hey, i saw trust and thought it was wonderful...i'm curious to get your opinion on something though, did you like henry fool? i'm in a movie group here at hampshire (with jenhowel!) and was thinking about having a "hal hartley night" what would you suggest? thanks...
I enjoyed Henry Fool, but I believe the structure of the film is somewhat flawed, knocking it a slight notch below the films on this list. It starts fantastic, but one too many subplots are followed near the end, causing the film's power to disolve a bit toward the finale. Some classic scenes, however, and definitely worth watching.
If you enjoyed Trust, however (which, oddly enough, I first saw at Hampshire), I highly recommend Amateur and Simple Men.
In this film critic's personal opinion, Hal Hartley's The Unbelievable Truth is the only film he's ever made worth even watching. His movies are slow and too heavy handed.If he could get less full of himself he might make a good movie.
Unbelievable Truth is my least favorite Hal film. It ends well, but the opening is unsure and full of characters too often stretched for a simple laugh.
Hal is pretty much disliked by most American critics (many European critics adore him). I propose this is largely due to his unique, invented aesthetic, which bares very little resemblance to the mainstream aesthetic Hollywood utilizes. Even most independent films adhere to this aesthetic, though they often maintain a tighter focus on character or push the boundaries a bit more than their mainstream competitors.
Hal's films are very slow, and his characters tend to speak in a level voice that lead most critics to assume he is pulling a very dry joke off on the viewer. He does joke quite a bit, but his films are very, very serious examinations of modern issues, including love, God, and money, and while Ebert certainly believes Hartley's films are played for laughs, it is a major mistake to assume Hal's only joking.
His films are, to some degree, aiming for the same effect Spaghetti Westerns aim for, though they certainly use different means. By exaggerating specific elements and by creating a very artificial environment, Hartley is hoping to load his films and his characters with dangerous amounts of emotions that most films simply cannot carry. Like Spaghetti Westerns, this artifice is very visible, and, also like Spaghetti Westerns, for the most part, people either tend to love them or to be bored stiff.
So, all to say, I can completely understand if you do not dig Hartley, but I personally still believe him to be the greatest director working today. He is working on an entirely different level from most filmmakers, and even if one hates his films, surely one can recognize that he is indeed taking risks and reaching for something more than most directors ever dream of.
What one might call heavy-handed, another might call extremely atmospheric. What one might find pretentious, another might find fresh and revelatory.
Hmmm... Haven't seen Magnolia yet, but on the evidence of his other films, I strongly have to disagree. Boogie Nights in particular was an extremely over-rated film, stealing style from other directors (especially Scorsese), but unable to force the different flourishes to meet the various plot points he was shooting. In other words, he is to film what Baez is to folk music - great voice, but often oddly disconnected from the material. Magnolia, of course, might be much better.
Now if you had mentioned Lock, Stock, and 2 Smoking Barrels, on the other hand...
"I know good people can disagree on this issue." ;)
Boogie nights is a masterpiece. Anderson clearly has made a movie about real people and their struggles to sustain any level of normalcy. The porn industry is a unspeakable profession in the general public's eye, yet these people are real and not so bad. They simply work in pornography and are trying to get by. Maybe they chose the wrong profession, but that's really their business and in the movie they get shafted for their occupation. A very griddy look inside the life of a 70's porn star. One of the very best movies in the last 10 or 15 years. MOVIE MAGIC my friend.
I do like Boogie Nights; I just can't seem to pin the medal of 'masterpiece' to its chest. The story and style were both good, if rather familar, but my problem lies in the interaction between these two elements. While both Boogie Nights and Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels employed extremely flashy direction, I felt the style in the former too often distracted from (or even clashed with) the story being told. In Lock, the style melds with the story to an extent that the two elements become impossible to separate.
So, even though it may get me kicked off your respect list ( ;) ), I will humbly place Boogie into the good, not great, column. You, of course, may demand a recount at a later date.
Oh, as a friend, I'd warn you against using the term MOVIE MAGIC. I'm not sure, but I believe the Disney Corporation bought the trademark for that phrase decades ago, and even though they hardly deserve the compliment nowadays, they do love to sue...
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs (who is feeling a bit goofy today and asks for the forgiveness of all in advance...)
lbangs, I feel that it is time that I see a Hal Hartley film, just so I can see what all the fuss is about. Unfortunately, all of these films' plots seem rather risque, and as I am still 10 months away from 17 years old, I doubt that my parents will approve. Has Hartley made any good PG-13 movies? Or if not, I do remember that at one time, I wanted to see "The Unbelievable Truth" for some reason, and my mother said that was OK based on the IMDB's plot summary of that movie. Is "Unbelievable Truth" any good?
