written for the screen

Rating: Null/10 (23 December 2001)

It is difficult to not draw comparisons to the recent film, abre los ojos, while viewing this pretentious work. The fact remains; it is an inferior film due to its overdose of ideas haphazardly thrown into the original piece from alejandro amenabar. the ideas and themes are outrageously inconsistent, as is the juxtapositions of dramatic visuals and silly music (Joan Osborne references). not to say that the soundtrack is not amazing, it is, but it overwhelms the scenes rather than adding to them. the dialogue (and visual) references to radiohead, bjork and Jeff Buckley were misplaced and unnatural, as though he wanted to prove he really is connoisseur of good music. though taste in music does not come in handy in filmmaking without the ability to apply that music to visuals tastefully. emotions were torn from scenes, and Crowe's additions to the original dialogue merely added to that juxtaposition in dramatic scenes. such as Kurt Russell's character being asked his daughter's names without responding, the audience was laughing rather than being enthralled with the scene. Crowe added to the hints of the ending rather than subduing them in dialogue and scenery (ala fight club) when the original film was subtle and more intellectual. people might say this is less of a mainstream film, when it shows all the qualities of mainstream filmmaking (i.e.: spoon feeding us all the answers in a short, ending summary) when again the original was more subtle and artistic in its own right. the "bringing to life" of the Dylan cover, and usage of "Monet" skies, and to kill a mockingbird were extremely inconsistent which nearly rendered them pointless. one must understand that consistency is needed to hold a piece of art together, whether it is in story, theme, or whatever aspect. in this case, the story was coherent and the theme was inconsistent, the latter being Crowe's addition. the camerawork was overdone and sometimes cliché', using a multitude of different ideas and styles throughout the film (ala snatch) and falling short of cohesion. I realize it is making a statement about pop culture icons being a centerpiece of American culture, but he succumbed to his own ideas he added to his movie, like creating a self-parody. David obviously came to a realization in the end, and wanted to throw that idolatry of superficialities away, and he did. that is intelligent, but also more subtle in the original. it is like Crowe made an exaggerated cartoon version of the original to spell out every detail of meaning which he gathered from it. Granted, I was delighted to see it wasn't an utter copy of the original, and brought forth some new ideas and styles than the original, but the ideas often fell flat, in a muddled, pretentious mass of film. So if you want to be spoon-fed a nice and tidy answer to a superior, more intellectual film, watch vanilla sky, the pretentiousness is overwhelming.
Rating: 6/10