Sure, Masked and Anonymous (or M&A, as I fondly like to call it) is convoluted and pretentious. Sure, it has ridiculously banal dialogue that makes Forrest Gump sound like an intellectual. Sure, there are preposterously-named characters (Jack Fate, Tom Friend, Uncle Sweetheart, et al) and let's face it, no one actually has a coherent conversation throughout the entire proceeding. But it's not predictable - that counts for something in my book, anyway, and it has Bob Dylan (looking more and more like Salvador Dali in every scene - all he needed was the mustache wax), and Jeff Bridges always rocks. Here's the bottom line for me, though: any film that has a bearded, bare-armed and derangedly disheveled Val Kilmer deliver the title phrase (while fondling a bunny rabbit) can't be all bad.
104 Reviews
Fate Takes a Hand
richardchatten27 May 2021
In so far he ever conveys emotion, the Birthday Boy seems to be enjoying himself, and as cinematic indulgences by rock greats go this could have been far, far worse.
Dylan's involvement has ensured a star-studded supporting cast (of whom a chain-smoking, short-skirted Jessica Lange is probably the most fun), and at least it passes quickly enough for you to think "Is that it?" when it abruptly ends.
Dylan's involvement has ensured a star-studded supporting cast (of whom a chain-smoking, short-skirted Jessica Lange is probably the most fun), and at least it passes quickly enough for you to think "Is that it?" when it abruptly ends.
Even at IMDb Dylan demands honesty
gvit-219 September 2006
Let's face it, this is not a great film. It meanders, the plot is thin, the acting is mixed and it's written like, well, like a Dylan song. If there were a category for long-form music videos, I would give it an 8 or a 9. Although it should be said, that if one is a Dylan fan, and if one was to wonder how Dylan would reflect on his fame and the burden of being Dylan - well, watch this movie. But watching him sit next to his dying father and looking 20 years older than the father himself is contrived and harder to believe than the plot itself. Dylan is not half bad as Fate, although his acting does not exactly convey much depth. But the songs are wonderful, some of the scenes are humorous and entertaining. The only real fault is the otherwise excellent John Goodman. Goodman simply doesn't have any real character to hold onto and he's simply playing a drunk with dialog. I have grown up with Dylan's music and this is not his worst piece of work, but it certainly will remain a curiosity and not a classic.
Poetically creative
jackfate008 October 2003
I had read so many bad reviews of this movie. I'd read it was impossible to follow; I'd read that the dialogue was banal; Roger Ebert gave it half a star, claiming it was too ambiguous. So, when I saw Masked & Anonymous, I was prepared for the worse.
Instead, as soon as the movie began, and that Spanish Version of My Back Pages started playing to bomb explosions and imagery of a future gone wrong, I realize: I'm going to like this movie.
First, the plot, far too incredible to really explain here (And it sort of depends on your point of view anyways) is very creative in that it conveys an incredible amount of symbolism. On one hand, this is a movie that mocks rock music (Think of the scene where Uncle Sweetheart tells Fate "You're gonna play rock and roll get rich launch your career and bring world peace all at the same time!") On the other hand, this could be Dylan's way of telling us who he really is. "Maybe I'm just a singer and nothing more" he tells us. He's tired of being made to be a counter cultural liberal protester. He's tired of people who think he only writes anti-war songs. Think of the scene where a woman brings her daughter to see Dylan. When Dylan learns that the little girl knows all his lyrics he asks "What'd she do that for?" And the mother quickly responds "Because I made her." This movie is about so many things: You just have to see it and every time you see it again you'll see more.
Concerning the dialogue. Many people say the dialogue is contrived, banal, or mindlessly poetic. To such people I reccomend they read Shakespeare (He's in the alley). Dylan has been hailed as a modern Shakespeare, so it is not wonder that this movie has the same beautiful poetry that his songs do.
But I will grant this: Bad actors would never be able to pull off this script. And this was probably the movie's strongest feature: Incredible acting. John Goodman deserves an Emmy for his portrayal of the scheming Uncle Sweetheart. Val Kilmer shocked me with his ability to portray the crazed Animal Wrangler. Jessica Lange gave the best performance of her career. The list goes on... Mickey Rourke, Ed Harris, Christian Slater, all surprised me with brilliant acting.
If you have the chance to see this movie, just once, do so. And forgive its few shortcomings-- it was made on short notice, and its messages were meant to transcend all imperfections for movie rookie director Larry Charles. This movie will probably be forgotten one day, which is unfortunate, because rarely is a movie this original.
Instead, as soon as the movie began, and that Spanish Version of My Back Pages started playing to bomb explosions and imagery of a future gone wrong, I realize: I'm going to like this movie.
First, the plot, far too incredible to really explain here (And it sort of depends on your point of view anyways) is very creative in that it conveys an incredible amount of symbolism. On one hand, this is a movie that mocks rock music (Think of the scene where Uncle Sweetheart tells Fate "You're gonna play rock and roll get rich launch your career and bring world peace all at the same time!") On the other hand, this could be Dylan's way of telling us who he really is. "Maybe I'm just a singer and nothing more" he tells us. He's tired of being made to be a counter cultural liberal protester. He's tired of people who think he only writes anti-war songs. Think of the scene where a woman brings her daughter to see Dylan. When Dylan learns that the little girl knows all his lyrics he asks "What'd she do that for?" And the mother quickly responds "Because I made her." This movie is about so many things: You just have to see it and every time you see it again you'll see more.
Concerning the dialogue. Many people say the dialogue is contrived, banal, or mindlessly poetic. To such people I reccomend they read Shakespeare (He's in the alley). Dylan has been hailed as a modern Shakespeare, so it is not wonder that this movie has the same beautiful poetry that his songs do.
But I will grant this: Bad actors would never be able to pull off this script. And this was probably the movie's strongest feature: Incredible acting. John Goodman deserves an Emmy for his portrayal of the scheming Uncle Sweetheart. Val Kilmer shocked me with his ability to portray the crazed Animal Wrangler. Jessica Lange gave the best performance of her career. The list goes on... Mickey Rourke, Ed Harris, Christian Slater, all surprised me with brilliant acting.
If you have the chance to see this movie, just once, do so. And forgive its few shortcomings-- it was made on short notice, and its messages were meant to transcend all imperfections for movie rookie director Larry Charles. This movie will probably be forgotten one day, which is unfortunate, because rarely is a movie this original.
A terrible film, which should stay as masked and anonymous as possible
The_Void2 October 2005
Bob Dylan may well be a great poet - but he can't sing...and he certainly can't act. Bob sleeps through this film with an expression that remains the same no matter what he's doing. He can be fighting, loving, being invaded by men with guns...going down for something he didn't do, and he still just stands there. Emotionless. Fans of his, and no doubt the man himself, will say that he's playing an emotionless character, but at the end of the day; this isn't acting, it's just appearing in a film. It's a real shame that Bob is the star because when the star can't act, there's going to be problems. He could have gotten away with a (small) support turn, or even just singing his songs; but people that cant act shouldn't be given a starring role. It's as simple as that. A whole host of big names have been hired to try and hide Dylan's awful acting, however, and the list includes the likes of Jeff Bridges, Penélope Cruz, John Goodman, Mickey Rourke, Jessica Lange, Luke Wilson, Ed Harris, Val Kilmer, Chris Penn, Giovanni Ribisi, Cheech Martin and even Christian Slater joins the...ahem, fun. But sadly, not a single one of these big names can save this mess.
