Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Caryl It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

Cristi_Ciopron I have founded this semi—documentary about the Brooklynian way of life from an ordinary man's POV rather amusing and compelling—and very sarcastic and mordant; it's studded with vaguely familiar faces (whose identities are mostly unknown to me, as I am not a frequenter of the culture in cause—the Jarmusch/ Madonna brands …). The movie is, as I suggested, ironic—yet _unconclusively so. It is unassuming, sometimes funny, and Mel Gorham is very sexy. On the other hand, it's not too intense or particularly successful at seizing the hidden life of Brooklyn. It has the intelligent, not really intellectual or particularly inspired look of other similar attempts—like some Mamet outings …. It's not insightful or meaningful—but funny, light, enjoyable. It is also cruel and merciless in exposing empty lives—people to whom the Dodgers' leaving was the most important thing in their lives, etc., insipid, lifeless existences, withered humanity, banal destines soaked in ugliness. This world is wholly alien to me. This Auster intellectuality, like some Mamet mean intellectuality, seems not very far from the W. Allen intellectuality.I guess the film is for the most part ironic; yet if it was meant to convey a certain savor of Brooklyn life, it did not succeed—at least with those ignorant of Brooklyn things. The Dodgers and the Belgian waffles are part of that Americana (what Amis once stated as 'too much trolley-car nostalgia and baseball-mitt Americana, too much ancestor worship, too much piety ') that is particularly unattractive to me. In this sociological sense ,the movie describes an utterly uninteresting world and humanity. These things do not seem to me childish—but, on the contrary, senile and boring. These ingredients are particularly repulsive to me. What strikes is the artificiality and shallowness and inner poverty of these clichés. Some 60 years ago, some Europeans, many French Europeans hinted this might denote a style—and even be a stylish thing. Maybe they meant different realities, or maybe things changed too much.

Sleepensheep Actors can improvise when a script is provided to build from, but this movie started only with characters and then allowed bad actors, and horrible writers, to deliver off the cuff lines. This is the movie actors do when they want to "really experience their craft". Unfortunately, one learns, without writers, these actors have no craft. The movie is most unfortunate because it followed a very nice movie, "Smoke", and came from a very good write, "Auster". Someone, Auster and Wang most off all, should have finished the movie but then recognize it for what it is, a behind the scenes ego-trip for everyone involved, and just included it as an interesting bit on the Smoke DVD.

mockturtle Another underwhelming contribution from Wayne Wang. Why do people mention him in the same breath with other master directors? Even after the execrable `Anywhere But Here' and `Maid in Manhattan'? This tiny tiny film is occasionally amusing, infrequently insightful, and shrill and inane most of the time. Most of the cast appears quite uncomfortable improvising. The real reason to watch the movie is for Jim Jarmusch's short scene, cut into several small slivers. Lou Reed is occasionally interesting but more often aimless; the rest make almost no impression, even Harvey Keitel. It can only suffer more in comparison to its companion piece `Smoke.' Another film where the characters are `colorful' meaning `annoying cartoons,' for further viewing on the subject watch Alan Rudolph's execrable `Trixie.' Jarmusch is the only gem here, everything he says is funny, incisive, or both.Hopefully Paul Auster will write more for the screen. Movies with screenplays, that is. I don't think directing is the way to go, though. This film suggests that an excellent documentary is waiting to be made about the different boroughs of New York City and the intense territoriality shown by the natives.

Mr Pants This is a great little set piece to celebrate the diversity and chaos that is, among many other things, my home. Brooklyn is the main character of this story and despite the film's limited scope (set mostly around a tobacco store near Windsor Terrace), it manages to really get at that feeling that makes Brooklyn the only place I wanna live. All the people here, whether they're bored by Brooklyn or fascinated by it, are connected by the genuinely weird way we manage to live together, despite our very prominent differences.