Rating: 
Summary: A comedic masterpiece finally on DVD
Review: Peter Sellers in perhaps his finest performance. Sellers plays Chance the Gardener (or Chauncy Gardener), a simple man who had never left his home. Chauncy knows only of the outside world from what he has seen on television. As he finally leaves home, his simple-mindedness is mistaken for genius and he is heralded by socialites and political figures. Monologues on gardening are perceived as insightful metaphors on economics and politics. Shirley MacClaine, Melvin Douglas and Jack Warden complete this solid cast. One of the best comedies ever.
Rating:
Summary: One Of The Funniest Movies Of All Time
Review: Being There is Peter Sellers, Shirley MacLaine, and Jack Warden at their best (although Jack was great in ...And Justice For All). Most people think of the great Pink Panther movies when they think of Peter Sellers, but Being There is a different kind of humor. It is not a Monty Python/Airplane/Mel Brooks humor. It is much more subtle and even borders on dark. It is more social commentary. If you liked the Graduate, Bob Roberts, The Gods Must Be Crazy, Harold & Maude, or The Ruling Class then check this out. Then you'll be saying, "I like to watch." in daily conversation too!
Rating: 
Summary: My Take on Being There
Review: Being There (1979) is most definitely unlike any other movie I've seen before. In my personal opinion, it's not a film I'd probably watch again, but the movie itself was very well done. I read the book Being There (written by Jerzy Kosinski) before watching the film version. I think this was very helpful. It could be hard to understand exactly what is going through the mind of Chance with out a little background first. It's understood he likes television, and that he doesn't do anything other than watch t-v and garden. By reading the book, the way it is narrated, it's possible to get a little deeper into his thoughts. The story itself is a concept different from any other movie I've seen. It's a real light-hearted movie. This is a nice change from other movies with a bad guy, and the tension that goes along with that. The doctor, played by Richard Dysart, added a neat spin to the movie. The fact that you had an insider suspicious of Chance's personality added a little suspense to the film. It had you wondering what he would find out, and then what he would do with the information. Both Ben Rand (Melvyn Douglas), and Eve Rand (Shirley MacLaine) have no desire to look into the oddness of Chance. They enjoyed the different spin Chance gave to things, and never tried to change him. The movie added a bit more humor to the story, which is nice. The book is funny too, but it didn't have me laughing out loud. Seeing their expressions right in front of me made it easier to catch the humor. Another positive thing that couldn't be done in the book alone is totally explaining the characters. Yes, the book did a good job of describing them, and I was close in my expectations. Still, in the first couple of minutes I noticed Chance's walk, like a grown child. Also, his look. I expected him to be a bit younger, which was obviously the wrong interpretation to watch they had in mind. The scene with the man who called for the limo for Chance was great. As the man stands with the car door opened, Chance thanked him for the car, even though he had no intentions of getting in. This was a good way to get into Chance's head, without any narration. Peter Sellers did a marvelous job in the role of Chance. Boy, was this a hard role to play. Sellers had to speak in a monotone voice throughout the movie. He had to show no expression of understanding to what others were saying. Chance would have no idea of what anyone was saying, and yet was able to answer every question they threw at him. He did this responding with the only thing he knew...gardening. He'd be so sure of himself, that his little knowledge made him seem like a man of wisdom. Thinking back to some other scenes, there was some crazy stuff going on. For example, the scene where Chance was going to "watch" upstairs with the gay men. Also, the scene where he told Eve he liked to "watch". Through these and more, Sellers had to keep a straight face and play innocent. Very well done.
