Just saw the movie "Pleasantville" tonight, and I was overall disappointed. The visual effects, sound, and Joan Allen's acting were very good, but the screenplay (dialogue and especially story) was bad. These days my free time is very limited, so I am more apt to walk out on movies I'm not enjoying. After 1 hr 45 min, I walked out, while everyone else in the fully packed theater seemed to be enjoying it. I was annoyed with this one guy (nerd) behind me who laughed too often. One young woman was sniffing throughout, presumably because she found it sad, and that struck me as odd. See it with an open mind and let me know your take. Thanks.

-- BobG (bob@bob.bob), October 24, 1998

Answers

P.S. I can easily see how teenagers and children might enjoy it. It was a PG-13, but, in my opinion, much less sophisticated than "Titanic", also PG-13. I know some of you may claim that "Titanic" isn't sophisticated at all..

-- BobG (bob@bob.bob), October 24, 1998.

Sophisticated? Titanic? hahaha. You're just trying to bait me, Bob. I went to see "Pleasantville" tonight. Even overlooking the obvious liberal bias to the film, it was not particularly interesting thematically or artistically. Probably the best thing I can say about "Titanic" is that not once during its over three hour running time did I look at my watch. "Pleasantville" began to be repetitive and a crushing bore after the first hour, give or take a few minutes. Black and white people turn "colored" when they receive "enlightenment" in the back seat of a car or from the previously blank pages of a politically correct book (books which, of course, are burned later in the movie by the clueless, yet evil, white patriarchs). The 50's - McCarthyism. Get it? REALLY original work! And not at ALL heavy-handed! (sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell).

This Turnerization occurs in degrees throughout the film: a person here, a flower there, progressing and regressing ad infinitum. It's not a particularly stunning visual effect, even though the maudlin soundtrack cues us to the "gravity" of it all. Funny thing is, from the editing and structure of the story, you could tell that they originally had a much longer movie that they cut down significantly to get to this. I could say more, but it's not worth the time or effort. I'm already out 2 hrs on the movie, 1 hour travel time, and several minutes writing this. And I only get one hour back tonight.

-- Dalton (foo@bar.com), October 25, 1998.

Well put. Phew. I'm glad at least one person agrees with me (for the most part). I suspect almost everyone else here won't!

-- BobG (bob@bob.bob), October 25, 1998.

Intelligence and good taste are rare comodities, Bob. You might be right. BTW: What is it with this trend in movies: women experience "liberation" by posing nude for a male artist? It happens again in this movie, with a twist. The resulting "artwork" is put on public display in a soda shop window. Ladies: would you really find this liberating? I think it's insulting!

-- Dalton (foo@bar.com), October 25, 1998.

Okay, haven't seen this movie yet, and was trying to decide if I should just wait for the video (after these reviews, I think I will wait). But to answer Dan's question about whether women find it liberating to pose nude for a male artist? Speaking personally...no. Especially if I don't know the guy. Of course, I am not being stifled by my mother, fiance, or way of life either. But I do have a problem with women who have a need to be naked in front of God and everyone and call it "liberation". I call it "issues".

Just my humble opinion. :)

-- Gilded Age Junkie (gildedagejunkie@yahoo.com), October 25, 1998.

Okay, I just checked out the review for this over at Mr Showbiz and it actually looks pretty good. I probably won't get to see it at the movies but I'll grab it as soon as it comes on video. I've loved Reese Witherspoon since watching her in Fear and she seems to be pretty good in this one too.

-- Emma (dilemma76@hotmail.com), October 25, 1998.

okay about the posing nude thing. In Rose's case I can see where it would be liberating. She was going against everything she had been taught since she was a child. I mean back then ladies weren't even allowed to show an ankle without it becoming a scandle! The thing with that was her picture wasn't shown in public for 80 some odd years! If I posed nude to be liberated I just don't don't think I'd want to show it to the entire community. Sure let them talk but don't show them the photo unless they need proof that you actually did it!!!!!

-- Miranda Swearingen (Kylen1@hotmail.com), October 31, 1998.