Waking the Dead (2000) User Reviews (113)

Upending Your Initial Expectations, A Thoughtful Film About The Nature Of Love

[museumofdave · 7/10 · 26 April 2013]

Based on initial assumptions, this could easily be taken for the usual chick-flick weeper, and dismissed for that reason and because it does not follow the usual rules of narrative, but jumps before and after the key romance: but don't be fooled--while not intellectually complex, this is a film of some suspense and a good deal of character development, a film about how love could upend our expectations and about our reactions to sudden and permanent loss.

Waking The Dead is so crammed with genuine performances from the ensemble that if you allow yourself an immersion in Billy Crudup's confusion, you cannot help but think about those who perhaps you have lost and what they mean to you now; both Crudup and Connelly exude dedication, and one key scene stands out as an exemplar of acting technique coupled with intuitive choices; in his director's commentary, Keith Gordon reveals himself to be the sort of guy you'd like to know, not only for his direct honesty, but simply because he's fun to listen to

Politics Vs. Activism

[flickershows · 7/10 · 16 July 2004]

You'll have to choose sides in 'Waking The Dead'. Are you going to be an obedient politician or a liberal activist? Those opposing viewpoints cause a tug-of-war, with eternal love playing the ever-tightening knot in the middle. Billy Crudup and Jennifer Connelly are Fielding and Sarah; he the idealistic politician and she the faithful revolutionary. We know from the start that she dies via car bomb while raging against the machine. The movie's chronology is all over the place (which is occasionally confusing) and we see them when they're blissfully happy and otherwise. But after she's gone, the upstanding young man fears for his marbles after he starts to see & hear his dead lover everywhere. Is she actually alive or is he just too insane for public office?

Seeing ghosts is tricky. It can turn into unintentional humour without the proper direction. Director Keith Gordon doesn't pull it off as well as he should, but at least the heat between them seems real. Crudup and Connelly make a great romantic match. She's sandpaper to his block of wood, but she's also his conscience. The phrase "Jiminy Cricket" is actually used, and he succeeds politically only as he's failing emotionally. He clearly needs her whispering in his ear, even if he wouldn't agree with what she would have to say. It's clear that she wouldn't approve of what he's become and he knows it. So I guess that makes her the ghost of Jiminy Cricket too.

The movie would be a turd without strong performances. While no one in the supporting cast has lingered in my memory, the talented leads have. They're both good in almost everything they do, so I expected them to be an excellent duo here too. Connelly has since won an Oscar and Crudup probably will too. Some of Gordon's directorial choices undercut what his actors are doing. His style of editing and use of too many arty shots don't work. When the actors are already front row centre, the director should get out of their way.

What grabbed me about 'Waking The Dead' was that both Fielding and Sarah are trying to make the world a better giant rock. She's counterculture and he's as mainstream as it gets. Since the story boils down to politics versus religion, it's no wonder the film didn't find an audience. Most people have opinions on those matters, yet political correctness demands you not share them. But you ARE allowed to discuss love. The movie knows how to get that right...the ache, the irritation, the yearning, and the loss of true love.

Absorbing, but slow moving

[FlickJunkie-2 · 7/10 · 10 October 2000]

Fielding Pierce (Billy Crudup) has one ambition: to be President of the United States. His entire life is planned out to reach that goal. Only he didn't plan on Sarah (Jennifer Connelly). Sarah is a free spirited, radical human rights advocate. We meet them on the day she dies and then flash back to the inception of their relationship in 1972. He is The Establishment personified. She is an iconoclast. Two philosophies more incompatible could not possibly exist, but despite everything, they fall in love.

The story then fast-forwards to Fielding's campaign for the House of Representatives ten years after Sarah's death. It is at this time that Fielding becomes obsessed with Sarah's ghost. He believes he is seeing her everywhere and that he is surely losing his mind. He begins to question his own philosophies and begins to lose his will to win the election.

