Wow, what a letdown
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Paris, Texas
biffmalibu — 17 years ago(December 01, 2008 03:28 PM)
After all that, I was almost hoping that Travis was going to shoot everybody (including himself) or toss them out the window and then jump. Hmm.
Okay, maybe not that exactly, but what is the big deal about this film? Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy slow-moving talky types of movies. The Straight Story is a good one that comes to mind (Stanton is in that one oddly enough, though very briefly). Lone Star is another great movie that's pretty low on action but the writing and acting are brilliant in my opinion.
The thing about "Paris" that left me cold were the characters. They might as well have been cardboard cutouts. I didn't find myself giving a damn about any of them except for Anne which I thought was played well by Aurore Clement (who is so beautiful anyway). Stanton walked around like a retard most of the time, and even the kid didn't seem to care one way or the other. I love the comment he makes to one of his schoolmates when he asks him why he has two dads. "Just lucky I guess." Boy, brilliant writing there. And Stockwell could have just phoned in his part.
By the time we get to the scene where Travis tells us all what happened, it's really too late to care. And by the way, why in the world would his wife not recognize his voice until then? And why would he really bother to tell her all of that crap (except to tell us)? Wouldn't he just say "Hey, your kid's out here, do you want him or not?"
The whole movie just falls flat on its face in my opinion. -
krpc7 — 17 years ago(December 19, 2008 12:48 AM)
SPOILERS
I agree.
The saddest part of this long, miserable little movie to me was seeing how self-indulgent the main character was. So what if he's a child of a mean-spirited, obsessive father. That is no excuse to become a jerk in his own life and act idiotically toward his own family and his brother's. By the time the movie credits rolled, I had ended up with about zero empathy with this pretty bizarrely behaving character.
The one big gesture in the movie that supposedly redeems him is reuniting his wife and son, while concurrently repeating his disappearing trick of 4 years earlier. So he dumps more problems on them both, while he (and supposedly the audience) are expected to get some solace for his big "unselfish" act. He sounds like a very, very sick and dangerous puppy to me.
The pace of the movie dragged terribly, was full of story line holes, and the acting at times looked pretty thin and forced to me, probably because the writer and director didn't give them much to work with. I suggest the writer head back for more writing courses, and this time don't play hookey so much. -
-
Antonio_G — 16 years ago(April 30, 2009 02:58 PM)
Hmm I just saw it and loved every second of it.
The acting, the feelings, the music, the photography.
And at the end, I was cying like a baby.
Not many movies move me like that.
But there is definitely something beautiful and haunting about this film.
You are my lucky lucky lucky star -
Defenseman13 — 11 years ago(June 25, 2014 07:17 PM)
"So what if he's a child of a mean-spirited, obsessive father. That is no excuse to become a jerk in his own life and act idiotically toward his own family and his brother's."
Actually, that is every reason to do so. Any shrink will tell you that. Abuse and trauma from parents is guaranteed to make you act out. Get a clue. -
TanteWaileka — 10 years ago(March 28, 2016 12:14 AM)
Guess what? 99.99999% of people grow up within a dysfunctional family, in one way or the other. I'd tell off my dad, but he's long dead. I'd tell off my mom oh wait! I DID tell her off in 2008 when she told me she 'liked' Obama. Never spoke to that idiot woman again.
Yes, yes, I DO breath easier too.
Oh we still visit, I just don't talk to her beyond 'hows the weather looks fine today huh').
Eventually people grow up to become adults, and they shake off their upbringing. Using your 'daddy was mean to me' or 'mommie loved my brothers more than me' doesn't work past the age of, say, twenty-five. One gets an excuse up till 25-27, because it is a known fact that the human brain is still 'forming' until about that age frame. After all, kiddo, you're on your own, like every other adult in the first world. People in the third world, don't have time to worry about whether or not they were 'raised right'.
I was watching Watership Down, fell asleep, woke up in the middle of Paris, Texas and just let it wash over me. It was okay through heavy-lidded eyes, but certainly NOT worth more than a 3.8, NOT the 8.1 it seems to be rated here.
Life is a journey not a destination. Fear nothing. -
kenny-164 — 10 years ago(March 29, 2016 01:12 PM)
"I was watching Watership Down, fell asleep, woke up in the middle of Paris, Texas and just let it wash over me. It was okay through heavy-lidded eyes, but certainly NOT worth more than a 3.8, NOT the 8.1 it seems to be rated here. "
So you started watching a film halfway through it, and thought on such basis it was okay. Gee, thanks for the contribution. Call me crazy but I have to wonder if you might have felt differently about the film if you saw it from the beginning, but that's just me.
