|Page 3 of 69:||            |
|Index||690 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
The potential was there--the actors were great (esp Macguire as nerd
and a young, fat Reese Witherspoon and the puppyish Daniels), the 50s
atmosphere seemed to set everything up for nostalgia and irony, and the
premise of 90s children bringing color and passion in a 50s television
show seemed like a great story. Unfortunately, the heavyhanded message
detracted from the experience. The worst signs were the over-dramatic
courtroom monologue adding nothing particularly original ("what's
different is inside us"), the extremely heavy racial and religious
allegory (girlfriend offering an apple? things that are off-limits to
"colored" people? mccarthy-era fahrenheit 451-style book burning??),
the overplayed color metaphor (the first few times were great, having
it last to the end of the story dragged). It begins to seem a bit dumb
and its message is ridiculously left-leaning. A housewife, and some high school kids, find passion after sex (and masturbation, after which a tree goes up in the obvious flames), with no regard to teenage pregnancy, stds, etc. A bored schoolgirl finds passion after reading D. H. Lawrence. Leaving one's husband and starting extramarital affairs is given a thumbs up (and never resolved afterward.) Someone paints a housewife nude on a wall and the attack on it is made out to be some kind of anti-art, anti-passion mccarthyism crusade. In the end, the hero exhorts the audience to find their true feelings and passions, including anger. The town turns colorful. Boring, and biased, and an obvious, heavyhanded story.
I used to watch this film as a kid almost regularly. Undoubtedly I was
unconsciously infatuated with the vibrant colors, playing against the
cold and grainy 'black and white' backdrop. I watched it again
recently, however, and it seems apparent to me that this movie has much
more to offer me as an adult than the special-effects gimmick.
The story is strange but somehow not all too original. A brother and sister who are polar opposites get sucked into their television set one evening just as a "Pleasantville" marathon is set to start. The show, per its' name, is a mega-sappy boomer-era sitcom comparable to the likes of 'Leave it to Beaver', and this is the world they find themselves stuck in. It soon becomes evident that if the pair neglect to play along with every little nuance of the "Pleasantville" episodes, it's entire universe would cease making sense. Desperate to keep the innocent folks of Pleasantville intact, David struggles to keep everything routine and orderly like the episodes he's memorized, but Jennifer, known as the school slut back in reality, has other plans.
The running time for Pleasantville stretches just over 120 minutes, and while it feels about as long as it is, it is time well spent. The characters are written with remarkable emotional maturity, even for the surreal P-ville residents, some of which are borderline childish in their ignorance ("WHERE'S MY DINNER?!"), but even such a disposition is portrayed with honest human emotion and a belief in goodness underneath it all. The director commands a subtlety from his actors, and manages to succeed in having them play their sappy archetypes and be themselves at the same time, coming across with a humble ignorance that offers a rich duality. For while they are merely people trying to be people on the inside, the impostors amongst them are people trying to be Pleasants.
The colors. Oh, the colors! The use of color is definitely worth mentioning, not just because the film revolves around it. The director knew that if he were to perform a visual effect like this, it would have to be spectacular, quite literally. A burning tree glowing against a pale picket fence, pink cherry blossoms in a gray lovers lane, and (to me) most memorably a black and white greaser runs a vibrant-colored comb through his black and white hair. The effects are done with technical proficiency to the effect of beauty. But the colors are loud in multiple ways because they say so much. They spring up in any of the town residents when something happens, and just what that is could be discussed amongst the audience. On the surface, the colors change when a person changes; a routine, a feeling, a way of thinking. Underneath, a passionate moviegoer can look inside these characters, find the humanity, and pick out how they feel like a familiar outfit. It is in these moments of relation that we connect most with the Pleasants, and it is also when they receive their new colors. I think it was these kinds of moments that inspired the color in Pleasantville, the moments of purity. Another interesting perspective I had of the concept was as a kind of reflection of American culture, ranging from the 1950s generation gap to the later civil-rights movement (check out the "No Coloreds" sign in a store window).
