User Reviews (155)

Add a Review

  • Robert Altman has never shied away from casting every actor known to mankind in his films, and this is certainly true with his 1993 film "Short Cuts", a film set in Los Angeles over the course of a couple of days. In terms of primary actors, ones that had a substantial enough part to merit a supporting tag, I count at least 22; but more impressive than the sheer number of the cast is the fact that the film does not suffer from character overload, nor do their intertwining stories (and they are all separated by no more than one or two degrees).

    I started this review by going through each character and the story each brings to the table, but after about three paragraphs worth of explanation, it is clear that it is not only a bad idea, but probably counterproductive to the review itself. "Short Cuts" is simply about human relationships, all of which seem to be completely unhealthy. The beauty of Altman's script and direction is that this isn't imminently apparent in all cases. Something as subtle as a sigh and a minor roll of the eyes speaks volumes in a film this well done. The acting in the film is, to be expected, great in most cases. Andie MacDowell, though not quite as insipid as usual, is still pretty bad, but gems like Lyle Lovett, Peter Gallagher, Tom Waits (who I am really biased toward) and a fairly fresh and new Julianne Moore more than make up for any minor acting mishaps.

    There are not many films that are so involved that I simply throw up my hands at the prospect of doing my standard summary review for them, but "Short Cuts" is one of them. The script is compelling enough to easily sit through all 187 minutes of the film, the ending doesn't disappoint, and the film contains a cool jazz score. If you're a fan of ensemble films, this should be on your list. If you're an Altman fan, this should be on your short list because I consider it to be one of his best. 8/10 --Shelly
  • matt caccamo11 January 2001
    Wonderful, beautifully acted film about lives interweaving in Los Angeles against the backdrop of an invading poisonous bug. Ensemble cast is perfect, with standout performances by Robbins and Downey Jr. Altman succeeds in bringing us a film examining the coincidence of everyday life that we are too busy to notice. Shows a keen sense for relationships and the hardships of loss.
  • The day-to-day lives of a number of suburban Los Angeles residents.

    In many ways, this film is a follow-up to Altman's "Nashville", another story of several people (twenty-four) going about their day in Nashville. How many characters are in this story of folks in Los Angeles? Probably about the same.

    If anything, this story strikes me as better. Better scripted, for sure, and with much more mystery and suspense (and more dead bodies). We have an incredible cast: Tom Waits and Jennifer Jason Leigh steal the show, but Robert Downey, Tim Robbins, Chris Penn and a dozen others are amazing, too.
  • After watching this film one thing I was left with was a feeling of tremendous euphoria, a glowing feeling which lasted well into the next morning. I could not help but think that this collage of events in the lives of 22 people in sunny LA was realism. Not the harsh gritty realism of 'Taxi Driver', but a different realism. This movie is who we are, as people. This movie chronicles the emotions we may have when confronted with a persistent crank caller, or the lingering suspicion of a partner's affair. And the acerbic intelligence of the script is tempered with director Altman's stunning technical virtuosity.

    The style is very pastiche, and one scene cuts to another, as the title suggests, with reckless abandon. This lends a very fresh and watchable quality to what is by any standards a long film. While most of the characters never meet, the movie is given shape by the connections between scenes. The connections are of two kinds: thematic connections for which the credit goes to the script, and also visual connections whereby the direction and editing employed by Altman allow him to create recurring imagery with which he weaves the sprawling, kicking constituent bits and pieces of this movie together. This style works very well indeed and at the end of the film, miraculously you are left not with the impression of having just watched a series of 'short cuts', but something entirely more holistic in nature.

    There was not a false note in the acting and the star-studded cast did great justice to a remarkable script. The casting is flawless, from Tim Robbins' adulterous cop to Julianne Moore's adulterous painter. The camera-work is refreshing in its fluidity and control, transmitting an intense watchability. However many feelings there are in the human emotional vocabulary (and I am sure there are a fair few), it seems that 'Short Cuts' is somehow able, in the course of three hours, to display (in the actors) and evoke (in the audience), each and every one of them. For those who are of the belief that modern Hollywood is unable to produce films of artistic merit, watch this movie now or hold your peace forever.
  • davidals18 September 2003
    When Altman is good he's among the greatest, and SHORT CUTS is among his best (M*A*S*H, BREWSTER McCLOUD, NASHVILLE). Adapted from Raymond Carver's collection of stories, SHORT CUTS offers a roving, restless glimpse into the lives of several Los Angelinos. The characters aren't completely real - in an 'I-can-relate-to-these-people' sense (I never expected this from this movie anyway), but are presented in a slightly hyperreal sense with Altman highlighting the everyday lives of characters who try valiantly to maintain their public personas (cutting across class boundaries in the process), even when things are spinning out of control beneath the surface (literally symbolized by the ending, though at least he didn't stoop to throwing in a rain of frogs...).

    Los Angeles is famously mocked as a place that's all surface and no depth (see ANNIE HALL), and the slight exaggerations seen here characters plays with this, even as the isolation and instability of certain characters humanizes them. Through it all there's plenty of humor - though, as is usual with Altman, even the humor packs a wallop. Annie Ross' deadpan complaint gets to the heart of it all: "I hate L.A. - all they do is snort coke and talk." The irony in such nastiness becomes a bit more apparent when you consider where that assessment is coming from, within Altman's tragi-comic variant upon the notion that California's trends become America's truisms a decade or two down the road.

