Ivans xtc. (2000) Poster

(2000)

User Reviews

Review this title
26 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
3 stars (out of 4)
mweston15 October 2002
The film begins with Ivan Beckman's death. He says, in a phone call heard as we see various hazy images of Los Angeles, that the pain was so great that he took every pill in the house. He also says that he tried to think of one image that could help him get through it.

He does *not* get through it. So next we see his funeral, at which a fight breaks out between a screenwriter, who has recently been fired from his film, and the star of the film. We also hear people questioning the cause of death. They have been told that Ivan died of lung cancer, but they all assume that it was really drugs that brought him down.

And then suddenly we have jumped back in time, to the last part of Ivan's life. Ivan (played by Danny Huston, son of John Huston) is a Hollywood agent. He's trying to make a movie happen and to land the star, Don West (Peter Weller), as a client. The actual content of the script isn't important to Ivan, but the deal is. Other significant characters include the screenwriter Danny McTeague (played by James Merendino, who really is a writer) and Ivan's girlfriend Charlotte White (Lisa Enos, who also helped write and produce the film).

This is not a Hollywood film. It was shot on high definition video and doesn't look as good as some other high definition films I've seen. This plus the so-so acting of some of the minor character actors made the film feel amateurish at first, but after a while I was able to forget about the mechanics and get inside the story.

It is also clearly not a Hollywood film because of its very negative portrayal of the people in show business. Ivan is seen as a heavy drug user who doesn't really care about the film, and Don West (the star) is even less likable.

But while the characters may not be likable, they are all quite interesting. And the lessons about life and death and what happens in between also make this a film I was glad to have seen.

Credits: There's a new trend these days of saving all of the credits for the end, including the names of the stars and even the title. This film is the complete opposite - all of the credits are at the beginning of the film, leaving only the soundtrack credits for the end. I don't think this means anything, unless the filmmakers thought people would be walking out early, but it seemed worth mentioning. The credits do affect the feel of a film.

Seen on 8/21/2002.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Drugs and power in Hollywood
dave13-113 April 2012
The box copy for this movie suggests some kind of mystery, but don't be mislead. This is a morality drama about Hollywood deal-making at its most soulless and cynical. Peter Weller gives an unflinching performance as a high-powered star who steamrolls people, talking over them, repeating himself just in case the message didn't penetrate the first several times, making no effort to listen, and occasionally trying to justify his actions but never apologizing for his arrogance or boorishness. Danny Huston plays his agent with a painted on smile, trying to make everybody happy to get The Deal to come together, and greasing the wheels with cocaine and vodka. Huston is dying, but he puts on a happy front for the sake of the picture and knowing that the heartless, selfish people around him wouldn't care anyway. His death leads to professional complications for his agency, but little actual mourning. Indeed, it is a moment of supreme irony when his sister takes the large turnout at his funeral to be a sign of how well loved he was, while egos clash in the back of the church! The film is shot in a very documentary fashion: tight camera placements, roving camera, swish pans from one character to another. It plays like an episode of COPS, but with Hollywood power brokers at its center rather than deputies, and the look and the details of life at a big shot talent agency makes the movie seem convincing on a superficial level, but not particularly compelling dramatically. There are few original characters or situations here. The movie is good enough for its type but there is little here that seems fresh or even all that interesting.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Pretentious and Arrogant
minidonut21 February 2003
What is most telling about this film is the director's use of overwrought music for the film's beginning and end which seems like a desperate and failed attempt to inject some emotion and gravity into the movie. This is akin to laying down a laughtrack in a lifeless comedy. The director chose to use Wagner and plays it really long and loud and hard. Granted this picture has a very smart lead performer, it's not enough that your characters be smart. Wouldn't it be nice or simply better if they could just make you feel?
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A truly memorable performance by Danny Huston
greenpolyester18 February 2003
I love this film. Danny Huston, in a remarkable performance, makes you care for a truly unloveable character. The film shows us the vile antics of those charged with maintaining the glam facade of Hollywood and the big studios. Let's have more on this theme. Some on these pages think this film smacks of jealousy; that somehow Bernard Rose is envious of the morally bankrupt lives led by the likes of Ivan. He's not (how could anyone be?). When Ivan muses on his fate and tries to find one, just one, memory that would make it all worthwhile, he comes up blank. It would appear to your average punter, who's taken in by the trappings of wealth and showbiz, that Ivan had it all. In the end, we see he has nothing. His death scene is one of the most moving ever committed to celluloid, sorry, HD-V. Consider the response of his colleagues on hearing the news of his demise. Consider the response of his former clients. Those with a knowledge of the way these agencies work will know that this film is eerily accurate. There are so many shocking, uncomfortable and perversely funny scenes in this film that you'll be thinking about it for a long time afterwards. Wow, a film about Hollywood that actually makes you think. How weird is that?
18 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Whatever
karl_consiglio2 August 2008
Whatever by today's standards. I mean its an OK film yes, but it downright fails to pass the test of time. And its the test of time that tells whats good and whats not at the end of the day, not the nominations it ought to have fit into that year when I first saw it. Let me be a bit more positive, the main actor was great, he's got those convincing movements and especially them naughty facial expressions which really work here. However my point is that we long know by now the message of this film and the whole drug abuse(especially in this Hollywood working atmosphere) is a long gone cliché. Thing is that this guy did have human love around him, I don't believe in his excuses.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Marvellous portrayal of a death in Hollywood
barfly9922 September 2005
Loosely based on Tolstoy's 'The Death of Ivan Ilych' this searing indictment of Hollywood must be one of the most under-appreciated films of the last ten years.