The Unbelievable Truth is my least favorite Hartley film, but it still probably worth a viewing. It starts poorly, but by the last thirty minutes or so, it starts to work.
Most Hal Hartley films are rated R for language and pretty much language alone. A few have some moments of stylized violence (hardly graphic); more deal with sexual themes. Amateur is a good example. It sounds incredibly risque, but it isn't. The film has no nudity. There is one scene where a character is viewing a pornographic tape. Noises are heard, and a close-up of an actress' head is on-screen, but no nudity or graphic material. There is, however, some frank discussion of sexuality. Trust and Simple Men, my other two faves, are both very similar in content, Trust in particular having a graphic conversation mentioning many body parts by blunt names, and Simple Men containing a scene where a hurt, betrayed male claims he is going to, er, have sex with the first woman he meets. The conversation is full of profanity, as every bit of almost every Hartley film is (though not nearly as lewd or quite as non-stop as, say, a Kevin Smith film). Henry Fool is more graphic, with a brief sex scene and a few moments of truly unsettling violence. I believe Flirt is his only feature to have a significant scene of nudity.
There is a lot of smoking, and it looks pretty cool, but you're smart enough to know that ain't too bright, right?
I don't know if that helps any or not, and I confess I may have forgotten something, but that's the content I can recall.
Let me know what you and your parents decide. Hartley's films are certainly films for adults, but they are hardly ADULT films, if you know what I mean.
Cool. Have you ever seen the cover for Amateur? The company promoted it, I think, to dumb college boys, and the front art makes the film look like an S&M sex flick. I fear that even if your parents agreed to Amateur, the box would have been a deal-breaker. So all is well that ends well.
Besides, many don't really dig Hartley, so you may not be missing out on anything yet.
I am curious and will be waiting to hear your reactions if you do get to see a Hartley film.
Have you seen the latest Hartley, No Such Thing? I'm a little wary based on the plot (modern day beauty and the beast) and on Sarah Polley (takes herself SO seriously), but nonetheless, I've been planning on renting it for some time now. Since Hartley is one of your favorites, I thought I'd get an opinion before I did.
Okay, I still want your opinion, but I went ahead and rented No Such Thing yesterday. I don't think it's nearly up to Hartley's best, but I was pleasantly surprised. I don't remember the actor's name, but the guy who played the monster was pretty good. I thought Sarah Polley (whose lack of a sense of humor works here) was well-cast, and the Icelandic landscape (is it really Iceland?) is impressive. The media satire was a bit obvious, but Helen Mirren brought something to it anyway.
Anyway, it's a trifle when compared to some of Hartley's other stuff, but it was worth watching if you're a Hartley fan (which I know you are)...
Well, I thought No Such Thing had several interesting elements running around, but I ultimately felt like it crummbled. Nice Lynchian ending, though...
Interesting that Sarah P. bothers so many. I can't recall having a problem with her!
Yes, and I like it very much. It's not on this list only because of its short length (a factor I feel does work against it slightly), but it certainly is one of Hartley's stronger works.
I confirm that Hal Hartley has been endorsed by european movie critics for a while now... especially in France... it has to be noted that Amateur was mostly produced by french funds and that Hal's biggest award to date was Best Screenplay (Henry Fool) at the Cannes Film Festival in 1998... now, the problem is that even though his works are usually cited as referential and exemplary by critics, Flirt was his last movie to receive a fair distribution and showing in movie theaters here in Belgium... therefore I only saw Henry Fool in a "artsy" movie theater where it was shown for one day only and I wonder if I will ever see No Such Thing and The Girl from Monday
Henry Fool received a much wider release in the USA (it actually showed at a major theater here in Tulsa, even if it is the major theater that always has a few screens reserved for artier flicks) than any of Hartley's other films. No Such Thing did not play in my city at all.
I am curious to see how many screens carry Girl From Monday. I have high hopes for the film.
hey, i saw trust and thought it was wonderful...i'm curious to get your opinion on something though, did you like henry fool? i'm in a movie group here at hampshire (with jenhowel!) and was thinking about having a "hal hartley night" what would you suggest? thanks...
ps. i haven't seen henry fool yet...i usually like to show movies i've already seen but don't always have time to check them out beforehand.
Ah, Hampshire... The days of G-3...