    There are so many great moments here - Chris Penn's growing befuddlement (and seething, simmering murderous anger) with his wife's phone sex operator job; Tom Waits and Lily Tomlin as a boozy working class couple; Peter Gallagher and Frances MacDormand's marriage, collapsed into tantrums and furniture vandalism; the Tim Robbins/Huey Lewis confrontation; Jack Lemmon, Julianne Moore and Matthew Modine all deliver strikingly memorable performances. Every time I watch this, I get something new out of it - though it requires a bit of patience, SHORT CUTS is really worth checking out.
  • Well, I've watched this film about seven times now, and I feel quite certain that I can add it to the list of my favorite films alongside Dr. Strangelove and The Red, White and Blue Trilogy.

    The casting is flawless, with fantastic performances by Jennifer Jason Leigh, Julianne Moore, Peter Gallagher, Frances McDormand, Robert Downey, Jr. and many (I mean *many*) more. The camera floats around the world of these characters with perfection, tapping each on the shoulder and providing precious and oh-so-interesting insight into their happiness (or lack thereof, for the most part), sadness and their emotions.

    See this film. You will not regret it. I have my fingers crossed for a special edition DVD of Short Cuts.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The many residents of Robert Altman's "Short Cuts" do so much more than that: they lie, cheat, steal, kill, ache, long, burn-out, shine bright, fade in the background, sing, dance, drink, make love, screw, shout, scream, fight, and purge their souls-though few ever really listen or watch closely. "Short Cuts" is arguably Altman's finest film (with nods to "MASH," "Nashville," "The Player," and "Gosford Park"). It's also probably the best of the sub-genre of intertwining vignette films, the overlapping mosaics that Altman trail-blazed. It's odd, because had I seen "Short Cuts" before I viewed P.T. Anderson's "Magnolia" (which I loved upon first view but not so much the second time around), I would've realized that film was an eerie knockoff of this Altman classic--right down to the casting of Julianne Moore and Jack Lemmon. "Magnolia" is full of nervousness, operatic melodrama, and ham-fisted symbolism, whereas "Short Cuts" is full of smooth transitions, hyper-realism, and keen insights into human behavior. I'll take the earthquake at the end of "Short Cuts" over the raining frogs of "Magnolia" any day. Altman's film runs well over three hours and features nearly twenty main characters. As such, it's one of those movies where everyone will have their personal favorite bits and characters. I found Lori Singer's cello playing daughter of a booze-hound jazz singer, Anne Archer's empathy riddled clown, and Frances McDormand's young son who insists on telling everyone about how he feels about his toys (which are showered on him in the absence of real love) though no one ever pays him any direct attention, to be the most compelling. There's also some great bits involving a dog and Tim Robbin's adulterous cop, and a hilariously disturbing mix up at a photo hut involving Lilly Taylor and a fisherman. With Mr. Altman now passed, one wonders, will anyone ever be able to make a film like this again? Surely not. "Short Cuts" is nothing short of a masterpiece and a testament to Altman's unique brand of film-making and humanistic view of the misanthropic world he inhabited.
  • I heard the news today, o boy. In Wichita, Kansas, land of Fred Phelps and boneheaded school boards, several customers in a convenience store walked over a woman who was stabbed and continued to looks for the chips and beer. One even took a picture of the dying woman with her cell phone camera.

    One of the short stories in Altman's Short Cuts basically depicts the same incident. Fishermen can't be bothered to stop fishing to get a dead woman out of the water. One even shoots what looks like a whole roll of film of her naked body floating in the streams/lake/river, who knows? And, apparently only one cares - Fred Ward's wife, Anne Archer.

    That is the theme that I felt throughout the film where Los Angeles residents were misunderstanding, resenting, deceiving, disappointing -- and even killing -- one another. They had loser lives, doing loser jobs, and they just seemed to float along in a fog of alcohol, uncaring about each other, drunk with their own concerns and problems.

    It was pathetic, and depressing, and a masterpiece of American angst.

    One to watch over and over.
  • After seeing Short Cuts and pondering over it as a cinematic experience, I feel a strange feeling that I haven't had before with any Robert Altman film: confusion. Normally, understanding that Altman's style is one of using confusion and misunderstandings to move the plot along, I was surprised when I reacted so positively to MASH, Nashville and The Player but not this.

    The cast, overall, is quite good with Robert Downey Jr. and Madeline Stowe giving the best performances along with the great Jack Lemmon in perhaps the scene with the only real emotional pull as he describes the sad truth of why his family broke apart. Everyone else seems lost and misguided, floating around in this LA world Altman is exploring without much to do. They act out, involving themselves in affairs, drugs, their children's lives and the simple desire to survive each day but none of it particularly moved me. Even one plot line involving Bruce Davison and Andie MacDowell that should have had great emotional depth has almost none to speak of.

