|
|

Feb 8th, 2004, 10:53 PM
I think perhaps I was expecting too much out of this film; somewhere along the line of reviews, I thought it would be... I don't know, good. I'm not necessarily saying it was a bad film, but certainly not something I'd watch more than once or would feel the need to have a conversation about (save this one right here, right now).
If Coppola's objective was to make the viewer feel dismal in the sense that they identified with... weariness or mediocrity, or that sick, empty feeling, then she easily accomplished that feat. But it could easily be said that the film was essentially just that: vacuous. It's like identifying with depressing nonsensical lyrics because they somehow apply to your life at that point. The only way, that I can humbly conceive, someone would find this a good film is if they identified with that despondent nothingness and/or looking for “something” (read: one’s place in life). Does that make sense?
P.S. Responses are welcome, except for those of Tenenbaum. On behalf of AT&T, thank you for calling.
|
|
|
|