|Page 3 of 7:||      |
|Index||61 reviews in total|
I got roped into watching this drivel by my girlfriend. It was On Demand and I had had a couple of beers so I said 'why not'. Well, if you're interested, here's why not: This galling display of perversion is so caustic to the sensibilities of any thinking person that I cannot believe anyone was truly happy with the film when it was completed. The characters are beyond unsympathetic and venture into the realm of embarrassing. Harper is a pathetic and hopeless individual if she made it as far in life as her storyline says she did without the skills she seems to lack. Worse, the life lessons she is supposedly learning clearly aren't sinking in if,after realizing her love interest is nothing but a lecherous, perverted, no talent, broke, lying loser who preys on naive, helpless girls when he exposes his intentions in LA at his former 'collector' friends' house, she happily goes along for the ride with only a little tantrum. Absurd. The collection of similarly abused women at the finale is just gross ("Class of '85!" Good gawwwwwwwd). This film is such a poorly executed self indulgence that it doesn't even live up to irony. Just plain awful. I can't even say that its worth watching for a laugh, because there's nothing funny about. Characters don't develop in any substantiated way. One second people are one thing, the next moment another, for no reason. We are led to believe that harper becomes successful. How? We never see one piece of work. She never gets any connections to dealers or marketers. Suddenly she just appears, wearing a mournful-yet-put-together looking black dress instead of her usual MC hammer style washed out jeans (in the late 90's? San Fran? really?) and tee shirt. Jesus. Where'd that come from? A hopeless attempt at a heartfelt art movie that subverts its own intentions with its meaningless artifice and sloppy, contrived, indulgent imagery. I never post anything on the internet, but this was so bad I couldn't help it. STAY AWAY!!!!
The central point of the movie seemed to be that this woman had great
potential and needed this photographer to bring it out. During the
whole movie she never showed us even a pinch of talent and the audience
was left to wonder if there was any point at all. The whole affair
would seem even more horrible and unbelievable if at the end we were
left only with a pathetic May/December romance.
Every aspect of the movie was a cliché. Okay, but this created a critical need for some result to advance this film. We were shown rebellion, withdrawal (in a closet no less!), romance, sex, love and the hint of potential (yes,the development of real talent). For all those promises we got nothing and were left holding an empty bag!
who ever is interested. i stumbled on this movie completely by accident, and once i began i couldn't stop.you know why? it was true. i just got it. i got it because i was just leaving a relationship like that, that i think- marked me for life. this movie shows something so true, true in a sense that their is no right or wrong, and in some way it really makes me think. it makes me see things in perspective, relationships, and how we fail to observe them while engaged in them. once i saw this movie- i felt i was looking at myself, and also not hating my ex-partner (a very much disturbed older paragrapher. off course- it made me view it in a very romantic way, that i enjoyed. it was painterly to see in harper how innocent i am.or was. for sure- i am no longer at that stage in life. thanks to him.he wasn't a bad guy- and i was too blinded to see how mixed up he was.
The plot to GUINEVERE is as follows : Harper Sloane a young woman aged
twenty embarks on a sexual relationship with photographer Con
Fitzpatrick a man old enough to be her father
There that's the entire plot summed up in a few words . Notice how the plot is cogently summed up in a few words ? This means the story is rather threadbare and not much happens . The unlikely duo do things together like attend parties , have sex and take photos mainly of Harper's naked adolescent body but even this isn't exciting as it sounds and is in no way intended to be an " erotic " tale if you know what I mean
Looking through the comments on GUINEVERE it seems opinion is very much split as to what the audience makes of this movie . Some people enjoyed it as a character study while others think it's a ridiculous movie . To be fair Stephen Rea and Sarah Polley do make the most of their slightly bland roles and the music is haunting and a line of dialogue " You will have a twelve inch c*ck up your ass very soon " did make me giggle but that says more about me than the quality of this movie
Guinevere, for which I had high hopes, is a disaster. The basic story line
(young woman falls in love with older
man) is not the problem. The problem is that we are supposed to accept the
premise that Harper Sloan (Sarah Polley) is an insecure, naive, helpless
young woman. Suspending disbelief is one thing, but swallowing this
nonsense is out of the question. We are told to believe that Sarah Polley,
at age 20, needs something or someone to appreciate her for what she can
Sarah's character, Harper, is a beautiful, wealthy, college-educated resident of the San Francisco Bay Area. There is no way in the world she would still be this uninformed, inexperienced, and helpless. She has done well enough at college to be accepted into Harvard Law School. If we are to believe the film, she is incapable of any intelligent or creative thought or action. From what college did she graduate? Was she asleep for four years? Was she asleep for 20 years?