This is a great film, if not for everyone. Probably not for people who only want to watch the second half. -
Razzbar — 10 years ago(May 28, 2015 08:34 PM)
I didn't see any real plot holes, but it seemed to go down several blind alleys, by foreshadowing events, which never develop. Especially when Travis and Hunter arrive at mom's place of employment. Travis walks into the bar, and a guy tells him to leave, and begins to follow him. Meanwhile, Hunter disobeys instructions to stay locked in the car, and we see him wandering the street in a dangerous neighborhood. Again, I was expecting this to go somewhere, but no that was that.
There were other episodes like this, where there is a suggestion that something is about to happen, and then instead of resolving the situation, it just is left hanging, while the story moves on.
When you watch a classic horror movie, and the bass fiddles play, it creates tension and anxiety in the viewer, to increase the effect when the zombie appears. In this movie, the bass fiddle music plays, but nothing happens. Several times.
I just kept wondering, why lead the viewer down the primrose path, only to abandon it? -
Kroyall1962 — 15 years ago(December 27, 2010 12:05 PM)
First of all, it is irritating when someone who doesn't like a film is later told by admirers of the film they "didn't get it". It is perfectly feasible to "get it" and not like it. To like a film is not a right to claim some intellectual high ground over those who disliked it.
I liked aspects of this film. The cinematography and locations were striking, sometimes even in their bleakness. It works as a time capsule in capturing 1980's America, a time when the vestiges of mid-century America were still visible in some areas, mainly rural.
The protagonist of the film left me flat. He was clearly a self-indulgent, immature, mess of a man who was also an unfit father. For the good of the child it would have been best if this misfit died in the fire. Even during their travels later in the film, he does things that put the child in potential jeopardy that wouldn't fly, even in the 80's. For him to re-abandon his son in the end after rebuilding a relationship with him is deserving of a severe beating. I was hoping he would have done the right thing and killed himself.
The mother was no prize either. I guess we are supposed to believe in the end her psychosis has healed sufficiently enough to raise a young son, even though she had no intention of doing so only hours earlier. Somehow a visit from her over the hill burnout ex husband transforms her into a responsible mother and she can leave the strip club behind. That is pure nonsense.
As for the brother and his wife, they were basically good people and would have provided a loving, stable home for the child. Although Dean Stockwell's character was naive to think his creepy mental case of a brother would be a positive influence in his son's life.
The film could have been shortened by 40 minutes easily and still have gotten the point across. Listening to Stanton stumble through his lines (seems he plays the same half wit character in every film) for 2 1/2 hours is trying on the patience. I had no empathy for him whatsoever. Most damning is his apparent realization of what a pathetic fool he had been but in the end it appears he still intends to follow a meaningless path and once again leave his son behind. Having grown up without a father myself (he passed away when I was a young child) this made me hate him all the more. I could NEVER abandon my children. -
KS-Agency — 14 years ago(November 30, 2011 07:09 AM)
I appreciate everyone has their own opinions.
Those who didn't like the film, in my view, misunderstand the characters. Travis is - in your words - a "self-indulgent, immature, mess of a man", but this is because he has gone through an irreversible amount of chaos and disorder in his life. He is not trying to be an beep - he is a victim; he has been shaped and defined by anxieties, depression etc. When you are that troubled, you can't be the Mr. Hollywood nice-guy; you can't be the loving father who goes to work and rakes in the cash to send Hunter off to the best colleges and universities; you can't become the type of person who meets up with Jane and resolves the situation with typical Hollywood-romantic-sex, followed by marriage; you can't just live 'happily ever after'. When you're in that state of mind, one can't help but appearing like a 'mess-of-a-man', or a 'pathetic fool'; one cannot help being selfish (hence suicide is arguably the most selfish act). The mother, Jane, is somewhat the same, but less extreme.
I think that, what you perceive to be problems with the film, are (at least, in the most part) in fact intentional, unique and clever (and un-Hollywood) ways of conveying Travis' state of mind, which is a central theme running throughout the film. -
Replicant-88 — 14 years ago(December 01, 2011 11:59 AM)
شكرا لك على المشاركة
my favorite films:
//www.imdb.com/list/iFa7p7uwsr8/ -
chas437 — 13 years ago(April 22, 2012 08:41 PM)
Great Points KS! The haters of this film really do seem foolish in their blanket condemnations of the characters. The "bad-parenting" crowd is the worst, so trite. Critics of an unrivaled masterpiece such as "Paris Texas" usually come off as fools.