Danny Huston plays Ivan Beckman, a typically sleazy, coke-snorting Tinseltown agent who is forced to confront the emptiness of his life when he learns that he is dying of cancer. Amongst the many people with whom he is surrounded but cannot confide in are hotshot director Danny McTeague (James Merendino), gun-toting homophobic mega-star Don West (Peter Weller), and Ivan's girlfriend, Charlotte (Lisa Enos), who may or may not be using him to further her own ambitions.

IVANS XTC. actually begins with the news of Ivan's death, and apart from the first 15 minutes or so the story is told in flashback. This works superbly because we immediately discover just how meaningless Ivan's life and career really were. Nobody really gave a damn about him (nor does anyone believe for a minute that he died of cancer rather than a cocaine OD), and his death merely serves as an inconvenience to those involved in the film project he was trying to get started (West and McTeague even have the insensitivity to confront each other in the middle of Ivan's funeral service!).

When Ivan learns of his cancer he tries to binge his way to redemption through drink, drugs, and women, but there is none to be found. Nothing can ease his physical or emotional pain. He can't even find an image of beauty or happiness in his head - everything he can think of is "shit". Ivan was already a victim even before the cancer took hold.

Many films have successfully attacked the excessive yet soulless Hollywood machine in recent years e.g THE PLAYER and SWIMMING WITH SHARKS, but IVAN's XTC. is perhaps even better (British writer-director Bernard Rose drew from many of his own bitter experiences). The film is shot entirely on DV (with oddly effective use of Wagner as musical accompaniment!) and this gives it a documentary-style realism (you really feel you're in the back of that limo with West as he snorts coke off Charlotte's leg). It is also to the film-makers' credit that no punches are pulled when it comes to conveying exactly what Ivan's cancer is doing to him (the visceral last reel is not for the squeamish).