I enjoyed Henry Fool, but I believe the structure of the film is somewhat flawed, knocking it a slight notch below the films on this list. It starts fantastic, but one too many subplots are followed near the end, causing the film's power to disolve a bit toward the finale. Some classic scenes, however, and definitely worth watching.
If you enjoyed Trust, however (which, oddly enough, I first saw at Hampshire), I highly recommend Amateur and Simple Men.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
In this film critic's personal opinion, Hal Hartley's The Unbelievable Truth is the only film he's ever made worth even watching. His movies are slow and too heavy handed.If he could get less full of himself he might make a good movie.
Unbelievable Truth is my least favorite Hal film. It ends well, but the opening is unsure and full of characters too often stretched for a simple laugh.
Hal is pretty much disliked by most American critics (many European critics adore him). I propose this is largely due to his unique, invented aesthetic, which bares very little resemblance to the mainstream aesthetic Hollywood utilizes. Even most independent films adhere to this aesthetic, though they often maintain a tighter focus on character or push the boundaries a bit more than their mainstream competitors.
Hal's films are very slow, and his characters tend to speak in a level voice that lead most critics to assume he is pulling a very dry joke off on the viewer. He does joke quite a bit, but his films are very, very serious examinations of modern issues, including love, God, and money, and while Ebert certainly believes Hartley's films are played for laughs, it is a major mistake to assume Hal's only joking.
His films are, to some degree, aiming for the same effect Spaghetti Westerns aim for, though they certainly use different means. By exaggerating specific elements and by creating a very artificial environment, Hartley is hoping to load his films and his characters with dangerous amounts of emotions that most films simply cannot carry. Like Spaghetti Westerns, this artifice is very visible, and, also like Spaghetti Westerns, for the most part, people either tend to love them or to be bored stiff.
So, all to say, I can completely understand if you do not dig Hartley, but I personally still believe him to be the greatest director working today. He is working on an entirely different level from most filmmakers, and even if one hates his films, surely one can recognize that he is indeed taking risks and reaching for something more than most directors ever dream of.
What one might call heavy-handed, another might call extremely atmospheric. What one might find pretentious, another might find fresh and revelatory.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Greatest director working today? Three words for ya'---PAUL THOMAS ANDERSON
Hmmm... Haven't seen Magnolia yet, but on the evidence of his other films, I strongly have to disagree. Boogie Nights in particular was an extremely over-rated film, stealing style from other directors (especially Scorsese), but unable to force the different flourishes to meet the various plot points he was shooting. In other words, he is to film what Baez is to folk music - great voice, but often oddly disconnected from the material. Magnolia, of course, might be much better.
Now if you had mentioned Lock, Stock, and 2 Smoking Barrels, on the other hand...
"I know good people can disagree on this issue." ;)
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Boogie nights is a masterpiece. Anderson clearly has made a movie about real people and their struggles to sustain any level of normalcy. The porn industry is a unspeakable profession in the general public's eye, yet these people are real and not so bad. They simply work in pornography and are trying to get by. Maybe they chose the wrong profession, but that's really their business and in the movie they get shafted for their occupation. A very griddy look inside the life of a 70's porn star. One of the very best movies in the last 10 or 15 years. MOVIE MAGIC my friend.
I do like Boogie Nights; I just can't seem to pin the medal of 'masterpiece' to its chest. The story and style were both good, if rather familar, but my problem lies in the interaction between these two elements. While both Boogie Nights and Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels employed extremely flashy direction, I felt the style in the former too often distracted from (or even clashed with) the story being told. In Lock, the style melds with the story to an extent that the two elements become impossible to separate.
So, even though it may get me kicked off your respect list ( ;) ), I will humbly place Boogie into the good, not great, column. You, of course, may demand a recount at a later date.
Oh, as a friend, I'd warn you against using the term MOVIE MAGIC. I'm not sure, but I believe the Disney Corporation bought the trademark for that phrase decades ago, and even though they hardly deserve the compliment nowadays, they do love to sue...
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs (who is feeling a bit goofy today and asks for the forgiveness of all in advance...)
lbangs, I feel that it is time that I see a Hal Hartley film, just so I can see what all the fuss is about. Unfortunately, all of these films' plots seem rather risque, and as I am still 10 months away from 17 years old, I doubt that my parents will approve. Has Hartley made any good PG-13 movies? Or if not, I do remember that at one time, I wanted to see "The Unbelievable Truth" for some reason, and my mother said that was OK based on the IMDB's plot summary of that movie. Is "Unbelievable Truth" any good?
