Sintz49

I enjoyed this a lot. Each character was different and all were interesting. I don't know how each of their stories could have been more fully shared with us viewers... but it felt like "enough" and like me, the characters only knew parts of each other; so it felt more realistic than many on-the-beach Love stories.

I enjoy seeing actors appear in more than just one story by Hallmark. Often the 2 leads I have seen in other romantic stories where they match up with a different character played by an actor I've seen before --- matched up with still ANOTHER sweety! But I also really like seeing actors in supporting rolls. But on my cell, I can only find names of only the top 5 actors in the cast. I was sad not to learn the name of the Asian actress who played a fellow staffer at the matching department. She helped make the show more fun for me !!

As others have written, this film has events that stay very similar scene to scene. But I liked some things, early on: the black and white camera work, & I was curious about these Actors I knew little about, and I kept wondering where this "different" (maybe even "vague") kind of story was headed. In the last few scenes, the "story" started to feel very true. I don't think it is a periodic film, because the story spoke to me like this: Parks' character was very tied up emotionally/spiritually. He was stuck into living Life as he had it stored inside himself -- collected from his whole past-life, while Celia Kaye's character was younger and still trusting her chance at finding a good/better place in her life. After the ending, I felt blessed with its image of a personal option we each have to accept where you-and-your-"insides" are today; and no matter how challenging those characteristics are, you may still accept your Self as a real place to Be, and from where you may move forward. Kaye's character seemed to have found that out a little sooner, and Parks' was blessed to have found her. After the ending I felt I had been helped to get more grounded. Oh> note: I saw the movie in Dec. 2019 on cable (TCM), so you have a better chance of seeing it now, yourself.

I wont write a retelling of the film; some reviews here are good, but maybe too long? I agree with many that suggest it is well written, but maybe not that well made. Myself, I was shifted away from the suspense, because I couldn't take my mind off of Johnson's efforts to look blind. Often he seemed to be looking too directly at other characters. A good example of "blindness" can be seen well played by Elizabeth Hartman in "Patch of Blue" (1965, with Sidney Portier), . Johnson's character shifted between fumbling "blindly" and other times doing things as if he'd been blind all his life. There's a scene where he's being helped up, after having fallen and struggling on the floor. Friends have assisted him, and one walks forward get Johnson's cane. Before the cane is even picked up, Johnson puts his hand out to receive it.... in this scene, the cane could well have been lost as far as he knew. Just one moment, this. But I kept trying to stop seeing where he was looking. Funny tho': I went to the kitchen to get a coffee refill, and started trying to be "blind". It was hard to rely on just my memory of the kitchen -while my eyes were still open. I could grope gently for some things, then I'd slip back into quick, graceful movement with my hands and feet. So my blame isn't all on Van Johnson, but maybe as much on the director. Also, Vera Miles' Ms Lennox spent lots of time looking at Johnson's face when she made her speech to him. She may have reached out to viewers more, by maybe shooting her expressions toward us, or around the space that was invisible to Johnson. Not using her face for Johnson to see.

I wont be telling you much about the story itself here. I feel it's eventful scenes, based on their "realism", will not help you guess how much you'd enjoy seeing it. Almost like animated films about giants killing each other, you needn't judge the characters actions sensitively. You have the option to accept them as if happening in another world. That having been said, my experience was identifying with a character with little solidity, even less identity. Having run into a woman with a similar vagueness about her Self, he grabs on to the emotional clarity they stumble into together. That clarity enables them to finally see how their lives are little more than imitative. Subsequent events are often extremely dramatic, but can be accepted (by viewers like me) as symbols, and not just crimes. Actually Rockwell's character really does try to confess, and pay up for the bad parts of his growth period, but he lucks out with kinds of "gift" options, and maybe a fairytale like path after having learned big lessons about how to live better. Wilde's character, as different as she had seemed, has grown in similar ways; and their paths, however individualized, do bless them with a fine appreciation of their friendship. I found it warm, funny, and with possibly empowering motivations for some viewers.

