it's a great movie. if you don't like it: boo-hoo.
-
Hamasaurus68 — 13 years ago(March 02, 2013 02:47 PM)
I agree, too. Decent story, could have been a hell of a lot shorter. That a movie of this type ran over two hours is lunacy. Cut it to 90 minutes. There were times in the movie when I was yelling"Cmon' let's get moving!"
As far as the acting goes'walking around like a retard'this seems to be a guy that is trying to get a grip on his past and snapped. Would you rather he hop and skip happily? You have to remember, this is 1984these new 'offbeat' film characters and 'offbeat' films of this type were relatively new.
Stockwell 'dialed it in'?Two things:
1)Stockwell is a decent actor, not a great one
2)The role itself didn't have much to work with.
Looking like the kid 'didn't care'I don't know, if he ended up being whiny and unreasonable, that would be exactly what the audience expected. Not only that, a kid would have to be aloof just to pack up bags and leave town with his newly
found daddy.
As a side notein the early days, I couldn't stand Natassja Kinski. Her features were gawky and alien looking when she was younger. This was the film where she had grown into a quite beautiful woman.
As far as the scene where travis says what happenedI think you just don't understand filmmaking. So he's supposed to just say "Hey, I'm Travishere's your kid"? Not only that, after everything that happened, he didn't know how she would react if he just told her who he was. He kind of eased her into it.
Also, When she asked if it was him the day before and he lied and said noshe said that she heard his voice in every man she talked to behind the mirror over the years. -
bluesky84 — 13 years ago(March 25, 2013 11:50 AM)
It really is great; too bad you didn't see it that way. The scenery in the first half can really be appreciated. The second half features the suburbs of the Southland, it said in one of the essays that most of the diners near the freeways will eventually be gone/replaced by the major fast food chains. Such a shame.
The dust has come to stay. You may stay or pass on through or whatever. -
b_havag — 12 years ago(June 05, 2013 12:02 PM)
Somewhere in this thread a guy remarked how stupid it is to reply to people who don
t like their favourite films that they didnt get it, because it is perfectly possible to do so and still dislike the film. I wholeheartedly agree, there is a difference to an objective and a subjective view, or in other words; your favourites doesnt have to be the films you consider the best. That being said, to say that he didnt get it is the only way to describe the OPs view of Travis and his son.
The comment about Hunter remarking that he was "Just lucky I guess" being bad: How articulate do you expect an 8-year old to be? This is a completely believable and fitting line.
Travis walking around like a retard. Hes an heartbroken, sad and confused amnesiac. Of course hes closeted! It takes time to make him open up, and he does so more and more as the film progresses, just like one should expect it to be.
By the time you get to the scene where Travis tell us what happened Im certain YOU are retarded, or just a troll. EMOTIONS man! He hasnt seen a woman he loved more than himself for many years, a woman he mistreated badly, and you think it would be believable for him just to tell her where the kid is? It wouldnt be enough for her to believe it and go to the hotel, it would tell the viewer he didnt care for her or his son. The scene reveals why he is such a damaged man, and it is evidence of Stantons great performance in that it shows that his portrayal has been perfect throughout. It was a moving and intelligent way to reconnect with his wife with him and their son without scaring her away. Kinskis acting fulfills the breathtaking scene. -
AndreaCats — 12 years ago(June 09, 2013 09:27 AM)
Yeah, totally agree with the OP and with other comments on the contradictions of the movie characters, not credible and not interesting. For sure I don't relate with them, but normally that doesn't mean I cannot still appreaciate a movie.
I couldn't really find any theme in this movie that could make it worth this high IMDB rating.
Maybe I "didn't get it" but I didn't read anything among the positive comments that could change my mind. -
Redux006 — 12 years ago(October 05, 2013 02:55 AM)
You're right about the buildup. There was so much mystery and suspense developed around what happened that by the time they finally reveal it to us all it can do is fall flat. Also another thing that bugged me were the pregnant silences. I hate when movies do this, it's a cheap way to try and achieve depth, Drive uses the same tactic. One character will ask a straightforward question, then the other will hover on the edge of answering for like five minutes, then say nothing at all or just give some short cryptic reply. Directors think this is "cinematic", and it is, and that's all it is. It's a trope of "intelligent" movies and is totally alien from how real-life human beings actually interact. It's basically a cheap trick to sidestep writing insightful dialog. Like if you make a horror film, if you can't create a scary monster, then you just avoid showing it and give brief glimpses of it to allow the audience to invent something scary in the gap for themselves. Similarly when making a movie of the "intelligent film" genre, if you can't write intelligent dialogue, then just insert pregnant silences and the audience will invent something deep and intelligent in the gaps.