I was surprised to find that this crap was co-written by Bob Dylan himself. Judging by his lyric writing abilities, I always had Bob down as a wise man; but according to his work here, he's a self-indulgent egomaniac. The film is really just a poor excuse to show Dylan performing his songs, and far too much of the running time is spent watching Bob perform. The rest of the film is spent watching Bob stand around while the big names try and make the scenes interesting. Watching Bob clutter up the scenes is really funny at first, but it soon gets boring and the messy plot with it's even messier message doesn't help the proceedings at all. It's not even like you can ignore the lead and just enjoy the plot because that's terrible as well. In fact, the only positive element of this film that I can think of is Sertab Erener's cover of Bob Dylan's "One More Cup of Coffee", which isn't a far cry away from being as good as The White Stripes' version. The only reason I watched this film was because it was late and there was nothing else on. If I could have turned it over, I would and if you haven't got a real good reason, like that one, you really shouldn't be watching this film.
I was surprised to find that this crap was co-written by Bob Dylan himself. Judging by his lyric writing abilities, I always had Bob down as a wise man; but according to his work here, he's a self-indulgent egomaniac. The film is really just a poor excuse to show Dylan performing his songs, and far too much of the running time is spent watching Bob perform. The rest of the film is spent watching Bob stand around while the big names try and make the scenes interesting. Watching Bob clutter up the scenes is really funny at first, but it soon gets boring and the messy plot with it's even messier message doesn't help the proceedings at all. It's not even like you can ignore the lead and just enjoy the plot because that's terrible as well. In fact, the only positive element of this film that I can think of is Sertab Erener's cover of Bob Dylan's "One More Cup of Coffee", which isn't a far cry away from being as good as The White Stripes' version. The only reason I watched this film was because it was late and there was nothing else on. If I could have turned it over, I would and if you haven't got a real good reason, like that one, you really shouldn't be watching this film.
Pretentious, over-baked, tawdry and trite
KrisRennie29 May 2004
After watching this film today, i feel like Bob Dylan and Larry Charles owe me at least two hours of my life back as all the underlying metaphors, ambiguous aphorisms and religious symbolism in their Masked And Anonymous world isn't enough to make me realize any higher truths.
I have never been a big fan of Robert Zimmerman's musical works and i don't think that matters a jot with regard to this film and that argument is nothing more than an arrogant and presumptuous cop-out if you are in favour of this film.
There are a few performances in this film that are adequate but nothing more than haughty and forced - Jessica Lange's cigarettes are more convincing than Jessica Lange herself, John Goodman displays the usual sweaty-browed histrionics as we've become accustomed to in other roles he's acted in, Penelope Cruz gets to light a few candles and turn down a swig of whisky or two from John Goodman, Val Kilmer gets to lay off a speech that sounds like it was rejected from the final cut of Oliver Stone's The Doors, Giovanni Ribisi does nothing more than mumble cynically about what really motivates freedom fighters and insurgents in civil wars, Luke Wilson soliloquises about nothing in particular in order to get John Goodman to disagree with him or Bob Dylan to stare at him, Christian Slater and Christopher Penn look like they need to be somewhere else fast, Jeff Bridges' peripatetic journalist lurches from each scene to bully and goad Bob Dylan into actually saying something any of us can bother to be interested in and Bob Dylan himself is so wooden in this film that his performance needn't be criticised by humans but by Ikea or lumberjacks.
I don't really care if Bob Dylan is meant to be enigmatic or aloof or mystical or even Messianic, making the character both religiously and politically ambiguous and his dialogue ambivalent and introverted doesn't make for good plot development and instead makes the entire movie lumpen and entirely meaningless.
To be honest, i'd rather listen to Bob Dylan's The Times They Are A-Changin or Blowin In The Wind if i need to know Mr. Zimmerman's choice political rhetoric or personal polemic.
The only performances that are of any noteworthy content are Mickey Rourke, who isn't on screen enough as his performance is without doubt one of the only saving graces as the duplicitous politician, and Ed Harris doing a turn as a eulogising minstrel.
Sorry for all the Dylan fans or art-house lovers who love this movie but this film truly is nothing more than a horror film for all the wrong reasons, its a piece of snuff art-house where we literally watch various talented actors - Lange, Goodman, Bridges, Slater, Penn and Kilmer all dying horribly on screen.
All i can say to anyone about this film is that Bob Dylan is a far better songwriter than he is a scriptwriter.
Don't let the ensemble cast and critical plaudits, the two things that made me rent this movie out, fool you.
It really is a load of pretentious bilge.
I have never been a big fan of Robert Zimmerman's musical works and i don't think that matters a jot with regard to this film and that argument is nothing more than an arrogant and presumptuous cop-out if you are in favour of this film.
There are a few performances in this film that are adequate but nothing more than haughty and forced - Jessica Lange's cigarettes are more convincing than Jessica Lange herself, John Goodman displays the usual sweaty-browed histrionics as we've become accustomed to in other roles he's acted in, Penelope Cruz gets to light a few candles and turn down a swig of whisky or two from John Goodman, Val Kilmer gets to lay off a speech that sounds like it was rejected from the final cut of Oliver Stone's The Doors, Giovanni Ribisi does nothing more than mumble cynically about what really motivates freedom fighters and insurgents in civil wars, Luke Wilson soliloquises about nothing in particular in order to get John Goodman to disagree with him or Bob Dylan to stare at him, Christian Slater and Christopher Penn look like they need to be somewhere else fast, Jeff Bridges' peripatetic journalist lurches from each scene to bully and goad Bob Dylan into actually saying something any of us can bother to be interested in and Bob Dylan himself is so wooden in this film that his performance needn't be criticised by humans but by Ikea or lumberjacks.
I don't really care if Bob Dylan is meant to be enigmatic or aloof or mystical or even Messianic, making the character both religiously and politically ambiguous and his dialogue ambivalent and introverted doesn't make for good plot development and instead makes the entire movie lumpen and entirely meaningless.
To be honest, i'd rather listen to Bob Dylan's The Times They Are A-Changin or Blowin In The Wind if i need to know Mr. Zimmerman's choice political rhetoric or personal polemic.
The only performances that are of any noteworthy content are Mickey Rourke, who isn't on screen enough as his performance is without doubt one of the only saving graces as the duplicitous politician, and Ed Harris doing a turn as a eulogising minstrel.
Sorry for all the Dylan fans or art-house lovers who love this movie but this film truly is nothing more than a horror film for all the wrong reasons, its a piece of snuff art-house where we literally watch various talented actors - Lange, Goodman, Bridges, Slater, Penn and Kilmer all dying horribly on screen.
All i can say to anyone about this film is that Bob Dylan is a far better songwriter than he is a scriptwriter.
Don't let the ensemble cast and critical plaudits, the two things that made me rent this movie out, fool you.
It really is a load of pretentious bilge.
All star cast gone wrong
a726457 January 2004
Dylan called up all of his Hollywood homies, the cast is truly amazing. Even the minstrel man who shows up for mere 2 minutes is plays by the likes of Ed Harris! However, the script is convoluted, the characters never connect and the director does not seem to be able to handle his cast. This movie should be shown at all cinematic arts colleges, as to how you can still screw up a movie even if 30 Hollywood stars are willing to cover even the smallest parts, but the writer and director fail to put all this talent to use and order. After watching this mess, I recommend screening "Love Actually" a movie with similar star power and overabundance of talent, but with a writer and director able to handle it.