The performances are first-rate all round, but Huston is especially brilliant and should have had an Oscar nomination. Although Ivan is an unpleasant individual - and Rose never dresses him up to be anything but - Huston manages to elicit the viewer's sympathy simply by demonstrating Ivan's ever more desperate need for something to fill the complete void that is his quickly fading life. As far as the 'terminal illness' genre goes this film is ultimately far more moving than blatantly manipulative stuff like TERMS OF ENDEARMENT and MY LIFE precisely because there is absolutely no on-screen sentimentality whatsoever. Ivan's one moment of true tenderness comes not with Charlotte or with any of his friends or family... but with a nurse he doesn't even know. The glorious closing shot is surely one the best in recent film-making history.

This is a disturbing film that is at times difficult to watch. Yet at the same time it is so perceptive and involving that one feels it actually deserves several viewings. Highly recommended.
17 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Harrowing tale of Hollywood excess shot on DV
fitchalex21 November 2001
I went to see this film without knowing anything about it except that I was a fan of the director and while it doesn't rank amongst his best work it is certainly engaging. After the longest opening credits I've ever seen (i.e. all of the film's credits are at the beginning except for the music credits), the film introduces us to the backbiting world of Hollywood agents. Ivan is a self confessed 'weekend alcoholic' who 'lives in the fast lane' as he tells his psychiatrist. In nearly any other film we would dislike this character as he takes drugs, has sex with other women behind his girlfriend's back and only seems to care about his status. If I added that he just wants to be loved you might avoid the film altogether, however it is Danny Huston's subtle and involving performance as the lead character that hooks the viewer and keeps you interested. Coming across as a combination of John C. Reilly and Jack Nicholson, Huston is a great character actor and deserves a career as notable as his sister. I'm not a fan of digital video and certainly the lower constrast and flatter cinematograpy here hasn't convinced me of the merits of the medium, but the director has said he wanted the film to look like a documentary and so this approach suits the film. The shots are at least typically well framed and always contain something interesting. This is Rose's second adaptation of Tolstoy following Anna Karenina, and shows the writer holds up well when relocated to the present day. The lead character is apparently also based on Rose's (late) agent which may be why the film is still waiting for a release date. Stylistically the film is most similar to Mike Figgis' Timecode (which also starred Huston) as the performances here were also somewhat improvised but doesn't suffer from the amateur dramatics of that film as the actors in ivansxtc didn't have to keep going for an hour and a half. At the London Film Festival where I saw this film, Rose commented that he wants to work with the same cast and format again and this isn't a bad idea if he goes for stronger and snappier material next time. I enjoyed the film, but it took a while to get going and the undercurrent of homophobia (no doubtedly present in that world) was slightly off-putting. The dovetailing of the images and soundbites in the opening credits with the last scenes of the film worked well and the use of classical music throughout, particularily Wagner's Tristan and Isolde, creates the kind of atmosphere and gravitas (perhaps occasionally heavy-handedly) that you would get from one of Bernard Herrman's Hitchcock scores. Overall I enjoyed it but it is more for the fans of Mike Figgis' films than Rose's. Having made two of the greatest horror films ever made I just wish he would return to that genre.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Waste of time
leveller0@yahoo.com27 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
It's very interesting that the most positive review for this film is written by someone who used to work in the same industry. But it makes sense, because to anyone else this film is just mind-numbingly dull. It's basically about a man who is diagnosed with lung cancer and so hides it from everyone and continues his usual life of hookers and drugs. Its best redeeming feature is that it is short so you don't waste too much of your life.

Ivan is played by a decent actor, but quite a few of the others seem like amateurs. Being shot with a hand-held camera just compounds that feeling, although it's different I guess. This film was so dull, that for the first time, IMDb has said my comments were too brief even though I can't think of what else to say.
3 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Stunning
Anig-214 August 2004
Ivans xtc is shot with slow shutter speeds and no 'tripod', with the result that it looks like a documentary - but it's not. Add to that some superb acting performances and the result is an extremely credible fiction film. One reviewer here complains of a lack of wisdom; I wasn't looking for wisdom. I was just watching a film about some very believable characters and what happened in a short section of their lives. Yes, it was interesting and gripping. It was also supported by some magnificent music, including excerpts of Richard Wagner's Tristan. I cannot recommend this film highly enough.
11 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Disappointing non-story of Hollywood folk
jsm_london_uk10 August 2002
The story is thin (viz., high flying Hollywood agent is diagnosed with lung cancer and dies -- no one seems bothered), none of the characters arouses any sympathy or interest, and the use of classical music (presumably to create a sense of tragedy) only adds to the bathos.