This is going to be far from a review. I appreciate lots of posts that are critical of this film. I was viewing it on cable tv(!), and turned it off short of an hour into it. Just to fill out my viewpoint here, I can say that early on, I felt that the blind "prisoners" were overly expressive of their differences; they were examples of the far out characters in society: the most angry, the weakest, the saddest, etc. Suddenly I'm asking myself if a certain over-the-top aspect of character might be a condition which made certain people most likely to contract the blind disease. Anyway, I thought that in the beginning, all those blind people might find some compassion for one another, as they were all suffering the same thing in becoming blind. For sure, after a while, differences would begin to be reasserted, and the conflicts might escalate. There were solid reasons for things to get ugly, but I think they happened too immediately. But so many others, here, have written more, and better reviews; so let me spout one thought I haven't seen written here. Many have written that the nastiest bad guy, with the gun, could have, should have, been eliminated early... or maybe just not feared so much 'cuz : how can one blind man be that dangerous, even with a gun? I'd suggest that when you are suddenly blind, it's not like you can look across the room and see that the blind guy with the gun doesn't know where to point it. When you're suddenly blind, you learn that you can take a pee, you can walk, you can crash into things, fall down onto other people. AND YOU are pee'd on, or knocked over, stepped on, etc. Surely a guy with a gun, in a crowded closed building, can hurt people, even kill them with a gun... and you yourself, having suffered so many things already, why not believe that it's very possible that you would be the one who gets killed. On last thing. I appreciated reading that Julianne's character might well have used her sight to "help" in many more ways; and the idea for her to pick up a pipe and clobber the gunman might have been good... even if just to knock him out and steel his gun so she could "hide" it (from ALL the blind people!).

I must disagree with, really, all of those rating this film as "good". One reviewer did well to make references to the documentary he/she said this film was kind grounded with. But I don't think the film has much truth to it. Some reviewers here, do well by sharing their inability to care much for Bridges's character, but I couldn't care much about anyone in this version of "Seattle". I lived there from 1967 to 1943 - attended college, but got my BA after 16! years. I worked at part-time jobs at a bit over minimum wages and for awhile lived 4 blocks from "Kelson's" apartment building on Capital Hill. With a job like Jack's I may have earned more. Yes, I had contact with real nice people: students, musicians, even family; but I scarcely so little as SAW anyone like all the characters in this film. Even when I was living in Brooklyn, NY, I rarely saw any people like these. In the mention of the real Seattle documentary, it was said that "help" for people like Kelson was so rare. I'd suggest that people like Kelson were pretty rare in Seattle, too. In the style of presenting the characters here, there is inconsistency - spread out in just a few seconds. Kelson gives a few encouraging words to his son, and celebrates his Alaska plan of rebirth for them together, but when he promises to go earn more cash for rent, he goes out to play music (which he does well, esp. for a street performer). Good plan, but when we see him out there with his tenor guitar(?), he is being thrown out of a restaurant and is so drunk he can barely walk. Why didn't we see any scene to learn why that good plan he had had failed and went totally under.... it looks like he christened his fundraiser by having a dozen stiff drinks. The more normal citizens of Seattle are represented at vanilla androids. They hardly see anything or anyone. Get this > one character (hidden for your reading, now) RUNS onto a big ferry boat, crashing past other riders who get in his way... it's crowded with people boarding the ferry. Then, one of our characters catches up and shoots the other character in full view of many other passengers only a few feet away. Moments later, we see the man, on the ferry deck, alone, no-one seeming to have noticed that the man had been shot, and was dying. This wouldn't have happened that way. In another scene, Furlong's - Nick Kelson, is homeless and on the streets, finally we get to see a "normal" Seattleite drive by, then stop to offer him help. Of course, he's gonna hit on the kid, but Nick gets away. Yes, Seattle has its share of bad folks, but many good people, too. This film could have tried to grapple with the diversity. Gee, Kelson is working, washing windows inside a fancy looking bank lobby. When he see's Nick out on the sidewalk, why doesn't he drop his stuff and run out and talk to him. No, he shouts through the window and swears, screaming all the time. Sure, he gets fired, but how did a guy like this ever manage to get the job? SOMEONE must have given him the benefit of the doubt to hire him in the first place..... ALSO, I doubt the bank was his boss, and couldn't have "fired" him. Wouldn't they have thrown him out, then fired the window cleaning service? The one "good" person besides Nick, I'd say (and whoever gave Jack that job), is Charlotte. She's hard to believe for me though. Nice, yes ... kinda; but she is so accepting of Jack's worst behavior that it can't really help him want to change.

