Reviews

Yes, Sayles is over-ambitious in this movie and lectures us about too many things. But Silver City is worth seeing just for the wonderful individual performances of its actors. Chris Cooper is dead-on in his imitation of Dubya. He conveys privileged arrogance, impatience, mangled English and downright cluelessness. Alongside Cooper's work stand the performances of Kris Kristoffersen (how does he manage to be so soft-spoken and so threatening at the same time?)and the wonderful Ralph Waite (the quintessential American actor.) Also great performances from Tim Roth as the radical blogger, James Gammon as the Sheriff and Sal Lopez as a Mexican cook. But do other people think Danny Huston was miscast as the main character, Danny O'Brien? He seemed so "aw-shucks" goofy and dumb much of the time. Plus, was he made up to look like Mike Connors in Mannix or what? That 50's hairstyle was WEIRD. Now Tim Roth, HE looked and acted like a burnt-out radical reporter. The problem goes right back to the writing - Sayles is just trying to say way too much in this movie, and we get long lectures (instead of good storytelling) about land-developers, dirty politicians, immigrant abuse, pollution, journalistic ethics, corporate America, dysfunctional dynastic families, recreational substance abuse, casual sex, broken hearts - the list goes on and on. Lone Star was much more focused, and the relationship in that movie between Sheriff Sam Deeds and his Hispanic lover, Pilar, became a metaphor for the strange & symbiotic & incestuous relationship between Mexico and the U.S. Lone Star had the same great individual performances Silver City has, but it trusted its audience to be more intelligent and "get it" without hammering us over the head with the message. If you have the chance to see Silver City, definitely see it - the acting is wonderful. But expect a flawed movie.

Who are these people saying that RATCATCHER is "pretentious art-house crap" ?? I suppose what they want is just good IL' downhome Hollywood swill? Don't they pay any attention at all to things like lovely cinematography, fine writing, and careful pacing? RATCATCHER is a beautiful movie, though hard to watch because of the desperate conditions of its main characters. It's full of worrisome situations and a complicated storyline that sticks with you for days. It has qualities of both compression and mystery, much like well-crafted poetry has compared to prose. Don't believe the whiners about this movie - it's NOT pretentious, it's inclusive and generous, and though it doesn't provide us with an easy let's-have-popcorn-and-watch-Schwarzenegger-blow-things-up kind of entertainment, it's well-crafted, well-written, beautifully shot, and worth watching and thinking about.

Why can't American directors make movies like this? It's quiet, calm, small, understated, beautifully paced (read: slow and leisurely) and thought-provoking. The premise of the movie is not whether opposites attract (which would be nothing new) but whether our preconceptions often keep us closed down to new people and new experiences. With some gentle nudges, the characters in this lovely movie take deep breaths, look again at people and situations, and see what had been missed before. And yes, it does make us think about how art enriches us and helps us abandon the old preconceptions. Jean-Pierre Bacri is, as usual, splendid, making himself mildly repulsive and appealing, almost simultaneously (though he ends up definitely on the appealing side of the line.) How does he do it? And it's a treat to know that the actress playing the younger woman, Manie, is both the film's director and screenwriter. If you want to know what I mean about pacing, just watch the main character, Clara, as she comes out of cafe after having been stood up for an English lesson. An American director would have cut the scene as she leaves the cafe and bustles across the street in the rain, annoyed and wound up tight as a drum. But in this movie, the camera follows Clara as she walks in the rain down a long street - the shot just lasts forever, and you can see all of Clara's irritation dissipating and turning into loneliness. It's a beautiful shot.

A beautiful, slow, careful movie which prefers complicated situations to cliches, and offers us nuances rather than the more typical hammer-over-the-head. Don't expect any Hollywood razzle dazzle - this is European in the best way: quiet, small, and focused. A perplexing and puzzling story which asks us to consider memory as a riddle. Beautiful, beautiful movie.

I certainly will be in the minority with this vote, but I watched this on video with two other people and we all hated it, couldn't understand why it got such great reviews and ratings. I've got to believe that most people who like this movie don't understand Spanish, because the acting is simply not very nuanced or believable - the bottom line seems to have been "Play it like a soap opera" because it's just so bad in a campy way - corny music that swells & tries to yank the viewer around, corny writing that's not very original, corny camera angles (The Director as Ego - "Don't forget it's me, Pedro Almodovar, making this film.") And it has that awful feature some European movies have which take themselves too seriously, the "I-am-dead-at-the-center" dialogue of the main characters ("Feel my pain") who just seem to be (when they're not crying or screaming) moving around like zombies with no intonation to their speech. I really wanted to like this movie - I don't think I've missed any of the small, deliberate things that can make a strange movie better than the sum of its parts. Be forewarned - it's nowhere near as good as most of the people reviewing it here say. I'm not a knuckle-headed Big-Action-Hollywood-Ra-Ra type, I see lots of foreign movies & enjoy them. But this one is wooden and melodramatic at the same time. Strange. Ick.