Only recommendable to hardcore Dylan fans
BrandtSponseller25 April 2005
Set in an unspecified war-torn country during an unspecified era, Masked and Anonymous weaves a number of threads around Uncle Sweetheart (John Goodman), a shady businessman/promoter, and Nina Veronica (Jessica Lange), a television producer. They're trying to raise money by putting on a "benefit concert", but because of their country's political quagmire, no stars will do the show. The best they can manage is Jack Fate (Bob Dylan), who is currently being held as a prisoner. The gig enables him to be released from jail and undertake a journey to the venue. We meet a cavalcade of quirky people along the way, most of whom say very quirky things, and just as the concert begins, the country's political situation worsens. What will happen to our cast?
Even though I'm a huge Dylan fan and Dylan is the focus of this film, I'm being very generous in giving Masked and Anonymous a 7 out of 10, which is only equivalent to the letter grade of "C" in my way of looking at ratings. If the film didn't feature Dylan and his music throughout, if there weren't a number of songs performed by Dylan and his band, I would probably have given Masked and Anonymous a 4 out of 10 (a high "F") or less. Understanding that, if you don't like Dylan's music, you should steer clear of this film.
That's a shame, because there are a number of interesting ideas in Masked and Anonymous. It has great potential, but the potential isn't developed at all. Any viewer giving the film a complete, coherent and favorable interpretation has put far too much time and energy into being an apologist--they've basically constructed an elaborate fiction for themselves ("Are they journalists or novelists" indeed). Because in the end, the film is just an incoherent mess anyway you slice it.
Under the most literal interpretation, Masked and Anonymous begins as a clever satire. The setting is a country overrun by a military dictator and various bands of rebels who have changed sides and causes so often they can't keep the factions straight. Initially, it seems like it might be a modern version of Woody Allen's Bananas (1971). Director/co-writer Larry Charles goes to great pains to keep the country anonymous. We're given visual clues that suggest a tropical nation, but in the next shot, it looks like we're in Detroit or some other Midwestern U.S. city. He uses an ethnic rainbow of extras, and the production design incorporates tokens from cultures around the world. On this literal level, Masked and Anonymous works fairly well until Dylan's first song performed on stage, at about the half hour to forty-minute mark. After this point, Charles, who co-wrote with Dylan, progressively abandons the interesting story. The focus becomes poetic but anachronistic dialogue and surrealistic "skits", almost exclusively set within the artificial environment of a large soundstage, and that seem like they arrived on a late train from another film. Charles also largely abandons the interesting cinematography and production design found early in the film.
On a less literal level, Masked and Anonymous can be viewed somewhere between a thinly veiled parable based on Dylan's actual life and a cinematic realization of a number of Dylan lyrics. Both ideas are excellent, but both would take much more work than this film evidences to pull off effectively.
A lot of dialogue isn't just thinly veiled as being about Dylan, it's not veiled at all. The character of Jack Fate often dissolves into nothing. Narration supposedly by Fate sounds like Dylan's poetry/lyrics, talking about his actual experiences in life. Characters ask Fate questions that I'm sure Dylan's fans have asked him at one point. And after all, Fate is just singing Dylan's songs, as Dylan does them when he's "playing himself". Dialogue that isn't so literally about Dylan, whether satirical or not (such as when Uncle Sweetheart points out that involved parties want him to play every big late 1960s band's music except his own), often makes references to his lyrics in some way or another. "A Simple Twist of Fate" becomes the name of the "Jack Fate cover band" that Dylan/Fate ends up playing with. The television schedule features programs that are names of Dylan songs, and so on.
But as either a parable about Dylan's life, with him busting out of his Minnesota "jail" and heading on a bus to another world, or as a weaving together of Dylan lyrics to make a story, Masked and Anonymous is far too loose to work. Dylan's lyrics have neither the "conceptual continuity" of Frank Zappa (Zappa's Uncle Meat concept is mentioned at one point as a precedent, and this might be why Goodman's character is Uncle Sweetheart) nor the surrealism of the later Beatles. On the other hand, Dylan has an awful lot of lyrics to choose from, so it's not that one couldn't construct an effective parable of his life (or some other plot) by threading together a number of lyrical references. It's just that one would have to do a lot more work to create a captivating film than Charles and Dylan do here.
The most generous reading of the film has it as a paradox--a deep, cryptic and mysterious means of telling us to not take Dylan as so deep, cryptic and mysterious. It's a bit disingenuous; especially when the film is often not as deep, cryptic or mysterious as it wants to be and it's a bit absurd to deny that Dylan is deep, cryptic or mysterious.
Charles also tends to waste his bloated cast--it seems that everyone was interested in having a cameo in a Dylan film (and who can blame them). Most of the cast does a fine job with the material they were given to work with, but it's both not enough and too much to save the film as a film rather than an inadequate concert video.
Even though I'm a huge Dylan fan and Dylan is the focus of this film, I'm being very generous in giving Masked and Anonymous a 7 out of 10, which is only equivalent to the letter grade of "C" in my way of looking at ratings. If the film didn't feature Dylan and his music throughout, if there weren't a number of songs performed by Dylan and his band, I would probably have given Masked and Anonymous a 4 out of 10 (a high "F") or less. Understanding that, if you don't like Dylan's music, you should steer clear of this film.
That's a shame, because there are a number of interesting ideas in Masked and Anonymous. It has great potential, but the potential isn't developed at all. Any viewer giving the film a complete, coherent and favorable interpretation has put far too much time and energy into being an apologist--they've basically constructed an elaborate fiction for themselves ("Are they journalists or novelists" indeed). Because in the end, the film is just an incoherent mess anyway you slice it.
Under the most literal interpretation, Masked and Anonymous begins as a clever satire. The setting is a country overrun by a military dictator and various bands of rebels who have changed sides and causes so often they can't keep the factions straight. Initially, it seems like it might be a modern version of Woody Allen's Bananas (1971). Director/co-writer Larry Charles goes to great pains to keep the country anonymous. We're given visual clues that suggest a tropical nation, but in the next shot, it looks like we're in Detroit or some other Midwestern U.S. city. He uses an ethnic rainbow of extras, and the production design incorporates tokens from cultures around the world. On this literal level, Masked and Anonymous works fairly well until Dylan's first song performed on stage, at about the half hour to forty-minute mark. After this point, Charles, who co-wrote with Dylan, progressively abandons the interesting story. The focus becomes poetic but anachronistic dialogue and surrealistic "skits", almost exclusively set within the artificial environment of a large soundstage, and that seem like they arrived on a late train from another film. Charles also largely abandons the interesting cinematography and production design found early in the film.
On a less literal level, Masked and Anonymous can be viewed somewhere between a thinly veiled parable based on Dylan's actual life and a cinematic realization of a number of Dylan lyrics. Both ideas are excellent, but both would take much more work than this film evidences to pull off effectively.