My cable blurb for this film listed Juliette Lewis first, then Camille, then described the story in just One sentence. I've enjoyed Lewis a lot in the past, so I viewed the film. But that one sentence blurb was about the right length! I don't want to blame the actors, but the director and writer? Probably. The characters' "character" were mostly hidden: by flashbacks out of context, or by brief sentences or silence in response to direct questions. The dialogue itself may well have been too cryptic to even give the actors insights into their part. Seemed they still had little to show us about their characters in non-verbal ways. When actors don't "get" their character, certainly the director must fill in gaps left by the writer. The feeling I got (& this isn't a verdict, just a description of what scenes "felt like") was that some actors' insights here, maybe weren't heard, or were passed over, by the director. I kept my ears and eyes open for gut level insights, 'cuz the dialogue was empty. When people try to hide something, they may fib but even those untruths can offer viewers some insight into what the character is feeling. Not here, only that they didn't want to talk, or they felt uncomfortable (about good things or bad). Lewis' late scene with Egglesfield's "David" was a bit different, but when everything "Jill" said was nasty, David's verbal response was in disgust, but his behavior wasn't. His character seemed vacuous for not just leaving the cafe - the table seemed empty, and Jill was not "helping". Visually too, like in the cloaked flashbacks, viewers were given little help in several (many?) scenes, like Angie & David sitting inside the trailer, the camera is bouncing around. I'm listening to them talk, and the bouncing is just a distraction. It's almost like the photographer saw too little evidence of the tension in the actor's behavior, or in their words; and so decided to move the camera, at least to supply evidence of some inner struggles in these two friends. If the trailer had at least been in motion, I could have stayed in tune to the dialogue, having seen that the road was bumpy (literally and figuratively). Most of us (the viewers and the makers of the film) know more about the feelings prompted by some situations in this plot, but a better review here, may be implying a reviewer has inserted his/her own experiences into this story; filled it out. I think that viewers can plant more insights into this film, than the film can drop into the viewer.

Okay, many reviews are full of just grumpy complaints on Frances Ha; but I agree with most. My favorite review though, is by "nico-hvi" on Sept 8, 2013. That review is brief, insightful and readable; it even shares one well chosen quote from the film that demonstrate this critic's statements. Helpful, cuz my take on Frances Ha was not this clear! On my gut level, I watched the film on cable TV, or some of it, for after about 12 minutes, I zipped ahead, about 8 minutes, but it felt like I'd landed again in the same scene (zipped @ 8 min intervals until the end). I've never seen characters continuously spend time together, but never seeming to get connected. Many (negative) reviews here do well to better point out the vacancy & lack of attentive interactions between any of the characters. Reading these reviews echoed my own feelings, but also put those feelings into words! You could say that many of the reviews here enlightened me about maturing and just connecting with people and life.... all the things that the film itself had failed to do. One quick reference: Jane Austen seemed to present in her novels this type of blindness in persons & culture, convincingly. Any of us might fail to see and own-up to who we are (even in part), and once you enter the cul-de-sac it is very hard to exit, and reconnect. Thanks to the many of you who wrote enlightening analysis of this film's problems.

