treated with the respect that Vincent never enjoyed in his life. I like to think that Vincent could know how his work has affected our world and that he has been appreciated at last. I have never seen a movie by Paul Davis, but after watching this film I want to find his other movies and enjoy how he brings life to each one. Watch this film and let your imagination flow to appreciate Vincent and the power of vision and belief in one's self. And the flowers of course.

I rented this movie because I knew someone in it. I wasn't expecting much because I usually don't on movies I've never heard of, but this one was good. Director Paul Davids does a good job of coming up with an enjoyable fairy tale story that should appeal to almost anyone. Sometimes the acting can be over the top and I noticed that the actor who played Van Gogh had some trouble with the accent, but in the end does a convincing job. I'm glad that Universal Pictures took a chance with a movie like this instead of some special effects ridden movie. Rent and enjoy