A lot of dialogue isn't just thinly veiled as being about Dylan, it's not veiled at all. The character of Jack Fate often dissolves into nothing. Narration supposedly by Fate sounds like Dylan's poetry/lyrics, talking about his actual experiences in life. Characters ask Fate questions that I'm sure Dylan's fans have asked him at one point. And after all, Fate is just singing Dylan's songs, as Dylan does them when he's "playing himself". Dialogue that isn't so literally about Dylan, whether satirical or not (such as when Uncle Sweetheart points out that involved parties want him to play every big late 1960s band's music except his own), often makes references to his lyrics in some way or another. "A Simple Twist of Fate" becomes the name of the "Jack Fate cover band" that Dylan/Fate ends up playing with. The television schedule features programs that are names of Dylan songs, and so on.
But as either a parable about Dylan's life, with him busting out of his Minnesota "jail" and heading on a bus to another world, or as a weaving together of Dylan lyrics to make a story, Masked and Anonymous is far too loose to work. Dylan's lyrics have neither the "conceptual continuity" of Frank Zappa (Zappa's Uncle Meat concept is mentioned at one point as a precedent, and this might be why Goodman's character is Uncle Sweetheart) nor the surrealism of the later Beatles. On the other hand, Dylan has an awful lot of lyrics to choose from, so it's not that one couldn't construct an effective parable of his life (or some other plot) by threading together a number of lyrical references. It's just that one would have to do a lot more work to create a captivating film than Charles and Dylan do here.
The most generous reading of the film has it as a paradox--a deep, cryptic and mysterious means of telling us to not take Dylan as so deep, cryptic and mysterious. It's a bit disingenuous; especially when the film is often not as deep, cryptic or mysterious as it wants to be and it's a bit absurd to deny that Dylan is deep, cryptic or mysterious.
Charles also tends to waste his bloated cast--it seems that everyone was interested in having a cameo in a Dylan film (and who can blame them). Most of the cast does a fine job with the material they were given to work with, but it's both not enough and too much to save the film as a film rather than an inadequate concert video.
Bob Dylan is awful, plot ridiculous, cast smashed together
smcsween1729 January 2003
First, Bob Dylan is the centerpiece of this movie. The fact that he plays a character similar to himself named "Jack Fate" ought to be enough to bring back your lunch. Dylan stands in the middle of an extraordinary cast as they all speak to him and around him, without him - thankfully - participating in the dialogue. While this is better than him opening his mouth more, it makes for a really choppy and incoherent movie.
The cast is nothing less than incredible, but with so many top tier actors, what do you do with all of them? Answer - make roles for them. This leads to a contrived plot, no character development, and the viewer wondering what the hell is going on. It is actually painful.
Having said that, if you are a huge Dylan fan, you should not miss this because he and his band play quite of bit during the movie. Unfortunately, while I think the old Dylan was powerful, what is left of him is not worth wasting your time on.
Go see a different movie.
The cast is nothing less than incredible, but with so many top tier actors, what do you do with all of them? Answer - make roles for them. This leads to a contrived plot, no character development, and the viewer wondering what the hell is going on. It is actually painful.
Having said that, if you are a huge Dylan fan, you should not miss this because he and his band play quite of bit during the movie. Unfortunately, while I think the old Dylan was powerful, what is left of him is not worth wasting your time on.
Go see a different movie.
Masked and Anonymous
Prismark102 September 2021
When Masked and Anonymous was released. The critics lined up to savage the movie. One of them listed the amount of Oscar nominations the cast of the movie had. That has only grown over the years with Jeff Bridges and Penelope Cruz subsequently becoming Oscar winners.
This is a divisive experimental movie with improvisation and a non conventional approach. It has acquired a cult reputation over the years.
The central figure of the movie is Bob Dylan. He plays plays Jack Fate, a once famous folk singer who has been imprisoned in what looks like a South American dictatorship going through a civil war or it might just be an alternative America.
Out of prison mainly because of cynical, greedy and desperate concert promoter Uncle Sweetheart (John Goodman) and television producer Nina Veronica (Jessica Lange.) They want Fate to play a televised benefit concert to help war victims. Unfortunately they cannot afford to get star names and they also plan to cream off the proceeds of the benefit concert to deal with their own financial problems.
The movie is about Fate's journey to the concert and after he gets there. Cynical journalist Tom Friend (Jeff Bridges) wants to provoke Fate. He shows up with his ultra religious girlfriend, Pagan Lace (Penelope Cruz). Fate hooks up with former bandmate Bobby Cupid (Luke Wilson) who still thinks Fate has what it takes and is willing to protect him from distractors.
There are plenty of actors making cameo appearances with oblique cod philosophical speeches. Val Kilmer as an animal wrangler who mentions that human beings are masked and anonymous. Ed Harris appears as a ghost in blackface.
Oddly it works. Mainly because a lot of it is about Bob Dylan himself and his mythology. Dylan is not much of an actor but it's about Dylan the singer. It features his songs but they are sung by others. Tom Friend teases Fate for not taking part in Woodstock and goes on length about Jimi Hendrix.
Critics hated the movie because it had a self indulgent plot. That is the movie's main calling card. It's a wayward film but Dylan has made his own Magical Mystery Tour.
This is a divisive experimental movie with improvisation and a non conventional approach. It has acquired a cult reputation over the years.
The central figure of the movie is Bob Dylan. He plays plays Jack Fate, a once famous folk singer who has been imprisoned in what looks like a South American dictatorship going through a civil war or it might just be an alternative America.
Out of prison mainly because of cynical, greedy and desperate concert promoter Uncle Sweetheart (John Goodman) and television producer Nina Veronica (Jessica Lange.) They want Fate to play a televised benefit concert to help war victims. Unfortunately they cannot afford to get star names and they also plan to cream off the proceeds of the benefit concert to deal with their own financial problems.
The movie is about Fate's journey to the concert and after he gets there. Cynical journalist Tom Friend (Jeff Bridges) wants to provoke Fate. He shows up with his ultra religious girlfriend, Pagan Lace (Penelope Cruz). Fate hooks up with former bandmate Bobby Cupid (Luke Wilson) who still thinks Fate has what it takes and is willing to protect him from distractors.
There are plenty of actors making cameo appearances with oblique cod philosophical speeches. Val Kilmer as an animal wrangler who mentions that human beings are masked and anonymous. Ed Harris appears as a ghost in blackface.
Oddly it works. Mainly because a lot of it is about Bob Dylan himself and his mythology. Dylan is not much of an actor but it's about Dylan the singer. It features his songs but they are sung by others. Tom Friend teases Fate for not taking part in Woodstock and goes on length about Jimi Hendrix.
Critics hated the movie because it had a self indulgent plot. That is the movie's main calling card. It's a wayward film but Dylan has made his own Magical Mystery Tour.
Entirely pointless
freydis-e1 May 2012
Bob Dylan is the greatest singer songwriter in musical history, but he's never been much of an actor and here he makes no attempt at all, mumbling his few lines, his expression immutable and Keaton-esque throughout. This is very much his film and this performance sets the tone: there's no plot, no comprehensible message, and it's all very dull. A big cast of solid actors, doubtless keen to appear alongside the great man, do their best, but even usually dependable performers like John Goodman and Jeff Bridges seem lost.
The only hilight is the songs. Dylan's voice is ravaged now, but he still brings his magic with every word. Alas that magic is diminished here by his latest affectation of delivering great songs like 'John Wesley Harding' and 'The Times They are A-Changing' in a melody-free monotone.