Probably only comedy can do any sort of justice to what goes on behind the scenes in the film industry but the few decent comic scenes in Ivan's XTC are drowned out by the seriousness with which the film takes itself.

I'm amazed the film ever got made. But then one of the industry's greatest failings is that it takes itself far too seriously, so perhaps it's not so surprising after all.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Movie of the year - for Moi - 2005
info-51787 July 2005
Hmm, what a fab. movie. Just caught this flick at a film festival and let me tell you it is one dame fine movie.

Sitting thru the opening scenes I must admit that I thought that it was going to be total @#!&*, but it soon got going. Being involved in the "entertainment" industry I did feel a connection with this film. The acting was superb, the general production values good, although the hand-held camera work did occasionally get on my nerves.

It was quite strange actually, the start of the movie (opening credit sequences) seemed to go on for ever, and the credits that would normally be put at the end were put at the start. Anyway, I think if people can get thru the first 15 minutes, they will see the film for what it is.

Great character performances, great story and subject matter. Think an "arthouse" version of "The Player.

Just ordered this on DVD from the UK. MUST SEE!
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Death of an agent
BandSAboutMovies1 October 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Shot at 60i fps on the Sony HDW-700A HD video format digital camera, which proved problematic for theatrical distribution, this film was originally intended to be a Dogma 95 movie.

It's a rough satire on Hollywood, filled with booze and excess, and comes from director Bernard Rose, who you may know from Candyman and Paperhouse. It's also based on Leo Tolstoy's novella The Death of Ivan Ilyich, so if you have a low tolerance for art films, you may not enjoy this. We sure did.

Danny Huston (half-brother of Anjelica Huston) plays Ivan Beckman, a doped up and driven agent who starts the film by dying. We go back to see just how he got to the grave - thanks to an early cancer diagnosis - and the lives he's touched along the way, including Peter Weller as his sleazy client, SLC Punk director James Merendino as a director (typecasting?) and numerous hangers-on. Writer and producer Lisa Enos acted is in this as well and look for an appearance by Tiffani Amber-Thiessen.

Huston is the main reason to show up for this, as he makes you care despite the grainy looking footage and grabs you directly by the collar and forces you to watch.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ultimately, deeply moving
GrahamLoveland8 August 2003
I saw this movie without any real knowledge of what it was about (other than some vague memory of having read a good review and quick peruse of the cover at the rental store).

The use of video tape (rather than conventional film), hand held work, some rough cuts and supports acting that treads a fine line between jarring and being naturalistic all took soem time to tune in to (too used to slick Hollywood narrative style!).

But it was certainly worth the effort.

Partly an acidic take on the Hollywood machine (cynicism, drug abuse,deference) but also a film about a man (Ivan) desperately seeking meaning in a world where he can find none. The final scenes, where Ivan seems to come to terms with his end take on a strange beauty.

