wow i just saw blow. AMAZING (1 Viewer)

[todd stone]

This movie brought me to tears, it was truly great imho

 

[Gilbert Galindo]

I thoght it was pretty good too with the last final drug deal both suprising intense. Thumbs up manolo.

 

[SteveGon]

Sounds good - I'll have to rent this...
------------------
He thought on homeland, the big timber, the air thin and chill all the year long. Tulip poplars so big through the trunk they put you in mind of locomotives set on end. He thought of getting home and building him a cabin on Cold Mountain so high that not a soul but the nighthawks passing across the clouds in autumn could hear his sad cry. Of living a life so quiet he would not need ears. And if Ada would go with him, there might be the hope, so far off in the distance he did not even really see it, that in time his despair might be honed off to a point so fine and thin that it would be nearly the same as vanishing.
-- Charles Frazier, Cold Mountain

 

[Tom-G]

Todd, what exactly do you think made this movie great? I'm just curious because I hated it and I will explain what I didn't like.
First, I couldn't sympathize with the protagonist. His story wasn't interesting in me. Was I supposed to feel sorry for a low-life criminal who was such a fuck up? His daughter didn't want anything to do with him and he chose a low-life for his spouse.
Second, the movie lulled between drug deals. Nothing of any interest was going on. I felt like this movie tried to be GoodFellas and Scarface but actually failed in its weak attempts. Both of the aforementioned had plenty of story during the arc of the character while Blow did not.
------------------

[Edited last by Tom_G on September 15, 2001 at 10:14 AM]

 

[Ricky f]

I think I will give it a rent see what I think.
Regards,
Ricky
------------------
Please help convince Warner to release Stephen King's IT On DVD
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/uub/...ML/003344.html

 

[Rich Malloy]

A terrible movie.
A Scorsese ripoff, through and through, with the same narrative template as Goodfellas/Casino, but without one whit of soul or artistry. Completely by-the-numbers and completely boring, it's the stiffest and least compelling gangster tale yet offered by any of the Marty-lites that have been polluting the theaters with their bland, derivative retreads over the past five years.
Ray Liotta, who plays Dep's father and unfortunately serves as a constant reminder of a much better film, looks much more like his brother in the early scenes. In one scene, he even manages to look like Dep's younger brother. Until, that is, the horrendous age makeup is applied...
And this is easily the worst makeup I've seen since the awful For the Boys. Ray Liotta's old man look is simply ridiculous. But it doesn't even come close to the absurd "fatpack" that Dep wears throughout the final scenes. Same skinny ass and bony face, but he looks like he's wearing a quarterback's flakjacket or an overstuffed fannypack underneath his billowy button-up. There's simply nothing at all convincing about it. The shot of him walking with his daughter had us rolling. In that scene, the film finally went from excruciatingly awful to hilariously so... and Dep's presence then recalled thoughts of the master-hack, Ed Wood.
And I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that Rachel Griffith's portrayal of Dep's mother is the single worst performance I've seen in years. Completely unbearable.
But to give credit where it's due, Paul Reubens managed to make his character (which is, on paper, merely another bad cliche) into something surprisingly interesting and almost real despite its campy excessiveness. But that's small solace in a film this lousy. Dep, too, manages a convincing Boston accent and invokes a few true emotions, but it simply can't save this film.
I've avoided most of the stinkers from this past year, but this one takes the place of Town & Country on my worst list. Flat, uninspired, and thoroughly hokey, this is the Battlefield Earth of Scorsese ripoffs.

 

[Rich Malloy]

One more thing...
The ending made me sick. We're supposed to believe that the main character is a real mensch who loves his daughter to death and would do anything for her. That he's just a loveable fuck-up who deserves our sympathy.
So we live him in prison, pining away for his daughter's love. The final text on the screen reads (paraphrasing): "To this day, George Jung's daughter has still not bothered to visit her father".
It has the effect of completely demonizing this poor girl, turning her into a shrew like the mother. Which, I suppose, might be tolerable to some if this film was in anyway true. But, apparently, it's a massive 'snow job'. In truth, he's just another asshole in it for the money - his family and daughter be damned - but then the film actually demonizes his daughter?
Fucking bullshit!
According to Edelstein at SLATE.com here's the real scoop:

 

[todd stone]

Just because someone chose the wrong path does not mean they are a bad person for it. I in no way condone drug use, nor am GOD to decide who is evil and who isn't. But many sources claim he did love his daughter and missed her dearly.

