Rating: 
Summary: Acceptable DVD of a classic film.
Review: "Faces" carries the dubious distinction of being considered the first "breakthrough" independent American feature. "Faces" is a John Cassavetes film. It is also categorically one of the two or three greatest masterpieces of American cinema. (This is neither just a personal opinion, nor an exaggeration. This film is essential.) What makes this film so special will be lost on many domestic viewers, unfortunately, who simply aren't prepared for the experience. Nearly everything about the film is subversive of conventional Hollywood filmmaking techniques, and this is frustrating for people who aren't ready for it. For example, the film never "tells" you anything about the characters: you have to patiently observe them throughout the film, just as if they were real other people in the room. Furthermore, in typical Cassavetes' style, the characters' behavior is extreme, which can be unsettling. Finally, the film is pretty grim. However, if you're ready for a new experience, and can approach the viewing experience with an open and tolerant mind, this film will BLOW YOU AWAY. The DVD is nothing special; I'm just grateful to have the film. The transfer isn't particularly sharp, and was made off an inglorious print. Framing -- full frame -- seems fine; if I remember correctly, the original (16mm) is not widescreen, so nothing should be lost. (The odd cropping that appears throughout the film is intentional.) Highest recommendation.
Rating: 
Summary: MASKS
Review: Faces. The ones we put on for loved ones, for business associates, for friends, to impress, to hide ourselves behind, the ugly ones, maybe the real ones. John Cassavetes' films are personal explorations. They don't ignore conventions of film or theater but instead refuse to adhere to them. The actors in Faces are exploring their characters from the inside out using improvised type methods (but writer/director Cassavetes created and adhered to real scripts prior to filming). There's a rawness and vitality to the film that had almost never been captured on film before. At times the actors are trying too hard to dance on the edge of what an audience would be able to watch and accept. They are being characters, not presenting them to us, and they are not trying to be likeable or clever. At times, the film sets up what is supposed to be an authentic and 'real' moment and then insists on selling it so hard as a real moment it becomes difficult and almost embarassing to watch because it's missed it mark. The truly awful Bennett Cerf style riddles and jokes husband (John Marley) tells his wife and then cackles on and on about as if they are truly funny is a truly annoying scene to watch. Were they meant to comment on how phony attempting to find and film a real moment truly is? There's the long first scene of the film where one of the actors doesn't quite have the skill to shift tones convincingly. The idea of that is a great one though. All of the ideas which challenge what a film and acting is are good ones. They don't always work, but through it the culture of American life is examined in a raw, honest way. Here it's the marriage of an upper middle class couple which is under examination. The roles of men and women. The meaning perhaps of love, communication, and marriage. Faces is a raw experimental film where actors are allowed to be both natural and ...well method actors. Some moments work so well, you wonder why these heights aren't regularly strived for... but then some moments don't work at all and you realize, this is film-making without a net. It's risky, it's not pretty, and it's messy - - For the performers particularly. It's a masterpiece, though like many of J.C.'s film difficult to watch. You might be annoyed, bored, bothered, and/or disgusted by the film. At the end you might not quite understand what it all was about. But, you'll remember it. Christopher J. Jarmick Author of The Glass Cocoon with Serena F. Holder Available February 2001.
Rating:
Summary: MASKS
Review: Faces. The ones we put on for loved ones, for business associates, for friends, to impress, to hide ourselves behind, the ugly ones, maybe the real ones. John Cassavetes' films are personal explorations. They don't ignore conventions of film or theater but instead refuse to adhere to them. The actors in Faces are exploring their characters from the inside out using improvised type methods (but writer/director Cassavetes created and adhered to real scripts prior to filming). There's a rawness and vitality to the film that had almost never been captured on film before. At times the actors are trying too hard to dance on the edge of what an audience would be able to watch and accept. They are being characters, not presenting them to us, and they are not trying to be likeable or clever. At times, the film sets up what is supposed to be an authentic and 'real' moment and then insists on selling it so hard as a real moment it becomes difficult and almost embarassing to watch because it's missed it mark. The truly awful Bennett Cerf style riddles and jokes husband (John Marley) tells his wife and then cackles on and on about as if they are truly funny is a truly annoying scene to watch. Were they meant to comment on how phony attempting to find and film a real moment truly is? There's the long first scene of the film where one of the actors doesn't quite have the skill to shift tones convincingly. The idea of that is a great one though. All of the ideas which challenge what a film and acting is are good ones. They don't always work, but through it the culture of American life is examined in a raw, honest way. Here it's the marriage of an upper middle class couple which is under examination. The roles of men and women. The meaning perhaps of love, communication, and marriage. Faces is a raw experimental film where actors are allowed to be both natural and ...well method actors. Some moments work so well, you wonder why these heights aren't regularly strived for... but then some moments don't work at all and you realize, this is film-making without a net. It's risky, it's not pretty, and it's messy - - For the performers particularly. It's a masterpiece, though like many of J.C.'s film difficult to watch. You might be annoyed, bored, bothered, and/or disgusted by the film. At the end you might not quite understand what it all was about. But, you'll remember it. Christopher J. Jarmick Author of The Glass Cocoon with Serena F. Holder Available February 2001.