The decision to run all the credits up front, save for the music and an 'in memory of' add to the final poignancy.
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of the most life affirming films I've ever seen.
mach1ne7 January 2003
This film is amazing. It begins by introducing a whole bunch of characters, including Danny Huston, none of whom have any redeeming features - scenes are frequently uncomfortable to the point of being cringe-inducing. It's when you realise that what everyone in the film is talking about is absolutely nothing or incredibly superficial to say the least is when you realise that what you're feeling is that there ARE no characters as such - they may as well be dead. They have nothing to say and when they do it's absolute worthless tosh. They are essentially characterless "characters". It's therefore impossible to feel any affinity, compassion or even empathy with anyone in the film - hence one's discomfort during viewing. And it's from this point of utter lifelessness that the film grows into one the most truly and deeply ALIVE films I've ever seen. Like one of those moments when you realise what you are when the clouds around your soul have been stripped off and you get a glimpse of your self. And it's pretty hard to put into words, but just like the guy from London who wrote the first review, my girlfriend and I were so stunned and emotionally moved into silence we didn't speak or rather just couldn't find WORDS that could justify what we'd just seen. I came out, sat in the foyer, said "what the f**k happened there?" and proceeded to smoke a cigarette knowing fine well I couldn't smoke there. (In light of the film, I think I just thought that stupid little humans' rules were often so pathetically insignificant they were laughable!) We were both absolutely amazed. But my advice is, of course, to see it yourself. Because after all, these are just words too.
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Memorable, poignant, haunting
km-7027818 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this film about 12 years ago and I think about it to this day. Danny Huston is magnetic as a lead and artfully tailors himself into the role of a mouthy, unstoppable, force of nature Hollywood agent suddenly colliding with his own mortality. The films mood captures some of the absurdity and banality of the Hollwood Hills lifestyle. I have never forgotten the last scene where Huston's character, still incredulous at his demise, chokes out his dying breath.

The most brlliant film you've never heard of.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Tolstoy in Hollywood
edgeofreality9 March 2020
Not really an adaptation of Tolstoy's novella, but using it as a springboard to look at the utter emptiness of lives lived for money and fame. In this way, the film captures the essence of what Tolstoy was saying - that in death the futility of a life falsely lived becomes all too apparent. What better setting than Hollywood, with its macho stars, fawning agents and coke-addicted groupies. Ivan here is the agent, who, just as he secures his biggest deal and should be ecstatic, finds out some really bad news that changes everything. The script is superb: beginning quite rightly with a flash forward to just how little Ivan mattered to most of the people he seemed to be friendly with. This is a world of easy drugs and sex, good times day and night, and, at bottom, complete loneliness. The only two people that care for Ivan are his father and sister, who make a brief appearance in a pivotal scene. But this whole film is that rare thing: it seems to flow organically, to be completely subsumed by its theme and emotions, and it looks beautiful because of this, despite the use of video - actually, this may improve it, reflecting that emptiness at the centre, the main character's inability to find one good image from his life to give it value. The music by Wagner, at first annoying, turns out to be a perfect choice too, giving the film it's one touch of hope at the end. As Ivan says to the party girls: we all have to face this moment one day, no need to pity him. The acting by all is excellent - it doesn't feel like acting actually: it feels real from word go.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A haunting masterpiece, unbelievably great!
theultimatehuman27 September 2002
This is really one of the most honest, most genuinely unnerving films I have ever seen (and I have seen a lot, by any standards). My lady and i didn't speak the whole hour driving home, just sat in stunned contemplation of this stunning film. As we drove, I could almost not believe just how superb this film was.

Huston is an absolute revelation as Ivan, a once-in-a-lifetime performance that seems to have sprung into life fully formed and whole. His is one of the greatest faces cinema has offered, full of humanity and pathos, at once a recognisable everyman and a unique and extraordinary figure.

The narrative's initially gimmicky flashback structure become essential as we are allowed to see the fundamental pointlessness of the feckless Ivan's life even before we meet him.

Flashing back, we then see the last few weeks of Ivan's life as he finds he has terminal cancer and slowly wastes away, surrounded by the most tacky/glamourous trappings of Hollywood life.

From the early realisation of Ivan's insignificance, we are drawn to see him as fully alive and utterly human.

This is the triumph of the director's intensely humanist vision, a moving testament to the individual worth and humanity of each of us, even the most lost and dissolute amongst us.