The Unbelievable Truth is my least favorite Hartley film, but it still probably worth a viewing. It starts poorly, but by the last thirty minutes or so, it starts to work.
Most Hal Hartley films are rated R for language and pretty much language alone. A few have some moments of stylized violence (hardly graphic); more deal with sexual themes. Amateur is a good example. It sounds incredibly risque, but it isn't. The film has no nudity. There is one scene where a character is viewing a pornographic tape. Noises are heard, and a close-up of an actress' head is on-screen, but no nudity or graphic material. There is, however, some frank discussion of sexuality. Trust and Simple Men, my other two faves, are both very similar in content, Trust in particular having a graphic conversation mentioning many body parts by blunt names, and Simple Men containing a scene where a hurt, betrayed male claims he is going to, er, have sex with the first woman he meets. The conversation is full of profanity, as every bit of almost every Hartley film is (though not nearly as lewd or quite as non-stop as, say, a Kevin Smith film). Henry Fool is more graphic, with a brief sex scene and a few moments of truly unsettling violence. I believe Flirt is his only feature to have a significant scene of nudity.
There is a lot of smoking, and it looks pretty cool, but you're smart enough to know that ain't too bright, right?
I don't know if that helps any or not, and I confess I may have forgotten something, but that's the content I can recall.
Let me know what you and your parents decide. Hartley's films are certainly films for adults, but they are hardly ADULT films, if you know what I mean.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
OK, cool, I got "Trust" and "Simple Men" approved. My mom vetoed "Amateur" though, so I guess that one will have to wait 10 months [and one day].
Cool. Have you ever seen the cover for Amateur? The company promoted it, I think, to dumb college boys, and the front art makes the film look like an S&M sex flick. I fear that even if your parents agreed to Amateur, the box would have been a deal-breaker. So all is well that ends well.
Besides, many don't really dig Hartley, so you may not be missing out on anything yet.
I am curious and will be waiting to hear your reactions if you do get to see a Hartley film.
Good viewing!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Hey lbangs,
Have you seen the latest Hartley, No Such Thing? I'm a little wary based on the plot (modern day beauty and the beast) and on Sarah Polley (takes herself SO seriously), but nonetheless, I've been planning on renting it for some time now. Since Hartley is one of your favorites, I thought I'd get an opinion before I did.
Johnny Waco
Okay, I still want your opinion, but I went ahead and rented No Such Thing yesterday. I don't think it's nearly up to Hartley's best, but I was pleasantly surprised. I don't remember the actor's name, but the guy who played the monster was pretty good. I thought Sarah Polley (whose lack of a sense of humor works here) was well-cast, and the Icelandic landscape (is it really Iceland?) is impressive. The media satire was a bit obvious, but Helen Mirren brought something to it anyway.
Anyway, it's a trifle when compared to some of Hartley's other stuff, but it was worth watching if you're a Hartley fan (which I know you are)...
Johnny Waco
Well, I thought No Such Thing had several interesting elements running around, but I ultimately felt like it crummbled. Nice Lynchian ending, though...
Interesting that Sarah P. bothers so many. I can't recall having a problem with her!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
L, have you seen the Hal Hartley film The Book of Life?
Yes, and I like it very much. It's not on this list only because of its short length (a factor I feel does work against it slightly), but it certainly is one of Hartley's stronger works.
Are you curious about it, or have you seen it?
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
www.deepdiscountdvd.com
Order #: 2189125
Sold To: AJDaGreat
Item Number: COL000981
Description: DVD: AMATEUR
Order total: 19.14
063-J05-24A
Wow, I guess I *really* hope you like it now!
Enjoy! :)
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I confirm that Hal Hartley has been endorsed by european movie critics for a while now... especially in France... it has to be noted that Amateur was mostly produced by french funds and that Hal's biggest award to date was Best Screenplay (Henry Fool) at the Cannes Film Festival in 1998... now, the problem is that even though his works are usually cited as referential and exemplary by critics, Flirt was his last movie to receive a fair distribution and showing in movie theaters here in Belgium... therefore I only saw Henry Fool in a "artsy" movie theater where it was shown for one day only and I wonder if I will ever see No Such Thing and The Girl from Monday
Thanks for the comments!
Henry Fool received a much wider release in the USA (it actually showed at a major theater here in Tulsa, even if it is the major theater that always has a few screens reserved for artier flicks) than any of Hartley's other films. No Such Thing did not play in my city at all.
I am curious to see how many screens carry Girl From Monday. I have high hopes for the film.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs