Rating: 
Summary: A Bullseye view of today's political situation
Review: This look at the inside workings of the "rich and powerful" holds up marvelously over time. The innocence of Chance is amazing when viewed against the backdrop of what people expect.It's not what you are, but rather what everyone thinks you are. An almost chilling fairytale of what happens and what may happen. A thinking person's film and a classic. Sellers low key performance contrasts with his usual frantic style and this is easily his best work. MacLaine is great. A+++ rating.
Rating:
Summary: Strong roots.
Review: Probably one of the two best films Peter Sellers ever appeared in, and also Sellers' finest role, this is the tale of an 'idiot sauvant' who, through a mixture of a luck and the gullibility of others, manages to get ahead in the world. Other films have used the idea since - 'Forrest Gump' is the most obvious, but there are bits of it in 'Rain Man', 'Bulworth' and, oddly, 'The Truman Show' (in that the latter was a 'serious comedy'). The comedic heritage of Sellers tends to overshadow the rest of the film, and the critics have generally either ignored it, or puzzled as to why it wasn't funnier. Like 'Network', it makes even more sense today - witness, as someone else here notes, the rise of George Bush - and it's very much a 70s film, in that it has a measured pace, doesn't have a CGI lizard at any point, and features precisely no action. Chance is iconic and ironic, heroic and alarming at the same time, and the film has an abivalent message. Should we celebrate instinct over reason, or challenge our supposed betters with more vigour? It's impossible not to like Chance (there's a bit of him in all of us), and the thought that he might be a more effective leader of men than a career politician is both depressing and amusing, but is he something to be embraced or guarded against? The final scene is almost as ambivalent as that of 'American Psycho' - is Chance merely lucky, or an allegory, or something else? If he is an allegory, does this mean that religion, politics, the things we are told to take seriously in school, are all based on the ravings of fools?
Rating:
Summary: More than subtle allegory of George W. Bush
Review: With amazing foresight, Peter Sellers captures the essence of President-elect George W. Bush's rise to ascendency through the Texas governership to the Presidency. The potrayal of the simple-minded but likeable Chauncy Gardner reminds us that being at the right place at the right time, backed by gobs of oil money, can result in the snookering of an entire nation.
Rating:
Summary: Still Here.
Review: Not only does "Being There" stand the test of time, but it's much better than I remembered. From the perspective of the postmodern image culture of the 80s and 90s, the reduction of political conventions to TV info-mercials, and the elevation of "new-age" bromides to visionary wisdom, "Being There" seems more fresh and to the point than ever. Moreover, the film-making technique--with it use of visual and aural space (the constant ticking of clocks counterpointing Chauncey's "natural" relation to time)--is far superior to today's films with their over-reliance on special effects, unremitting close-ups (for the video aftermarket), and mindless editing. Finally, Chauncey Gardiner is not merely a device for political satire. He is, in many respects, a genuine hero. He confronts mortality, looks death in the face without reliance on sentiment, cosmetics, or baby boomer cliches comparing life's unpredictabilities to a box of chocolates. This is not escapist therapy; it's a provocative, thoughtful, even philosophical film for our times.
Rating:
Summary: Notice the subtleties for a change...
Review: I have always loved Peter Sellers and Shirley MacLaine anyway, but after FINALLY viewing this movie, I bought it. Reasons? I get tired of seeing constant action movies, Hollywood at its worst. Not all of life is filled with beautiful woman, men and children, living in the stereotypical American huge house in the northern subs of Chicago. We don't all want to see a groovy, clean, happy, perfect ending. Like many foreign films that bring real-life to the movie goer, Being There, gave us real life. It shows how Americans, among others of course in the Western World, beleive so much crap on TV, and buy it willingly. Chance's world was all TV, but his simplicity is probably his saving grace. Even through watching years of bad television, he doesn't learn violence, hatred or prejudice: he learns nothing. This is a subtle movie, so don't look for action and blood and guts and a clear-cut happy ending. Life doesnt always have one, and it certainly didn't for Peter Sellers either. Just enjoy it for its reality and its simplicity. The scene where Chance is in his room, watching TV and Shirley is masturbating while holding his leg is flawless. I watched his eyes the whole time and he didnt flicker any interest whatsoever. The fact that a man could be that disinterested while an attractive, willing woman is all over him really breaks me up. Poor Chance...I think he's the perfect man!
Rating: 
Summary: The Ending Makes the Film
Review: This film did not make sense to me until the jaw-dropping ending (a complete surprise in an otherwise tepid film). I am always mystified that some people do not seem to grasp the significance of the final scene. I won't divulge it, and there are spoilers elsewhere in these reviews, so I'll just say that if you liked Forrest Gump, watch this movie and decide for yourself. In my opinion the ending explains the entire film, and had I not watched the film thru the end I would have come away dissatisfied, as the rest of the film is not enough. Some reviewers have said that the point of the film is that a simple life is better. I say that the point of the film is that we all "know too much." As Yoda says, "You must unlearn what you have learned."
Rating:
Summary: In the garden, growth has its season.
