I've noted my problems with Paul Schrader's films before (too many beautiful compositions, too much arranging the posture of depth without being deep) but this is his biggest embarrassment to date. No one should have given it any rating but "total bomb." I can only hazard a guess that Schrader's Calvinist upbringing, left him with a lifelong obsession with morality and the punishment of sexual transgressions (Taxi Driver, American Gigolo, Comfort of Strangers, Mishima, Hardcore, this). All of his movies could be called The Scarlet Letter: Part 11, 12, 13, etc. He wants to show us people boning on film, but figures he can't without the free pass of a simpleton moral message. So this timorous man continually seeks out stories about salacious or tawdry lives. He does it to underscore morality, but after so many of these teasing films, one also gets a clear picture that Schrader is endlessly horny & envious of his subjects. So what's worse; a character-ruining obsession with porn, or a similarly obsessed director leering at these people?
This movie is the Hollywood version of an after-school special. It's "Dawn: Portrait of a Teenage Drug Abuser" with sexual addiction swapped in as the issue. It's construction is absolutely shallow. Schrader never gets around to anything BUT the moral message. There is nothing else to it. The point is so utterly obvious the movie is craving other activities to enrich it.
Kinnear is miscast as are others (Has the actor playing Richard Dawson viewed even a frame of him in action? Bea Arthur is more like Dawson) and one gets the sense that Schrader wants to revisit the era, mood and accolades of Boogie Nights, but he can't orchestrate anything as complex.
If I had one wish for Paul Schrader it would be that he'd have mind-blowing, bone-shaking sex without a shred of guilt about a hundred times in the next few months. Maybe then he'd stop pounding viewers over the head about temperance and restraint. He's not developing an oeuvre, he's just beating a dead horse.
There probably was an interesting, thoughtful movie to make about Bob Crane. This ain't it. This is the dumbest, most artless film I've seen in about a year. A special pan goes to the graphic designer who came up with the humorous retro 50's DVD menus. I can't think of less fitting or appropriate visuals for this movie. I'm finished now ...but I think we all learned a valuable lesson. (< sarcasm)
This movie is the Hollywood version of an after-school special. It's "Dawn: Portrait of a Teenage Drug Abuser" with sexual addiction swapped in as the issue. It's construction is absolutely shallow. Schrader never gets around to anything BUT the moral message. There is nothing else to it. The point is so utterly obvious the movie is craving other activities to enrich it.
Kinnear is miscast as are others (Has the actor playing Richard Dawson viewed even a frame of him in action? Bea Arthur is more like Dawson) and one gets the sense that Schrader wants to revisit the era, mood and accolades of Boogie Nights, but he can't orchestrate anything as complex.
If I had one wish for Paul Schrader it would be that he'd have mind-blowing, bone-shaking sex without a shred of guilt about a hundred times in the next few months. Maybe then he'd stop pounding viewers over the head about temperance and restraint. He's not developing an oeuvre, he's just beating a dead horse.
There probably was an interesting, thoughtful movie to make about Bob Crane. This ain't it. This is the dumbest, most artless film I've seen in about a year. A special pan goes to the graphic designer who came up with the humorous retro 50's DVD menus. I can't think of less fitting or appropriate visuals for this movie. I'm finished now ...but I think we all learned a valuable lesson. (< sarcasm)