In the words of the master: "What's probably got you baffled more; Is what this thing here is for. It's nothing." (I Shall be Free No 10, Another Side of Bob Dylan, 1964).
Move along, folks. There's nothing to see here.
The only hilight is the songs. Dylan's voice is ravaged now, but he still brings his magic with every word. Alas that magic is diminished here by his latest affectation of delivering great songs like 'John Wesley Harding' and 'The Times They are A-Changing' in a melody-free monotone.
In the words of the master: "What's probably got you baffled more; Is what this thing here is for. It's nothing." (I Shall be Free No 10, Another Side of Bob Dylan, 1964).
Move along, folks. There's nothing to see here.
Approach it like Duchamp's Orpheus
Malcs11 August 2003
For those who have read or heard the various reviews calling "Masked and Anonymous" a "mess" all I can say is if you enjoy the work of Bob Dylan you'll enjoy it, and if you don't enjoy his work, you probably won't enjoy it. It's that simple really.
It's a surreal social critique of the current state of things, as well as an attempt to illustrate to the audience not only what the world looks like to Bob Dylan, but also what Bob Dylan looks like to the world, much like his music. So if you are familiar with and enjoy that about his music, you'll enjoy the film.
And also, much like his music has always done, if you're up on your historical references and cultural detritus you'll find yourself giggling a lot. The puns and inside jokes are scattered everywhere, as are his songs, not necessarily performed by him.
Just let it soak over you like a long Dylan album and you'll know what I mean.
All the reviews are basically saying "It's not like how other movies are made these days. What is this crap?" In many ways it's similar to Renaldo & Clara, but it's much more mainstream than that ever was.
There's even a few seconds of the Seattle WTO riots in 99 in the film.
I think the best way to approach the film is as if you were watching a Duchamp. I could see it on a double bill with Orpheus. There's many allusions and references to other films like a pocketwatch with a broken face.
It's not a Hollywood film even though it's got a lot of Hollywood people in it. It's more like a very expensive foreign indie film. They all do great jobs, especially John Goodman, his character not being too far a stretch from his role in Barton Fink. But the characters are caricatures, archetypes, just like in Desolation Row it imagines what the future might be like, or maybe it just looks a little too clearly at what is happening right now.
From a straight acting perspective method would be wasted on these sketchy characters, because like in a noir film, you know them enough to know who they are and what they do, but their lives are all so repressed, their dreams are all of trying to comprehend the world they live in, where there is constant revolution, either dire poverty or obscene wealth and a lot of violence lies between the two, both physically and emotionally. Even the president of the television network has bodyguards with assault rifles. Other reviews all try saying that it takes place in some Central American country, but the irony is it was all filmed on the streets on the other side of LA.
Time is played with, sometimes to make someone get something right, and the parade of faces peopling the movie are the mythological icons of not just this age but stretching back past the 20th century. Ghandi, Pope John Paul II, Abraham Lincoln, Koo Koo The Bird Girl, they're all here. The characters all have names like Jack Fate, Uncle Sweetheart, Tom Friend, Bobby Cupid, Valentine, Prospero, Nestor, Bacchus. There's as many overriding themes as there are submotifs, but it's chockfull of details, too, and the details are fast and furious. You learn just to let one drop if you don't get it because another one will be coming up soon.
Many threads are pulled together and the plot is thought through as much as anything, but Dylan has always been more about questions than about answers, so traditional expectations of identifying with a simple plot and easily sympathetic characters won't leave you very nourished, as much as if you just accepted that, like life, anyone could say anything at any time which just might not be what you expected to hear.
So you can't see the framework that the plot is on very easily because the themes and questions asked are far more interesting and ultimately more overwhelming and therefore concentrated on more than the plot. The themes are big, the questions are huge, after all, this is Dylan. Mortality, desire, loyalty, purity, confession, nurturing, freedom, imprisonment, corruption, manipulation, poverty, madness.
The camerawork is impressive because a lot of the scenes have to do with who is more powerful than the other character, and overhead shots and shots up stairs really underline a lot of the relationships of the characters to their world, their friends and their enemies.
And of course, like a Dylan song, you could watch it over and over and find new things every time, even though you'll get most of it in one viewing. Some things you immediately realize what he just got away with. Who else could put Ed Harris in blackface and have him in a scene where he's looking down on Dylan from the top of a stairwell. Then the next time Dylan looks up he's changed to a young Rastafarian janitor.
When Dylan's character gets out of jail the first song you hear as he struts along with his suit and his guitar is an Italian rap remix of Like A Rolling Stone.
The center of the film is when a small black girl sings an amazing a capella version of The Times They Are A'Changin' to Dylan and his band while they're resting on the bandstand. It sends Dylan's character inward until he finally says "It's all just ordinary things" in one of the films very effective voiceovers. If you think of the film as a new album by Dylan, the voiceovers would be the liner notes he wrote himself. Another one closes the film, and when you hear what his last words are you realize that Dylan has basically just taken the same things he always addresses in his music, as well as the way he presents such things in his music, and has simply tried to do the exact same thing in a film. If you approach the film as a set of songs it will be easier to follow. The scenes are what are important, as well as who is who to the other person. The plot is controlled by the unpredictable events of the dictatorship in power and the dying king and who is the rightful heir.
It's a surreal social critique of the current state of things, as well as an attempt to illustrate to the audience not only what the world looks like to Bob Dylan, but also what Bob Dylan looks like to the world, much like his music. So if you are familiar with and enjoy that about his music, you'll enjoy the film.
And also, much like his music has always done, if you're up on your historical references and cultural detritus you'll find yourself giggling a lot. The puns and inside jokes are scattered everywhere, as are his songs, not necessarily performed by him.
Just let it soak over you like a long Dylan album and you'll know what I mean.
All the reviews are basically saying "It's not like how other movies are made these days. What is this crap?" In many ways it's similar to Renaldo & Clara, but it's much more mainstream than that ever was.
There's even a few seconds of the Seattle WTO riots in 99 in the film.
I think the best way to approach the film is as if you were watching a Duchamp. I could see it on a double bill with Orpheus. There's many allusions and references to other films like a pocketwatch with a broken face.
It's not a Hollywood film even though it's got a lot of Hollywood people in it. It's more like a very expensive foreign indie film. They all do great jobs, especially John Goodman, his character not being too far a stretch from his role in Barton Fink. But the characters are caricatures, archetypes, just like in Desolation Row it imagines what the future might be like, or maybe it just looks a little too clearly at what is happening right now.
From a straight acting perspective method would be wasted on these sketchy characters, because like in a noir film, you know them enough to know who they are and what they do, but their lives are all so repressed, their dreams are all of trying to comprehend the world they live in, where there is constant revolution, either dire poverty or obscene wealth and a lot of violence lies between the two, both physically and emotionally. Even the president of the television network has bodyguards with assault rifles. Other reviews all try saying that it takes place in some Central American country, but the irony is it was all filmed on the streets on the other side of LA.
Time is played with, sometimes to make someone get something right, and the parade of faces peopling the movie are the mythological icons of not just this age but stretching back past the 20th century. Ghandi, Pope John Paul II, Abraham Lincoln, Koo Koo The Bird Girl, they're all here. The characters all have names like Jack Fate, Uncle Sweetheart, Tom Friend, Bobby Cupid, Valentine, Prospero, Nestor, Bacchus. There's as many overriding themes as there are submotifs, but it's chockfull of details, too, and the details are fast and furious. You learn just to let one drop if you don't get it because another one will be coming up soon.