Equally rich are the surrounding performances, the whole cast working tiny wonders, but special mention certainly belongs to Huston and also Peter Weller, the latter giving what I think must be his strongest ever role. His sleazy big-shot actor is an instant classic, utterly true and blackly comic.

I lived and worked in the industry in Hollywood and I recognised many of the characters and situations. In the whole film, not one false note was struck. The locations expertly chosen, from the Sky bar to the winding backroads around Mulholland and Hollywood Blvd at dawn, the feel of Ivan's Hollywood was exactly right.

I recommend this film to anyone looking for difficult but richly rewarding, thought-provoking cinema. It is not entertainment, but it performs the quiet miracles that few film-makers even attempt, let alone achieve with these devastating results. A triumph, a truly visionary work and clearly a labour of love for all involved, Ivan's xtc is simply astounding, quite the equal to the early works of Ingmar Bergman and I can think of no higher praise than that.
15 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
one man's intrinsic battle masked by glamour and success
double_yoker12 May 2005
right.

read some of the other reviews and joined this site specifically to put my oar in.

basically this film is what u understand. if you can empathise with other humans' emotions and the intimidating world of showbusiness which is dominated by ego, beauty and cerebral brutality then you should get a lot from this film.

it opens with a long foreboding shot of a door shutting in what appears to be a hospital. a pre-emptive eulogy if you will. a mood setting shot if ever i saw one. but somehow i think those of you more inclined to rent 'xxx' than 'city of god' are going to miss the impact of such a shot. it lays down a feeling of intimidation and regret that, juxtaposed against the Hollywood career-scape evokes a sympathy for any character not on top of their game as you feel they will be swallowed up. progression through the film demonstrates the directors skill at switching between the glamorous and the seedy.

this is a very intelligent film that can only really be appreciated through understanding. if anything it is a study of power and how destructive it can be.

peter weller plays a tom cruise-esquire Hollywood bigwig obsessed with belittling those who allow him to. And most do because he is so enormously famous. One particularly affecting scene involves him, his agent and a room full of buxom women and cocaine. his typical chat is littered with non-specific put-downs and you realise the main character here is this ogre's agent. To work for a man like this...

you have to have balls. and the film indirectly preaches about the dangers of such a great LOOKING lifestyle. conceptually great, but physically annihilating, his agent does what he does while hiding a terrible secret.

and thats where the perfection lies. epic like a shakespearian drama, the film leaves you with too many issues to put down on paper etc and i for one felt privileged to have witnessed such a work of art. truthful, arresting, affecting and flamboyant, this film is one of the best i saw last year.

frankly if u think its rubbish u don't understand it. simple as that. try renting 'the punisher' next time.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Incredibly sad and disturbing, but powerfully effective
creeese18 February 2003
A film has never made me cry more than this one. All the credits of the movie are in the beginning, so that at the end, it's actually "the end" and you leave the theatre. Based on the plot, I found this to be incredibly effective. Not only is it about the coldness of Hollywood and how easily people are thrown away, it's largely just about cancer in general. There have been a ton of films about people suffering from cancer, but I would have to say that this movie projected cancer in the most emotional way ever. The combination of film style and music is incredibly effective and enhances the sadness of the main character's illness.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A Sleazy, Gritty, Powerful, Beautiful Film
distraido8 April 2003
First thing: try not to bring a lot of hang-ups and prejudices when you see this. I've noticed that those who do so can end up disappointed. If you're even slightly open-minded you will see the beauty of this film- as many have, including the nominating committee for the Independent Spirit Awards. Because of the Tolstoy writing credit, I was expecting a historical or period piece. What Ivansxtc does, as does the Paul Thomas Anderson neo-classic Boogie Nights, is to show human beings being very naughty and very nice. Ivans, however, leaves us in darker territory.

