"The Photographer" is one of those one man indies and it shows. The film is awful drivel...a pathetic attempt to piggy-back some dumbassed apocalyptic revelation into a Wizard of Oz'ish kind of thing with a bunch of weird people wandering around NYC looking for lost photos. Hey, you can't go a gallery show with 8x10's, OK! Jeeesh! This film sucked and was one huge waste of time.
Add a Review
-
=G=25 December 2001
-
henri-1516 April 2003Occasionally, surfing through the late night flicks, you run across a gemstone that grabs you by the pajama lapels and shakes you awake until you've finished reading the credits: such was my reaction to The Photographer a few nights ago. Jeremy Stein made an absolutely enchanting film: ignore comments here to the contrary.
The theme is that one can never anticipate how unexpected turns in our lives will contribute to our personal growth. In this case, Max overcomes a form of creative paralysis and re-discovers himself and his art through chance encounters with complete strangers. Shot in New York City's seedy back streets (lower East Side?) the collective odyssey of Max and his new-found pals (the supporting cast are very good) laces in bar scenes that, for me at least, are archetypal moments when we have chance encounters with people who turn out to have so much in common with us in hidden ways that it makes us reflect on who we really are most comfortable with, why we made the choices we've made, and what the hell we're doing with our lives.
There's a kind of magic in this film (the search for Violet) that isn't overplayed but that's important to tying everything up into a neat little package. Terrific score (Andrew Hollander) and beautiful cinematography (Vanja Cernjul) sustain the mood throughout. If you don't come away feeling better about life after seeing this film, you've missed it.
Jeremy Stein, who wrote and directed, is very talented indeed, and I hope this one is available on DVD: it's one you want in the library. -
dccheever30 October 2007I have never been so unimpressed with a film like this one. So bland, the acting was horrid, the story you could see from miles away and it was just flat out corny, seemingly uninspired. I paid $2.00 for this film and I still feel as if I was ripped off. I thought the premise might be cool, and it actually kind of is, but the execution was just horrible. The actors forced so many lines, it just seemed un natural. I was eating popcorn and watching this film and thinking... "wow... this might actually be one of the worst films I've ever seen". I gave it a 2/10 just based on the premise being alright alone, the rest was just one huge fumble. And the acting... my god.
-
I think it's really sad when someone watches a movie, and when it's not all Hollywood bells and whistles totally smashes it to pieces in a review! I purchased this movie used, mainly because some of the actors (Maggie) and the name of the movie - and of course, interest - what could have happened to this guy to ruin his life over losing some photographs?!?!? Eventually, you realize the underlying message of the movie....Your vision is already within you...It's a good message, even though parts of the movie might seem far fetched, I liked the odd-balls all ending up befriending one another, I liked the visuals of the NY street scenes. Not all movies that are indie suck, you just have to LOOK to see what is really there. And by the way, I have done a gallery showing with only 8 X 10's.......
-
thevoid9916 July 2003It's not a great film but it's got a lot of fine moments. The best performance of that whole movie is easily, Maggie Gyllenhaal. She plays this kooky, fortune teller-wannabe who is a neatfreak and likes to broadcast the news while using her feather duster as a microphone. Every scene she's in is worth watching. I recommend to the thousands (and thousands) of Gyllenhaalics.
-
ppatters-18 January 2004This movie is a dream-like parable of a pretentious N.Y. photographer who has learned that art must come deep from the heart and be authentic. He has lost his native ability in the glamour of the artistic "in-crowd" and finds his way with the help of underclass mentors. The importance of his pictures pale in comparision to the image of life he derives in his journey.
-
hamburgerman20 March 2001I saw THE PHOTOGRAPHER at the durango film festival in March 2001. Although I didn't quite understand what was going on (until someone briefly explained it to me, then it all made sense), it was an enjoyable film, mainly because of the supporting cast, especially the guy the the photographer saves from almost getting killed. To me, the film began to remind me of THE WIZARD OF OZ because this photographer meets individuals on his journey, and each one joins his quest.
-
ecolantoni31 March 2004From acting to visuals this film is a gem - a diamond in the rough. I was blown away by the performances headed up by the star, Reg Rogers, a master of his craft. This is Maggie G's first big role and it is a wonderful start to a now star studded career. Rob Campbell and Chris Bauer are fantastic. The writer/director, Jeremy Stein, has created a remarkable movie that not only is about something but is also vastly entertaining. It's films like this that make you believe that there is still hope for modern cinema. I can't wait to see the next film from this gifted filmmaker.
-
hieronym26 August 2003If you have *any* bit of a photographer's eye, you'll love this film. It manages to perfectly capture how it feels to recognize the "decisive moment" when a photo should be taken. The supporting actors are all wonderful in their quirky characters, and the lead actor helps you feel what it's like to have lost your creative enthusiasm. (There's more, but I don't want to include any spoilers!)
*See* it. -
tompolley21 January 2002I saw this movie at its New York premiere, and walked out saying "wow". The story is simple but interesting, which lets the actors really shine. There's some magic involved, but it isn't the wizards-and-special-effects kind: it's a more subtle, grownup variety that's propelled by the story, rather than vice-versa.
Speaking of magic, the director and cinematographer have performed an amazing trick: they've made grubby downtown Manhattan look beautiful and enticing. You can still smell the urine, but it seems glamorous somehow. I don't want to give anything away, but the final scene of the movie is one of the best shots of the city that I've ever seen.