    I have the greatest admiration for Altman and his ambitious vision of how to create interesting stories and characters. Yet, despite many claiming this to be one of his best works, I didn't feel at all that it was on par with MASH or Nashville as it seemed to meander and sag heavily in the middle until a final occurrence brought many of the characters together. This may be what Altman wanted; the meaningless and accidental nature of many of life's adventures that nevertheless still affect us. However, I wish it would have been made more cinematically stimulating.
  • juliano665 June 2008
    This film really has gotten better with age- I saw it when it came out and even at 26 with one CA trip under my belt, I really wasn't mature enough to understand it. I felt like a lid had been opened up on a terrible nightmare(L.A.)and was better off unopened. Also, I thought it was kinda pathetic Huey Lewis agreed to whip out "lil' Huey" on screen-- showed how far he'd fallen. These sentiments haven't changed, but 15 years later I can really appreciate the subtle social and human commentary as well as the fascinating weave of stories and characters Shortcuts has to offer. Easily Altman's masterpiece and some of the best work from many of the illustrious cast. This film stands pretty much alone--Only thing it really reminds me of is Maupin's 'Tales of the City'. All in all Shortcuts still resonates and the helicopter-armada/earthquake elements give it that end-times feel which makes this movie somewhat eerily prophetic at times.
  • Although it joins two expert craftsmen -- Robert Altman and the short story writer Raymond Carver -- "Short Cuts" is more of a disappointment than a success. It links together multiple stories, going back and forth between them, a familiar Altman technique. But Altman's greatest achievements were satires, and this movie is deadly serious with not many laughs. If the individual stories had been told straight-forwardly (and the length of the film drastically reduced), the several resulting films might have been pretty good -- not great; they are too thin for greatness. But the acting is excellent and the individual stories are good, forgetting the overlapping plots and cross-cutting script. The movie has been described (accurately) as a mosaic. But what makes any mosaic good or bad is the overall impression that it leaves. And the most significant impression "Short Cuts" left with me was that it was far, far too long. The empty lives of Los Angeles residents from different social classes has been told before and more pointedly. For the most part, it's hard to care about the profoundly disagreeable people who populate most, though not all, of these stories. And, clever as always in creating mosaic films, Altman did not in this case display the temperament that made other of his movies truly great. These stories belonged to other directors, not Altman, and they should not have been told in a single film.
  • If you haven't seen this film then check it out. It is so complex and all the characters are so thorough and rich. This also has one of the most honest scenes in American cinema. Julianne Moore and Madeline Stowe are brilliant as are Lily Tomlin and Tim Robbins. This is Robert Altman's best film by far.
  • The title of Robert Altman's 1993 film Short Cuts is wholly ironic, here is a film nigh on three hours in length which doesn't necessarily 'cut' anything at all; indeed burrows into the lives of several people before showing mostly everything they get up to and what affects them. The film is a really engrossing drama centering on a number of disparate residents of Los Angeles round about the time of the film's production; a snapshot of warts-and-all living in amongst both the higher-ups and lower-downs of a city plagued by a heatwave; an insect infestation and, it would seem, the odd earthquake. Altman and his film take very few short cuts to anywhere at all, his film is just as interested in the catalysts of life that drive us to where we end up as it is the intricacies that unfold around these events with others we may already know. Take, for instance, a sequence early on involving a group of fishermen whom discover a dead body in the waters the're around; where another film may have picked up on that and run with it as a plot mechanism inciting causality, Short Cuts allows the men to take note of the situation before making a decision which allows the film to consequently revolve around something else other than a set premise. Short Cuts being of an ilk which will later explore how this decision they make comes to affect each of them and their relations with certain others.

    The film begins with a physical placing of the audience high above ground level, a flock of helicopters equipped with pesticide late at night gliding through the sky so as to eliminate a recent pest problem which is plaguing the area. Beginning so high up enables the first shot of the entire film to be one of an establishing variety, the following three or so hours coming to revolve around what feels like all of those within the vicinity of this locale and a sense of power or establishing of power which comes with the ability to access such private tales in these people's lives. The film goes on to flit from a pool cleaner named Jerry Kaiser, played by Chris Penn; to a limousine driver Tom Waits' Earl Piggot; to Robert Downey Jr.'s layabout Bill Bush whom takes a swig from a beer can during breakfast as well as a large proportion of others all mingling in and around what appears to be an individual block.

    To list every actor or actress and their role would be beside the point, needless to say, the film isn't so much preoccupied with the gimmick that their lives and existences should become entwined, as much as it is the thematics of each of their tales that are eerily similar to everyone else's; the overlying idea that regardless of age; gender; marital situation or class distinction: death, or loss, affects us all and the ingredient of deconstructing these characters' attitudes towards sex or love keeps the film on that so-called path seeing it explore the two things humankind is apparently so fascinated by - the thesis or pitch makes the film sound terribly self-important; it is, in actuality, anything but. Altman's bounding from person to person; from character to character; from family to family is enthralling, the staying with each bunch of characters for what feels like the minimal of time before heading onto the next port of call somehow manages to get across as much in the way of development and a feel for who these people successfully executed with the smallest of hassle in the shortest span of time possible.

