it's a great movie. if you don't like it: boo-hoo.
-
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. -
degree7 — 9 years ago(December 06, 2016 11:11 PM)
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.
Well there's your problem, both those films are pedestrian.
~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.