Rating:
Summary: Not being all there is for the better
Review: The film Being There is one of the best films I have seen in a while. It tells the story of a man that is sent out into the real world. He has lived his entire life, up to this point, behind a fence. It tells the adventures he endures as he learns of this new life. I don't know how believable this story is. I find it a bit hard to believe that a man of this stature can meet the president, get on T.V., meet diplomats, and change the lives of people surrounding him. But that is what makes so many stories enjoyable. The thought that this could maybe happen some day. I also believe that we can learn a lot from this story. Chance has the opportunity to make a claim on the estate of the man that he had lived with since he can remember. Many people in this day in age are always so quick to jump at any chance they have to get rich. Chance could have maybe gotten the house, car, and all other property of the old man. But instead he left. He also had the opportunity to make a claim against the Rand's when their limousine hit him. But he did not make any claim against them. Instead of sticking around for a couple of days and having to mess with all the paper work Chance passes on both of these claims and becomes rich and famous his own way. Granted it still is a little hard to believe. One other part that stands out to me is right away when he leaves his old dwellings and runs into a bunch of gang bangers on the street. I think that is great that he doesn't respond like the kids want him to. You know that all they are looking for is a fight and I thought for a moment that chance was going to get beat up. I think it is moments like this through out the movie that really make you think that if everybody walked through life like this that it would be a much better place to live. Chance is at such great peace with himself. One of my other favorite parts is at the end of the story when Dr. Robert asks Chance if he really is a gardener. Chance replies with an innocent yes. The Dr. then replies with Chances usual reply of I understand. It seems to me that the Dr. really understands why Chance is in the position he is in. The Dr. doesn't have the right to or even want to ruin what this man has brought to everyone. I believe that he had even showed the Dr. a little bit about life. I also believe that the Dr. also understands what Chance's thoughts are and the origin of them. He knows that everything that chance comes in contact with he relates to his own life. This movie is a definite pleasure to watch. It has a sort of Forrest Gump type feeling to it. You watch it and it really makes you feel good about life. It seems to inspire you to want to good for not just yourself, but everybody involved.
Rating:
Summary: review of being there
Review: I think this film is a fairly accurate adaptation of the novel by Jerzy Kosinski, but I still enjoyed the book more than the film. This says a lot for Kosinski's writing because I personally do not enjoy reading in itself, and for me to prefer reading a book over watching a movie is monumental. It's not that I didn't like the movie, I just feel that the book flowed smoother and was more entertaining. By reading the book I was allowed to create my own version of the character Chance, and I think I just like the way I pictured him more than the way he was portrayed in the film. Another advantage of the book is the use of Chance's inner thoughts. The reader has so much more insight into Chance's feelings and why he does the things he does. I also didn't like some of the backgrounds they used. I didn't picture Chance's first home in such a poor neighborhood, even though the house was fairly decent. The president was also depicted a little unfairly. The film made it seem that the president didn't really like Chance, where as the book gave the impression that the president really did liked Chance. I did like some of the added elements of the film, though. The scenes from Chance's house to his accident were a nice addition, especially the scene when he gets hit. In stead of just stopping between cars, as he does in the book, Chance is mesmerized by some televisions in a store window that, at the time, he is seen on through a video camera. This is when Eve's driver backs up into him. Television brings up another interesting difference from the book to the film, which is that I feel the film played up television more extensively than the book. In the book we know that everything that Chance has learned, he learned from television and he watches it a lot, but I feel the film extended the part that television plays in the story. Most of the differences in the film were just minor details, which are more than expected in the transition from paper to screen, with the exception of the ending. The book's ending is realistic and gives the reader peaceful closure to the story, where as the film's ending was a little more surreal and left the reader wondering. The book had a supernatural feeling to the end, which did not fit into the feel of the story. Chance was never portrayed as a special human being, but more as someone who runs into things by chance. A piece of the story that seems unrealistic to me is the way things all worked out for Chance, the way everything seemed to be rather coincidental, and that happens to be the basis of the entire story, and it puts a bit of formalism into the plot. Can someone really get away with the things that Chance did? It is really hard to anything with out some form of identification and you can only avoid answering questions for so long. The way this story was written and the elements used in the film make the reader and viewer think after they've left the theater or put the book down, which an excellent quality of any film or book. I would definitely view this film again
Rating:
Summary: Good Movie
Review: I thought that this was a good movie. Peter Sellers did a great job bringning Chance to life. This was a hard part to play and he did a wonderful job doing it. I thought that Eve's part was not played very well at all. Shirly McLaine did not do very good at all. She wasn't at all like the book described her. She wasn't bubbly and didn't act like Jerzy had her in the book. That was one thing that was very dissapointing in this movie. Benjamin Rand's character was played very well. He brought a dying man to life with his portrayl. I thought that the movie moved slower than the book but it did a good job nonetheless. I also thought that the story was done very well and kept true to the book for the most part. One other thing that bugged me though, was the fact that the doctor was saying some of Eve's lines in the movie. She just didn't have as big a part as she should have in the movie. The book was better but the movie was still entertaining. I would recommend it to anyone who wanted to watch a good movie.