I won't try to nutshell the movie, since the characters endure a whirlwind of change and turmoil. Suffice it to say that it's full, rich, sensitive, and funny. It manages to say a lot and it looks damn good doing it. This one stood out on its' own, even within a period of cinematic revival and new ideas spawned by special effects (but not TOO MUCH fx). Yet one more reason why I miss the 90s'.
A really great movie. Not only a great fictional story, but non fiction as well. Pleasantville has appeared on my cable system several times in the past few weeks and I have watched it almost every time. I was struck by the similarities between events in this movie and what we are experiencing today. There are some people who are able to change and grow easily in this movie, as there are in our world today. And then there are those who yearn for a return to the bygone days, with their "traditional values" and interest in the status quo. I was struck by the resemblance between the Pleasantville chamber of commerce and how they discouraged any sort of thought, and the Tea Party supporters that we hear all the time talking about their wish to reinstate those same types of traditional values. At least in the movie, those who develop the ability to think and feel emerge the victors.
"Pleasantville" as about a pair of modern teenagers who are transported
into a black-and-white 50s TV show. That scenario has disaster
potential of FEMA proportions, so when the filmmakers avoided making a
post-modern film version of "Gilligan's Island" starring Will Ferrell
is half the battle. And director Gary Ross got just about everything
else about "Pleasantville" half-right, which makes for a halfway decent
viewing experience, nowhere near as bad as it could be, but not as good
The look of the scenes in the sitcom small-town is half-right -- the costumes, hairstyles and set decorations are perfect, but the pretty black-and-white cinematography and odd camera angles are more reminiscent of an art movie by Scorcese or Woody Allen than grainy single-set 50s TV. The casting is half-right. Don Knotts as the mysterious TV repairman who transforms people into sitcom characters? Perfect. Tobey Maguire as the nerdy, unpopular teen obsessed with an old family sitcom? Way too easy. Looking at Tobey Maguire back in 1998, you assumed he was a geek, so he coasts on his charisma deficit and doesn't bother creating much of a character. Reese Witherspoon as the slutty girl who introduces sexual liberation into the staid 1950s? Brilliant. This was before anyone knew how good she was, and her depth and intelligence shine through this gimmicky role -- her sense of mischief in her early sitcom scene is hilarious, her transformation into a more thoughtful young woman is quite moving. Jeff Daniels as the soda jerk with artistic aspirations? Confused. Is his character stupid or repressed? Daniels never figures it out so he plays it both ways and winds up just kind of stiff and awkward. Finally, the politics of "Pleasantville" are halfway thought-provoking. A few scenes of book burning and threatened gang rape are enough to make you wonder if "Pleasantville" is about the sentimental impulse at the heart of fascism. But that's kind of intense for an American movie so it almost literally backs away from that idea in a bizarre edit and becomes a sentimental movie about self-acceptance and self-actualization. Which is fine, just not incredibly distinctive. Good but not great.
The story begins in the 1990s focusing on a pair of bickering siblings. Davidan intelligent but socially inept teenagerand his twin sister Jenniferpretty, promiscuous, and desperate to be popularare at odds with one another until they abruptly find themselves trapped inside Pleasantville, a 1950s black-and-white sitcom where tradition, naiveté, and old-fashioned values run the idyllic little town like clockwork. Conflict arises when the duo's contemporary social norms begin to influence the town inhabitants, all of whom begin to embrace their unexplored potential and newfound autonomy. Wonderful fantasy from director Gary Ross has some familiar themes but a highly original concept, splendid visual effects that create a sense of awe and wonder, and an abundance of moving moments balanced by plenty of funny ones as well. It goes on too long, but benefits from superb casting all around with each actor playing their part to perfection. ***
A magical TV remote transports a brother and sister from the 1990s to a sitcom town in the 1950s, corrupting the innocent residents of the town. The premise is interesting, leading to some amusing moments initially, but eventually the execution leaves something to be desired. The story meanders around rather aimlessly before turning heavy-handed with social commentary and moralizing. The film is rather obvious in making its simplistic points, using black and white cinematography to represent repression and socialism while using color as a metaphor for tolerance and liberalism. It has a good cast, especially Maguire, Allen, and Daniels, but it runs out of steam.