The film is an engrossing character study of two very fascinating people cut of completely different cloth. The non-linear approach used by Director Keith Gordon was both a blessing and a curse. Sometimes it provided important character development and motivation and at others, it jumped back and forth for no good reason. This often made the film seem disjointed and hard to follow. Gordon's direction was only fair, though he delivered accurate period renderings especially of the 1970's. There were too many instances of unnecessary stylizing. For instance, there was excessive use of monologue jump cuts, where he cut from the speaker saying one thing to the same speaker in the same spot saying something else. He used it so often that it looked like bad editing.

In addition, Gordon tended to focus on the schmaltzy romantic angle and downplayed the far more interesting philosophical tension. He did give us some dialectic, but generally cut away when the philosophical fireworks were just getting started. He also kept treading over the same ground in different ways. This made the story drag.

The acting by both leads was terrific. This film brings Billy Crudup and Jennifer Connelly together again, both having appeared in `Inventing the Abbotts'. Crudup was extremely impressive as the tormented politician. This was an exquisitely complex character and Crudup flexed the role to the max. Connelly was a bit more uneven in her role, sometimes playing the role with great force, but at others with a mousy self-consciousness that was inconsistent with the character. Still, she gave Sarah great depth as both a lover and a crusader, and a convincing passion for her beliefs.

This is an absorbing but slow moving romance that is a bit heavy handed, but nonetheless interesting. I rated it a 7/10. It showcases good performances by two young actors we will surely hear from again. Not recommended for impatient viewers.

I will keep this review short

[necron99 · 15 January 2008]

This is one of those films that you watch and contemplate later in your life. As far as losing someone you love, and how that effects every major decision you will ever make for the rest of your life, this film is the most realistic portrayal I have ever seen. Billy Crudup was meant to play Fielding in this movie. This movie is haunting and is just one of those little movies that falls through the cracks but is never forgotten. A stunning movie directing by none other than the director of A Midnight Clear, another terrific film. If you are reading this you should seek out this movie or just buy it online. I give Waking the Dead 9/10.

two different worlds

[blanche-2 · 7/10 · 22 June 2016]

An aspiring politician (Billy Crudup) falls in love with an activist (Jennifer Connelly) in "Waking the Dead" from 2001, directed by Keith Gordon and adapted from the eponymous novel by Robert Dillon.

When Fielding Pierce meets his brother's assistant Sarah in 1972, the two fall in love with one another. It's a deep, emotional love. But they have different ideologies. Fielding has political ambitions; Sarah is idealist who spends her time helping others. She is killed in an explosion while helping members of the Chilean resistance.

Nine years later, a Fielding is running for the Senate, he starts seeing Sarah everywhere and can't get her out of his mind. It affects his campaign work, to the consternation of those trying to get him elected.

This is a movie that's almost painful to watch, because Billy Crudup and Jennifer Connelly pour such passion and emotion into their love affair, that you feel his pain when she's gone. They're both excellent -- and very young here.

There are some old-timers in the cast as well - Hal Holbrook and Bernard Behrens, to name two, but also the excellent stage actors Janet McTeer and Larry Marshall. Ed Harris has a small role as someone on television. "House of Cards" actress Molly Parker plays Crudup's current girlfriend, though he doesn't really love her.

I think the love story was the most compelling element of this film - though these two people want to do good in the world, they approach it in different ways, and that separates them.

One of the last scenes is deliberately ambiguous when it really shouldn't be -- if you look at the message board you will see a description of a deleted scene and what is in the book.

It's a lovely story.

One other thing - a lot of people did not like Sarah. I find that so interesting - every time I watch a film featuring a female activist, everybody hates her. I watched "The Constant Gardener" and had to listen to everyone hating on Rachel Weisz. Ditto "The Whistleblower." Go figure. Too left-wing? Too goody two-shoes? I don't know. But people sure have a strong reaction.

Tough Emotional Ground and Only Mixed Results

[d_fienberg · 6/10 · 24 December 2000]

Based on the script as written, I can't imagine any director this side of Steven Soderbergh could have really handled Waking the Dead. This is a film that bounces through a nonlinear storyline and any number of genres and yet all the while is basically a showpiece for a single actor. Keith Gordon does what he can with the material, but despite a very strong ending I feel like he's overwhelmed slightly more often that he succeeds.