    Altman produces amusing transitions which propel us from tale to tale, his ability as a director to link or build bridges between seemingly disparate sequences away from core thematics works wonderfully. A glass of milk sits idly on the side in a room, specifically for Ann Finnigan's (MacDowell) son Casey whom was hit by Doreen Piggot's (Tomlin) car but got up and merely walked home in shock; a cut later, we're on another class of milk in somebody else's house – that of the husband, Earl, whose wife it is that hit the child. The television in Earl's house speaks of accidents happening and that care ought to be taken; the-then leaping to the three fishermen and their continual ignoring, for now, of a dead body sees us effortlessly transit back into the city and young cellist Zoe (Singer) whom lies face down in a swimming pool in a state of mock-drowning.

    Where Zoe's tale comes to lead us, as she struggles to hold down a basic relationship with her mother Tess (Ross), sees these seeds that are planted of a very ominous kind. Tess is a singer, Zoe a musician and yet despite sharing that musical connection in their practical loves, are tragically unable to do so as a mother-daughter unit. The film is a really fine exploration of the bonds, however shaky, an array of people have with one another be they friendships, parental, marital or even a child's fondness for a dog another member of the family despises. Short Cuts is expertly acted; wonderfully directed by a man flitting between an array of varying people with different problems linked by a common thematic and remarkably paced for a film of its length – certainly worth seeing.
  • After seeing Magnolia, I would constantly read reviews of it that said it was but a pale imitation of a masterpiece called "Short Cuts". Well, I loved Magnolia, so it seems I should be utterly flabbergasted by Short Cuts, right? Hmm... you'd think, wouldn't you?

    Short Cuts could have succeeded, if it had set for itself some less lofty goals. It contained 22 main characters. I don't care what kind of brilliant director you are, there is no way to provide adequate characterization for 22 main players in a 3 hour movie. The end result is that I cared about none of them. It also didn't help that most of the stories were really pretty boring. A guy cheats on his wife. A couple is going to have dinner at some other people's house. Yet another couple babysit some fish. Whee. About 90 minutes into the story, things begin to get more interesting. There's a dead body involved, and some characters actually show an emotion that isn't boredom. By this point, though, I completely stopped caring. And it doesn't help that, for every minute devoted to, say, the dead body plot line, another 5 minutes are devoted to something completely banal. And as a final complaint, it's all just so random. There are tie-ins between story lines, but there's no justification for most of them. If Bob suddenly dines at the restaurant where Joe works, that's enough reason to devote an entire side-story to how Bob overcame his bowel problems. And the Great Ending has no relevance whatsoever. Yaaaaawn.

    This movie had a few amusing moments, but "a few amusing moments" in a 3 hour movie just doesn't cut it. Yeah, it parallels real life, but who wants to spend 3 hours watching their own life on the screen? My life is boring enough; I don't need to have my entertainment be boring, too. This movie earns a whopping 4/10 from me.
  • In front of a group of fishermen, a waitress bends over for a slab of butter. They take in the image like hungry wolves gulping meat, as her skirt rises high, revealing everything. They like what they see, so they ask her, `Can we have more butter, please?' The double meaning is obvious.

    In a nightclub, a singer languishes over a sultry little song about `a good, punishing kiss.' The conversation in the foreground -- ex-cons relating cruel, violent stories from prison -- moves to the rhythm of the jazz saxophone, a dissonant snare-drum-prose accompaniment to the song. It's a deliberate ambiguity that binds the viewer in the scene's artistic tension.

    In an upscale home with a breathtaking view of the city of angels, a struggling artist is being questioned about her relationship with another artist. She's naked from the waist down, suggesting both sexual aggressiveness, and vulnerability, simultaneously. She's seductively defiant with her husband. She confesses to an affair; but she does so angrily, indignant for being asked. It's sweet and sour, light and dark, truthful but deceptive, all at once. More double entendres.

    Robert Altman's Short Cuts weaves all these disconnected scenes together like common strands of rope. It's the interplay of opposites that firmly holds them all together. The title itself, `Short Cuts,' has dual meaning: it's an interconnected mixture of `short cuts,' as in `off the cutting room floor' or `film clips;' and, it's an unmistakable reference to the web of human life, the social short cuts between ourselves and everyone else, as in the famous `six degrees of separation,' which tells us that we are only six personal relationships away from everyone else in the world. Set in LA, this idea makes for a lovely irony: although the main characters are completely absorbed in their individual worlds, they are intimately connected to each other. They just don't know it.

    Short Cuts is one of Altman's masterpieces. See it if you can.
  • Short Cuts is Robert Altman's masterpiece. I find this film so compelling I revisit it quite often. The fact that this film has not been released on DVD yet is a shame. It's really hard to explain what Short Cuts is about -- or is it really about anything? Like most Altman films -- Short Cuts has a voyeuristic feel to it. It feels like we are eavesdropping on the most private moments of people's lives. With over 22 main characters -- that's a lot of people to get to know, but Short Cuts manages to make a memorable character out of every one of them. This is a truly great film. My favorite performance in the film: Either Lyle Lovett the baker or Tim Robbins as the cop.