There's a lot to look at in this movie, and that includes the cast. The new guys are great, and there are lots of familiar faces too. Anthony Michael Hall, Tom Noonan and John Heard all make appearances, and you've never had more fun watching them.
Watch "The Photographer" now, so you can say "I knew all about this before it was popular" in a few years. I can't wait for the DVD. -
DeelyBop21 January 2002I hope this movie is coming out in the theater because I want to see it again. It is worth it for the scene in the bar alone. The characters and setting are so real, which is weird because the story is kind of a fantasy. I really felt like I knew them. If I had to describe this movie I would say that it is "The Wizard of Oz" plus "After Hours". Does this team have any more movies coming out?
-
swmgrl070315 February 2004This film is definitely an indie, but it was really quite good.
The story starts with Max (Reg Rogers), who was the big thing in the NYC photography world a year ago, but has lost his talent. He needs to somehow produce 10 brilliant shots in one day, or else he risks losing everything. Max manages to procure these 10 masterpieces after a mysterious man leaves them in a bar. Unfortunately, someone steals them from Max, too.
The majority of the movie follows Max on his quest to recover the 10 photos, which have been inexplicably scattered throughout the city. He meets up with several interesting characters, including Maggie Gyllenhaal and Rob Campbell. Gyllenhaal's character is especially good. She plays an aspiring newscaster, obsessive-compulsive daughter of a clairvoyant (sounds confusing, but it's pretty funny).
This movie is nothing huge, but I really liked it. The shots of the city at night are pretty, and all of the quirky characters are likeable. -
davidspierce9911 December 2004"The Photographer" is one of the most disappointing films that I've seen in a long time.
Nicely shot, but no other redeeming features for a pretentious piece of drivel.
One of the main characters is an aspiring writer racked with self-doubt to an extent that he can't bring himself to add a ribbon to his typewriter. We might have all been spared if only Jeremy Stein had possessed the same lack of confidence.
Something about pulling teeth and fun comes to mind. Save yourself from certain disappointment...give this one a miss. -
aliceincharmcity3 May 20082/3 way through this film I was bored and did not get it. But at some point something being said clicked and I was glued to the last third. Then I watched it all over again and took notes this time. I take notes with books and movies I see or read.
I read Mr. Stein said it was loosely based on The Wizard of Oz. Maybe or was that quote taken out of context? I will have to watch it again with that in mind. Before, I say anything on the story line. I thought the quality of the film was excellent for acting, sound, lighting and quality of color. "Normal" neon sign echoing "camel" in the bar was a lovely detail.Especially for a first film and presumed low budget? Or does this guy have a sugar Daddy somewhere? 2nd, I thought the writing verged on David Mamet.
Finally regarding the story, I found a different route, a Biblical one. Did Max= Moses, Mira=Miriam, Romeo= Aaron, Marcello= Pharroh (on his throne in toilet?). Or is Marcello= Jethro? What represents Mitzriam, the dessert, the red/reed sea? Are the 10 photo's representive of the 10 commandments? If so how does each photo visualize each commandment? What does the curtain blowing at Violet's house represent? the girl in white on a bike? Why does Max step back at end?Who is the guy in the pilot hat? lots of questions.
I took some classes with Stan Brackage (who was honored im memmorium at the Oscars last year) an Independent film maker. I used to fall asleep a lot and when I woke up and found out what a film was really about- I knew I had missed something. But there is nothing more pleasant and peace than a nap in a movie seat. Your safe and someone will yell if there is a fire.
A great film will leave you with more questions not answers. And maybe all theories are right. As with another comment that said this was about an artist search to find himself- or refind. Indeed there was a lot of talk about "creativity. A great work has many levels.
Mr. Stein what is in your Riya Tzadi? -
Jeremey Stein's maladroit "The Photographer" is one of those films that has an uneven balance of good and bad qualities where the bad outweigh the good. This is a film filled with some lyrical magic, but the direction is just so inept. "The Photographer" feels shallow, although the characters are relatively well-written and the story is thorough. When the film should draw you in, it turns you off with a constant feel of unintentional silliness. Stein should consider choosing a director for his scripts.
"The Photographer" is something of a modern day fairy tale about a, you guessed it, photographer who luckily finds success with a collection of beautiful stills that make him eminent. A year later, he looks through the art he has preserved for his follow-up and finds that it is all less than satisfactory. Later he goes to a bar only to find gorgeous photographs sitting next to him, belonging to a strange man he had been speaking with. Then he helps a man being mugged on the street, gets knocked unconcious, finds his pictures are gone as well as the parts of his car. He begins a late night journey to find the missing stills.
The problems arise when more and more and more unappealing characters join him on his quest. They are all ultimately annoying in their own ways, irritating, distracting and fatally pointless. For some it's the acting, but others just a bland feel of nothingness. Not even Maggie Gyllenhaal can save the dorkiest of characters.
The long night isn't terribly paced or aimless, it's just where it ends up. The film has an all too Hollywood conclusion not seen in many indie films these days. I liked some of the style used in this film, like cleverly placed clocks seen as the night goes on and a fun use of yellow, but the the bad qualities fastly eat away at a potentially good premise.
There are better films in this sub-genre. I would not reccomend watching "The Photographer" even if the premise is as intriguing to you as it was to me. I would recommend the other films, like John Shear's "Urbania" or Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut".