Storytelling

Rating:
Summary: Look Again
Review: If you strongly dislike this movie, I suggest reading Crowley's scathing early reviews of Faulkner; then read Crowley's later praise of the same works. Initially, Crowley was appalled by what he projected as Faulkner's baseness. Eventually he came to apprehend Faulkner's genius to see, describe, and even love 'man.' For me, the film is upsetting because the gaze is unbroken and the subjects are living/struggling in the world. Like Faulkner, Solondz is looking at his time. His view point is not ridiculing (that view is delt with in young pill to the right of the prof).

Rating:
Summary: This Aint Reality, Idiots.
Review: This film wasnt made to show all of you how a "real" university fiction writing class is, or how "real" a Jewish suburban family is. This film is less real than Sponge Bob Squarepants. It travels the same lines as Apocalypse Now, in that it encapsulates the graphic possiblities, and tragic surrealities of life and turns the amps up to ten. The situations in this film are extreme to further illustrate his undelying themes of non-hero's and how tragic hope can be. The characters fluctuate between being stupid, honest, demonic, blatent, obvious, and dangerous. He also creates points of focus in the film that are meant to lead our thoughts through his maze. We identify with the Cerebral Palsy kid, then Selma Blair, but then we see how their bad choices land them in scenarios that are grotesque. We suddenly stop identifying with them. Most of the characters are complex, except for obvious villians, like John Goodman, and the cold, callous, indiferent masochist 'teacher'. The boy in 'non fiction' is a good example of the multifaceted nature of Solondz's characters. We hate him, but why? He was raised in an indifferent family that doesnt prize humanity or kindness. He has his 'maid' fired because she wouldnt clean his juice up. He has no sense of humanity or compassion. Why wouldnt he? His family, whom he loves, has not shown compassion, or taught him about work or poverty. He is clueless. Watch this film closely. It is not a pop culture romp. And if you are looking for Napoleon Dynamite, dont look here.

Rating:
Summary: FICTION SUCKED
Review: I would be giving this 5 stars but for some reason Todd Solodnz felt it necessary to throw in some weak side thing about some girl who has a retard boyfriend and gets raped by a big black guy. Non-fiction however was incredible (especially the little kid) When you watch this movie skip right past the fiction part.

Rating:
Summary: The deeply uncomfortable and FUGLY truth...
Review: ...is what Solondz seems to excel in capturing in his movies, and if you have the stomach to sit through it, it's hard not to admire the man's sheer artistic ballsiness as well as his virtuosity.

Many of us come to a movie expecting to find clear distinctions between "good" and "bad" characters whom we are able to peg within the first five minutes, to be manipulated and cliched into identifying with the "good" characters so that we really care about the outcome of the predictable clash between them and the "bad" characters, as if the Happy Uplifting Life-Lessons-Learned ending was ever in doubt for even a nanosecond. That is, after all, what Hollywood spoonfeeds us 90% of the time---not only the cheesey action blockbusters but also the alleged "dramas" and "comedies" too...it's all been focus-grouped to death before the final cut. Make that focused-grouped to death before the contract to produce the film is even signed.

So it is no wonder that many people have a problem with a movie like this. It's basically one short, about a creative writing class, its freaky and mediocre students, its freaky and sadistic teacher who may or may not be another mediocre writer. As a veteran of many collegiate creative writing classes, I can attest that there are quite a few grains of truth here.

The longer second film is about a typically dysfunctional upper-middle class suburbian family headed by the venerable John Goodman, complete with exploited Latin American maid. Again, just like the vision of suburbia in his earlier film "Happiness," this one definitely rang more than its fair share of bells.

There really are no "good" characters---everyone is dysfunctional in their own ways, some more grotesquely than others. That's one of the most beautifully refreshing things about Solondz's work: he never cops out and inserts some easy-to-root-for lollipop characters but instead challenges us to work hard to infer some redeeming qualities in all of them, and makes us acutely aware of the difficulty of that work.

Yes Solondz's is a brutally dark and merciless vision of life and people in general, but I'd argue that it is a largely accurate one...if we are willing to strip away our comforting habitual delusions/cliches and see the spades for the spades that they all are. The only really obvious flight of fancy here is the Latin maid's revenge at the end, which I gather is more of a fantasy sequence than anything else, or perhaps prophetic and allegorical.

And Solondz never fails to infuse his films with plenty of jet-black humor, spontaneity and originality. You never feel as if he's beating you over the head with The Message (calling Steven Spielberg and Spike Lee!), or taking the easy way out, or copping out and dumbing things down for easier consumption by a wider audience.