The only scene with any hint of reality or intelligence was the one in which Harper's mother, played well by Jean Smart, confronts the older man. Sarah Polley is beautiful and talented; she is wasted in this turkey. [For a film in which the director utilizes the talents of a young actor, avoid Guinevere and see Natalie Portman in Anywhere but Here.]
If they all got paid, then there was a vast amount of money wasted on hangers-on that could have been better spent onscreen. Just the film footage to list all these leeches was not cheap. An interesting film, primarily for Sarah Polley's superb performance, but one wonders what it might have been if not for all the top-loading of anti-creative "executives." Sixteen? Come on guys, start your own football team. It only takes one producer to make a movie. The rest of you need to seriously reflect on your purpose in life.
First of all I have to say I saw this movie on video, since it didn't come out here in the cinema. The cast (Rea, Polley) looked good, and I liked 'The truth about cats and dogs', the only film by director Wells I had seen before. But what a terrible miss, this turned out to be. The relationship between "old man" Rea and his muse Polley didn't look believable at all to me, although in one of the first scenes (which turned out to be one of the only likeable ones) they seem to hit it off pretty well. But as the movie carries on, the story loses its promise and gets worse and worse. Towards the end you get more and more annoyed with the main characters and finally you realise you've been watching a terrible movie.
Harper Sloane (Sarah Polley) is a gorgeous and insecure twenty years old
woman, dominated by her wealthy family and has just passed to Harvard. In
her sister's wedding, she meets the photographer Connie Fitzpatrick (Stephen
Rea), an old, weird, not handsome and very poor man, who tells her that she
has a great potential in arts and calls her Guinevere. Harper falls in love
with him. She gives up of Harvard, leaves her family and moves to his
apartment. Pretty soon, she finds that he has used the same seduction by
flattery technique, including the nickname Guinevere, with other girls. But
she stays with him, until she is `replaced' by another girl. After four
years, Harper becomes a mature woman, totally different from the one in the
beginning of the story. This movie is a very weird romance. If the viewer
can buy that a beautiful and wealthy girl like Harper could really love a
guy like Connie and stay with him, probably he will like this film. That is
not my case. Harper is a mature woman in the end of the story, but in the
beginning, she would have to move to Harvard, where she certainly would
develop herself as a human being. Of course, the experience she has with
Connie is great for her formation, but the guy is too much strange and does
not really seems to love her. She is just another tasteful laboratory for
him. The cynical dialog of Harper's mother with Connie is for me the
greatest part of this film, when she says that a looser like him prefers
young and naive women to be admired in his completely failure as a man. My
vote is four.
Title (Brazil): `A Lente do Desejo' (`The Lens of the Desire')
I couldn't believe how awful this movie was. It was virtually free of
features. Poor Sarah Polley desperately tries to save the thing
but with lines like that nobody can.
These were some of the things that really grated: Complete absence of likeable characters (he a sad lech, she a dimwitted girlie, her family standard-issue clichZd stiffs, and a pathetic rent-a-bohemian crowd whose role in the movie was decorative (as in house plants) rather than integral).
A plot anyone could have filled in after the first five minutes Dialogue that would have been embarrassing in a 70s movie (the old art vs commerce debate - please!; quaint words like 'capitalism' and 'bourgeoisie'; "I am studying your form" - aaaaargh) Generic feel-good scenes straight out of Newton cigarette ads Cheesy, unironic music Complete ignorance of the principles of photography (photographers do not work like that). Perhaps excusable if it had been made by an older guy - but a woman? Girls, we can do better
Astonishingly horrid, hackneyed drivel. I couldn't believe that the
and filmmakers--who are ostensibly a part of an artistic community of
sorts--would portray "bohemians" in such a cheesy way.
And what the hell was with the cutesy dance scenes with car-commercial music in the background? Did someone tell the director this would look cool? I puked. Every "romantic" scene was equally unbearable (except for the sex scenes which were tasteless and disturbing).
We all know people who think they are sophisticated, intelligent, and avant garde, but are actually vomitous, narcissistic poseurs. They will love this "art film." You should avoid it like the plague.
|Page 3 of 7:||      |
|Newsgroup reviews||External reviews||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|