I really liked this movie, not only is it pleasant it's original. The
plot is about a brother and a sister, David and Jennifer going into the
TV show literally, into one of those old sit-com where everything is
black and white and everyone has a perfect family. And the people are
living the same routine life while everything is black and white, but
David and Jennifer starts changing that. The movie has a deep meaning
about it, even on today's society and I enjoyed it from beginning to
end. It was like watching a fairy tale for adults, I honestly don't
know how anyone can dislike this film. Sure the second half isn't as
good as the first half, but this is still really worth checking out.
I saw this film on a Saturday afternoon and it really packed a wallop. As someone who was brought up on "Leave It to Beaver," "Father Knows Best," "Ozzie and Harriet," etc., etc. I was ready to have any image of those series deflated very quickly. The images (in chilling black and white) of the perfect small town with perfect families and perfect people brought back memories of the above shows (What DID Ozzie do for a living?!) and a few others. Who didn't want parents or friends (or a life) like the ones in the movie?! The cast (among them a pre-Spiderman Tobey Maguire, William H. Macy, Joan Allen, Reese Witherspoon, Jeff Daniels, Marley Shelton, J. T. Walsh in his last role as the town leader, etc.) was one of the best ensembles ever assembled. Everybody had their big moment on screen. Add to this echoes of "To Kill A Mockingbird," "The Wizard of Oz," as well as touches of the above noted TV series and one has a great movie experience. This one had me thinking for days afterwards and it'll have you thinking too.
I think that this movie had a great premise - 90's kids get sucked into 50's TV universe, they disrupt the social order with individuality, imagination, and self-determination. However, this movie seemed like once the premise was created, played out excellently in the first half of the movie, it lost direction. There was a great setup, but the creators didn't know where to take it. They wanted to include a message, then let the message become so central, and so obvious and overdone, that it snuffed out the romp that the movie started with. I'm not against having a message in this movie - I think it was important and relevant; however the ending was so maudlin and hard to swallow that I left the theater feeling overworked.
You know, I much preferred the b&w, 1950s town of Pleasantville before
the characters of Jennifer and David arrived in it and literally
corrupted it with the colors of carnal knowledge.
(Yep. That's right! - Corrupted it!)
It was especially the Jennifer "air-head" character who literally slutified Pleasantville in no time flat. She even educated her TV-Mother on how to please oneself through the dexterity of finger masturbation.
I thought that as a movie Pleasantville got its equation for fulfillment all wrong. By using the screwy metaphor of color as its yardstick to measure fulfillment, I was told, plain and simple, that a black and white world equaled sterility, close-mindedness and gross naivety. While, on the other hand, a Technicolor world meant only beauty, life-lovingness, and rich rewards.
This film seemed to have absolutely no understanding or appreciation for the targeted era in US culture that it so smugly attempted to belittle and ridicule.
Pleasantville's message was neither deep nor meaningful. All that this picture seemed to be was just another way for its producers to show off their expertise solely in terms of its CG imagery.
Pleasantville's story repeatedly told me that one must drop (like - Pronto!) all sexual inhibitions in order to be totally fulfilled in this life. And, yet, it made no mention that it's due to a lack of common sense and rampant, unprotected sex that this world is rife with STDs and unwanted pregnancies.
I found it really hard to believe that the characters living in Pleasantville (before the colors of sex arrived) were so bloody clueless that they didn't know that a whole, wide world existed out there beyond the idealistic borders of their quaint, little town.
Like, didn't these innocent-ones ever watch movies and TV? And, didn't they actually see in color?
And, finally - It really baffled me that the TV Repairman (whose motives were decidedly dubious) had become absolutely outraged when he found out what dear-Jennifer and her darling bro, David, had done to the innocence of Pleasantville - Especially since it was he who had zapped them there in the first place.
Like, what the hell did he expect to happen by introducing these 2 casualties of the post-sexual revolution into this unspoiled environment?
|Page 3 of 69:||            |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||Newsgroup reviews||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|