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.