Many threads are pulled together and the plot is thought through as much as anything, but Dylan has always been more about questions than about answers, so traditional expectations of identifying with a simple plot and easily sympathetic characters won't leave you very nourished, as much as if you just accepted that, like life, anyone could say anything at any time which just might not be what you expected to hear.
So you can't see the framework that the plot is on very easily because the themes and questions asked are far more interesting and ultimately more overwhelming and therefore concentrated on more than the plot. The themes are big, the questions are huge, after all, this is Dylan. Mortality, desire, loyalty, purity, confession, nurturing, freedom, imprisonment, corruption, manipulation, poverty, madness.
The camerawork is impressive because a lot of the scenes have to do with who is more powerful than the other character, and overhead shots and shots up stairs really underline a lot of the relationships of the characters to their world, their friends and their enemies.
And of course, like a Dylan song, you could watch it over and over and find new things every time, even though you'll get most of it in one viewing. Some things you immediately realize what he just got away with. Who else could put Ed Harris in blackface and have him in a scene where he's looking down on Dylan from the top of a stairwell. Then the next time Dylan looks up he's changed to a young Rastafarian janitor.
When Dylan's character gets out of jail the first song you hear as he struts along with his suit and his guitar is an Italian rap remix of Like A Rolling Stone.
The center of the film is when a small black girl sings an amazing a capella version of The Times They Are A'Changin' to Dylan and his band while they're resting on the bandstand. It sends Dylan's character inward until he finally says "It's all just ordinary things" in one of the films very effective voiceovers. If you think of the film as a new album by Dylan, the voiceovers would be the liner notes he wrote himself. Another one closes the film, and when you hear what his last words are you realize that Dylan has basically just taken the same things he always addresses in his music, as well as the way he presents such things in his music, and has simply tried to do the exact same thing in a film. If you approach the film as a set of songs it will be easier to follow. The scenes are what are important, as well as who is who to the other person. The plot is controlled by the unpredictable events of the dictatorship in power and the dying king and who is the rightful heir.
No one makes excruciating art better then Bob
Masking-tape_Muldoon5 August 2003
I must confess, I was one of the two people who stood up and gave this film a standing ovation during the closing credits. Looking back on it I'm not sure why I did that exactly. I even remember that while I was watching it I cringed a more then a few times.
Great actors paraded across the scene giving performances that kept getting worse and worse. The dialogue (was it improvised?) was tangential and trite, the acting (where there any second takes?)seemed totally unrehearsed. However, the bottom line is that in the few places it worked it REALLY worked.
My guess is that films star, was more involved with the project then I was led to believe. It really plays like a Dylan concert or album, off the cuff, spontaneous, running on instinct. I've seen Bob perform many times over the years, and no matter how bad he may be on a given night. has never failed to do something brilliant, and he is NEVER boring.In fact the secret to Dylan's Artistic longevity (In my opinion) is his willingness to let it all hang out ,the good along with the bad. He makes no apologies for it and he never has. For an artist what's perceived by the public as "brilliant", is usually a byproduct of what is thought of as " incomprehensible crap" (or vice versa, I'm not sure)
At any rate, last time I saw Bob Dylan play live he was doing Grateful dead covers on a keyboard, and the first time I saw him play when I was 13 he hid behind his backup singers the whole time so no one could look at him; and both times I stood up and cheered my ass off when it was over, and I did it again after Masked and Anonymous.
What can I say, No one makes excruciating art better then Bob.
Great actors paraded across the scene giving performances that kept getting worse and worse. The dialogue (was it improvised?) was tangential and trite, the acting (where there any second takes?)seemed totally unrehearsed. However, the bottom line is that in the few places it worked it REALLY worked.
My guess is that films star, was more involved with the project then I was led to believe. It really plays like a Dylan concert or album, off the cuff, spontaneous, running on instinct. I've seen Bob perform many times over the years, and no matter how bad he may be on a given night. has never failed to do something brilliant, and he is NEVER boring.In fact the secret to Dylan's Artistic longevity (In my opinion) is his willingness to let it all hang out ,the good along with the bad. He makes no apologies for it and he never has. For an artist what's perceived by the public as "brilliant", is usually a byproduct of what is thought of as " incomprehensible crap" (or vice versa, I'm not sure)
At any rate, last time I saw Bob Dylan play live he was doing Grateful dead covers on a keyboard, and the first time I saw him play when I was 13 he hid behind his backup singers the whole time so no one could look at him; and both times I stood up and cheered my ass off when it was over, and I did it again after Masked and Anonymous.
What can I say, No one makes excruciating art better then Bob.
The Worst Movie I Have Seen In A Very Long Time
kreifler11 August 2005
Bob Dylan, whose most recent albums are mumbled and incomprehensible, has somehow been allowed to create a movie that is worse than his albums.
What was John Goodman saying half the time? Who wrote these lines? Did Latinos take over the US? What happened to cause the fall of the government? Why would anyone allow Dylan to be in a movie after Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid?
This movie must have been some sort of allegory, but I couldn't make sense out of it.
I don't usually toss DVD's but this one went out with the old dog food. Hey, that sounded like a bad Dylan line right there!
What was John Goodman saying half the time? Who wrote these lines? Did Latinos take over the US? What happened to cause the fall of the government? Why would anyone allow Dylan to be in a movie after Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid?
This movie must have been some sort of allegory, but I couldn't make sense out of it.
I don't usually toss DVD's but this one went out with the old dog food. Hey, that sounded like a bad Dylan line right there!
Dylan makes good
mfacker16 September 2003
There was a time when music mattered, and the people that made that music mattered too. Bob Dylan was one of those people. Dylan has floated in and out of the public eye over the years, but has made somewhat of a return with the release of his 2001 album Love and Theft. He has tried to increase his current comeback, and extend his hand into another form of art, by written and staring in a new film.
Masked and Anonymous is good no matter what your opinion of Bob Dylan may be. For Dylan fans this is a tour de force of film making. Written like a Dylan epic tune, think Desolation Row, Masked stays just out of reach of the explainable. Coupled with great cameos, Val Kilmer is far and away the best of many, Masked delivers. John Goodman and Jeff Bridges hold supply the majority of the nessecary acting with Luke Wilson helping out on occasion. However this is the Wilson of Old School, and a far cry from the Wilson of the Royla Tennebaums. None of that really matters, however, because this film was made for Bob Dylan, and he is the single most important character on screen.
In Jack Fate Dylan has created a chracter that personifies his style. Fate, an aging rock star returning home for a benefit concert, symbolizes what h as become of Dylan's career as a musician. Masked isn't really the story of Bob Dylan's life, no more then any of his songs are, it can be, however, his response to what his life has been like. The story itself lacks a little and the characters are never fully defined, but like the supporting acting none of that matters. The important part of Masked and Anonymous, and the only reason it was ever made, is Bob Dylan. Taken that way, Masked and Anonymous is a truly excellent, and original, piece of film.
Masked and Anonymous is good no matter what your opinion of Bob Dylan may be. For Dylan fans this is a tour de force of film making. Written like a Dylan epic tune, think Desolation Row, Masked stays just out of reach of the explainable. Coupled with great cameos, Val Kilmer is far and away the best of many, Masked delivers. John Goodman and Jeff Bridges hold supply the majority of the nessecary acting with Luke Wilson helping out on occasion. However this is the Wilson of Old School, and a far cry from the Wilson of the Royla Tennebaums. None of that really matters, however, because this film was made for Bob Dylan, and he is the single most important character on screen.
