Simple Men (1992)

Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

The biggest problem of the movie is that the movie has no effect at all which I recently learned that they call it deadpan. The reactions of the characters are extremely soulless. The movie is not humorous because of those except the famous dance scene and the guy who helps Kate. This short part is the only interesting part and the guy is the only acceptable character of the movie, as said, all the other characters are too emotionless. This cannot be explained by nihilism or Godard's 'anti-cinema' style. Simple Men is not a road movie, despite the main story is that two brothers leave the city to find their father. I had expected an interesting and colorful road movie, at least a movie. There is an emptiness feeling throughout the movie, so if you expect any kind of dramatic or stunning material, you disappoint seriously. Again because of this deadpan style of the director, no art, no entertainment. Cinematography is just OK, but owing to the problems mentioned above, finally the film is lack of an impressive cinema experience. The director puts up a solid wall between the movie and audiences, I don't mean catharsis or I don't mean empathy, these are not must, but this wall makes the movie distasteful and soulless. Some people complain about acting in the movie, but acting was not weak, there is no problem with acting, it was plausible. The thing makes them think like that is probably deadpan that the director likes. By the way, Simple Men is not predictable, but does not include any twist or surprise.

It was just a little mistake changing the channel, but after watch a few scenes of a low budget film with Robert John Burke talking great dialogue, couldn't move my eyes from the TV till the movie end. It wasn't the good cast or the style of low budget, It was the whole story taking a deep vision about the life and the love. After that I became a fan of Hal Hartley, because every movie of him shows another piece of the life in the hell in a way more realistic and with less violence than many great independent directors. The world of Hartley and Simple men it's the path of loyalty to a vision of the universe, where the pain and the innocence are the main actors of the story.

The power of the movie camera is its voyeuristic capabilities, peering in at various affairs, public and intimate, of people portrayed by actors. It is undetected by them as they go about their business. Hitchcock brought this metaphor to life in Rear Window as Jimmy Stewart peered into his neighbors' lives with his camera. There is, however, a school of film-making that breaks from this model; let's call it the nudge-nudge, wink-wink school of film-making. In this style the actors are all aware of the camera, behaving not naturally, but rather in a posed way, a way that says, "Look, I'm doing this for you, the viewer." Films in this school often feature stilted dialogue and wooden acting. If this is a style that you enjoy, then Simple Men is for you.

On first viewing, I could have sworn this was a Sam Shepard play. It has the short lilting dialogue for much of the film and sounds as though it were written for the stage. It is directed very much in that fashion and is a fascinating, captivating set of performances...understated and full of deeper meanings that don't shout at you in the more typical "Hollywood" tradition!