(fr) wrote: 3/2/08: This subtle, nuanced, intelligent film is about a determined grad student who convinces an aging novelist that her thesis will revive his career. The film did not insult me; it allowed me to draw my own conclusions involving motivation, love, family, redemption??and one particular character??s complete & utter moral depravity (that??s MY opinion). A low budget indie film shot in NYC ?? great actors and great acting. I strongly recommend.
(fr) wrote: When I was a young boy, I remember, vividly, going to the films with my mother every weekend. I remember we'd have to take the bus, since we did not have a car and our grandfather, who did have a car, didn't live with us. I remember seeing so many movies as a kid and that is, probably, one of my favorite memories of my youth. One of the movies I saw as a youth was actually this one. The 11-year-old me, at this point in time, only really wanted to see this film because I thought Eddie Murphy was a funny man. That's it. I don't remember what I thought at the time, but it's highly likely that I did not enjoy that movie when I was 11-year-old. There were just certain parts of the film and its satirical commentary on film that I just wouldn't have been smart enough to pick on. It's not like the film is completely inclusive, in that only people smart enough about the industry could understand it, the film is also somewhat broad to appeal to appeal to a more casual crowd. So I thought that was smart but, again, I don't think I was advanced enough in my development to truly appreciate this movie. I'm not about to say that this is a subversive work of genius comedy, but it is an entertaining movie nonetheless. There's a couple of scenes where the film shows that it's actually more relevant about the film industry today than, perhaps, it even was when it first came out. The one scene I'm talking about is the one where Kit Ramsey talks about how he hasn't won an Oscar because he hasn't played a slave role and how white actors get all the good roles that win all the Oscars. It's a tremendous scene not only because it's funny, the line about the retarded slave might probably the best line in the entire movie, but also because of how real it is. It's even more relevant when you take into consideration that Chiwetel Ejiofor, one of this generation's most gifted actors, only got an Oscar nomination for playing, you guessed it, a slave. Who knew that Steve Martin, as a screenwriter, was so ahead of the real issues that are permeating the film industry as we speak. I think things are better for black actors nowadays than they were in, even, 1999, but that's like growing from 5% penetration of all the homes that have TV in the use to, like, 10%. You did double your penetration, what an unfortunate sentence right there, but you're still not in that many homes. But the film also has a lot of absurd and entertaining scenes. I love the idea of filming a movie where the star doesn't even know they're in it. It's not like documentaries, where someone infiltrates a company to expose certain misdeeds, it's a sci-fi film and that concept did, again, lend itself to some funny moments. I'm not saying the film isn't completely consistent and the subplot with Heather Graham's character being a gold-digger who moves on to people higher up on the ladder for her own selfish reasons seems unnecessary honestly. I'm sure Martin was trying to say something with this, but how that had any relevance to the film and its overall narrative is beyond me. Obviously the film slows down a bit, but it regains its footing once it comes near the end. Another thing the film did, and perhaps that's unknowingly, is show how smaller producers/directors/etc, like Bowfinger, actually do what they do for the love of film. They may not get all the permits necessary to do what they do, they may not have the biggest budget and they may not even have their star's permission to be in their film, but they're doing this because they love film and want desperately to be a part of this world. This is why, to me, Ed Wood will always be a considerably superior filmmaker than Michael Bay, despite, actively, making worse movies that Michael Bay could ever dream of. Ed Wood did it for the love of making films, Michael Bay makes shitty movies so he can take people's money. And that is the difference between the two. And that is one of the film's strongest points, to me at least. But that's about it, it's not perfect and it might not have super gracefully, but this is still an enjoyable little film with a great cast, Eddie Murphy and Christine Baranski are great here, a solid script and just an energetic pace and tone. Might not be a comedic classic, or a 90s comedy classic for that matter, but it's a fun movie that I would recommend for sure.
(de) wrote: The movie is incredibly entertaining I don't know why it has mediocre reviews. I don't know maybe because there are only 40 something reviews on the movie or maybe it has to do with the fact that the movie was made back in the mid 90s. Anyway, I thought the acting was great, the writing was good and they direction was great as well, thats what happens when you have a legendary director who knows haw its onee.. I give it a 8 out 10, if you are looking for a good entertaining movie look no further.
(jp) wrote: i liked it, but i thought i would love it. some bits and immaginery are really really good in it, but as a whole i'm not 100% convinced. don't get me wrong, it's not that i didn't like it, it's just that my expectations were way too high. maybe the villagers' flute playing and dancing is to blame... but i love the cloaked man, and the fairytale-like story with the earrings, and the grannie, and... and... lots of 'bits' in it.