The film takes place in at least four separate time periods, two in the early seventies and two in the early eighties. The earlier periods are essentially the story of the romance between Fielding Pierce (Billy Crudup) and Sarah Williams (Jennifer Connelly), young people of similar leftist ideology, but very different views of how to achieve political goals. Pierce, the son of a blue collar family, wants to take his Harvard diploma and law degree and turn himself into a Senator or a president. He joins the coast guard because he knows that taking a stand outside of the system will cost him his political life someday. She, on the other hand, is disgusted by the corruption of politics and works through the church and grass roots causes. And in 1974, as we're told through a television broadcast in the opening scene, Sarah was killed in a car bombing. Cut to 1983, where Pierce is being handed a Chicago congressional district by the local political bosses and he's in danger of becoming the kind of cog in the political wheel that Sarah most detested. And to make matters worse, he's started to see Sarah everywhere, becoming gradually more convinced that she's around, either as a ghost, a hallucination, or something else...

The film dances from time period to time period, generally in a simplistic fashion aimed at making clear how Pierce's idealism has been tampered with. For at least the first half of the film, the audience is informed of temporal (and geographical) switches by subtitles at the bottom of the screen. I have to admit that this bothered me. If a director wants to do an unconventional piece of storytelling, he should either have faith in the cinematic literacy of the audience or else he shouldn't bother. Gordon's decision to constantly tell the audience where he's going, both through the subtitles (i.e. "Chicago, 1973") and the editing marker of a burst of white light signaling flashes forward and back undermines his more intelligent efforts. The transitions in time are clunky and the film has a hard time segueing from romance to political thriller to tragedy to mystery. It's fine for a film to be a mix, but Waking the Dead feels like it's working too hard.

I'm not really sure where the currency is in this story that drew Gordon to it. The notion of a man haunted by both a literal spirit from his past and the metaphorical spirit of his lost ideals is hardly fresh and the story feels like it may have had more pep back in the mid-80s, when the shift of counter culture members to the political Right was more of a hot idea.

This being said, Gordon (who in my mind will always be the kid from Dressed to Kill) does excellent work with the actors in the film. This is especially true with Connelly, an actress who all too often finds herself cast for her curves and not enough for her acting muscle. Directors seem to get such a kick out of filming her body that they don't work with her performance. Gordon solves one of these problems by keeping Connelly in winter clothes for most of her performance. Rather than being the femme fatale, she's an Earth Mother. And it's a pleasant change. Sure she's beautiful and sexy, but she also has a lilting Southern accent (in most scenes) and a good screen presence.

I didn't put an "especially true" on Crudup's performance because I've simply come to expect very fine work from him. Crudup's film work began with him sleeping through performances in Sleeper and Inventing the Abbotts, but since then he's given one amazing performance after another, carrying films as diverse as the hugely underrated Without Limits and this year's triple crown of Jesus's Son, Almost Famous, and this film. His ability to deliver dialogue speaks to his theater background and he holds the screen remarkably well for a man who, as this movie visually emphasizes on several occasions, isn't of great stature. He's one of the best young actors working and this is an amazing showcase for him. As his character becomes more desperate and erratic, Crudup's performance just becomes better.

As I said, this film got better for me towards the end. However, there are huge patches where none of the scene transitions work at all. I'm giving it a 6/10, but I certainly think it has its rewards.

a long long movie

[mot_mt · 6/10 · 13 July 2001]

This movie, although only an hour and forty minutes seemed incredibly long. The story was good, but really couldn't hold up for that much time. It was nice to see Jennifer Connelly in something a little more mature than Labyrinth, but this movie contained a little too much sex. Don't get me wrong, I like sex, I just couldn't figure out why there were so many scenes with sex in it, for no apparent reason. It seemed Sarah (Connelly) and Fielding (Crudup) has sex whenever anything happened. They fought, and had sex. They laughed, and had sex. Sex, sex, sex...in a film that isn't about sex. That was my only complaint, really...

A Frustrating Blech-fest of Overwrought Emotion

[sisyphus-12 · 1/10 · 13 October 2000]

This movie is the kind of garbage you might find on the Lifetime channel. I was embarrassed for the actors who appeared in this gut-wrenching, slobbering, emotion-fest. Both Billy Crudup and Jennifer Connolly are fine actors, and anyone offended by mawkish sentimentality will wince at some of the lines they are made to speak in this in this awful, maudlin, frustrating movie.