In Jack Fate Dylan has created a chracter that personifies his style. Fate, an aging rock star returning home for a benefit concert, symbolizes what h as become of Dylan's career as a musician. Masked isn't really the story of Bob Dylan's life, no more then any of his songs are, it can be, however, his response to what his life has been like. The story itself lacks a little and the characters are never fully defined, but like the supporting acting none of that matters. The important part of Masked and Anonymous, and the only reason it was ever made, is Bob Dylan. Taken that way, Masked and Anonymous is a truly excellent, and original, piece of film.
Wooden and Unsubtle
colinpearse27 February 2005
The most striking thing about this movie is the how unsubtle and painfully unambiguous the dialogue is. Celebrity mouth pieces appear on-set to relate point after laboured point, driven home with a mallet until the final blow; a final slogan explaining what the preceding text meant just in case you hadn't grasped it. I'm used to being spoon-fed by the Hollywood machine but would never have expected it from the likes of Bob Dylan.
Every celebrity in the picture talks in the same monotonous laboured prose giving the feeling that the whole movie consists of paper *celebrity* cut-outs brought to life by a tired narrator. You could randomly swap the celebrities lines around with each other and you wouldn't know the difference. If this was the intention then it doesn't make for an interesting movie unless it has something new to say, and it doesn't. Maybe the writers thought the same as I did after the initial screening, and why they decided to use the pseudonyms; Sergei Petrov and Rene Fontaine for the writing credits instead of their own names.
Every celebrity in the picture talks in the same monotonous laboured prose giving the feeling that the whole movie consists of paper *celebrity* cut-outs brought to life by a tired narrator. You could randomly swap the celebrities lines around with each other and you wouldn't know the difference. If this was the intention then it doesn't make for an interesting movie unless it has something new to say, and it doesn't. Maybe the writers thought the same as I did after the initial screening, and why they decided to use the pseudonyms; Sergei Petrov and Rene Fontaine for the writing credits instead of their own names.
Captivating - for the wrong reason
albundyz5 May 2005
Opinions about this movie are gonna break down into two camps. Hard core Bob Dylan fans are in one camp. Then, there is everyone else.
I have watched this movie twice. I must admit, I am captivated by it. I cannot take my eyes off the movie. This movie is so unusual, I'll have to make a new category, like.... Worst Most Captivating Movie.
Why is it so captivating? I think because the famous Hollywood actors and actresses in this movie are so talented, and Bob Dylan is just so bad that the contrast between him and everyone else makes the whole film just shocking. Forget the fact that the plot is absolutely boring. Dylan walks from scene to scene as the lead actor looking like a 70 year old Marilyn Manson wearing a dorky cowboy hat.
I can see all those Dylan fans saying 'ah, the symbolism, the symbolism'. What a bunch of crap! This is just a situation where a famous musician decided to gather any of the Hollywood crowd who adore him to make a self serving, pointless movie.
Without a doubt, the most shocking scene is when Dylan (who must be about 5' 6" and 110 pounds) beats up Jeff Bridges (who must be about 6'2" and about 220 pounds) with one punch. Lots of symbolism there, huh? Somehow, I'm reminded of the Emporer's Clothes. Are all these famous Hollywood actors so enamored with Dylan that they could not see how bad this movie is? I'm embarrassed for all of them.
Yet, when it comes on again, I'll probably watch it!!!
I have watched this movie twice. I must admit, I am captivated by it. I cannot take my eyes off the movie. This movie is so unusual, I'll have to make a new category, like.... Worst Most Captivating Movie.
Why is it so captivating? I think because the famous Hollywood actors and actresses in this movie are so talented, and Bob Dylan is just so bad that the contrast between him and everyone else makes the whole film just shocking. Forget the fact that the plot is absolutely boring. Dylan walks from scene to scene as the lead actor looking like a 70 year old Marilyn Manson wearing a dorky cowboy hat.
I can see all those Dylan fans saying 'ah, the symbolism, the symbolism'. What a bunch of crap! This is just a situation where a famous musician decided to gather any of the Hollywood crowd who adore him to make a self serving, pointless movie.
Without a doubt, the most shocking scene is when Dylan (who must be about 5' 6" and 110 pounds) beats up Jeff Bridges (who must be about 6'2" and about 220 pounds) with one punch. Lots of symbolism there, huh? Somehow, I'm reminded of the Emporer's Clothes. Are all these famous Hollywood actors so enamored with Dylan that they could not see how bad this movie is? I'm embarrassed for all of them.
Yet, when it comes on again, I'll probably watch it!!!
Huh?
beezus2287 May 2015
I am a HUGE Dylan fan, but this movie was a train wreck. It was so bad I had to watch it until the end. Kept hoping it would get better. It didn't. Even all the great cast members were flat in their roles. None of them could impart any emotion in their characters. Heck, I couldn't tell if it was a drama or a tongue in cheek comedy. The story line was weak and it was hard to figure out why most of the characters were even in the story line. Guess I'm just not that intellectual like those that gave this a high rating. The reason I gave it 2 stars was for the the music in the film. Which there wasn't enough of to keep me happy. If you have nothing better to do, I recommend that you do watch this flick. It's amazingly awful. Just like a train wreck. Sorry Bob, I've been to at least 10 of your concerts and your music has made me cry tears of joy, but acting is not something you were born to do.
Not a great movie, but Bob Dylan's best movie
joachimokeefe23 June 2015
Warning: Spoilers
In a dystopian Latin-American future, cynical has-been rock star Jack Fate (really? Is that the best name you could come up with?) supplies the soundtrack to revolution, which is not televised, and isn't a real revolution anyway.
You may remember the first time you ever heard one of Dylan's classic songs, and began to realise that it didn't matter that it made no sense. The point was just to let it wash over you and grin inwardly at the sharp sardonic points, the clever bad rhymes and the surreal metaphors. M&A is like that with moving pictures and stunt casting.
Jessica Lange is the best, John Goodman (doing his usual crooked hard-drinkin' hustler shtick) is the worst. Bob himself is best when performing with the band, but if you remember that he was (only!) 60 when this was made, it's surprising how tired and frail he looks and sounds. No Bob, we don't like it when your singing sounds like you're going to cough something up, even if you do. And he still can't act, or should that be 'doesn't bother to act'? Masked and Anonymous is fun for Dylan fans and cameo-spotters - what more could a Dylan fan want? Just don't expect to be spoon-fed.
You may remember the first time you ever heard one of Dylan's classic songs, and began to realise that it didn't matter that it made no sense. The point was just to let it wash over you and grin inwardly at the sharp sardonic points, the clever bad rhymes and the surreal metaphors. M&A is like that with moving pictures and stunt casting.
Jessica Lange is the best, John Goodman (doing his usual crooked hard-drinkin' hustler shtick) is the worst. Bob himself is best when performing with the band, but if you remember that he was (only!) 60 when this was made, it's surprising how tired and frail he looks and sounds. No Bob, we don't like it when your singing sounds like you're going to cough something up, even if you do. And he still can't act, or should that be 'doesn't bother to act'? Masked and Anonymous is fun for Dylan fans and cameo-spotters - what more could a Dylan fan want? Just don't expect to be spoon-fed.
