User Reviews

The funniest thing about Fortunes is that one of the main characters, Lewis (Urbaniak) has writer's block and apparently so did the screenplay writer for the film. This is sad, as well, as I guess by large, this is supposed to be a comedy, or dramedy, but that's the funniest thing I can remember from watching this.

Three friends go out and drink one night. On the way home, two decide to get their fortunes told by a "gypsy," as they call her. Those two lives fall apart while the third friend stands by. Then, nothing happens.

I hope I didn't spoil the movie there, but really, this extremely low-budget, bad quality movie had some kind of idea when it started but quickly snowballed into the depths of hell. Yeah, I'm being harsh. Honestly, it wasn't that bad, it was just blah.

The aforementioned writer was annoying to watch, though he delivered maybe one or two of the only two funny lines. The clichéd "ladies man," the only one that didn't get his fortune told was just annoying. The only bright spot, was the remaining friend, the married dad whose fortune was told that something big was to happen to his son and he needed to be prepared. He was funny, genuine and clearly the best actor in the movie. Unfortunately, that's not saying much.

Perhaps I'm being too cruel. Heck, they got the ambition to make a movie, went and got funding and accomplished something. Unfortunately, however, I can't at all recommend the film on the basis, there's hundreds of thousands of other independent movies that have hundreds of thousands better ideas and executions. This one was literally 10 minutes of an idea stretched another 81 boring minutes.

I rented this DVD because I was very interested to see how the 3 lead actors played off each other, particularly in light their being, ostensibly at least, such different character types. I'd seen Mike McGlone in Brothers McMullen and She's the One, and then later in the excellent Dinner Rush with Danny Aiello. And James Urbaniak plays the uniquely idiosyncratic lead role amazingly in the seminal independent film Henry Fool, directed by the great Hal Hartley. Finally the least "indie" of the 3, Tony Hale, plays one of the more neurotic characters on one of my favorite (soon to be a "brilliant but canceled") shows Arrested Development and turns in the most realized and comically sympathetic performance in the film.

Although funny and compelling in places, it seemed inconsistent and admittedly I found I was a bit unsure about Fortunes on the initial viewing, but it definitely charmed me into taking another look. And I discovered that what at first felt perhaps more like pacing issues and the absence of the sharp "edginess" that characterizes a lot of independent film was actually much more of a studied, subtle exploration of early life crisis and uncertainty. The film is a sort of dark satire but with a lighter touch, resisting the indie urge at ostentation and grittiness in favor of a more supple approach.

The choice of having such different actors play took on significance and purpose in this context. They develop early on in the film as 3 distinct archetypes – a cocksure alpha male investment banker, a workaholic and somewhat absentee father/husband, and a brooding, contemplative artist/writer. Their visit to a fortune teller is the catalyst that sets off their worrying about things all too familiar in an age of self doubt and mass identity crisis. Actually just 2 of them, the father/husband and the writer, get their fortunes read by the enigmatic though very un-stereotypical fortune teller, but the shift in their moods is palpable enough to affect the 3rd character in a way that creates a vicarious, osmotic experience for him as well. The film examines all their collective angst not so much with broad comedy as with a dry, wry humor, and does so patiently, deliberately. Rather than belly laughs, the effect is persistent, and consistent, amusement; the film engrosses not with shock or controversy, but with a sure-handed, steady focus and direction.

And beyond the perhaps somewhat deceptively simple premise of a visit with someone who may have access to a deeper, more mysterious realm triggering the latent doubts and insecurities already present in characters undergoing pre-mid life crises, the film, and not too heavy handedly (in fact maybe too subtle for it's own good) poses one of life's more essential questions – are the events in our lives predetermined, does fate exist, - or is life actually something, as we'd generally like to believe, something we shape ourselves as we struggle through existence? Smartly, this film doesn't presume to answer the question or even favor one perspective over the other and chooses instead to observe it's "unanswerableness".

Fortunes ultimately came across to me as a kind of contemporary fable satirizing the same limitations of human consciousness that make us consider that question in the first place. It's more mainstream in some ways – but it's an interesting and indie-minded study of character and theme – that would have actually benefited, in my humble opinion, from more mood saturation – and plumbing the humor of the futility of human inadequacy more in that vein. But the film absolutely grew on me as a very worthy experience – more in the spirit of quiet, but playful resolve to convey theme rather than more desperately, more energetically doing so. A tall order given the average attention span. The acting is really good (all 3 of the leads as well as a few of the supporting cast – notably the woman who plays the wife, Diana Henry) have terrific comedic and dramatic timing) – subtle like the overall film – and it's definitely shot very well – it's great to look at. And the direction of the film brings all the elements together creatively and imaginatively, but again, with a mature sense of restraint. Getting past the initial sense of deliberateness in the film was a bit like the characters themselves getting past (ie - forced by their uneasiness to get past) their initial, natural cynicism about what a fortune teller has to say in the first place.