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining At Least!
Review: Being there... I think about the title of this wonderful (and I mean that in the most literal way) story written by Jerzy Kozinski and I realize exactly why that title was picked. Being There is a terrific story of Chance the Gardiner who must move out of the estate in which he has lived and worked for the duration of his life because The Old Man, to whom the estate belonged, has died. Because Chance has never been outside the walls of that Manhattan townhouse, and because he has a certain degree of mental debilitation, he knows not how to interact with the world around him, except for what he has learned from his faithful television. Chance immediately is thrust into a world full of people who perceive him for anything other than what he is, whether a financier, a presidential advisor, or a mysterious international figure. Chance (Peter Sellers, Pink Panther movies) happens to "be there" every chance that life offers him, allowing him to become a truly international media figure. Sellers really does sell the audience his portrayal of the main character. Through facial expressions and bewildering looks, the viewer understands that Chauncy Gardiner only understands the life of a garden and the social graces and knowledge that he acquired from his television. When people ask him to contribute to their conversations, he consciously abstains, not knowing the subject. When Gardiner finally understands a question or a point made by another person, he answers the only way he knows how, by talking about the garden. The other main player in the story is Eve Rand a woman, who like every other part of Gardiner's life throughout the story, becomes intricately and closely involved with Chance. Though her character is heavily involved in the plot of the movie, I thought she was relatively undefined and obscure. At times, she seems a "gold-digger," while at others, she is a well-to-do social butterfly with many connections in the political world. I found it rather confusing and insincere. Not much can be said about the making of the film itself. The photography is rather unexciting and the editing is something that one barely notices if at all. However, do not let that detract you from seeing the film. I believe the (for lack of a better word) blandness of the movie contributes to the theme of simplicity. The writing, which can be credited to both Kozinski and Robert C. Jones, who wrote the screenplay, powerfully offsets the simplicity of the filmmaking. The dialogue is witty and fun, while being intelligent. Rather than the simplicity of the main character overwhelming the dialogue, it contributes to the entertainment value of story in a way that can only be experienced through watching the movie (or reading the book, of course.) The film holds fairly true to the book, though there are some differences. Upon reading the book and seeing the movie, I decided that the book was more enjoyable because the reader is able to experience Chance's thoughts whereas the viewer is left to speculate. This makes the story much more full and enjoyable, I think. Overall, I enjoyed the movie, with a few exceptions, and would recommend to anyone to see it. It is thought provoking at times, while being fun and smart.
Rating:
Summary: My favorite movie
Review: When I tell people this is my favorite movie I usually draw a blank stare. Sometimes however, someone will know what I am talking about, and a long conversation about seeing Chauncy's experience as a metaphor for the coming emergence of artificial consciousness will usually follow... the director has an interesting first name...
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding
Review: Perhaps the director's intent was not to be as deep as I found the movie to be. But truely I found it very profound. It took my mind in many directions. I loved it and it's a movie I could watch again and again. The cast was put together perfectly. Surely Peter Sellers is missed by many.
Rating:
Summary: Chauncey Gardener is alive in Canada
Review: I saw this film years ago and think it one of Seller's best performances. The part near the end when they are considering if Gardener should be president was telling. With the 3rd election of Jean Chretien in Canada, this film indeed is prophetic.
|
