"American Independent Film, 1999" - Movie Review: Love and Death on Long Island

Unfortunately for some really great films their trailers do them an enormous disservice. This was the case with Love and Death on Long Island. From the trailers I envisioned a totally different film then what I saw when I put the movie in. I was pleasantly surprised when I began watching Love and Death, it was touching without being pathetic and sappy. I actually found myself really drawn into the movie; I cared about the characters – more specifically, I cared what happened to John Hurt’s character. His performance made the movie for me, without him I wouldn’t have been so moved.

Hurt took the “psycho” out of obsession for me. He played Giles down to something human and not dangerous and sick. Although he was so old, and Ronnie so young, he never came across as a “dirty old man.” There was something very young about his character – something very like a teen girl: watching all of Ronnie's movies repeatedly, memorizing all Ronnie's sats, switching his brand of cigarettes to the Chestertons because Ronnie lives in Chesterton, etc.

Jason Priestly, on the other hand, gave his usual poor performance. I see no talent and no emotion in him. His character seemed so flat and dull. I could hardly even imagine what Giles saw in him, and I think Giles realized that when he met Ronnie – he was nothing but a pretty face.

The film was filled with subdued humor. Hurt’s dream sequence in which he was on a game show, his subject: the life of Ronnie Bostock, was particularly funny. Giles’s leap into the 90’s was funniest to those who know someone that is so cut off. This was a bit more extreme humor than the rest, but it played just as well. Without the humor, Giles would have been much less of a character. And his obsession would have seemed more dangerous then sweet.

Comments

Rebuttal: 17 Disturbing Horror Movies You Will Never Watch Again

When I'm not watching movies, I'm reading about movies. I stumble across all kinds of articles, blog posts, book excerpts, etc. in my quest to absorb as much movie knowledge as possible. Now, I'm snotty and loud-mouthed and opinionated but I'd never begrudge another human their opinion. Seriously. You're absolutely welcome to have any opinion about any thing you want. However, I must warn you, if I think your opinion is stupid, I'm absolutely going to say so. I've recently stumbled on an article completely brimming with so many idiotic opinions that I'm actually compelled to craft a response. Here's the gist of the original article: there are some horror movies out there that are so disturbing , you'll only ever want to watch them once. I've have taken her original list and refuted her claims without pulling her entire article over. You can read the original article here . Let's start at the beginning, with her opening statement

Escape From Tomorrow

I love creative people who are willing to take risks with their art. I appreciate the refusal to do things by the rules. I'm also terribly impatient with mediocrity. Enter Escape From Tomorrow . Created by a team of rogue filmmakers, the movie was shot in the video mode of high-end still cameras. Actors shared scripts and shooting locations across their smartphones. Shot on location at Disney World, the parks were completely unaware this was all going on right under their mouse ears. I wanted to love Escape From Tomorrow. More than that, I wanted to be completely taken with its ingenuity and creativity and - oh yes - its originality. And there is really a simple brilliance to their covert plan; all families are roaming around the parks, taking videos and chatting on their phones. Just blend the fuck in, act like you belong, and you won't get caught. Too bad the movie can be summed up as: ambitious but Rubbish. As you can imagine (or possibly know), there was a ton of con

What Is Genre And Why Should I Care?

There are terms that always seem to come up when talking about films: director, actor, plot, theme, score, etc. These terms are all self-explanatory; no one ever asks, ‘what’s a director?’ However, there are other terms that are equally common but less clear: genre, sub-genre, auteur, oeuvre, etc. These terms are more abstract then ‘director’ or ‘actor.’ It is entirely likely that someone will ask, ‘what is genre, anyway?’ This question specifically is what I will be answering with this paper. The answer to the question ‘what is genre,’ is multi-layered: genre is a means of classification. Genre is a means of communication. Genre is a means of understanding films. Genre is a means of relating to films. To one person all movies rated “PG” are a genre – possibly one also known as “children’s movies” – while to another all movies with similar topics treated in similar ways are a genre: i.e. movies dealing with frontier life depicted in a nostalgic manner are a genre often kn

i'm kael's ghost

Search This Blog