Inadvands
Boring, over-political, tech fuzed mess
Kailansorac
Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.
Kayden
This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama
karl_consiglio
Whatever by today's standards. I mean its an OK film yes, but it downright fails to pass the test of time. And its the test of time that tells whats good and whats not at the end of the day, not the nominations it ought to have fit into that year when I first saw it. Let me be a bit more positive, the main actor was great, he's got those convincing movements and especially them naughty facial expressions which really work here. However my point is that we long know by now the message of this film and the whole drug abuse(especially in this Hollywood working atmosphere) is a long gone cliché. Thing is that this guy did have human love around him, I don't believe in his excuses.
[email protected]
It's very interesting that the most positive review for this film is written by someone who used to work in the same industry. But it makes sense, because to anyone else this film is just mind-numbingly dull. It's basically about a man who is diagnosed with lung cancer and so hides it from everyone and continues his usual life of hookers and drugs. Its best redeeming feature is that it is short so you don't waste too much of your life.Ivan is played by a decent actor, but quite a few of the others seem like amateurs. Being shot with a hand-held camera just compounds that feeling, although it's different I guess. This film was so dull, that for the first time, IMDb has said my comments were too brief even though I can't think of what else to say.
excalibur9
Rule #645: All films made in Hollywood, by Hollywood, about Hollywood, must be seedy. I should probably add ‘for Hollywood' to the above list, as the film is more or less a home movie. Like The Player, Sunset Boulevard and countless others before it, it is a film that has been made by locals and just happened to have been given a world-wide release; seemingly by accident. It also takes great delight in detailing what a dreadful, decadency, drug and sex-fuelled level of hell it is. Personally, I can't wait to go there.Although based on an original novel, its structure is different and only the central idea has been ‘borrowed.' Danny Huston plays (and rather well) an agent who manages to land a big, starry client and discover that he has cancer, all in the space of a few days. It's all downhill from then on as he begins to reassess his life, realises his girlfriend is just after his business connections and that he has barely achieved anything of worth in his short life. To be honest, that really doesn't come through in the film and feels as if it could have done with a few more scenes and some sharper editing. Despite some excellent scenes, the characters seem too much like improvised teaching studies and not well-written, three-dimensional people. Only Ivan manages to leap from the screen, and that is largely because of Danny Huston's Jack Nicholson-like presence.Another thing to note is that the film was shot with digital cameras, although the sound seems to have been recorded with a Dictaphone. The photography is good, but is soft and jittery. This is because it was shot interlaced and not in progressive scan. Given the quality of the cameras available, and its inevitable transfer to film, I'm not quite sure why. Techno-bore detail, I know, but still distracting.A good effort, but a home movie: 6/10
sibisi73
A realistic, but strangely unmoving, parable of Hollywood excess and life in the fast lane. There is a central performance of great depth and subtlety, yet the rest of the movie felt heartless, overbearing, and obvious. A disturbing experience nonetheless, as it conveys the meaninglessness of life quite beautifully.
