BroadcastChic Excellent, a Must See

Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

ted_tadlock Parker Posey's acting was so bad it ruined the movie for me. There were fine actors in this film, but I could not watch it.

jzappa Generically speaking, Fay Grim is a highly entertaining thriller featuring two of the most inexorably enjoyable names in American movies, unshakably beautiful and gracefully spunky Parker Posey and endlessly charismatic and unavoidably hilarious Jeff Goldblum. They have many scenes in the first half of the film in which we see these two insatiable presences volleying off of each other, even radiating with charm when Goldblum rolls off Hartley's shamelessly epic info-dumps. Nevertheless, if one were to deconstruct Fay Grim, one would see many instances in which countless scenes could've been squeezed for much more benefit than they have resulted in being.This sort of filmed in-joke is the sequel to Hal Hartley's Henry Fool, which was made ten years earlier. It has title character Posey forced by CIA agent Goldblum to track down the notebooks that were the precious possessions of her missing fugitive husband, the predecessor's titular anti-hero. Available within them is information that could concede the safety of the United States. Fay first makes for Paris to get a hold of them but becomes engulfed in a bona fide celebration of espionage clichés featuring everything from car bombs to ambiguous helpers to Following the Girl to double-crosses to triple-crosses.The primary appeal of it all for me is that it's such a novel approach to the sequel of a movie about a garbageman and a struggling novelist in a small town. In the original Henry Fool, Posey played a simple woman leading a very simple life. Hartley's talents do not reach the heights of many of the other independent newbies from the 1990s, but I do admire his wild creativity in making an inadvertent Nearne sister out of her, giving her a terrific predicament, as he did to her character's brother, played by James Urbaniak, in Henry Fool, as she is trapped between whether or not she may still love her overwhelming refugee husband and the problematic but forceful plans of Goldblum.Hartley, however, is simply riding on that fragmentary idea. His plot, though complex and labyrinthine, true to the form of the spy film, it seems as if to be entirely capricious. The reason I was not bored was mostly due to the pace at which the story unfolds, not to mention the presence of Posey and Goldblum. The problem with the remainder of Hartley's cast is that I cannot seem to become fond of the rest of them. It has nothing to do with how obscure they are compared to the relative star power of the two said charm masters, but with how they don't seem to hold their own alongside them, though Saffron Burrows certainly comes close. Most of the scenes not involving Posey or Goldblum are far too light on their feet, stringing us along with info-dumps we have no choice but to listen to or else be totally lost in the ensuing sequence of scenes. They are shot almost entirely in tiled angles, as if Hartley is compensating for that implacable feeling of a lack of material.Liam Aiken, however, playing the now teenage son of Fay and Henry, has a certain allure about him, seeming wise beyond his years, certainly much wiser than any of the adult characters. Perhaps Hartley intended that, or maybe it's simply Aiken's presence. The problem with a Hartley film is that you never quite know what was intended and what just happens to be there. As Scorsese said, "Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out." One has to be able to trust that what we see is a conscious decision by the filmmaker to remain in the finished film.

Mihnea the Pitbull When I was a teenager, I used to write all kind of absurd stories, "plays" and "novels" (usually very short: one-page-plays, half-a-page novels, etc.), combining in the most illogical way all kind of clichés, in an attempt to satirize and parodiate various subjects: snobbery, sugary romanticism, genre fiction, etc. A few of them were pretty funny - but the most were total failures (no fun, no wits, no sharpness at all).While watching this "Fay Grim", for 3/4 of the screening, I was 100% convinced this was what it was: a failed parody at the worst thrillers. The total lack of reason, the ridiculous dialogs, the scandalous falseness of the actors, the outrageously cacophonous use of the sound-track (including those irritating noises trying to pass for "music", that seemed never to end), the illiterate cinematography, the ungrammatical editing, the fight scenes at the same level with a toddlers' game at bang-bang-I-shot-ya! - and all the other idiocies on screen seemed to be deliberate attempts to sarcasm, only devoid of humor, intelligence and professionalism.Unfortunately, in the last part, I understood how wrong I had been: poor Hartley really took himself seriously! He imagined indeed he was making a movie (and a serious one, by that!).As such, he deserves to be told the truth: Hal, baby, this stuff and movie-making are two VERY DIFFICULT things! It's not a child's play, with a camera and some actors who pitied you too much to tell you how retarded you are, and accepted to let you shoot them out of charity (I still wonder how aware is Goldblum of the self-disrespect level he proved with this masquerade). I would teach you a thing of two about what "cinema" means, but I doubt you are able to follow more than half of the first phrase. As such, please take my word: "Fay Grim" is as much a movie, as a pee puddle in a back alley is the Pacific Ocean. The bad news is that it stinks worse. The good news is that it can be wiped away as easily: just pour a gas canister over all the film reels and light a match. It will make a lot of smoke, but soon it will be over - an the world will be a better place.

clovis-5 Who would've imagined -- Hal Hartley creates a filmic corollary to Syriana while retaining his signature idiosyncratic style. The fusion is highly entertaining.Having not seen a Hal Hartley film for about a decade, I approached this one with some caution. His brilliant productions of the nineties had impressed critics and audiences with their unique style and dialog. The director's earlier films featured colorful characters and offered close observations of life -- often in the region of Long Island, New York or in New York City itself -- that were offbeat and insightful.My initial caution stemmed from the description of this movie as a "spy thriller". To my pleasant surprise, Hartley manages to mesh his well established style and focus to produce a highly original drama of international intrigue. It works in more ways than one might imagine. Hartley's film retains the dialog and character focus that are his trademarks, along with a singular cinematographic style.Moreover it is highly appropriate given the current situation in the world and the state of war that has been fostered by dark elements on all sides. Hartley has brought all his skills to something new -- a political film worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as Syriana. Truly he is coming into his own. The cast does a fine job of interpreting Hartley's vision and style. Fans of Parker Posey will see her in full bloom here, still with us and more ripe and gorgeous than before.