I was surprised to see that the IMDB collective viewer rating wasn't lower; but even more surprised that most of the written reviews were high. I caught this film on cable tv, late at night, and gave it a look. Though Beth-Williams "Natalie's" and O'Neill's "Dutch" were presented as caring for each other, it was not really shared with us, except as a contrasted to the awful ex-husband's connection. I stayed tuned in, in expectation for more evidence of closeness and growth for them. Next up, the meeting of Dutch and Doyle, the son, was violent, but was presented as "comedy". As the meanness continued, I kept thinking that Dutch might later surprise me, and being the "adult", he'd learn more, and share that with the boy. Or, maybe the boy would inadvertently share his own buried softer side with Dutch, who'd then grow and share. I doubted Doyle could learn anything from Dutch's rampaging self-indulgence. If Dutch did grow more selfless and caring, I only saw it in a few occasionally warmer smiles (not those other glaring smiles he pushed onto Doyle). I welcomed the scene where Dutch tried to entertain Doyle with a private fireworks display. In this scene, the camera work seemed disconnected: it showed Dutch smiling, as in trying to get the kid to laugh along, too; but the jump cuts to the car then showed Doyle only looking at the dashboard. Yes, he looked at and liked the lights, but (based on the camera work) only when Doyle was being distracted by them too . I drew back, into my hope-wait-and-see posture. As Doyle and Dutch began to fall into a shared predicament, and were stranded out in the cold, I felt they might finally draw closer. Then, in a scene at a shelter for homeless folks, Doyle warmed up inside, making a kind gesture to one of the children. The child's mother (played so well, tho' very briefly, by L. Scott Caldwell) responded very lovingly to Doyle before he slept, and I thought the uplifting changes I'd hoped for him (and for Dutch) would finally kick in. It really never seemed to though. The ending prompted me to imagine a sequel. That 2nd movie would pick up after this film's final moment. In it, Dutch's JOY in inflicting some new pain on Doyle, would be responded to appropriately by his mother. Probably not a comedy this time. Overall, Natalie, and Dutch showed no signs to me of being close in any way. They may have each wanted some "good" things, but probably not the same things. At least Dutch got the son home. But Doyle's love of mom may have been discovered as a judgmental response to Dutch's behavior, and not really as a credit to Dutch's "help". Very few laughs for me.

Okay, like a few others here, I didn't enjoy this film. But most of the problems I had with viewing seemed simple. They may even have simply been "American" difficulties: All the English/Irish accents! And the sound quality furthered the challenge of understanding (I viewed it on cable TV so who knows how the sound crumbled). The there was the Brit Isles' jargon, and any character being referred to by name, nickname, epithets... making it even harder for me to follow the story. The plot was like long sentences I myself sometimes utter, having endless modifying interjections that result in a constant struggle to understand what's happening. Added to this were jump-cuts that skipped through time. Still, the acting, the camera work, the casting (esp. my first view of Sally Hawkins) ... I LIKED all that; but eventually I had to turn it off. My patience for what seemed to be a too complicated story was reduced also by the setting: such a horrible way to live... ALL criminals? No spoilers here, because I couldn't keep watching... there seemed to be no end in sight.

I admit that rating this is a challenge but I'd go with 4 any day, over xshitz's 1 star. His review should not make you believe this is a movie you will not enjoy watching. We're all different.

I found it fun to see that a cast of characters who were flaky outlandish and/or odd managed to be portrayed by this good cast, in a way that made them all seem to "fit" in the same film, and in the same fantasy version of New York. Denis (and, xshitz - his name is not spelled Dennis) does his pantomime of back pain well, especially on the chiropractor's exam table. He, Elizabeth, and also Melonie Diaz show nice use of their faces in close ups. Their characters only have little bits of time to lay down a moment of feeling in many scenes, but they do it well, and that's not easy. The story is kind of like a comic book. It's not polite, nor is it "politically correct" for every minute. But like a comic book, it's flying along through lots of little quirky sketches that may be comical, violent, romantic, sexy, or sad. Sometimes in a blended together way. It flows along well, and DOES tell the story of how one person's sense of guilt can get mixed up with other lives. It's not a film that needs to be neat, or correct, or even substantial. It's a playful shot at doing a little take on lots of things, and it's kind of fun to see it do its thing; even if it falls on its face -- Ha! ... Maybe we should consider even laughing AT a film now and then, instead of trashing it because it wasn't what we thought it was going to be, or should be.

