Wow, what a letdown
-
-
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. -
chas437 — 14 years ago(September 21, 2011 11:30 AM)
Agree. This was an incredible film. I think of it as a pioneer Independent Film. This was really the first Indie film to when critical acclaim in mainstream USA, and really stood out among other films of the day. I was blown away with when I first saw it 27 years ago as a kid. I just watched it again, and 27 years later it is still powerful for me but in a different way. Harry Dean Stanton was amazing in the role of Travis. The role of the 8 year old kid was very well played.
Way too many stupid people posting on this board. "Paris Texas" won the Grande Prize an Cannes as I remember. -
bluesky84 — 11 years ago(May 12, 2014 07:14 PM)
I wish I viewed Paris, Texas as an incredible film immediately after viewing it for the first time. To be honest, after seeing it for the first time, I thought it was
great
, as in 8-8.5/10. You really have to see it multiple times in order to truly appreciate it, especially the first half (I really, really liked the shots of the American west).
I also liked the production process of the film, and Wenders' passion of photography (as seen in
Written in the West
). It's too bad he didn't use some of the locations that were in the book, but at least he gave them some attention. The rural shots are much more interesting to look at.
The dust has come to stay. You may stay or pass on through or whatever. -
-
tadeu-br — 16 years ago(September 07, 2009 08:29 AM)
I hate narrow minded people who keep focusing on 'a story' or 'a message'. A movie is such more than telling a story.
You sound just like the kind of people who shoud stick to GI Joe, Transformers and such. Lave complex movies for people who care to use their minds. -
creaturefeeture — 16 years ago(December 12, 2009 01:38 PM)
I couldn't even finish Paris, Texas I was so bored to tears. That being said, the cinematography was incredible! I'm sure that's largely what landed it high critical praise. I kept popping the film back into my dvd player, hoping something would snag me in and keep me interested, but sadly that never happened and I just gave up on it. As a result, I wont rate it, I never saw the whole film, but I just wanted to point out how incredibly beautiful the cinematography was because I don't think that's receiving enough mention. Nearly every shot was a masterpiece. Unfortunately, if I wanted to see a bunch of beautiful shots with no substance in my eyes I'd simply go to a photography gallery. As many have stated, I too felt no sympathy for the characters nor did I really relate to them, and found nothing interesting or redeeming about them. But again I didn't see the whole thing. Just my two cents.
Voting History:
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=26598711 -
creaturefeeture — 16 years ago(December 19, 2009 01:36 AM)
No, sadly I don't. The film was just that boring. And I hardly ever call a film boring.
Voting History:
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=26598711 -
creaturefeeture — 16 years ago(December 24, 2009 05:03 PM)
My God, you're right!
Voting History:
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=26598711