Amateur (1994)

The Age of Commercialism

Fantastic!

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Completely flat, unfathomably long, completely unwatchable. Nondimensional characters deliver trite deadpan lines and it I'm supposed to think its brilliant and funny? This movie had almost nothing in it that was genuinely amusing. It had anti-stereotypes like accountant-torturers that wouldn't sustain a SNL sketch let alone what felt like a 16 hour movie. It wasn't sexy or smart. There wasn't one likable character (if you could argue that this film had characters), and for the most part there was no plot, nothing at all to keep you interested. If I hadn't agreed to watch it, I would have turned it off during every scene. I just don't get the joke. Is the film-loving community so desiccated by ennui that they adore a film that shakes its angry fist at the concept of being entertaining?

I am ashamed to admit that I have only just discovered Hal Hartley. Fortunately, not too late, as I think I still have enough time remaining on this planet to hunt up and watch all of his other films.I'm getting a real chuckle out of reading all the one-star reviews here by people who just don't "get it". I don't blame them, really, but there should be some way of warning them not to do it; not to embarrass themselves by displaying their shallowness. If it's slick predigested Hollywood pap liberally peppered with explosions they're looking for, they're in the wrong place.Hal Hartley rules. If he's made better films than "Amateur" then I'm in for a real treat.

Hal Hartley where have you been all my movie-loving life? This was the sort of movie-watching experience which required my calling my best friend and telling her about it, as I would any noteworthy experience. Yes, the ending was dismal... yet perfect! So much about redemption: This was clear if one remembers Thomas's feet at the beginning of the movie, and then Thomas's feet at the end. At that point, I saw the (one of) point to the story. I enjoyed the clipped dialogue, the clarity, AND the ironic absurdity. The story was not meant to be reality-driven, but limited to the raison d'etre of Thomas and the other characters: as in a dream, but not. Discovering it was a marvelous channel-surfing accident.Now I must do a search on Hal Hartley. Check out his portfolio, so to speak. Rating 9/10.

This is an interesting movie but not especially interesting. It is a little unusual. However it does get slow in the last half and then eventually dies an undesirable death. It is worth watching but not for the ending.However I think they tried to put too much into Isabelle's character. She did not need to have been a nun and a nymphomaniac. And in fact it is unclear to me whether she was a nymphomaniac; I think you will need to decide for yourself.