Amateur (1994)

Lack of good storyline.

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Fantastic!

Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Hal Hartley is just my all-out favourite auteur director, brought me through my teens and helped form my world view. When he makes a film you're in for something that is at the very least interesting, and at best, moves you, creates a new world out of the one you're already in, shows you the art in life. That sounds pretentious and some might think his films are too; but that's just the knee-jerk effect that comes with overexposure to rubbish presented as if it's art. But one good Hal Hartley film cures a soul wearied with too much dross. "Amateur" is up there with "Trust" and "The Unbelievable Truth" if you have any time at all for films which are off-kilter, intelligent and which depart from the linear norm. They're also very funny, in a low-key way. His actors are usually regulars, skilled at his unique, poetic and rhythmic script style. His America is intriguing, a place painted with the eye of a true original, and presented with a rigour entirely absent from many more recent so-called independent American films. Another reviewer here noted the strong European flavour in his work; this is quite right; and if you enjoy a varied experience of film I can't see how you wouldn't like his best. The plot of "Amateur" is crazy and contorted, like a dance, with a fascinating premise and a weird logic of its own. Martin Donovan here is Hartley's muse; he perfectly captures the rapid, deadpan delivery and manages to be charming and mysterious, dangerous and vulnerable with minimal changes in expression. Why his career has stayed largely small-scale is beyond me. Perhaps he goes about his work too quietly; perhaps his jaw isn't chiselled enough, I don't know.But Isabelle Huppert is outstanding as the struggling porn writer fresh out of the convent. Says her scumbag-with-a-heart publisher of her attempts: "The problem is, it's quite…bad. It's poetry, and don't you try and deny it." And it is poetry; heartbreakingly so. She looks out at the strange world, uniquely innocent, with her big, solemn eyes, and you instinctively feel with her, and wish her a knight to watch over her. And of course, this being Hal Hartley's world, her protector arrives, uniquely flawed. He could be Grandma; or he could be the Wolf. Excellent, good-looking and intriguing.

Characters and story dreamed up by an auteur without imagination. Fake to the bone. No relation to life. Dialog pretentiously abstract, meant to be funny but isn't. Caricatured characters can sometimes be fun--see Dr. Strangelove--but the caricature has to grow from a sense of life. This is so airless, so film-schooly, watching it is like trying to breathe in a vacuum. An ex-nun nymphomaniac, so she says, who has not had sex because "I'm choosy", and a porn star, some gangsters, etc., adds up to a labored, dead, badly acted pseudo movie. I watched it because of all the good comments, so I'm warning those with ears to hear.

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.

I kept waiting for this movie to make sense at some point, and it never happened. I looked at the IMDB rating hoping to get some kind of an idea how many people saw the film and how many people gave it a rating higher than 7. Boy was I disapointed. What a waste of celluloid!