I'm writing this because I liked it. What I saw tho' is not really reflected in the "Storyline" nor the "review" that I just read. So, to begin, this woman is deep in the contemporary world of today. She's always under stress: at home, driving in the city, using her phone, working at her job, and she tries to cope with how one's life can be so remote and isolating today; especially if you don't stand up for yourself. I liked the lead actresses persona and her subtle use of her face to express her frustrations. All those affronts to her right to be treated fairly are shown as little sketches - almost SNL-style, but linked together by the story line. I was surprised to see my own critical view of today's world : from people who have little sense of human connection to impersonal things like trying to connect via cell phone to a business with a cheerful and maddening automated operator, asking for your pin# and giving you a huge list of categories for directing your call. Throughout these "skits", I was constantly watching the actress, Paz's, face. It was the expressive face of her likable character, with a good sense of absurdities, but who wanted to behave honorably and not make waves. And, No, the "Storyline" was wrong- she didn't try everything to remedy her pain; and no, she didn't decide to undergo acupuncture. On impulse she went to a highly questionable "expert" who did stick her with pins-before she could say "no"-, and he also told her she had to speak up and let out all the feelings she was holding inside. She leaves his office having little confidence in or understanding of what he'd done to her, but she does start venting, much to her surprise, and horror and satisfaction. Paz's depiction of this venting is funny, but at the same time, credible, also gratifying (for me) and ultimately kind of nasty! My ignorance of Spanish enabled me to savor her forever expressive face, her screaming, and the physical expressions of her outrage, almost like it was a fine performance in a silent film. I was watching and listening to her rage, or her private puzzlement without really hearing what she was saying, and I liked it. My suggestion is, if you are someone who might enjoy seeing a film who's main character picks you up and lets you ride along with her through today's world of trivial priorities and inefficient tasks while dealing with people who are totally blind to the messes they're making; then I'd say this film is a good one for you (and me). My main criticism is that in a late scene, she is explaining things to another character and she says, "people don't change"... and I think SHE has changed. So that line is odd. The person she'd said that to could have helped the script by just responding, "YOU have!"

I gave this film a look because I've considered video taping my night's sleep to better understand my sleeping habits. I think there really is no "story" in this film. It's a repetitive incident for Dale, and then there're all his victims - a single group of victims. Very few events: just one tense moment, then another, with the lead character waking up over and over and over. I consider a story to be a stream of events that give the characters or the viewers something to learn -- better yet when viewing a flick inspires some new insight into the characters, or yourself, or new aspects of fear, and the unknowns, lying just beyond "normality". And yes, I have seen "horror" films with content and rather genuine characters.

Nothing like that in this film. Funny, that the reviewers say the film was just "ok", then gave it 3, 4, or 5 stars. On Netflix, I assume the star ratings are determined from collected entries by members who have viewed and rated the pic. Virtually ALL their "horror" films are rated at 1, or 2 stars (okay these are out of a possible 5 stars). But very rarely will you see one with a 3 star rating; so, in this case : NO, if a 3 star is given to the "best" horror flicks, and 2 stars to the most average ones, and then 1 star to the worst, I'd have to give this film a 1 star (out of 5). I was so bored by it that I fast forwarded throughout my viewing, looking for something with a little meaning or depth (I could tell what was happening by just watching 2 out of every 3 minutes, on average). Why have I given it even a "2"? The lead actress was going on overdrive through the entire film. That has to be worth something.

Pardon my omission of character names; there is minimal dialogue in this German film. Both the dialogue and subtitles fly by with the short scenes, and I missed many names. Also, nobody spoke much, which was kind of funny too. Regardless, I felt a connection with many of the people. Herr Shultze is a man in a German town who has fallen into an all too stable lifestyle with a few friends. They seem to be in their late 50s, but have been forced into early retirement (?) As did his father, Shultze plays Polkas on his accordion (instrument curiously translated as: Ship's Piano). It is a small bright spot in his life, but even that seems to be dimming.

This is no action flick. The men are old friends, EX-co-workers and fellow club-members, but have little of a real social life.