I suggest reading little about this film before you see it. Check out the comments afterward and you'll see what I mean. Suffice it to say that this is risk-taking, well-acted, under-$500,000(shot on DV) filmmaking with gorgeous photography.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Charm and sleazy hedonism played with equal conviction
roger.armstrong9 September 2002
Knowing nothing about the techy side of things, the impact of the DV was to create an uneven viewing spectacle that worked very well at the intimate and personal moments. In the group and open scenes it seemed somehow shallow and amateurish. It did not capture the documentary feel for me properly. Was "Dog Show" done this way? It did feel like a documentary.

I watched the film on a rainy Monday night in Bradford's wonderful Pictureville and the audience barely spoke on leaving the auditorium. This film had a powerful ending with the score working well. Certainly not a film to see if you are feeling fragile or in poor health.

The lead performance was just that, conveying the innocence,joy, optimism, charm and sleazy hedonism with great conviction. The remainder of the cast and characters were far less substantial giving it an uneven quality.

A film with flaws and not one of my favourites but one that I would not have wished to miss.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hmm. Seedy.
excalibur925 August 2002
Rule #645: All films made in Hollywood, by Hollywood, about Hollywood, must be seedy. I should probably add ‘for Hollywood' to the above list, as the film is more or less a home movie. Like The Player, Sunset Boulevard and countless others before it, it is a film that has been made by locals and just happened to have been given a world-wide release; seemingly by accident. It also takes great delight in detailing what a dreadful, decadency, drug and sex-fuelled level of hell it is. Personally, I can't wait to go there.

Although based on an original novel, its structure is different and only the central idea has been ‘borrowed.' Danny Huston plays (and rather well) an agent who manages to land a big, starry client and discover that he has cancer, all in the space of a few days. It's all downhill from then on as he begins to reassess his life, realises his girlfriend is just after his business connections and that he has barely achieved anything of worth in his short life. To be honest, that really doesn't come through in the film and feels as if it could have done with a few more scenes and some sharper editing. Despite some excellent scenes, the characters seem too much like improvised teaching studies and not well-written, three-dimensional people. Only Ivan manages to leap from the screen, and that is largely because of Danny Huston's Jack Nicholson-like presence.

Another thing to note is that the film was shot with digital cameras, although the sound seems to have been recorded with a Dictaphone. The photography is good, but is soft and jittery. This is because it was shot interlaced and not in progressive scan. Given the quality of the cameras available, and its inevitable transfer to film, I'm not quite sure why. Techno-bore detail, I know, but still distracting.

A good effort, but a home movie: 6/10
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Moving
simonveksner29 November 2002
Rare to find a film with this much heart and integrity, especially one about the 'insider' world of Hollywood.

Brilliant performances too. And humour.

The death of Ivan Beckman is the most moving death I've ever seen on celluloid. And the guy's a Hollywood agent!

Some really fresh touches in the way it's directed as well.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Do not pay for this load of...
TheLastMan8117 April 2004
I liked the storyline when a saw this movie at the bottom shelves, a behind-the-scenes look at the life in Hollywood, based on an old Tolstoy novel. But this must be one of the most crappy movies ever made, with it´s pretentious tone but total lack of talent. It tries to be ultra-realistic but fails totally on this point. If you want to make a movie as realistic and documentary-looking as possible, you should´nt use softening lenses and overdramatic music. It fails to be consistent and therefore it looks more like a porno flick then a serious drama. Speaking of porn, the acting is awful. The only one who really pulls through is Danny Huston as Ivan who really puts his soul out there. That´s about the only positive thing there is to say about this mess because the dialogue is terrible and the cinematography does´nt even exist. My hope in finding a brilliant exception at the bottom shelves in the videostore has been demolished.
4 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Excess-tasy.
sibisi7319 August 2002
A realistic, but strangely unmoving, parable of Hollywood excess and life in the fast lane. There is a central performance of great depth and subtlety, yet the rest of the movie felt heartless, overbearing, and obvious. A disturbing experience nonetheless, as it conveys the meaninglessness of life quite beautifully.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed