Minimalist filmmaking at its best.
Added 1/29/2009
Richard Linklater has long been known for his knack for getting a lot of a little. Movies like "Slacker" pushed the boundaries of conventional filmmaking, and took your preconceptions and stomped them to dust. Even his mainstream breakthrough "Dazed and Confused" seemed surreally barebones in its structure. However, with "Tape", Linklater took his style to whole new heights of complex simplicity (yes, that was an intentional oxymoron).
Unfolding like a modern day Samuel Beckett play, "Tape" revolves entirely around only three characters, and takes place entirely in a hotel room. The central character, Vince (played brilliantly by Ethan Hawke) is meeting up with two old friends from high school (Uma Thurman and Robert Sean Leonard). It seems like an innocent friendly reunion at first, but soon it's apparent that Vince has ulterior motives for getting the old gang back together.
For its rather sparse arrangement, this is an intense, intelligent, highly complex, and extremely engaging story. All three performances are great, but Hawke definitely stands out, bringing such vivid dimension to a highly erratic and delightfully devious character. This is definitely among the best performances I've seen of his. It's also worth mentioning that this movie was filmed not in a real hotel room, but on a very convincing soundstage. To those interested in stage design, the attention to detail here is pretty impressive.
Like most of Linklater's movies, this is definitely not for everyone, but if you dig his style, you definitely need to see this.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
3 stars out of 4
Added 1/3/2009
The Bottom Line:
Drawing its strength from a performance by Ethan Hawke that's so good it forever made me like him as an actor when I previously hated him, Tape is an ingeniously claustrophobic drama from Richard Linklater.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Talented director Linklater dares to sustain a drama on a single dingy set, and thanks to a biting script and superb performances, succeeds. Though Thurman expertly plays the pivotal role of Amy, less a victim than a detached female looking on with bemusement at two ranting males, the show is Hawke's and Leonard's, as the two men wage a savage battle of wits, with life-changing implications. Taut, holding, and clever, "Tape" is immensely satisfying fare.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Pretentious
Added 2/8/2007
This film is over-rated at 4 stars. It starts off slow and eventually gets to something that is interesting. But it's very pretentious and not very believable.
2 out of 5 people found this helpful.
|
Duck Tape
Added 10/30/2006
If you see this movie heading your way, duck for cover. Tape is a film of almost unimaginable cruelty. Three very good actors, Ethan Hawke, Uma Thurman, and Robert Sean Leonard, (now seen on the excellent TV show, House), are trapped in a cheesy motel room for 83 minutes, more to the point, you are trapped in there with them. This is the kind of film that aches for an obligatory car chase, frat house bikini contest, or helicopter crash.
It's easy to affix the blame. Stephen Belber wrote the play and adapted it for film. (Note to Mr. Belber: Unless you're Samuel Beckett, do not attempt a three-person, one-room play, it's almost impossible to do well.) This horrific gaff would seem to explain it, but there's more. The film was directed by Richard Linklater, who gave us Waking Life, (also featuring Ethan Hawke). For those of you who have not seen Waking Life, let us simply say that, though it features splendidly original animation, the film is arguably the largest swamp-gas-filled-dirigible ever to cross the horizon.
One can easily see why Mr. Linklater would be drawn to Mr. Belber's play, both Tape and Waking Life feature almost identical dialogue, it goes something like this:
Why are we here? What? You know. You mean now? Yes, well, I think so. What? Stop kidding yourself, you know exactly what I mean. No I don't, honestly. What? Oh for God's sake, if you won't do it for me, do it for them. I'm not following you. But don't you see it? There are options, certainly. What? Would you like a beer? How many do you have left? Several, well, some, not as many as I thought I had, but enough to let you have one, depending on how badly you want one, do you want one? What? A beer. Is that why we're here, to talk about beer? No, of course not, it's what you might call polite conversation. Oh well that's just fine, our friendship has been reduced to the point of polite conversation, we no longer talk about real things, honest things? Great, now Mr. Smarty Pants wants to talk about real things, honest things, this is a very intriguing if not astounding turn of events. What? Since when are you interested in what's real, aren't you the one who spent years building a castle of lies, a fortress to protect you from feeling anything? I'm sorry, why am I here? Isn't that a question for you to answer? Perhaps, but you did, after all, invite me. What?
For 83 minutes - and you never leave the room.
2 out of 6 people found this helpful.
|
A poignant look at life
Added 4/16/2009
This is an awesome movie!! It offers a poignant look at life among some outcast and odd characters who have taken up residence at New York City's Chelsea Hotel. (Yes, this is the same hotel where Sid Vicious killed Nancy Spungeon, full of romance and hauntings, which add to the pain and atmosphere of this movie.) Ethan Hawke did an exceptional job of directing. Cast includes Rosario Dawson, Uma Thurman, Natasha Richardson, Tuesday Weld, and Kris Kristofferson in some really interesting roles. It is NOT a "feel good" movie, but portrays a realistic look at NYC's disenfranchised. A lot of the story is conveyed through the random recitation of poetry. Kerouac and Ginsberg fans will love it! Be warned - this movie is not for everyone - it is depressing and slow moving at times. BUT - if you can appreciate things like beat poetry, street life, hippie thought, punk culture, and a unique NYC perspective, I VERY highly recommend this dvd!
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
La Stupidité absolue!
Added 12/24/2007
Heureusement je n'ai pas acheté ce DVD: Je l'ai loué au videoclub de mon quartier. Et ils faut dire que j'ai passé presque deux heures d'ennui total!!! Tout est sombre dans ce film. Je parle pas de l'histoire mais de la qualité de l'image. On essaie de distinguer les personnages, mais en vain. De temps en temps on voit une partie du mur bien illuminé et c'est tout. Les acteurs il faut les chercher dans d'autres films. Remarquez, c'est beaucoup mieux pour eux. Car jouer dans un film pareil, c'est vraiment une honte. Ethan Hawke??? Je ne crois pas. Probablement il a preté son nom à un ami qui veut rester anonyme!!! On m'a dit que son second film est aussi insignifiant que celui-là!! Je me demande ou il trouve les producteurs111
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Ethan builds Hotel on Baltic Avenue...
Added 7/27/2007
There stands a hotel. Not just your typical hotel, and definitely not a hotel that is run by the parent of the "Heiress of Fashion", but one where human culture was created. That may sound philosophical, but there was a hotel where some of the greatest minds connected together, only to witness the lost power of modern day destroy and transform this hotel into a mess. Before I give away the name, of which you probably are already aware, I must say that somebody decided it was up to themselves to cheat others of their namesakes while attempting to create a unique and creative voice. All right, I you have had enough guesses - the hotel is Chelsea in NYC and the director is the Oscar-nominated Ethan Hawke. Did these two combine well? Were they like Kool-Aid and water, or gasoline and orange juice? Each will have their own opinion depending on the level of graduate work done in the field of cinema, but for this film nerd, it was more the gasoline and orange juice option without the allowance of a chaser.
The Chelsea Hotel is a landmark in American culture, alas, due to modern advances in low-income housing; it has become nothing more than a demolished idea coupled with a forgotten past. Hawke, using nearly every technique patented by Richard Linklater, attempts to revitalize the forgotten hotel with non-sequitur stories and impossible characters, yet incredible actors. Using now-cliché camera style (a.k.a. The grain of pure film school) and a powerful score by Wilco, Hawke pulls every grunge independent filmmaker technique known to man, mashes them together like potatoes, and hopes - actually prays - that it will be a big "hurrah" at the cinematic Thanksgiving. Enough references for now, but truthfully, Hawke creates an eyesore of a film with "Chelsea Walls'. Beginning with characters that never develop AT ALL, coupling with a story that is never existent, Hawke horribly displays whatever talent he may have thought he had by employing friends to carry the burden. "Chelsea Walls" was a smear on cinema, not because of the subject (of which I do believe an honest film needs to be made of the events leading to the demise of this building), but because of the surroundings. Hawke borrows, as mentioned before, unsuccessfully from Linklater's work, attempting to bring a "Waking Life"-esque story to the surface sans the animation. Where Hawke failed was that he brought unexcited characters into a place that really needed an introduction. He needed to guide this audience through his train of thought - not just assume we were all as intellectual as he portrayed himself to be.
What upped me about this film was that we had intelligent, powerful actors giving us nothing. From the beginning of the scene until the end, there was nothing solid for us to stand. Kris Kristofferson is a phenomenal actor, but he couldn't bring me to the surface in "Chelsea Walls". He cried, he drank, he womanized, but for what purpose - this critic has absolutely no idea why. The same can be said for Natasha Richardson, whom in my eyes, cannot do wrong, was misguided from the beginning thanks to Mr. Hawke. Rosario Dawson gave the only comprehensible portrayal throughout the film, but she was flanked by horrid direction and choppy "anti-independent" cliché surroundings. She tried, but Hawke wouldn't allow her to prosper. The only one that went the distance, albeit horribly, was Robert Sean Leonard who only was given screen time because of his friendship with director Hawke. He did have a moving story, and if we were left with just the central focus of Leonard's character as he interacted with the others of this building, I think we could have had a keeper of a film, but we didn't. We jumped. We jumped from one actor to another hoping that we could see the chaos surrounding these talented artists. Alas, all we witnessed was Jell-o slipping down a wall -- nothing was sticking.
I hate to be pessimistic because I had high hopes for this film. Look at the billing for "Chelsea Walls", who wouldn't get excited. What did happen is that Hawke went to the Linklater school of direction, but abysmally failed out, possibly never quite going to the first class, but instead just copying someone's notes. This was a dark depressing tale that had elements that could work, but just like any first year filmmaker, it all depends on how you put those ideas together. Hawke had some great ideas, but he could not assemble them. He tried to bring music into the scene, and the use of Wilco was genuine, but overbearing - not to mention overused - throughout the film. This seemed to be the common theme or pedestal that Hawke used for "Chelsea Walls" - overuse, until it becomes painful to the viewer. You can obviously see that with the extra lack-tastic features attached to this disc. There are some additional scenes, which only continue the abrasive, unknown of the film. There are some interviews, but done many years after the film. Hawke tries his best, but the funniest is Robert Sean Leonard who forgets everything and attempts to change the subject. My favorite, "What was your favorite scene Mr. Leonard", answered with a long pause and the phrase, "...anything with Rosario". That sums this film up in a nutshell.
Overall, I cannot suggest this film. I love the actor Ethan Hawke, and I like this style of filmmaking, but for "Chelsea Walls" it just didn't seem put together. Linklater would have been upset with the results - just as we were as we watched it. Do not be fooled by the big names associated here, they accomplish nothing and in the end, make you want this hotel to be torn down. This was a sad attempt at filmmaking, and I can only suggest watching a better combination film with these actors called "Tape". I have mentioned this in a couple of other reviews and truly believe this is the best Hawkes/Leonard/Linklater combo platter you will ever get.
Grade: * ½ out of *****
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
