Rating: 
Summary: It's not as good as Happiness but give it a try!
Review: Many people did not like this film which is hardly surprising given its subject matter. It is, however, much better than most of the mainstream films that Hollywood produces these days. Spielberg, Lucas or Ron Howard etc. etc. would never be able to make anything even remotely as interesting as this film. Still, it must be said that Storytelling does not reach the same heights as Happiness, but it was never going to be easy to repeat an achievement like that. Overall, though, it is well worth a look.
Rating: 
Summary: Did not thrill me.
Review: At the risk of giving something away, this film is broken up into 2 sections. The first is fairly interesting and has a decent amount of shock-value. The second however, IMHO, was quite boring and I have never been able to finish it without my mind wandering.
Rating:
Summary: franka in this movie
Review: This movie has 4 minutes of Franka Potente (pronounced - Potenta)the german superstar from Run Lola Run, BLOW and Bourne Identity.
Rating: 
Summary: uneven but often powerful film
Review: "Storytelling," a film written and directed by Todd Solondz, is actually made up of a pair of stories combined into a single work. The first, entitled "Fiction," is the shorter and lesser in quality of the two, telling the tale of a waiflike young college student who, tired of relationships that seem to go nowhere, finds herself having a kinky, almost racist sexual encounter with her black writing professor, then using the experience as source material for one of her amateur stories. Selma Blair does a beautiful job in the role of Vi, a quiet, taciturn girl who finds herself drawn to an experience she quickly comes to regret. Even though she is a "willing partner" in what happens to her, she also comes to see the exploitative nature of the event. When she attempts to confront the professor by reading her tale in the writers' workshop session he is hosting, she discovers that few of the other writers are able to see the story for what it is and dismiss it as trite, racist and exploitative fiction. That seems to be the theme of this first episode - that everything becomes fiction once it is committed to paper - but because the episode itself is so short, it somehow feels underdeveloped and incomplete. Despite the excellence performances and the assuredness of the direction, this opening section comes across more as a clever conceit than as a fully developed work in its own right.The second story, which is almost twice as long as the first, creates much more of an impact, due largely to the fact that it gives itself more time for the development of character, milieu and theme. In this tale, entitled, not surprisingly, "Nonfiction," Solondz presents us with a view of an upper middle class suburban family caught in major crisis. The story focuses on young Scooby Livingston, a high school senior so devoid of ambition, drive and motivation, that he is literally drifting through life, indifferent to family, school, peers, anything but his pie-in-the-sky dream of becoming a talk show host like Conan O'Brien (who makes a fun cameo appearance in the film). Scooby's family resides in one of those perfectly manicured suburban residences replete with a maid from Central America whom the family members either ignore or treat with hurtful disdain (the mean-spirited action of the youngest son in this regard provides one of the truly disturbing, haunting moments of the film). Solondz does a beautiful job conveying the quiet desperation that defines so many lives lived behind such suburban facades. Scooby's parents are at a loss to understand why their sterile home environment fails to elicit the responses they think it should from their oldest son. Paul Giamatti plays Toby Oxman, a wannabe documentary filmmaker who decides to make a movie about Scooby's attempts to get into college. Toby is a man whose life has not turned out the way he had imagined it would. Unmarried, living with a roommate, and working as a clerk at a local shoe store, Toby latches onto the Livingston family as his ticket to fame and fortune. By the end of the film, Toby has gotten more than he bargained for as the family weathers some amazing crises and even provides him with the perfect "finale" for his nearly completed work. "Nonfiction" takes a number of surprising turns, not all of which are entirely convincing or credible, but the film is more interesting for its characterizations and milieu than for its plotting. Scooby is representative of many of today's apathetic young people, cut off from both his own emotions and the emotions of those around him. Young Mark Webber captures Scooby's passive, glassy-eyed exterior perfectly. Equally impressive are John Goodman and Julie Haggerty as Scooby's well-meaning but hopelessly ineffective parents, who simply can't understand why their son fails to share any of their basic values. Jonathan Osser, as Scooby's youngest brother, Mikey, is a revelation, a smart kid who seems, on the surface, to be warm and caring, but who can, with cold calculation, destroy another human being without a moment's regret or hesitation. As a director, Solondz creates an atmosphere and a world that is raw, stark and sterile, utterly drained of happiness and joy. In fact, I don't think a single character ever smiles in the course of either of the two stories (with the exception of Scooby and, of course, Conan, in the former's fantasy sequences). These are people sealed off from the possibility of happiness, who are just going through the motions because the only other alternative is death. As such, the film is, in many ways, a disturbing and depressing experience, but one that offers some valuable insights into human nature. You may not want to live in the world Solondz is showing us, but you may want to visit it for a short time to perhaps see how much better your own life is.