Rating:
Summary: Behind-the-scenes info for Cass buffs
Review: For a fascinating behind-the-scenes info about Faces and a list of books about Cassavetes' work, go to Ray Carney's website dedicated to John Cassavetes (found through any search engine).
Rating:
Summary: New Forms of Experience
Review: I am the author of Cassavetes on Cassavetes... and of the pack-in essay that is included in this DVD, and I want to agree with Martin Doudoroff's review that is somewhere below mine. This film is one of the supreme masterworks of all of American cinema. It is absolutely essential. Yes, it is "difficult." Yes, it is "slow." But those standards are for enterainment. Cassavetes wants to take us out of our ordinary ways of viewing. He wants to deny us the escapism of "entertainment." That's the point. If you have trouble with this film--good! If you find it infuriating--good! If you find it not entertaining--good! It wants to get under your skin. It wants to shake you up. It is a deep exploration of manhood in America, of the power games that men play with women, and of the other kinds of games women victimize themselves with. Deeper than Citizen Kane, more abrasive than Magnolia or American Beauty, Faces turns the camera on US. It is not about someone else. It does want to annoy you. And if you allow it to, without giving up or shutting your mind to it, it will profoundly enlighten you. I can't say more in the space available. Maybe the Cassavetes on Cassavetes book or my web site devoted to Cassavetes can throw more light on the subject. But trust me, this film can change your life. It is one of the greatest works of art in all of film. And the resistance it meets with is proof of that.
Rating:
Summary: a favorite American film...
Review: I first saw FACES around the time I saw SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE on videotape. Both caused explosions in my mind. "Embarrassingly good" is the phrase I might use to describe both experiences. The behavior in FACES is classically American, modern-style. It's the essence of much American "partying" psychology, right before your eyes. A quasi-rancid mix of alternating comedy and infighting that has your head spinning: and only the most sheltered in the US have not experienced that sensation in American social and party life. The sense of not really knowing whether people are really present to have fun or have a fight is universal when certain immature American types, young or old, get together. In Cassevettes' FACES, the shock of recognition is artfully created in the viewer, to great effect. For all but the most inexperienced and naive, or the most experienced and jaded, the overall result is quite stunning. This isn't simply disturbing or "disgusting": it is just that it distills an essence. Truly interested in getting anything of value out of real film? Then it may behoove you, to find it important to learn how to watch and get something out of films like this. I would avoid terms like "technically ragged " to describe Cassevettes work. Improvisational describes it best, even the film work (overexposed or otherwise.) And I would rank FACES with DOUBLE INDEMNITY and GASLIGHT as some of the best American psychology there is on film.
Rating:
Summary: Painful to watch
Review: I saw this excellent film at the filmclub today. And it was painful. It is raw, you can really feel all the tension in the chracters personalities, the empitness in their lives, their longing for love and acceptance. You see all their petty fights for power over each other and feel sadddend.
Add to this the way in which is done, with the camerawork and editing and it becomes a powerful mix which is hard to escape.
Brilliant acting as well.
Most certainley not for everyone but a must for anyone interested in films.
Rating: 
Summary: Well, it's a good idea for a movie...
