This movie is has so many problems I really don't know where to start.
Limbo is the 'story' of a small fishing village and three of it's inhabitants going of on a fishing trip only to find that the trip has been set up as a cover-up for a drug deal.
Its director, John Sayles is apparently the most important independent director working in America today (did somebody forget to mention Errol Morris or Henry Bromell), well if that is a true assessment then what a sorry state American cinema has come to. One of the amazing things about this film is that it was made in a period 1998-2001 when American independent and mainstream cinema was at a peak it had not reached since the early seventies Scorsese-Coppola era. It was churning out brilliant films such as American Beauty (1999), Being John Malkovich (1999), Memento (2000), American History X (1998) and Panic (2000) but despite this Sayles manages to produces this piece of festering rot.
One of the many annoying aspects of the film is that Sayles cannot write. I'll admit he's not a terrible director (there are some scenes where he uses Alaska's natural beauty wonderfully) but when it gets to writing this guy stinks, anyone who witnessed his poor attempt at witty dialogue in Passion Fish (1992) can testify to that. The lines are as stale as the whole story and worse of all HIS CHARACTERS ARE ALL STEREOTYPES!!! Tell me how many times you've heard these ones - the guilt-ridden fisherman who lost men at sea years ago and now can't go back on a boat, the single mother/singer (she ruins Tom Waits' (Looking For) The Heart of Saturday Night by the way) who's had more bad relations than hot dinners and her daughter the deeply-depressed high-school outcast who cuts herself from time to time. Yes this film (as with most of Sayles' others) is drowning in stereotypical characters, something a hate with a passion. But I can understand the use for stereotypes in a complex story with a dense plot, if you have stereotypes as your characters the audience know these characters places and can get on with the story. The problem with Limbo is that it has neither a complex story nor a dense plot, it's a goddamn character development film! So why has he used characters we've seen in 101 films before in a genre which is all about developing interesting new characters? Because he doesn't know he's writing stereotypes, because he's a bad script writer.
So all of a sudden after an hour and fifteen minutes of stale dialogue and poor character developing a story appears, and you'll never guess what kids, wait for it...It's actually quite an interesting story. Stereotype fisherman (now over his fear of boats), stereotype Mother and stereotype daughter decide on a nice boat trip with fisherman's stereotype shady half-brother. And guess what stereotype shady half-brother has a drug deal on the side, he gets shot and the other three have to bail ship for fear of the drug-dealers (probably Columbians called Carlos and Juan who have gold chains round their necks and have toothpicks in their mouths). They swim to the nearest island and for the last forty minutes it becomes a mildly interesting survival film. But it is too late for the audience's mind has already started to wonder after the poor start. And then Sayles commits celluloid suicide and doesn't end the movie, he leaves it on a cliff hanger (but this isn't Dynasty Mr. Sayles) and leaves the audience frustrated and annoyed. After sitting through two hours of sheer rubbish, giving our all to the film, wasting our own personal time watching it he screws us over, leaving us unsatisfied. I'm sure some people will say `Oh but doesn't he leave no ending so he leaves his audience in Limbo?' and the tagline to the movie `Limbo - a condition of unknowable outcome' does suggest that this may be his idea, but it really wouldn't surprise me if he came up with the name and tagline after he shot the film or wrote the script as a ruse to trick us into thinking that the movie is cleverer than it really is, when really what has happened is a writer has the start of a story (but still takes him over an hour to get to it) but not the end. This is the most fatal flaw Sayles makes.
This is just basically a terrible version of Short Cuts set in a fishing village. So it gets 2 out of 10, because Alaska looks beautiful.
Limbo is the 'story' of a small fishing village and three of it's inhabitants going of on a fishing trip only to find that the trip has been set up as a cover-up for a drug deal.
Its director, John Sayles is apparently the most important independent director working in America today (did somebody forget to mention Errol Morris or Henry Bromell), well if that is a true assessment then what a sorry state American cinema has come to. One of the amazing things about this film is that it was made in a period 1998-2001 when American independent and mainstream cinema was at a peak it had not reached since the early seventies Scorsese-Coppola era. It was churning out brilliant films such as American Beauty (1999), Being John Malkovich (1999), Memento (2000), American History X (1998) and Panic (2000) but despite this Sayles manages to produces this piece of festering rot.
One of the many annoying aspects of the film is that Sayles cannot write. I'll admit he's not a terrible director (there are some scenes where he uses Alaska's natural beauty wonderfully) but when it gets to writing this guy stinks, anyone who witnessed his poor attempt at witty dialogue in Passion Fish (1992) can testify to that. The lines are as stale as the whole story and worse of all HIS CHARACTERS ARE ALL STEREOTYPES!!! Tell me how many times you've heard these ones - the guilt-ridden fisherman who lost men at sea years ago and now can't go back on a boat, the single mother/singer (she ruins Tom Waits' (Looking For) The Heart of Saturday Night by the way) who's had more bad relations than hot dinners and her daughter the deeply-depressed high-school outcast who cuts herself from time to time. Yes this film (as with most of Sayles' others) is drowning in stereotypical characters, something a hate with a passion. But I can understand the use for stereotypes in a complex story with a dense plot, if you have stereotypes as your characters the audience know these characters places and can get on with the story. The problem with Limbo is that it has neither a complex story nor a dense plot, it's a goddamn character development film! So why has he used characters we've seen in 101 films before in a genre which is all about developing interesting new characters? Because he doesn't know he's writing stereotypes, because he's a bad script writer.
So all of a sudden after an hour and fifteen minutes of stale dialogue and poor character developing a story appears, and you'll never guess what kids, wait for it...It's actually quite an interesting story. Stereotype fisherman (now over his fear of boats), stereotype Mother and stereotype daughter decide on a nice boat trip with fisherman's stereotype shady half-brother. And guess what stereotype shady half-brother has a drug deal on the side, he gets shot and the other three have to bail ship for fear of the drug-dealers (probably Columbians called Carlos and Juan who have gold chains round their necks and have toothpicks in their mouths). They swim to the nearest island and for the last forty minutes it becomes a mildly interesting survival film. But it is too late for the audience's mind has already started to wonder after the poor start. And then Sayles commits celluloid suicide and doesn't end the movie, he leaves it on a cliff hanger (but this isn't Dynasty Mr. Sayles) and leaves the audience frustrated and annoyed. After sitting through two hours of sheer rubbish, giving our all to the film, wasting our own personal time watching it he screws us over, leaving us unsatisfied. I'm sure some people will say `Oh but doesn't he leave no ending so he leaves his audience in Limbo?' and the tagline to the movie `Limbo - a condition of unknowable outcome' does suggest that this may be his idea, but it really wouldn't surprise me if he came up with the name and tagline after he shot the film or wrote the script as a ruse to trick us into thinking that the movie is cleverer than it really is, when really what has happened is a writer has the start of a story (but still takes him over an hour to get to it) but not the end. This is the most fatal flaw Sayles makes.
This is just basically a terrible version of Short Cuts set in a fishing village. So it gets 2 out of 10, because Alaska looks beautiful.
Tell Your Friends