    Also features full frontal nudity by Julianne Moore. This movie has everything.
  • This is without a doubt my favorite Robert Altman movie!!! The immense amount of acting talent in the film is incredible!! All of the different story lines pan out to whereby a myriad of instances effectively depict how people really are, and not how they perceive themselves to be!! The emotional augmentation of introverted feelings and quirky lifestyles in "Short Cuts" manifest themselves to a point of rudimentary selfishness with virtually every one of the pivotal characters in the film!! The lack of a necessary and preliminary confrontation with everybody ultimately leads to a copious quantity of latent hostilities!!! Taciturn proclivities become a lethal weapon for all of the running characters in this movie!! ..Social mediocrity is not just about an inadequate household income, or a meager pecuniary net worth, but also, how the average person lacks the psychological stamina to candidly assume his position on any given issue, whether it be personal, political or otherwise!! Robert Altman itemizes a devious element of human interaction that ruthlessly erupts a plethora of instances which illustrate a mollified functional insanity through a fusillade of formidable and tumultuous bits and pieces!! I for one, found this approach to be extremely intriguing!! I indulged the entire genre of this film with a macabre enthusiasm. An integral motif to this movie became a case of everyone's situation getting relegated to the despondent plight of accepting the ramifications of avoidable character inadequacies!!

    Let's delve into some of the characters: You had a lot of the "Sex, Lies and Videotape" cast (Andie McDowell and Peter Gallagher)With them, you encountered a lot of the same agitated torment!! Jack Lemmon had a bit role, he was very believable as an apathetic prototype of the fragmented curmudgeon!! Lily Tomlin exemplified the impervious lower middle class deviate to an empathetic state of reasonable plausibility in this film!! She was constantly stalemated by everyone around her, and ultimately became the proverbial victim of her isolated environment!! The typical L.A. Cop was so believable!! He thought he was God's gift to the world! As a matter of fact, all of the segments in "Short Cuts" were superbly executed, however,the segment I found to be the most fascinating was the YUPPIE couple that this movie paired off!! (Julianne Moore and Matthew Modine) They were the urban W.A.S.P.'s who became afflicted by modern immorality!! Attempting to be appropriately "Liberal", their basically provincial ideas inhibited them from properly communicating with each other!! This revelation emanated a volatile rancor which was about as subtle as the United States surprise attack of nuclear fireworks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WWII!! All of the correlating plots to "Short Cuts" are intertwined, one picking up where the other one left off, as they all seem to be tossing around a Frisbee of absolute moral oblivion and debauchery!!

    SO!! What was the resonating potpourri of philosophies in this movie? What was the aggregate collage of convoluted ethics? What was the proletariat's's pot luck stew of calamity here? As it turns out, the most crucial dilemmas in "Short Cuts" were the inane ones: No birthday cake!! My wife is not wearing underwear because she thinks she's one of her paintings!! The ubiquitous and arrogant attitude of "Because I said so!!" I need a part time job, how about phone sex? The utterly trite and solicitous plea of "It should not be that difficult to understand that I just do not want to accept responsibility!!" Enmity in my present and previous domiciles is the prevailing villain for motivating my belligerence!! Last but not least, we all got away with something!! Watch the movie to find out what!! Robert Altman's compendium of cosmopolitan neurotics evokes a precarious form of nauseating reality for all parties concerned!! I thought this film was excellent because the characters were all indisputably self serving!! Add insult to injury, they were not even good at it!! Such a peculiar depiction of these thwarted individuals throws caution to the wind about receiving an Oscar, and focuses more on Altman's quest for professional integrity!! The petty preoccupations of such non-corresponding individuals, as demonstrated in "Short Cuts", would indicate that perhaps the most coveted accolade in which Robert Altman wanted to be the recipient of was one of accomplishing a unique perspective of audited emotional reality!!!! "M*A*S*H was Alman's trophy case movie, "Short Cuts" is more of an alternative film which spurred on a heinous angle of domestic identification!! Whether they are burdened with financial problems or not, everyone in this film is seeking an unearned gratification of one form or another!! "Short Cuts" is very similar to the movie "Crash" I am probably one of the few people who likes it better, "Short Cuts" engages in an insidious perspective of human behavior on an intellectual level. People's afflictions in "Short Cuts" were cerebral!! In the movie "Crash" they were about violence!! More movies should pinpoint the pejorative aspects of human nature like "Short Cuts" did!! People are more like this movie portrays them to be than they are on generic television programs!! I guess convictions and societal accountability are just entirely too much trouble!!
  • Short Cuts, one of the best films I've ever seen, is a tableau, a framework that goes over the differing but similar threads of the human condition like it's as natural as can be. In any other director's hands these characters would be just that, quirky and a little too odd or melodramatic or not queued to the right level of comedy. Robert Altman, however, is the perfect director for the material, as he takes all these situations, these stories, these moments of irony, scorn, escapism into other lovers or drugs or some kind of art, of the connection between parents and kids, husbands and wives, total strangers to the dead, and fashions a piece of Americana that (dare I say it) is even more revelatory and funnier than Altman even at his very best, eg Nashville. The layers to it all are nearly staggering, and I'm sure that on just a first viewing I only got the surface of it all, which is excellent on its own. But it's just in seeing what goes on between these couple dozen or so people in Los Angeles- the desperation, the grief, the momentary lapse of reason, the infidelities, hatred, love, all strung together seamlessly, and with the knowledge that the absurdities (and there are many subtle and strange in the three-hour-plus running time) it's got something for everyone.

    The cast is ranged from Hollywood professionals, a couple of legends, character actors, Altman regulars, musicians, and it all clicks just right. Elements outside of the characters' control bookend the film, almost as if to add those little touches of anxiety that don't have something to do with the people's choices or bits of circumstance, with a city-wide bug-spraying intruding on some of the characters, and at the end an earthquake snapping them (or not) to their senses. There's a high-strung cop (Robbins) who can't stand the family dog. His wife (Stowe) is the sister of a painter (Moore), who has a conservative-about-sex-minded doctor husband (Modine) who doesn't understand her paintings but even less so her possible infidelity three years before. He's treating a child that got run over by a waitress (Tomlin), whose parents (MacDowell and Davison) can't understand why he's not waking up, and the father is a little more than surprised that his father (Lemmon) has come back after years gone. Meanwhile, Moore and Modine have to have a couple of guests (Archer and Ward) for dinner, where there is tension from the husband not reporting, and instead fishing around, a dead body of a girl in a river. And meanwhile the waitress has a slug of a husband (Tom Waits), and who's daughter (Taylor) has a boyfriend who's...

    And so on. That's not all, though if I kept writing more about these characters there wouldn't be much room left in the review. But in what goes on with the characters in a few days and nights time one can see as much as one can know about the characters. The depth of characterization is rich and deep as can possibly be accomplished, and even when a scene feels a little loose in how its acted around, as in a documentary (i.e. the picnic scene), it's still intriguing. Altman's camera follows these people at times finding the rhythm when it comes, and he never misses a beat, and even makes some fresh ones, like a zoom-in as a phone rings for Davison about his kid from a psycho stalker (Lovett), or how he wanders through the jazz club where Tess Trainer does her songs night after night for people who "snort coke and talk." And like something akin to Fanny and Alexander- also a film supremely in touch with human nature's highs and lows- Altman, through Carver's material, mines for the roughest moments of drama and the kookiest moments of comedy, both low-key and high-pitch.

    The way that mood weaves around between the sadness, sometimes shallow and sometimes very deeply in hurt, and the bizarre mundane qualities and irony, is also incredible. There's a scene where cop Robbins stops clown Archer, in full regalia, and asks in jest how many clowns can be fit in the car. Or Waits (who probably gives his best acting performance to date) when he gets into a heated argument with Tomlin, but doesn't forget to have a quick drink before getting into the car. Or the racial tension at the jazz club, predominantly black, where Leigh gets propositioned. Or in one of the funniest moments of the film where Peter Gallagher's character, tearing up the place of his wife (McDormand) once finding out she's been sleeping with another man (Robbins), gets someone at the door while he's whittling with the chainsaw saying that his wife's won a prize- a vacuum cleaner. And surprisingly enough, though effectively so, it becomes all the more interesting when characters don't meet, and how through Altman's point of view it's what the people who are together know and don't know about one another, what connections aren't made or broken off, that makes it so compelling.

    Altman doesn't kid himself, or the audience, that there are easy answers for the characters, that things will all wrap up nicely by the end with the earthquake. It's by not going for the conventional routes that he challenges the audience, but doesn't make it too obvious. It's in this that he is most courageous and masterful at relaying life's little moments through the behavior of the people, at how there are telling signs of loss (or intensity) of emotional connection. And yet Short Cuts is also truly entertaining, and as one of the first of the slew of 'LA epics' ala Magnolia, Crash and Grand Canyon, it certainly trumps them all for the sense of humor spread throughout, and at the least is the most fearless. At three-hours long, it just isn't enough. A++
  • Basically, there are two types of people in this world: Those who appreciate "Short Cuts" for the work of genius that it is, and those who miss the boat entirely. If you´ve ever felt that your tastes are a bit out of step with the mainstream, and that quirky characters and challenging ideas interest you more than explosions and predictability, then this might be a movie for you. If, on the other hand, you freak out because a film can be "depressing" or its characters "weird" or the length is more than 92 minutes, then don´t waste your time here.

    But for those who belong to the first category and, for whatever reason, have not yet seen this masterpiece, then I urge you to do so as soon as possible. "Short Cuts" is a movie for the ages, a truly disturbing, funny, entertaining, profound and shocking vision of America at the close of the 20th Century. I recommend that you watch the film with someone whose intelligence you respect, because the chances are you will want to discuss this one for a long time after the closing credits are through.

    Needless to say, 10 out of 10. "Short Cuts" is the standard against which others are judged.
  • I think there are a few reasons this film didn't live up to my expectations. The main one is probably that I made sure to read all 10 Raymond Carver pieces that were used for the screenplay. I'm the kind of person who prefers to read a book/play/short story before I see any filmed version of it. This is usually a good idea, but not in this case. Altman is creating his own world with SHORT CUTS--there are elements of Carver, but it's not a straight adaptation of that master storyteller's work. I'm afraid knowing the stories may have cut down on my enjoyment of this movie. It's a strong film, but didn't sweep me up the way that the other 90s Altman pictures I've seen (THE PLAYER and COOKIE'S FORTUNE) were able to do. I wasn't surprised that Altman chose to focus on the darker, earlier work of Carver--it fits his filmmaking style much better than the warmer stories that Carver wrote in the final years of his life.

