GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Majorthebys Charming and brutal

Raymond Sierra The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Jerrie It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

secondtake The Letter (2012)Wow, such mixed reviews on this movie. Either all thumbs up or bomb? No, but it is weirdly both terrific and horrible at once. Here's my explanation why.This is a re-shaped reality movie in the same big (and growing) genre as "Memento" and "Pulp Fiction." As the movie progresses you are made to figure out what's going on in the most basic sense, separating reality from hallucination from moviemaker's trickery. This is a gripping game at its best that draws you into the dilemma from the character's standpoint, and that also messes with the viewer's basic ability to create sense of it for it's own sake.But what these movies require is a combination of characters you care about and a logic that is purely cemented by the end. The two earlier examples are brilliant at it. Not so "The Letter."This movie has the bones of an excellent, lower-budget variation on a reality bending plot, but it fails to make the characters significant (or sympathetic in any way) and it never makes the illogic within the movie reasonable. This might give something away, but near the end a big sweeping explanation is frankly provided by a doctor, and I told myself I've been wasting an hour making sense of what is really a series of fairly jumbled impressions. They don't quite make sense, I think, though you might be able to chart out the various mixed up sections on a piece of paper if you watched it a couple more times. Maybe.But no one would have the stamina. It's a movie with an exterior of brilliance but it's so stripped down in its other components it's actually, oddly, boring. For one thing, most of the action happens on a theater stage, which allows a kind of reality within a reality (and this ain't new, as lovers of Shakespeare know). Quickly we see that the characters are getting mixed up with the actors—that is, from the point of view of the writer/director of the play in the film, played by Winona Ryder, the expressions and frustrations in the script of the play echo the reality of the real people. When scenes shift (often suddenly) to an apartment or other outside space, the same kinds of personae are at work. The people are the characters.But they have almost nothing to do, no real baggage to explore, no narrative elements that matter. So there is an implied infidelity (who knows?) and a bit of concern about that, and maybe an infidelity that grows as the film is being assembled, perhaps (who knows?). But so what? The final insult to all this is that film's low budget feel and its unwillingness to accept that—it tries to look bigger than it is. It's often filmed in a stale way, and then pumped up with tonal effects or with startling (or confusing) edits. You wish it would add up to something, but it doesn't.Other reviewers have said that it all makes sense by the end. I think not. I think it's explained away at the end, but that's different. And either way it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Laurenosaur THIS REVIEW WILL CONTAIN MAJOR SPOILERS!I will be honest: at the beginning, I did not like this movie. It was very confusing to me. It jumps around, cuts out at weird times, and is kind of repetitive (maybe more than is needed...). But it also keeps you intrigued. Winona Ryder plays Martine, a director of a play starring her boyfriend Raymond, her friends Anita and Julie, and newcomer Tyrone, played by James Franco. It is unknown whether Martine is slowly losing her sanity, or if someone is slowly poising her over time (she at one point accuses Raymond of having an excess of copper supplements, and goes on to tell him that enough copper in your system can cause schizophrenia).At the same time tension is brewing between Tyrone and the others (except Martine). During dinner Anita is talking about how she doesn't know how to play "secretive" as Martine has directed her to do. Tyrone heavily implies that she is very good at being secretive, to which Anita and Raymond both are angered by. Throughout the film Anita almost seems to be repulsed by Tyrone, and Raymond is very vocal about his hard feelings for him.At the end of the movie EVERYTHING is explained. There was a creepy guy early in the movie who when Martine walked by him, he blew in her face. Of course, that left you wondering "WTF was that about?!"... well, it turns out that he blew a powder in her face, causing her slow descent into madness (truthfulness, willingness, delusions... this same powder was used in a Criminal Minds episode ..s6e23). And, curve ball. He was hired by Raymond to do it. Why you may ask? Well, Tyrone hit it right on the nail, and Martine figured it out as well. He was being naughty with Anita. I was left wondering though, if Martine would make a recovery or not. This movie could not have succeeded without the marvellous subtext done by the actors. Shout out to James Franco, who was just stunning with his... well everything. His body language, his dizzying array of facial expressions, his tone fluctuations... By far the best actor in the movie.Overall, definitely worth a watch if you're willing to pay attention. Some of James Franco's scenes are worth it alone ;)

ldkumer This movie is most certainly not trash. You must, however, be willing to give it your undivided attention. There is a plot and if you pay attention you will pick up on the subtle contributors to the plot. All of the performances are excellent and raw. Though the movie is very artsy I think it is for good reason and not just for the sake of being artsy. I believe all of the elements of the film are crucial to the storyline. I am a huge fan of James Franco and of course he delivers, as does Winona Ryder. For fans of either actors this is certainly a film to add to your must sees. Movies that are thought provoking may not be as exciting as some but they are worthwhile. This is one such film and should be recognized for its merit. I recommend it for film buffs everywhere!

faithisagoodthing When I first saw the trailer for this movie on YouTube, I like many thought are you joking.The quality of the trailer was shockingly bad but I was still intrigued because I loved James Franco's work and as well as a welcome return in a leading role by Winona Ryder, since I have been a fan of her work for many years.Though, as it has already been stated, this movie is not to everyone's taste, but I'm not sure why this movie has such a low rating either? When you actually watch the movie, the quality seems to be alright.Yes, it has extremely complex levels of dreams by Winona's character (Martine), yet still very much entertaining. I thought the whole cast acted strongly and were great.It kind of reminded me somewhat of elements of Black Swan, Inception and Francophrenia especially in terms of levels. Sometimes, people classify movies as bad, if they can't breakdown the story quickly but I still felt the character's were warm.However, I appreciate a movie that makes you think, and if a repeat viewing is necessary then why not? Anyway, I don't really want to give any spoilers away but I do think more people should view this movie and form their own opinions on the conclusion.It's actually not the worst movie you could ever see and I enjoyed it but maybe, I'm biased because I love James and Winona. Seriously, it deserves a higher rating.