-
Razzbar — 10 years ago(May 28, 2015 08:40 PM)
I actually found all of the characters at least sympathetic, if not likeable. Even Travis. He's definitely got some real mental problems, but he's also trying to be a good father.
The character development is probably what I liked most about the movie, in addition to the mystery of what it's all about. The people seemed real, and mostly decent. Even Travis, in a very damaged sort of way. -
Morbius_Fitzgerald — 11 years ago(September 23, 2014 01:51 AM)
Yes but, as someone that liked this film, I can see why people would not like these characters. The movie opens with Travis being dug back up by his family after 4 years, leaving a wife and kid behind and at the start he's constantly trying to run away from his brother who just wants to know what he's being doing all this time and why he left in the first place. I mean, okay, in my opinion he did have enough psychological scarring that it seemed excusable but thats my opinion and I know for a fact not everyone will see it the same way and we, as an audience, aren't even given a reason until the last quarter of the film. So on those merits, I can definately see why people wouldn't like this character but in my opinion, Paris Texas is easily one of the best of its genre, to the point where if I extended my Top 20 Favourite films to Top 30, it would definitely be on the list.
"I have always valued my lifelessness." -
-
bluesky84 — 11 years ago(May 12, 2014 07:08 PM)
I think it is normal for the viewer to not have sympathy for Travis throughout the film, except at the very end (he couldn't reunite with Jane and Hunter because it is him that is broken, and he has to fix it himself). Especially when he started opening up and telling Jane what he did to the family four years ago, I understand. But remember he did say that he tried to fix the family in the years
after
Hunter was born.
I feel sorry for Jane, as it wasn't her fault the relationship ended that way. She did really care for Hunter when he was at Walt and Anne's, because remember Anne told Travis (the night conversation) that she used to call about him. Also near the end of the film Jane tells Travis that Anne used to send pictures of Hunter until it became too much for her to handle. Even though she told Anne to stop sending pictures of her son, she still cares about him and his well being (example: she puts money aside for him in the future).
While I understand that most viewers will not have any sympathy for Travis, I feel sorry for him because he knows he can't be reunited with his family. The real thing that's broken is him, and he has to fix himself or else he will repeat the same mistakes in the past.
The dust has come to stay. You may stay or pass on through or whatever. -
sgraf_x — 16 years ago(June 27, 2009 01:26 AM)
I agree with you. A very long, very boring story. Barely a story to be told really but ole Wim manages to drag it out for 2 1/2 hours. Ill sum it up for you ok?
Jealous old husband gets possesive, ties wife to stove with belt. Young attractive wife gets free, sets him on fire and runs away. Husband puts fire out then goes all Forrest Gump and runs to Mexico.
The first hour was completely pointless. I didnt find the photography or locations to be anything special. Stanton sounded like he was reading lines he was unfamiliar with when delivering his "famous monolog." Kinskis southern accent was horrible. I didnt care about any of these characters or their ultra-thin backstories.
Sometimes someone says a movie is great and then all the lemmings and sheep fall right in line, including critics, cause they dont want to seem like they dont get it. And Paris, Texas is exactly that.
So dont feel like you dont get "it" or the problem is with your artistic sensibilities because these bafoons wouldnt know a good film if you beat them over the head with a 35mm canister. A turd is a turd and just because someone says it is a brick of gold doesnt make it so. Can you tell I absolutely hated this film.
I give 2/10
And the 2 goes to the kid who turned in an impressive performance.
There is NO Gene for the Human Spirit. -
mcmaster_flash — 16 years ago(July 13, 2009 03:57 AM)
You know what I think is awesome? Is that there are movies in this world where if one person doesn't like it then anybody else who says they like it is just saying it cause they don't want to seem like "they don't get it." Never mind the fact that they may actually like it.
I happen to love Paris, Texas but I'm well aware and have been that it's not a movie everybody is going to like. Guess what? Not everyone is going to like EVERY movie in the world. It's called variety and different tastes.
Agreed, just because someone says it's a brick of gold doesn't make it so but neither does saying a turd is a turd.
Then again, I don't know what's worse: The fact that a bunch of people posted on a thread of why they think a movie is stupid just cause they didn't like it or that I was bored enough to post on it myself. -
sgraf_x — 16 years ago(July 13, 2009 08:54 AM)
To respond to your rumination as to why people would post about a movie they didnt like is because when I commit 2 and a half hours to watching a film that has been said to be incredible, amazing etc. I want to warn others that it may not be worth it. But you wouldnt find me posting the same on a film like say Stepbrothers where its widely known to be garbage.
There is NO Gene for the Human Spirit.