Billy Crudup plays a super-decent, super-caring, super-sensitive Democratic (of course--just one of this movie's many cliches) Congressional contender. Jennifer Connolly is his lover from some 10 years ago, who he believes has been killed in Chile rescuing people from a despotic regime. Their affair is told through flashbacks. They have long senstive conversations. When they fight, they don't really fight--they are both too decent to yell at the other. They just look hurt, and we *know* that this is a very meaningful non-fight. Naturally, he is a gentle lover; she weeps during sex. Everyone in this movie is terribly earnest, and LOVES to talk about what they're feeling. In other words: This is the Über Chick Movie!

But then, when Crudup's character is running for office, he begins seeing Connolly...around, sometimes out of the corner of his eye, sometimes everywhere, a flock of her coming at him. It seems likely...likely that she's alive...or is it his imagination? We're never given a convincing reason why, if Connolly is still alive, she has been in hiding all these years, or how such a sensitive, decent person could justify doing what she did to him. If she isn't alive...then ole Fielding is hallucinating and is, therefore, a psychopath, and the whole idea that he could sustain a campaign, let alone get elected, is laughable.

There is one remarkably inept scene in which Crudup's character Fielding is eating with Connolly, her church coworkers (two priests), and 4 Chilean nationals they have just rescued. One of the Chilean women confronts Fielding on his desire to become a politician, condemning him specifically for becoming an American politician, and we--like Fielding--feel the others in the room silently agreeing with her. Fielding explodes (but decently!), pointing out their hypocrisy, and how, despite the world's finger-pointing at Americans, it is OUR shores they so often wash up on when fleeing the terror of their homelands. Finally, he declares that he is "choking on the collective superiority in this room!" It is a good line, and he delivers a great tirade...but everyone (except, perhaps, the Chileans) in this movie is so darn nice, and good and wholesome, that we can't believe for a minute that they can't see Fielding's goodness, too. So their collective superiority...it just doesn't ring true.

In fact, very, very little in this movie rings true. This is the sort of movie a 14-year-old girl wanting an adult love story might like; it displays precisely that sort of idealized emotional maturity. Few discerning adults will be able to stomach it. Even my wife (who is the reason I sat through it) disliked it.

A picture of true beauty

[wildgoose77 · 10/10 · 21 March 2001]

I cannot recommend this film strongly enough. This story celebrates the timelessness of love without cynicism or irony. It portrays a relationship in all its many forms: moments of joy, frustration, passion, tenderness, tragedy, and even a bit of insanity. Fielding Pierce and Sarah Williams are the two politically-minded lovers. While they share very similar political goals, their means of achieving those goals are vastly different. Fielding is the ambitious golden boy, campaigning through the political machine in an effort to affect change by working within the established system. Sarah is the rebel outsider, who believes real change will never be accomplished within a corrupt system, leaving political revolution as the only alternative. The film never passes judgement on which is the nobler or the more effective method. Rather, it chooses to portray Fielding and Sarah as two people whose love for what they believe in is second only to the love they have for each other.

Starcrossed lovers meet in a battle between practical politics and social idealism

[lewwarden · 7/10 · 12 June 2007]

I resonated with this picture on so many levels that I found the viewers comments as interesting and revealing as this excellent character study of the Vietnam era. However, I thought the title was poorly chosen and a bit macabre for the subject matter. I was particularly intrigued with the writer of the novel, Scott Spenser and turned to his bio for clues. Born 1945 in Washington, DC was a tip-off for me. Does this account for his awareness of the seamy side of politics and his apparently ruptured idealism? He would have been 17 when JFK was killed and in a couple of years become a prime candidate for service in Vietnam or a fast trip to Canada, as he has his flawed hero admit while explaining his cop-out by joining the Coast Guard. Spenser obviously knows about being conflicted.