Review: This is my favorite movie of all time. And I don't particularly like Peter Sellers! It's a slow starter. First time I saw it, I remember being somewhat puzzled by the opening, where Chance is revealed as a very retarded middle-aged man, trained as a gardener, who apparantly has reached his full--and extremely limited--potential. He loses his livelihood and his sheltered place to live when "the old man"--his mysterious benefactor--dies, and the lawyers in charge of the estate evict him. My first chuckle came soon after, when he tried using his TV remote on a mugger, trying to change the experience into something more pleasant; it wasn't until this point in the film that things began to make sense to me. Throughout the rest of the movie, scene after scene shows 'Chauncy Gardener' as a complete misfit--and highlights how we human beings, in all our frailty, create ourselves and our world through what we decide to believe. When Chancy speaks, his words are mysterious because they are short and puzzling--when those around him try to make sense of them, they take what he says as metaphors, and read wildly profound meanings in his words. (This leads to Jerzy Kosinski's purpose for writing the novel, to highlight the foolish way people blindly swallow whatever tripe the media--and our politicians--serve up. IMO director Hal Ashby caught Jerzy's intention with this movie even better than the book did.) At the same time that people read wisdom into his simple words, Chauncy is fully present and honest in the moment, and the other characters--to whom this is foreign--treasure that, even while they completely miss that Chance is totally clueless as to what's really going on (with one notable exception). The irony is that those people closest to Chauncy are led by the meanings they insert to personal growth and transformation--even, in a performance that won Melvyn Douglas a well-deserved Oscar, acceptance of approaching death, as just another season in the eternal cycle of life. Other reviews I've read on Amazon villify the walking-on-water scene, at the end of the movie; I believe they completely miss the point. Chance has, by chance, walked out on a stone quay in the lake, and doesn't even know that he should be drowning. He slowly bends over, inserting his umbrella into the water, and looks at it with some puzzlement; he is once again demonstrating that his total innocence is protected--and he gives the audience the experience that the characters in the movie have, namely, to read into this enigma of a film whatever meaning they choose to see.
Rating:
Summary: Be open minded
Review: The previous review of the film "Being There" doesn't surprise me. Some people just don't want to be open to lifes many possibilities. This is an excellent film but it is more importantly a profound film. Kazinski's book and screenplay are way ahead of there time. I encourage you to watch this film with out any preconceived ideas or beliefs and I trust you'll be moved in some way. Sellers' character is unique, original and truly memorable. It is also one of Hal Ashby's greatest achievements.
Rating: 
Summary: A film that wants to be something it's not
Review: There are 2 types of reviews for this film- the ones written by people who think Peter Sellers is a comedic genius and can do no wrong, and the ones written by people like me who, while respecting Sellers' talents, can see through the cloudy lenses of adulation enough to notice when a film isn't all that good. This is a film full of "almosts": it's almost touching, almost funny, almost deep, almost satirical. Sellers' performance is almost great, though the monotony of the character he plays prevents it from becoming one of his greatest roles. It's hard to feel much for a character whose range of emotion ranges from glazed-over and preoccupied with the television to almost-not-glazed-over-and-preoccupied-with-the-television. While some reviewers rave about the "subtleties" of Sellers' performance, I found it quite dull and uninspiring. A few words of heresy here: ANY actor with a grain of talent and charisma could've effectively worked this role. This is in contrast to Sellers' absolutely brilliant performances in "Dr. Strangelove", which only he could pull off. The pace of the film is nothing short of ponderous, and the feel of the film is uncomfortably dated. There are scenes and characters that could've been left on the cutting room floor, such as David Clennon's entire performance after his first scene. The later scenes with his character are there only to provide a kind of false tension that Chance's cover might be blown. Why? And what good is it for the audience to know that the president is suffering from erectile dysfunction? Those scenes weren't even amusing. There are a few bright spots, however. I couldn't help but like Melvyn Douglas' character, who elicited more emotional response from me than Sellers. Shirley MacLaine's performance was a welcome diversion, and her scenes with Chance are hilarious AND effective in developing her character beyond the relatively flat "cardboard cutouts" (as another reviewer put it) that populate the rest of the film. (spoiler) A few words about the ending: not good. I didn't take this as some parallel to Christ. I took it as some kind of statement of Chance's purity, of his innocent view of the world, on and on, and it still didn't work. It was unneccessary and if you can find the story about how it came about, you'll agree with me that it's arbitrary. Bad bad bad. I didn't want to believe he was walking on water so bad, I convinced myself for a few seconds he was walking on ice. I was waiting for him to fall through and die, which would have been a better ending to this film. So, if you like Peter Sellers and have seen all of his other films, maybe you'll like this one. Maybe you'll like it enough to buy it instead of rent it (I suggest you rent it first). There is a reason many people haven't heard of this film, that it doesn't appear on many (if any) "greatest films" lists: it's because it's not that good. (Some trivia: David Clennon and Richard Dysart later appeared in John Carpenter's remake of "The Thing")
Rating:
Summary: The 'Idiot Savant' Comedy at it's Highest Level!
Review: One of the smartest, wittiest and most quietly charming comedies of all time. Peter Sellers gives the performance of a lifetime as Chance the gardener, a low-key performance that is essential to the film's purpose, and Sellers doesn't fumble for a second. Also with an excellent supporting cast, Shirley MacLaine and Jack Warden are excellent but Melvyn Douglas is the one who delivers an excellent performance as the millionaire who takes Chance in and presents him to the most powerful people in the country. The film starts out as Chance's employer dies, the film insinuates but never really affirms that he might be his father, it also tries to insinuate that he might be God, by making him walk on water near the end. Then he meets Shirley MacLaine by chance and his bumbling gardening ignorance is misinterpreted as quiet wisdom and he is soon influencing the most powerful people in the country, to the point where he is considered to be a presidential candidate. The plot itself is a satire on the modern media and the effect of constant bombardment of television and radio. A unique comedy, that is treasured because of it's one-of-a-kind plot, calculated performances and low-key tone of comedy that has it's hilarious moments of humor and it's quiet moments of cleverness. From a scale of 1-10 I give this film a 9!
| 