    My advice to anyone about to watch SHORT CUTS is to hold off on reading the Carver stories (if you have any intention of reading them) until after you've seen SHORT CUTS. If you are a stranger to Carver's work, I hope that your curiosity will be piqued by this film. I'd also watch this film before MAGNOLIA if you can--I think you'll be more open to appreciating SHORT CUTS than I was.
  • Nashville (1975) is canonically Altman's masterpiece. Nashville pioneered the use of 8 track sound that was key to bringing Altman's signature overlapping dialog to life. This coupled with the narrative open ended quality and Altman's fly on the wall direction (liberal use of zoom lenses and free flowing camera) cemented the film as THE Altman film. So it says something that I think a real argument can be made that Short Cuts should be considered Altman's masterpiece. I do not where I fall on the question but these two great films are pillars of America cinema.

    Whereas Nashville's exploration of Americana is bold, vivid and striking Short Cuts present its exploration of modernity's isolation and alienation in italics. The Carver stories proved a fruitful ground to plant Altman's sensibilities. The way the short stories are broke apart and integrated leaves each story precisely ambiguous enough to hit the correct note while yielding a cohesive, emotionally powerful whole. There is a soullessness to these characters that nonetheless have a humanity to them in the way they try to pass time-take short cuts-in the wrong way. I imagine that Carver fans might be displeased with the looseness of the adaptation but to me it is a perfect example of how source material can inspire. This is Altman's rift on the Carver material; it is very much like a jazz variant on a classic melody.

    Whereas Nashville was a leap forward in technique, Short Cuts is the work of a master who knows precisely how to paint a mosaic. The transitions between the various story threads are varied-some scenes are joined visually, some via dialog, some via concept-and the film's pace never legs as a result. Films like this often feel episodic and disjointed but Altman as writer reshapes the stories to fit together and as a director he knows how to shoot an end of scene to flow freely into the next. The editing is a masterclass of juxtaposition to add thematic weight and to keep the momentum of the narrative going.

    Nashville is angry and filled with acidic wit. There is some of that disillusionment in Short Cuts-how could there not be?-but much of the film is tempered by Altman's aged compassion. Like I said I can't say which film is better.

    Oh and *of course* the acting is wonderful. Lemmon is in the film for all of 10 minutes but turns in a show stopping scene. But that is the least of the performances.
  • jboothmillard14 January 2014
    Warning: Spoilers
    From Oscar nominated director Robert Altman (MASH, McCabe and Mrs. Miller, Nashville, The Player), this was another film with a big ensemble cast of big stars, featured in the book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, I was looking forward to seeing. Basically a fleet of helicopters spray for medflies, and along the path flight we meet various characters, most not aware of each other, only some that are, but all going through regular day to day things, but all have an element of luck and chance come into play and change things for them, whether based on infidelity or death. Dr. Ralph Wyman (Matthew Modine) is married to wife Marian Wyman (Julianne Moore), but she later admits she has been sleeping with another man, Marian's sister Sherri Shepard (Madeleine Stowe) is married to police officer Gene Shepard (Tim Robbins), he initially plans to leave the family and the irritating barking dog following his affair with Betty Weathers (Frances McDormand), but changes his mind for his children, and Betty herself is divorcing helicopter pilot Stormy Weathers (Peter Gallagher). Waitress Doreen Piggot (Lily Tomlin) is married to alcoholic limousine driver Earl (Tom Waits), she is shocked after hitting Casey Finnigan (Zane Cassidy) with her car, the day before his ninth birthday, the little boy seemed fine for some time, but then his mother Ann Finnigan (Andie MacDowell) finds him in a bad way and he is taken to hospital where he goes unconscious, and Casey shockingly dies all of the sudden, the baker gets a harsh explanation of why Ann or TV commentator husband Howard (Bruce Davison) didn't collect the birthday cake. Tess Trainer (Annie Ross) is a cabaret singer seen singing throughout the film, her daughter who lives with her is cello player Zoe (Lori Singer), she becomes overwhelmed by her mother's alcoholism and isolation, breaking down and committing suicide breathing gas fumes from inside her car, later being found dead by her mother, and Jerry Kaiser (Chris Penn) is a pool cleaner married to wife Lois (Jennifer Jason Leigh) who is a mother at home with children, and often taking care of them at the same time she makes money as a sex phone operator. Stuart Kane (Fred Ward), and his buddies Gordon Johnson (Buck Henry) and Vern Miller (Huey Lewis) are on a three day fishing trip, they find a woman's body in the river near the rocks, but initially considering it they do not report it to the police, they simply tie her to the rocks and continue fishing, and report the death after the trip, Stuart's wife Claire (Anne Archer) is angry that they did nothing all that time, and feeling guilty she attends the funeral of the dead twenty three year old girl. Other characters you see appearing in the film in amongst the other story lines and events include couple Honey Bush (Lili Taylor), Doreen's daughter, and makeup artist Bill Bush (Robert Downey Jr.) who spend most of their time entertaining each other at home, and Howard's father Paul Finnigan (Jack Lemmon) in the hospital who approaches some people being friendly or jokey, and the event that involves all characters is an earthquake in the area. All the stars in the film do their parts very well, whether being funny or serious, especially MacDowell, Robbins and Jason Leigh, obviously none of the stories are really related or connected, but you are compelled by a good number of them, when they are illicit, distressing or emotional, a most watchable and interesting ensemble, interweaving and multi layered drama. It won the Golden Globe for the Special Award for Best Ensemble Cast, and it was nominated for Best Screenplay. Very good!
  • Maverick director Robert Altman and acclaimed short story writer Raymond Carver prove to be perfectly matched in this, one of Altman's very best films.

