 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
The Truman Show - DVD
Writer: Andrew NiccolDirector: Peter Weir Producer: Lynn Pleshette Studio: Paramount Characters: Truman Burbank - Jim Carrey Meryl - Laura Linney Marlon - Noah Emmerich Lauren/Sylvia - Natascha McElhone Features: Standard and widescreen formats, Interactive menus, Digitally mastered, English 5.1 Surround, English Dolby Surround, French Dolby Surround, English subtitled, Theatrical Trailer, Teaser Trailer. Review: I wouldn't have written this review, but I feel the need to comment on some of my esteemed collegue's points regarding this movie. So, if you haven't read it yet, go check out Jay's feelings in his review of "The Truman Show". I was so disappointed with this movie when I saw it (in the theater on opening night) -- I had very high hopes for several reasons. First, the movie was written by Andrew Niccol, the writer and directer of "Gattaca" which is an excellent film. Second, Jim Carrey. I don't consider myself a real fan of Carrey, but I think that he has a lot more talent as an actor than people give him credit for. I thought his ability came through some in "Liar Liar" (another good film), but I saw "The Truman Show" as a real opportunity for someone to show us what he could do in a more dramatic role. And lastly, the concept. I don't believe I've seen the episode of the Twilight Zone to which Jay refers in his review, but I will admit that this isn't the most original idea in the world -- something like it has certainly been done before. Actually, someone sued Niccol (or the studio or something like that) back before the movie came out because he (the plaintiff) had written a play with some very strong similarities... but that's irrelevant. The reason I thought the concept was such an important one is that a feature length movie can delve much much deeper into this situation than a 30 minute Television program or a one-man-show on the stage. My real problem with the movie is that there was so much they could have done! The film is 102 minutes. 102! If the extra 30 or 40 minutes that movie-goers are easily willing to sit through were put to some use, it could have been a much better film. Despite the filmmakers' attempt at seeming to address some issues, the film goes nowhere. Their "resolution" is cheap and hollow and not the kind of experience it could have been. In fact, most of the plot developments come off as unimportant, or at least not tremendously earth-shattering. The movie is too light to be tremendously moving and too wishy-washy to be social commentary. The whole film feels over-edited and hastily thrown together. I don't think Weir was very commited to what the film could have been. It was a big disappointment. Don't get me wrong, Carrey was fine, but even if it had been a stellar performance, it's tough to make an abortive movie very good. -- John
Ordinarily this would have been the end of it, but Ken decided to enter the fray as well. Here is his review, and here is my response to it: I'm gettin' right into it today: About Weir's previous work -- unfortunately, I have really only seen 2 of the films Ken mentioned, "Fearless" and "Dead Poets' Society" (I saw "Green Card" a long time ago, but remember nothing about it at all). For those who haven't seen it, "Fearless" is a story about a man whose life is completely altered by experiencing a plane crash. His wife and those who know him are unable to understand the changes in him, but he gains a connection with others who have been through the same ordeal and reaches a deeper understanding of himself. "Fearless" is a good movie, and an extremely serious drama, as is "DPS". However, it has nowhere near the mainstream appeal of "DPS" -- not much actually happens, and I think most would feel that the ending leaves something to be desired. One might notice some similarities between this and my description of "The Truman Show". For me, the main reason I liked "Fearless" so much and disliked "The Truman Show" is the tone (ignore the fact that "F" stars Jeff Bridges, who is phenomenal, and Benicio Del Toro, who defies description). "TTS" deals with a subject very similar to that in "Fearless", the realization that your whole life up to a particular defining moment has been a series of delusions and misunderstandings, a lie. In "Fearless", the blame fell on the day-to-day goings on of life -- compromises and routine. In "TTS", blame falls squarely on Christof's decision to exploit Truman's life. It's a pretty big deal, and the flippant tone of "TTS" strikes me as quite inapporpriate. Of couse I'm not saying things should always be approached head-on, but I found the tack Weir took to be ineffective. And now about Carrey: I'll agree with Ken that he was 'energetic' but not 'frenetic' and that he restrained himself from doing anything that could be construed as 'a bit'. As I said before, I don't have any problem with his performance. I just don't like the way the character was portrayed. For what he was supposed to be doing, I think he did a completely satisfactory job. The problem is that even upon repeated viewing (yes, I've seen it twice), "The Truman Show" seems way more like a wasted opportunity to explore something interesting than it does an understated thematic masterpiece. What Ken calls 'subtle', I tend to think is missing the mark. And finally, as for my supposed complaint that I wanted more, I believe there has been a slight misunderstanding. I feel certain that an extra half hour of this movie would have detracted from the rest. What I wanted was a movie that used 2.5 hours to explore some of what there is to explore. And if 'explore' isn't exactly right, some vague gestures in the right direction coupled with an appropriate tone would have made for a much more fulfilling movie. -- John
|
copyright ®1999