Rating: 
Summary: a great movie
Review: i saw it and i had to own it. a great movie perfect perfect, buy it and impress your friends.
Rating:
Summary: Full of itself
Review: I'll keep it short: Pointless. Dull. The first story was shaping up as quite interesting, and then it was over. The second was never interesting. In fact, the best thing in the second story was seeing the stoner from the documentary "American Movie" playing the documentary cameraman! Unfortunately, that was the funniest part of the story.
Rent "Happiness". A MUCH better film.
Rating:
Summary: Inappropriate to exploit Selma Blair
Review: I want to preface this by saying that Solondz is the ONLY director whom I follow and who created my favorite movie of all time, Welcome to the Dollhouse. I am shocked that I am the first person to bring this up, but am I the only one who thought the exploitation of Selma Blair's naked anorexic body was inappropriate? I don't care what happens in the realm of film as long as it exists in that vacuum, but I thought it was pretty ridiculous to encourage Selma Blair The Real Person to be emaciated for that role, since the obvious purpose here was to "shock" (it didn't shock, it annoyed) us by the juxtaposition of her anorexic body next to her professor's ample one. From that behavior right there, it detracts the genuine concern and selflessness that Solondz seems to have in his stories. Don't tell me it's a moot point. The girl is clinically sick, but he does not care, as long as she falls into his "vision." The sex was completely unnecessary and not shocking...Of course, because it was a Solondz film, there were poignant and insightful moments, but the sex and Selma Blair (even her "naive" acting is atrocious) ruin the movie. Another pointless pseudo-shocking thing was the blow-job scene. I love ambiguity, but that scene was not justified or explained in any way. I thought the story of Scooby was touching, but it was just too brief. I also think he sold out with the trendy hipster-friendly Belle & Sebastion soundtrack. Solondz finally stooped to shock value, which he had never done before. Aside from flying semen, he was very classy in his portrayal of Dr. Maplewood in Happiness. As that movie can testify, the most shocking moments indeed are not graphic at all. Slipping Johnny a roofie was highly more effective than let's say simulated sex between them in the living room. I think Solondz insulted our intelligence this time around with Storytelling. By the way, just to prove how pointless and self-defeating putting these sex scenes in the movie are, I tried to download Storytelling the other day and only found a cut and paste video with the Selma blair sex scenes.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent film
Review: I bought this film completely by accident thinking it was an educational piece on how to tell stories. Turns out it was a film called "storytelling." As it turns out, it was an educational piece on how to tell stories. The movie is divided into two completely different and (more or less) unrelated stories. This is the only thing that kept me from giving it 5 stars, and in most cases, this faux pas (in my humble opinion) kills a film. But this guy pulls it off! This film uses characterful exaggerations to make its point throughout. The characters' emotional development in both stories is meaningful and their relationships are complex. This is particularly true of the second story, which takes its time and is at once candid and ridiculous. If you are on the fence about this movie, I think the one thing I can say that might change your mind about checking it out would have to be that it faces the truth and faces American issues as they are. Oh, and John Goodman is the man.
Rating:
Summary: subtly subversive
Review: Although so many customers have reviewed this film, I just had to comment because it it such an effective and subtle piece of cinema for Todd Solondz. Unlike `Happiness', this film's dark home truths don't kick you squarely in the stomach- they simply slap you sharply across the face, which is in some ways more effective because it seems less like Solondz is just employing cheap tactics to shock. Of course there are shocking elements; but the most shocking are the insulting personal interactions that are taken for granted as `normal', (especially considering Consuella, the househelp.) I would recommend reading the screenplay too, as it reminds you acutely of the awkward screen silences that make the movie so true to life.
Rating: 
Summary: A pointless film.
Review: The acting is good, but it does not help this film from being a complete waste of time. Both stories are about weak, afflicted people inflicting great emotional (and physical) pain on other people. It seems like the exploration into these awful situations are merely for shock value and don't really delve into why these people are so shallow, the only thing that would make you even feel pity for these people. I would not recommend this movie to anyone.
|