    Altman takes a series of Carver stories, transplants them from the Pacific Northwest to Los Angeles, and interweaves them into one meandering (but in a good way) narrative about people trying to navigate the tricky waters of this thing called life. Like the Carver stories, there aren't profound realizations in this film, and there aren't tidy conclusions. Life for just about every character consists of nothing but lesser or greater disappointments, and if the film isn't very optimistic (o.k. let's be honest -- it's not optimistic at all), it's also very true to Carver's tone. I can see why people would be turned off by it, because it is awfully bleak, but I think it's a fascinating film, made so by Altman's fantastic direction and the sensational work of the entire ensemble cast.

    It's impossible and unnecessary to single any one actor out, since all of them are top notch and the movie is the sum of its parts. On my latest viewing, I found the film to be largely one big apology to women for the inadequacies of the men in their lives. It's one of the themes Altman frequently explored throughout his career, and it was most definitely one of Carver's biggest preoccupations, so it comes as no surprise that it's given one of its most ambitious treatments here.

    Grade: A+
  • Warning: Spoilers
    By the time Robert Altman directed Short Cuts, in 1993, his style of interconnected and quirky characters in the format of a large cast was becoming trendy. The nineties would see other famous examples of this approach by big name directors, notably Tarantino's Pulp Fiction in 1994 and Paul Thomas Anderson's' Magnolia from 1999. There was even a Simpson's episode in this vein in 1996 called '22 Short Films About Springfield'.

    Even though Altman was one of the inventors of this style, or grouping of styles, Short Takes suffers some from being in the age of such movies, rather than a monumental predecessor. Altman came close to perfecting the large, interconnected ensemble film in 1975 with Nashville. This film was more of a portrait of a unique city with its own music and culture and a portrait of the times rather than a character study or a gripping pot boiler. So the title made sense. Perhaps an even more accurate title would have been Nashville 1975. Altman excited audiences by making a large scale portrait of a time and place, full of complexity and brimming with interesting little stories and people. By 1993, the charms of these new developments were starting to wear off, and the nineties would sap the creative reservoir (and audience patience) of such sprawling films.

    Nashville is a better film---it cracks with energy and humor, it radiates a cynicism that was new in the 70's but is now commonplace. Short cuts fails to be a larger portrait as Nashville was. Nashville's true main character was the city herself. All the pieces fit to make a larger structure. This large structure may have been gaudy and odd, but it was worth building. Short Takes takes place in L.A. Suburbs, but is not about them. It feels like it takes place there because it was convenient, not because Altman had developed a Nashville-like interest in the area. The stories are thus highly reliant on their connections, though these can feel contrived. There is too much material here, even for 3 hours, to mine much real depth with individuals, and so the shattered pieces of a whole are hurt by never fitting into a larger structure. Nashville was 'weird' because it was about a city, Short Takes is 'weird' because it is about nothing. It seems appropriate that this movie came from the age of Seinfeld.

    Nashville was better and more innovative, but Short Takes was still on the front edge of the nineties trend of piecemeal interconnection dramas. It seems unfair that Pulp Fiction is so much more heralded and Magnolia is more remembered and loved. Why? Pulp Fiction might be more silly fun, and Magnolia might be by arguably the most gifted director of the three, but Short takes feels left behind by these films even though it was first, from a historical point of view. Part of this comes from the tone. The film is not touching or dramatic in the conventional sense. The viewer doesn't care about anyone in particular. We feel as upset for the girl killed by Chris Penn's character (she has only a few lines) as we do for anyone. Through its sheer fun Pulp Fiction makes you care about the characters in at least a passing way. Magnolia is a web of quirky, interconnected characters, but has more thematic and emotional focus. Short Cuts feels insincere at times, dramatically, and falls into clichés which are amplified by the lack of time any one line of a character is given. The attempts at darkish humor fall flat or feel confusing as to whether they are serious or tongue in cheek. Despite a huge cast of huge names, the actors seem as confused and aimless as the audience. There are very good actors everywhere here and so sometimes good acting comes here and there, but there is a subdued feeling like all the talent has been handicapped. This is a good film if you are in a patient mood, but far from Altman's best work. Six stars.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This movie is a disaster. There is not one single memorable performance by the cast of "stars". They walk through this movie like they are having a boil removed.

    If you want to see a little boy happily running to school, get hit by a car, walk home injured and die, have at it. Criterion should be ashamed.

    Of course there is the requisite sad sack waitress, a drunken husband, and a philandering cop. All starkly uninteresting characters. Oh yea, the cop takes the family dog and deposits him on the other side of town because he is tired of the barking and then gets the hots for a clown. This is reality? A former husband cuts up everything in his ex's house while a door to door salesman shampoos the rugs. More reality? Wow. This is the worst movie I have seen in years.
An error has occured. Please try again.