In light of the films that are usually made, "Storytelling" (along with his other film, "Happiness") is nothing short of miraculous. Hats off to Solondz for refusing to take prisoners.

Rating:
Summary: title of review
Review: I really don't think this movie had any purpose whatsoever other than to just be weird. Which is fine really, but if people are going to be calling this artistic genius, I'm going to have to start backlashing. An inclination to make something bizarre and surreal isn't really that impressive, although I guess getting a cinematic release for a film like this is an achievement. I just don't think I ever felt like I understood who was supposed to be the good guy or bad guy in most of the situations. I guess that's reality though, things aren't usually black and white. So if the purpose of the film is to question the validity of depicting things as black and white, good and bad, in movies and novels, then I guess it was successful. That would relate back to the title "Storytelling" too, so it makes sense. Do you really need to make a movie to convey a point that could just as easily be conveyed with a simple paragraph of text though? I guess the situations depicted in the film do give more credence to the point, as it shows how it applies in a variety of realities. That still doesn't explain what the intent is behind the depiction of the handicapped guy, and use of the N word though. I'd assume the writer/director would have to be smart enough to not just throw that in for shock value, but I can't see what other point it has. I think wanting to justify that stuff is what leads people to throwing around pretentious buzz words like "satirical" and "cynical" and thinking that sums up what the movie is about and what makes it good.
This movie is definitely interesting, and is worthwhile as light entertainment fueled by surreal weirdness, but the attempts at heavy drama come off as complete misfires more often than not, and don't tie together into a coherent whole.

Rating:
Summary: The pain--disgusting, dirty pain
Review: I rented this movie knowing nothing about it other than I liked Selma Blair and John Goodman. It was in the comedy section. I don't think I laughed once during this movie.

Film quality was low, there wasn't any soundtrack that I could remember--except maybe the psychedellic sex scene. The acting was fine, but what was the point of this movie? It seemed bent on squeezing in the most akward sex moments. The MOST akward and disturbing. It opens with Slema Blair's rather unclothed upper torso flying--later we see her in what can only really be taken as a rape scene, which is nicely disorted in the fullbody shots by a large orange rectangle (doesn't get rid of the sound or the very on purpose un-p.c. language) and then the psychedellic sex scene--which is implied between two boys, which is also almost another rape.
This movie also features the most evil little boy I have had to witness in a long time, some perversion of the child outwitting the grownups cliche that hollywood is fond of using (aka Home Alone).
I rather wish I could get a refund or take back having ever rented this.

Rating:
Summary: Great stuff
Review: I remember when this film came out. It was soon after 9/11. The towers are in one shot of the film. This film is really funny, especially if you ever took a creative writing class or tried to make a film. The source of the comedy if very uncomfortable humor. It is black humor. The first part is like a litany of intense pain, where you can only laugh or be repulsed. The film lets you off the hook in the second part. It seems much like the recent Sideways movie, which has a shared sense of dark humor. But it is a different time and a movie like Sideways has benefitted from the example of Storytelling. People usually know what they are getting when they see the name Todd Solondz.

Rating:
Summary: "N.F. ME HARD!!!!!
Review: If you like Belle & Sebastian, then you owe it to yourself to watch this. Todd Solondz is a genius. Robert Wisdom gives an incredible "performance", as Selma Blair will attest!

Rating:
Summary: why was this in the Comedy section?
Review: I rented this movie, remembering years ago when i saw and tried to like Welcome to the Dollhouse, and was quite disappointed. Not saying that it is a bad movie at all, If you like the ackwardness of welcome to the dollhouse, then you will fell right at home here, but as i watched another female protaganist get sexually taken advantage of (not that funny really), i remembered how i saw this movie in the comedy section and that was why i picked it up.

The second part of this movie is altogether different, and i guess it did belong in the comedy genre, although it was still more of a Dra-medy. Paul Giamatti is great as the director guy and John Goodman is one of the only redeeming comedy figures in the movie. (just watching him yell is funny to me). But i wasnt really prepared to watch two wholey different movies and i was pretty burned out toward the end. Because it just seemed like i sat through two movies.

Final thoughts.....you probably know what you are geting into if you get this movie, but for people who barely remember his style, its alot more/different than a normal comedy, which i dont think it even is.
Oh ya, and Belle and Sebastian are barely in the soundtrack. They already explained this in thier storytelling cd, but its true, hardly at all.



Rating:
Summary: movie
Review: The first story is this film was very good. The second part was boring and therefore I changed the channel. Leo is a wonderful actor and so is Selma. Hope to see them do another movie together some day.