Review: I wanted to like John Cassavetes, I really did. I love the idea of total disregard for the system, complete focus on the actors (sloppy technicalities be damned), & being as intimate & realistic as possible. However, this requires realistic acting and likable characters. The acting, especially in the opening drinking scene, is HORRIBLE. No one acts like this when they're drunk; it's way too overdone, even for theater it would be overdone, & it's embarrassing to watch. These characters just talk & talk, going in circles: everybody's happy, then things get tense, then somebody tries to make a joke & everybody's happy again but not as happy as before. It's painfully transparent in every scene what Cassavetes is trying to say & where he's going, but it takes FOREVER to get there. I clocked the drinking scene at seventeen minutes. Even a well-written scene in a movie will get old at seventeen minutes, and this is not a well-written scene, it is seventeen minutes of bad acting and unknowable, unlikable characters talking in circles. "But people talk in circles in real life." I know people talk in circles in real life, but certain things in real life are just boring on the screen. And the laughing...the actors realized that people laugh a lot in conversation, so they laugh...a lot. I don't think I've ever seen a movie with so much laughing in it. This might have turned the movie into something very warm & personal, but these people laugh at the stupidest things -- nothing they laugh at is ever funny. This makes all the laughter seem forced, it makes the actors look bad, & it makes the characters look stupid. I'm sure there was a point in here about adultery and husband & wife relations, but it was lost on me in a flurry of bad acting & scenes that refused to end. I do appreciate what Cassavetes was trying to do & his influence on cinema. If it weren't for him, there would be none of the intimate, cut-to-the-bone scenes in 'Mean Streets' and 'Raging Bull.' But though I can appreciate it, I still can't bear to watch it.
Rating:
Summary: Well, it's a good idea for a movie...
Review: I wanted to like John Cassavetes, I really did. I love the idea of total disregard for the system, complete focus on the actors (sloppy technicalities be damned), & being as intimate & realistic as possible. However, this requires realistic acting and likable characters. The acting, especially in the opening drinking scene, is HORRIBLE. No one acts like this when they're drunk; it's way too overdone, even for theater it would be overdone, & it's embarrassing to watch. These characters just talk & talk, going in circles: everybody's happy, then things get tense, then somebody tries to make a joke & everybody's happy again but not as happy as before. It's painfully transparent in every scene what Cassavetes is trying to say & where he's going, but it takes FOREVER to get there. I clocked the drinking scene at seventeen minutes. Even a well-written scene in a movie will get old at seventeen minutes, and this is not a well-written scene, it is seventeen minutes of bad acting and unknowable, unlikable characters talking in circles. "But people talk in circles in real life." I know people talk in circles in real life, but certain things in real life are just boring on the screen. And the laughing...the actors realized that people laugh a lot in conversation, so they laugh...a lot. I don't think I've ever seen a movie with so much laughing in it. This might have turned the movie into something very warm & personal, but these people laugh at the stupidest things -- nothing they laugh at is ever funny. This makes all the laughter seem forced, it makes the actors look bad, & it makes the characters look stupid. I'm sure there was a point in here about adultery and husband & wife relations, but it was lost on me in a flurry of bad acting & scenes that refused to end. I do appreciate what Cassavetes was trying to do & his influence on cinema. If it weren't for him, there would be none of the intimate, cut-to-the-bone scenes in 'Mean Streets' and 'Raging Bull.' But though I can appreciate it, I still can't bear to watch it.
Rating:
Summary: All the Lonely People
Review: I've never seen a movie quite like this in my life! It's technically raw, the sound's bad and half the time I had no idea what was going on, but it builds to a brilliant portrait of four lonely lives. The bad jokes and laughter that eat up so much film time connect loose, rambunctious scenes that defy strict narrative logic--after a while it feels like you're watching this movie from the inside, right in the thick of the cigarettes and booze. As usual, Cassavetes shoots the '60s from unexpected angles: his focus is on the middle-aged middle managers and their fading suburban wives, stuck on the wrong side of the Sexual Revolution but still desperate to feel young and fulfilled. The movie doesn't make fun of them but brings you into their world, where disappointment, age and the pressures of conformity are finally getting the best of their vitality. Imagine "The Graduate" told from Mrs. Robinson's point of view. The powerful last scene ends in silence after a suicide attempt--no laughs, no routines. The death of a marriage or a new beginning? Cassavetes rarely matched this level of intensity. "Faces" is one of his very best.
| 