Excruciating
G-4730 September 2004
From the first moments of this film, I felt like I had fallen down Alice's hole into a world of non-sensible idiots. What was this movie other than cheap pandering to Bob Dylan's enigmatic songs? Whose idea was it to make a movie that no one would understand let alone the actors that are crammed into it? Don't get me wrong. I like ensemble movies--seeing people who don't normally act together show up in unique situations is great. Usually.
But not in this movie. And the movie just kept going. I'm sorry to be ragging on it so much but for the first time in my life I seriously felt like walking out of the theater except my friends seemed to enjoy it. They actually wanted to talk about it after it was over. WHY? If you want a positive review--ask one of them. I just thought it was the "Bob Dylan and Friends" show, trying to pick apart the republicans running our country and just trying to hard to be witty. I don't want my money back. I want those 112 minutes back.
But not in this movie. And the movie just kept going. I'm sorry to be ragging on it so much but for the first time in my life I seriously felt like walking out of the theater except my friends seemed to enjoy it. They actually wanted to talk about it after it was over. WHY? If you want a positive review--ask one of them. I just thought it was the "Bob Dylan and Friends" show, trying to pick apart the republicans running our country and just trying to hard to be witty. I don't want my money back. I want those 112 minutes back.
Is Bob Dylan going through dire straits,
Dr_Coulardeau13 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Bob Dylan is not always very well inspired these days. To invest his song and music in a fictitious Latin American situation with a dying general dictator, a civil war without any ideology, some dumb sharks trying to exploit some artists to organize a free concert in support of
of what? It tries to show how Latin America is rotten, how our times have changed so much that we have lost all ethical ideology, how show business is meaningless, how even a revolutionary guerrilla warfare has no real ideological objective and yet the film sets some religious objectives to this revolution. And it all ends in a fiasco. Bob Dylan is no great actor and that is not new. His music are interesting but this film is betraying them 100%.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine & University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine & University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne
WTF??? First movie deserving a ZERO I've seen!
Howard_Dolphin2 January 2006
My wife rented this tonight, attracted by the cast. Now, as it neared the end, she went to walk the dog. Our dog has a lot more to say than this piece of dung. Now, don't get me wrong - I'm European, I watched and liked or disliked hundreds of political movies, anti-establishment movies, all kinds of indy movies. However boring I find Costa Gavras, I still respect him. But this, c'mon I even DO like Bob Dylan, I do like all the great actors who participated in this project. But I can't remember a movie more boring, useless, pretentious and tomorrow I could possibly say something more coherent, but any porn movie deserves a better note - at least I can find a reason for its existence. If my DVD rental place would allow for it, I would sincerely ask for my money back and at least 200 euro in compensation for the time spent on this piece of full and utter rubbish.
Great Film And Even Better With A Shot Of Tequila!
Cheetah-612 June 2004
Like one of Bob's epic songs, full of ambiguities, mystery, mind twisting meanings, implications and innuendos and then again maybe nothing real at all. Like a film of Desolation row, or Brownsville Girl this film conjures up all kinds of thought provoking images that don't lead anywhere specific but fascinate with what seems to be just below the surface. Whether or not it was the idea to make a film with as much intrigue about implied ideas and meanings without really being specific like what Bob Dylan so often does in his best songwriting; that's what has been accomplished here with far reaching success. This by far is the best Dylan on film that I have ever encountered and so refreshing to finally see Bob paint a masterpiece on film! This film also had me laughing at times more than any film I've seen in a long time. There are some truly hilarious scenes.
'Sometimes I think that new Dylan material should first be released underground to his most ardent fans. Because it's only them -- only the ones with haunted eyes and motorcycle minds, the electric men and the silver lightning girls -- who have the emotional vocabulary and derelict vision to faithfully interpret his material.'
'Bob Dylan has always articulated an alternative reality. To those who can relate to it, his songs sting and heal, lift and reveal.'
If Dylan's songs speak to you and get inside your psyche, see this movie, it will too! 10/10
'Sometimes I think that new Dylan material should first be released underground to his most ardent fans. Because it's only them -- only the ones with haunted eyes and motorcycle minds, the electric men and the silver lightning girls -- who have the emotional vocabulary and derelict vision to faithfully interpret his material.'
'Bob Dylan has always articulated an alternative reality. To those who can relate to it, his songs sting and heal, lift and reveal.'
If Dylan's songs speak to you and get inside your psyche, see this movie, it will too! 10/10
If it weren't for the script...
ewwallace16 December 2003
Great idea. Amazing character-acting cast. A living legend. Thought-provoking moments. Bittersweet humor.
Miserable script.
This movie was rather a disappointment, even to the director and producers (from what I hear from a friend of an acquaintance, you know how it goes). But I can't pinpoint exactly where it falls apart--is it the script or the editing?
The gist: Think of an episode of "Dawson's Creek", but with all people over 40 years old. Now replace their plots and subplots about love with those of war, and make all the dialog strictly philosophical and rarely related to the previous comment or scene. Stitch it all together with a few suprises, a few givens, a bit of great live music, and a disappointing ending... et voila! you have this movie.
Good for hardcore Dylan fans? Maybe, but it's not about him. Not at all.
Good for the "art film" crowd? Again, maybe--I'd certainly fall into this group--but I suppose it depends on how much DoubleThink and drivel you can take in 90 minutes. It was over my limit for sure.
And you know what? After all that, I'll probably see it again if I can find it on video rental. Maybe another viewing would help find the thread of connection, or at least appreciate some of the more subtle humor (if there is any). Maybe not.
Miserable script.
This movie was rather a disappointment, even to the director and producers (from what I hear from a friend of an acquaintance, you know how it goes). But I can't pinpoint exactly where it falls apart--is it the script or the editing?
The gist: Think of an episode of "Dawson's Creek", but with all people over 40 years old. Now replace their plots and subplots about love with those of war, and make all the dialog strictly philosophical and rarely related to the previous comment or scene. Stitch it all together with a few suprises, a few givens, a bit of great live music, and a disappointing ending... et voila! you have this movie.
Good for hardcore Dylan fans? Maybe, but it's not about him. Not at all.
Good for the "art film" crowd? Again, maybe--I'd certainly fall into this group--but I suppose it depends on how much DoubleThink and drivel you can take in 90 minutes. It was over my limit for sure.
And you know what? After all that, I'll probably see it again if I can find it on video rental. Maybe another viewing would help find the thread of connection, or at least appreciate some of the more subtle humor (if there is any). Maybe not.
Tedious drudgery
larson.7227 October 2003
I saw this movie at a special sneak preview hosted by Larry Charles himself.
It is basically a self-indulgent Bob-Dylan-worship wet-dream put to film. It is tedious, pretentious, pseudo-intellectual drudgery, and the only reason I didn't walk out was because the director was sitting about 10 rows behind me. It was almost awe-inspiring in it's awfulness - kind of like a trainwreck.
It is basically a self-indulgent Bob-Dylan-worship wet-dream put to film. It is tedious, pretentious, pseudo-intellectual drudgery, and the only reason I didn't walk out was because the director was sitting about 10 rows behind me. It was almost awe-inspiring in it's awfulness - kind of like a trainwreck.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