One sleepless night, Schultze turns on his radio and gets that potpourri of distant radio signals typical of late-night reception. He pauses suddenly upon hearing a strange kind of accordion music, but then returns to his bed. Soon, while playing his polkas at home, he finds himself picking out the Zydeco tune he'd heard on the radio. A hint of the kind of humor found in many of this film's short scenes is a shot of him playing those few measures of Zydeco that he's taught himself. The camera pans back and he's playing in a clinic office. We discover that he's consulting his doctor about his odd obsession with this odd music. Doctor assures him it's okay.

Things I really liked about this film. The camera work is excellent. The ultra-stable but almost lifeless quality of these men's lives is visually present in constant cuts to shots of local landscapes that hardly move, cookie cutter track houses, or the empty hall at the chess club. The framing of scenes is so unusual, you'll find yourself checking your TV's aspect ratio; the key element of the scene may be out of view but "understood", because we already know what happens every day here. There are a few wonderful characters that pop up, and however briefly, they manage to spice up the inner lives of these guys; although usually their outer response is to gape at these "eccentrics", in silence. I've rarely had so much fun watching retired men standing by in silence as life strolls past them.

The town has a sister city in Texas that has offered to fly one of the club members to their annual music festival. Shultze has not campaigned to be the one, but after daring to play his Zydeco tune at the local traditional folk tune fest, and bombing; his few supporters elect him to be their ambassador to Texas. I can't be sure where the American scenes are supposed to happen. It sure seems more like Louisiana than Texas. Alas, the music festival at the sister city is devoted to Schultze's Polka music, so he wanders off. Soon he finds himself in waterborne scenes on the Bayou. The rest of the film is a zen like study of the quality of Schultze's new life. He talks even less, now, for he knows almost no English; but every hour of every day is a new flavor, on the same old tongue. I admired Schultze's courage to keep moving ahead without any idea where he's going. I know his life is "better" now, even though he seems not to have changed that much. He seems to be smiling more, though, and even is seen exercising one morning. This is a film about how little our lives may change, but can still get better with the smallest of changes.

I have chosen the "Spoiler" option because I've mentioned scenes that, though incidental, were surprising to me. I hope I've left some surprises for you.

I enjoyed this movie by watching for the things it does extremely well. This was rewarding but not easy to do. Simply said, the technical space travel hardware, ambiance, weightlessness, and "scenery" was as good as anything in film (I'm not a jet pilot, but I've seen a lot of movies --- which I won't make references to here!), and the acting was good. The writing, I think, failed to recognize the kind of team chemistry that helps makes a crew functional, and a movie credible, and watchable. No one in the film, in front of or behind the camera, showed any evidence of a sense of humor. This crew trained together, had their own histories and/or families, and have traveled weeks (or months?) through outer space together without sharing so much as a joke. This was a stoic and dry group that evidenced some sympathy for one another, but very rarely expressed it. Feelings were saved for sending last messages to family - who might have been better served by more courageous final good-byes ("I love you kids, Daddy's doing what he loves!"). I found myself thinking this film needed a technical assistant in the form of a Gung-ho football coach, and another assistant - a humorist. Time and again, the too-static visuals showed our astronauts staring coldly at their instruments, lest we viewers forget that this voyage is hard work. Well, we need occasional reminders of this... but where's the vital team chemistry that is born of a broad spectrum of human interaction? SPOILER ALERT : And last, the crew's debate about whether to risk a life for the sake of the mission's goals failed to achieve much self awareness for them, as a "group". They were only left with a clearer idea of their individual opinions, and a knowledge of the "vote count". They might have honored the opinions of the "minority" by anticipating some worst scenario for Katya's field trip, and that it might arrive in stages. In other words, when Katya acquired the sample, without dying(!), the crew's slim majority decision had been validated, and she might have returned to the "ship"... but, surprise!, something new presented itself and they had no plan but to keep pushing ahead. I started to feel certain that this crew was doomed, because they seemed to think their mission was to discover ALL or nothing. But Europa is still there, available for further exploration. The absence of compassionate support, humor, and any acceptance of personal limitation, opposed to the endlessness of exploration, sealed their fate.