I just don't see Fielding Pierce as being idealistic in his political ambitions as so many readers do, at least not until the image of his lost love comes back to drive him to near mental collapse at the climax of a very physically draining political campaign. And such ventures, unless you are blessed by a very wealthy and powerful father, as with JFK and more recently George Bush -- are totally exhausting experiences in which the candidate can feel that he is absolutely alone and that the people around him are just sucking him dry. Fielding is portrayed as a totally passive pretty boy who is picked up by a powerful King Maker and who appears to have not a single political or social thought, whether his own or anyone else's, not even his eminently lovable and totally idealistic lover. So he loved the sex, but what else? And who doesn't? He had a childish dream, which he casually puts forth, of wanting to be President. Which is the sum total of his political and social awareness in so far as the story goes, until the image of his lost love finally reconstructs his insensitive soul.

I was particularly struck by the writer's very short line that no one would have voted for JFK if they had really known him. How did that one get by the Hollywood censors? And did this account for the less than glowing reception this very well acted and directed "sensitive" story actually received? Did Jody Foster or Ed Harris approve that line? Can it be that these presumably politically sensitive Hollywood stars do not sit at the feet of the Democratic Party's latter day Saint Francis? They both must have had something to say about the script before they became attached to this project.

Hmm. I find these clues fascinating. I'll have to watch this one again. And read more about it.

Might Wake the Dead... but Put Everyone Else To Sleep

[hokeybutt · 4/10 · 4 July 2004]

WAKING THE DEAD (2 outta 5 stars)

Writer/director Keith Gordon has made some really fantastic movies that most people never see or hear about (A Midnight Clear, Mother Night) so I was very excited about seeing this one. Unfortunately, I have to say that it's not up to his usual standards. Billy Crudup plays an idealistic young man with dreams of winning a seat in the US Senate. Jennifer Connelly plays the idealistic young girl he falls in love with who has a slightly more radical take on government. The events of the movie take place out of the linear time sequence. The movie starts with Connelly's death and backtracks to when they first met... and it leapfrogs back and forth forever after... as the latter-day Crudup begins to have visions of his dead girl coming back to life. Is he crazy? Is she a ghost? Or did she fake her own death? The acting is pretty good... especially by Crudup, who gets all the showy, emotional breakdown scenes... but the script and story are a bit on the bland side. Not a bad movie... but kind of slow... and after all is said and done... doesn't really leave you with much. (A good movie for playing "Spot The Canadian" though... as all the smaller roles seem to be played by familiar Canadian actors... Molly Parker and Leah Pinsent among them.)

2000's hidden gem is also its Crown Jewel

[mercury-26 · 10/10 · 30 March 2001]

Never mind `Traffic'. Forget `Gladiator'. To find 2000's finest, most nail-on-the-head perfect film, you'll need to look a little deeper. A small film that only enjoyed limited release in theaters and isn't getting much attention on DVD either, is Keith Gordon's latest, `Waking the Dead'.

Back in 1992, there was another under-appreciated independent film called `A Midnight Clear' that had the misfortune of being released alongside the likes of `Unforgiven' and `Last of the Mohicans'. For reasons I can't fathom, this brilliant film seemingly did nothing to help Gordon's career. His budgets stayed small, but he continued looking for the most daring and fascinating material. In 1996, he released `Mother Night', another war-themed film, only this time set in the aftermath of WWII.

With `Waking the Dead', Gordon outdoes himself. He casts Billy Crudup as Fielding Pierce, an ambitious Coast Guard officer who'd like to be president--and he means it. His world is turned upside-down when he meets Sarah Williams (Jennifer Connelly), who just wants to feel like she `lives on the planet'. Fielding and Sarah could not be more different, yet they cannot live without each other. Each is the antithesis of the other, which dooms their relationship and intensifies their love at the same time.

The film begins with the announcement of Sarah's death, and continues pulling you back and forth in time. Employing this storytelling technique and maintaining the momentum of the story is a difficult task. While we see Fielding wrestle with her memory, we're shown the powerful connection these two had during her life.

What's more, Fielding begins to see visions of her. Some of these visions are so real, he begins to believe she's alive. The hauntings come just as he begins campaigning for the U.S. House. It begins to affect his life and threatens his campaign. The question of whether Sarah is really alive is the dramatic carrot Gordon dangles in front of us. It's then we realize that she was his conscience in life and remains so in death. Gordon pours it on right until the very last frame. He gets the best performance of Connelly's career out of her, plus a jaw-dropping performance out of Crudup that's worthy of an Oscar. Whoever was in charge of plugging this film for awards nominations must have fallen asleep at the wheel (though I see it did win an Independent Spirit award for its script).

That this film or others in the same situation get no recognition is definitely for the best. The more popular a film becomes, the more idiots that come out of the woodwork to second-guess it. So best to leave it to be discovered by those willing to seek it out. It is 2000's crown jewel.

Grade: A (but only because there isn't a higher grade)

Glitch

[innibirdy · 6/10 · 13 August 2022]

It would have been a good movie if it wouldn't be so cheesy. There was smth wrong with pace also, or editing - these awkward pauses in dialogues. They were probably directed to do that, so it's bad directing that makes acting artificial.

Pretentious and boring

[beagle-13 · 3/10 · 23 June 2001]

This ambitious semi-supernatural romantic drama has a clever central plot but wallows in it's own seriousness to the point where any enjoyment is dissolved. Jennifer Connelly is good as the saintly object of wannabe president Billy Crudup's affection, but Crudup himself struggles with an overtly emotional and poorly written role. Painfully (and I mean painfully) slow, self important and extremely uninvolving - with the one of the worst scores of recent history and awfully inept editing that wrings any sense of interest out of each and every scene.

A really fine movie that too few will see.

[TxMike · 11 August 2005]

This is a love story involving two people who in many ways are worlds apart in how they approach life. Billy Crudup is Fielding Pierce, a serious, intelligent young man destined for great things. He is a young attorney and is being groomed for a life in politics.

Jennifer Connelly is Sarah Williams, a new clerical hire in Fielding's brother's business. While visiting, Fielding is instantly smitten with Sarah. When they have lunch, and Fielding tells Sarah he wants to be President, she smiles. He asks why, and she answers, "Because you really believe it."

Set in the early 1970s, while Fielding is making back room deals with older politicians, setting his course for future aspirations, Sarah is protesting the war, and helping combat injustice in various parts of the world. This creates tension, but they are deeply in love.

SPOILERS. Sarah is with some South American political refugees, in the USA, when their vehicle is bombed, and the news reports that Sarah is killed. They have a funeral. Fielding is devastated, he begins to hear Sarah's voice, he begins to see her in various places, but when he pursues her, can never find her. He comes to suspect it is all in his head, he is going crazy. Then, at the end, we see Sarah show up in his apartment, they have an evening together, she explains that her involvements are too dangerous for him, she needs to remain hidden, and they can never see each other again. The next morning Fielding realizes that he has achieved closure, he can get on with his life and try to do good. At the same time, he and we, the audience, don't know if it was really Sarah there, or just another vision. I suspect it was another vision.

Cinematic excellence under a pall of ambiguities.

[=G= · 7/10 · 26 October 2000]

"Waking the dead" offers excellent performances by some 2nd tier actors, particularly Crudup and Connelly. However, the story about two people, intensely in love, with opposing ideologies (a politician and a revolutionary), suffers from a choppy series of flashbacks and fastforwards and the thin line between reality and paranormal it treads. Not for general consumption and not to be missed by cinematic devotees.

Haunting - Good for Halloween

[Jakemcclake · 6/10 · 17 November 2009]

I have read the negative reviews and find I do agree with many of them. The movie moves slowly, and has many boring parts. However, the overall feeling when I was finished was, haunted and perplexed.

Jennifer Connelly , well she is just Jennifer, and an incredible looking woman. She is worth the price of the movie, just to see her on the screen, even the small screen. Billy Crudup, well I really did not notice him much.

Interestingly, this is Jennifer's second film regarding the same activism subject. She also starred with Antonio Bandares in a movie called "Love In The Shadows", about the same subject. I do not think she has any ties to this subject, that took place when she was a three year old growing up in Catskill, New York. I think Jennifer just plays her parts very well and really gets into her roles. The movie also focuses on the US political system, and election process. The movie comments on reasons people do not like the US politicians and reasons for someone to want to be involved in it.

Most of all, if you stay with this movie from beginning to end, you will have a question, by the end. You will never really answer it, either. When you see the DVD, you may feel an erie need to answer it, by looking through everything on the DVD and re-watching the movie. But you'll never get an answer. But you should see it and decide for yourself, what you think the answer is.

Constantly think about this.

[TheEmulator23 · 7/10 · 21 June 2008]

I haven't seen this movie in years but I often think about it. I'm not sure why exactly, but something about it really stuck with me. The performances are fantastic and it is no wonder Jennifer Connelly won an Oscar years later and Billy Crudup is a well respected actor. This isn't a perfect film by any means (a little slow in places) but it is very clever and well done by everyone involved. If you are a serious film buff watch this film, if you like crap like the re-makes "Prom Night" & "One Missed Call" then you should skip this, because you won't know how to appreciate it. Give this a try otherwise and help it open your mind for some of the imaginative people that do exist out there.

Confusing and disjointed

[jackjack-2 · 4/10 · 1 June 2001]

It is a love story, perhaps a good one, but bad directing and organization destroys the story. Almost every other scene is a flashback and the poor viewer has no reference marks. Tough to know at what time in the story the scene was shot. Because of its disorganization, it would not be surprising that every viewer has a different version of what the story is. Frankly, I do not know how the movie ended, it was so confusing.

I was motivated to watch the movie because of Jennifer Connelly. She is a captivating beauty who has always come across as a lovable person. But she turns ugly in this movie. At the most inappropriate time, she becomes vulgar. it doesn't fit her character and in real life, it is doubtful that anyone would launch into a vulgar tirade as she did against a reporter at a formal function. Neither was it natural for Billy Crudup to spew forth vulgarities during family dinner at a restaurant. People do not use the f word in front of their mothers, especially when one considers how close Crudup was to his family.

Moving film about first love and ambition

[Garbo9_99 · 10/10 · 21 May 2007]

What made this film so hauntingly beautiful was that fact that the ghost being chased wasn't just Sarah - it was who they both were in their youth, and the overwhelming emotion and honesty that is first love. Was Fielding really seeking Sarah or who he once was - what he once stood for when he loved her? Sometimes when we grow up we let our well-meant integrity, even our simplest dreams, die under the 'reality' of who we end up becoming. I thought this film did an excellent job at showing someone mourning his youth, his wild ideas - and his truest love. I thought Billy Crudup and Jennifer Connelly both did amazing jobs - the intensity of their performances is what really drove the story. Beautiful acting, beautiful movie.

One Step Beyond

[sol1218 · 7/10 · 7 December 2008]

(There are Spoilers) Trying to put his long deceased lover Sarah Williams, Jenniffer Connelly, out of his mind up and coming Chicago politician Fielding Pierce, Billy Crudup, is hunted by her throughout the movie "Walking the Dead" as if Sarah was his guilty consciences.

Sarah had been killed in a car bombing some ten year's earlier in her being involved with an organization that protest the conditions in Chile. Being the very idealistic and headstrong young woman that she was Sarah put her life on the line for the downtrodden and underprivileged Chilean peasants that lead to her untimely murder. It was Sarah's selfless actions that sparred Fielding to see her way of thinking. But that only happened after Fielding almost blew his election, for Congressman, which and at the same time had him find his long lost and troubled soul.

Trying to cover all the bases, as well as his a**, in his future in politics Fielding played it safe in the Vietnam War by becoming a commissioned officer in the US Coast Guard where being sent to fight in Vietman was practically an impossibility. The very politically ambitious Fielding also played ball with the state and local Chicago big wigs from the governor and mayor on down in order to get himself a plumb job in the city's D.A's office which was to serve as a springboard for his future political ventures. While all this was happening his girlfriend Sarah became more and more distanced from him. Sarah felt that the get to the top at all cost Fielding is just a political climber who's concern from the public, mostly the poor and disenfranchised, was only to get their vote and nothing else.