-
bluesky84 — 11 years ago(July 29, 2014 06:03 PM)
She would probably know his voice if he was one of the first people there (like soon after she started working there) but it was four years later so she probably didn't really care anymore.
The dust has come to stay. You may stay or pass on through or whatever. -
oh_no_mrbill — 11 years ago(August 23, 2014 07:55 PM)
I think part of it is being able to empathize with the main character. His silent beginning, wandering in the desert, totally oblivious to the world, too broken by some horrible thing in his past to rejoin society. The movie evokes a certain loneliness of spirit that I immediately identified with, so maybe it's a personal thing. It's a highly personal film, and I can definitely see why people might not get into its rhythm. I personally thought it was one of the best movies I have ever seen in my life.
-
thepartydjz — 11 years ago(December 17, 2014 08:52 PM)
This film is introspective, the slower parts give you a chance to think. Does that mean people that do not enjoy it are stupid, well probably not, however it might mean that they require more action or a faster moving plot.
Personally I love a film that makes you think, it's 10 times more absorbing and enjoyable than fast paced action or joke-a-minute slap stick comedies, no thinking required.
Harry Dean is so charismatic in this, if you don't see it I feel sorry for you, it's subtle indeed. For instance the scene where he wins over Hunter, dressed in some new stylish clothing walking along the street. -
BigWhiskers — 11 years ago(December 17, 2014 10:40 PM)
I caught this on TCM tonight , had never seen it before and I have to agree with the OP.
A rather dull plodding letdown. The re abandoning of the kid at the end of the movie after establishing a relationship with him
seemed like such a copout on the writers part , listening to the tape recording he leaves for the son was so cruel and hypocritical too. Telling his son that he loved him more than his own life but he had to leave again . Yeah mom will take care of you, she's basically a whore with problems of her own. Why did the dad even bother getting back with his kid , just to hurt him all over again when the kid wanted to be with him . I would hope that if he really loved his son as much as he said that he would try and get help
To deal with his inner demons and come back to be in his sons life. I know I'd regret it for the rest of my life .
So, a thought crossed your mind? Must have been a long and lonely journey -
danielscissorhands — 11 years ago(December 29, 2014 12:54 AM)
I agree. Really liked the movie up until Harry Dean Stanton's monologue at the end.
Did he say that he tied her to a stove, and she set the trailer on fire and left with Hunter? Or had she already left, but he was too drunk to notice, and then he burned down his own trailer? The latter makes more sense.
Were the cowbell he tied to her and the belt he tied her up with a metaphor?
Anyway, both of them are terrible parents.
And for him to abandon the kid again and not only that but to leave him with a mother he had no idea if he could trust.. that was ridiculous. If he couldn't take care of Hunter, then he should have left Hunter with his brother.
This movie had potential, but it fizzled out.
8.1 out of 10 on IMDB?
-
Razzbar — 10 years ago(May 28, 2015 08:46 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.
I wasn't hoping for it, but expecting it. Again and again, the movie "foreshadows" catastrophic events which never happen. I don't know if this is intentional for some reason, or if the writer just runs out of ideas.
Many places in the movie this happens, where I was led to expect something awful to happen, but instead, the story just abandons the suspense and nothing happens at all, to resolve the foreshadowing.
It's not like this made me angry, but several times I was going "oh, no" and then the scene simply changes. There isn't any turnaround, it just goes off in another direction. -
j-m-d-b — 9 years ago(June 18, 2016 11:57 AM)
Just to add my 2 cents: I was also a bit disappointed by the film. Maybe my expectations were too high.
Let me start by saying that I love slow films. Hou Hsiao Hsien's 'The Assassin' is my favourite movie of the year and that is really slow and atmospheric.
I just saw the restored version of 'Paris, Texas' on a huge screen in a great theatre so the setting was right. And the film definitely has some good qualities. The music by Ry Cooder is good but it does get somewhat repetitive. There are some breathtakingly beautiful shots, although I must say not
that
many. Still, all nicely done.
But what lets the film down in my opinion is the acting. I thought that was kinda flat. I have never seen a film in which Kinski acts well, and I didn't find her believable in this either. Harry Dean Stanton was okay but not more than that. Dean Stockwell didn't shine either. Aurore Clment as Anne gave the only performance that I responded to on an emotional level.
So I agree with the OP: I don't really see what all the fuss is about. Not bad, 7/10.