It was Sarah's sudden death that put Fielding's career on hold and took the poor guy some ten years to get over it. Now back in action running for a seat in the US Congress Fielding disregarded all that Sarah taught him about serving, in and out of politics, those who needed his help most. As if coming back from the dead Sarah started making ghostly or real live appearances, where only Fielding can see her, in an effort to spook Fielding by making him more of a feeling and caring human being. The question is if Sarah is actually alive, and faked her death, or only an illusion in Fielding's unbalanced mind! Which may be due to his guilt ridden conscious or the result of a combination of sleep deprivation and prescription drugs, as well as alcohol, in his non-stop 24 hour around the clock campaign to get himself elected?

***SPOILER ALERT*** The movie makes it's point in a very confusing way where we in the audience as well as the confused and befuddled Fielding don't really know if the supposed long dead Sarah Williams is really alive or the product of Fielding very fertile imagination. Fielding's last encounter with the ghostly Sarah at the end of the movie gets his head back on together in helping the poor infirmed and financially destroyed in his district to get back on their feet. We'll never know,like Fielding, if in fact it was Sarah in the flesh or conjured up from deep inside his subconscious that got Fielding to do the right thing! But whatever the reasons were, real or imagined, it worked!

Decent, mainly due to the two leads.

[dead47548 · 5/10 · 9 January 2008]

A film about a couple whose love for one another combats strongly with their political beliefs and future plans that focuses too much on the politics and too little on the romance. We get very brief introductions to the characters and then out of nowhere they go on a date and are madly in love. The intimate scenes only succeed so well due to the beautiful chemistry of Billy Crudup and Jennifer Connelly who both deliver some powerhouse performances. The political aspect of the film is dull and drags quite a bit, but every time Jennifer is re-introduced into Crudup's life it draws you back in. The finale is thought-provoking and sentimental, but the strength of the scenes with Crudup and Connelly alone together only weakens the quality of the rest of the film.

Genius Performance......

[rbrb · 10/10 · 10 October 2002]

Currently showing on cable this movie is sensational. A young want to be politician apparently loses the love of his life, and the film centres on that love and his grief. Rarely can such emotions have been more compellingly and brilliantly portrayed on film.It is thought provoking and often scary too. There is a superb screenplay and all the performers are excellent. Anyone who has every loved another will know that you see that love wherever you go; and the lead actor's portrayal of that emotion is at genius level.The most emotionally charged scene is at the restaurant of the election results are known, and I for one cannot recall any movie where a particular scene is so intensely sensitive or almost uncomfortably realistic.For quiet and justifiably restrained but wonderful adult entertainment, this is the best film I have seen in years. 10 out of 10.

Put this one on your "Sleeper" list!

[davemed · 7/10 · 11 January 2002]

First, this isn't "My kind of movie", that said; this is one of the fine- st love stories that I have ever seen. I have always watched for Keith Gordon's work since The Chocolate War and A Midnight Clear. In my opinion, this is his finest work. Well shot, well paced, great performan- ces from the cast and tight direction make this a genuine find for me. Give this one a chance.

A lotta folks loved it...but I sure don't share their enthusiasm

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 22 March 2018]

"Waking the Dead" is a film that didn't do particularly well when it was first released. However, over time it's gained a small following of folks who love the movie...and it's obvious when you read through the reviews that some just adore it. I tried, but just didn't enjoy the movie like they did, though I have to admit that the film was creative and had an interesting style.

The story involves a young man named Fielding Pierce (Billy Crudup) and his obsession with a girlfriend (Jennifer Connelly) who was apparently killed in Chile during the time of the Pinochet coup. In the years that followed, Fielding goes further and further in politics...and loses more and more contact with a healthy reality as he's obsessed with her memory. He even things he's seen her at one point and whether or not he did and what happens next can be interpreted various ways.

So why didn't I love it? Well, two main reasons. First, while the film had a lovely style, it also moved glacially slow...too slow for me. Second, and much more important, is that I couldn't really understand Fielding's obsession with her since the two were so different...much like how Robert Redford and Barbra Streisand were different in "The Way We Were"...it just was too different to make the obsession seem reasonable. It also didn't help that Crudup often acted as if he was a zombie...and you wonder HOW he could get anywhere in politics and WHO would support him. Sorry...and interesting idea that just didn't appeal to me.