 

[Kevin Leonard]

Well, I'm gonna reprint my mini-review from this thread:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/uub/Forum15/HTML/029038.html[/quote]
(Oh, and Al Brown is completely right: Bruce Porter's book on Jung is a very different and infinitely superior experience.)
------------------
Have you ever noticed anyone driving slower than you is an idiot? And anyone driving faster than you is a maniac!! - George Carlin
ICQ: 55259446 (or just search for "John Shaft"...can you dig?)
[Edited last by Kevin Leonard on September 15, 2001 at 02:44 PM]

 

[Mitty]

The Slate.com article really shows how with some truth, this could have been a really good movie. This wasn't just a case of changing some detail to make it more dramatically interesting, this was almost a canonization of a drug smuggler (Watch the interview footage of the real George Jung and hear the near reverance in Demme's voice as he interviews him. Storytelling mistake #1 - falling in love with the subject.). The reality is more interesting. Have we come to a point where even our depiction of drug dealers has to be warm, fuzzy and accessible? Jesus, I think the target audience for this movie can take the harsh realities. I'm sure there is a realistic film that could have been made from this material that STILL could have been able to find the humanity of this character, but this takes the easy way out. The scenes with young George and his father are painful in how obvious they are to telegraph his motivations for the life he'll lead. Far more interesting that all of that pandering horseshit would have been a more detailed explanation of how he got started. They gloss over that in about 5 minutes in the film. Are we really to believe he just bought a giant bag of weed from Reuben's character and sold it? Where did he get the money? The story suggests he didn't have two nickels to rub together at the time. Then jump to him and a bunch of babes swimming in a pool while Depp tells us in voice over that in no time, he was making more money than he could spend (or something to that effect). Tell me more; it couldn't have been that easy.
All we really have here is a good performance by Depp, as usual, who is convincing when you can look past the atrocities inflicted upon him by the hair and makeup department, and an even better one by Reubens who effectively steals every scene in which he appears. Penelope Cruz has a way smaller part than I imagined, but since her character only struck a range from uninteresting to annoying beyond belief, it's hard to care. She also is rendered into a veritable clown by the hair and makeup department. She's one of the sexiest actresses in Hollywood, but is ghastly in this movie. If I were her, I'd move to have this stricken from my resume.

 

[James D S]

Wow. I'm glad to see I am not alone in my not liking this drivel. I had heard so many good things about the movie that I was excited about seeing it.
What a loser this guy was. Are we supposed to feel sorry for him? You're kidding me. By the end of the movie, I was rooting against the guy.
If the story has any message, it happened upon it by accident: Namely, the horrid/stupid decisions you make affect those who love you.
And I agree with Al on his remark about the final line. I would have been unimpressed with her had she seen him. The character in the movie was not worth her time.
And Todd, you should check out the bible. In it, God lays down MANY rules to choose between right and wrong and to see right and wrong in others. Besides, with this guy, it's a no-brainer.

 

[teapot2001]

Demme said he studied Goodfellas over and over for this movie.
~T

 

[Paul O]

I also thought this movie was weak. Small town boy makes fortune selling drugs, has a great time, starts snorting half his inventory, things turn sour with his partners, gets busted .. sound familiar??. After seeing Jonathan Demme's self serving interviews in the extra's i guess i can believe that he thought he was onto some original material. And what is up with Penelope Cruz...man, she sure grated on my nerves during any of her "scenes".

 

[Mitty]

Paul,
Wrong Demme. This was directed by Ted Demme, who is quite a bit younger than Jonathon (about 20 years, I'd guess); I know they're related in some way, although I can't remember how. They seem to have similar sensibilities (both seem drawn to performance films), but Jonathon seems to have more confidence, is less prone to stylistic excess. Ted seems to be trying too hard. Even with all the effort, he still comes off as Jonathon Demme Lite.

 

[Seth Paxton]

quote: Demme said he COPIED Goodfellas over and over for this movie.[/quote]Oh, he said STUDIED...my bad.
Same narrative style as Goodfellas, same starting point with the kid roughly the same age and working his way up, only to have it all go wrong, female betrayals, etc.
Same use of Rolling Stones. Same use of freeze frame moments.
Also, a direct rip-off of a Pulp Fiction scene/music...the surfer song (name eludes me right now) that is used when Travolta shoots up is used to have a "Jung getting high" scene with the same mood.
I found everything good about this film to be totally derivitive of other films, and the rest of it to be boring as hell. At least rip-off older, more obscure films. This is about as necessary as the shot-for-shot of Psycho.
Also, regarding the true story, it reminded me of films like Casino or even Private Parts, in which the storyteller seems to be clearly tweeking a lot of facts to paint themselves in a better light (think of Stern and the bathtub scene...yeah, right).
I didn't need Al to dig up the scoop to sense some heavy "adjustments" to the reality of it. I didn't hate it, but I just felt like "what's the point, why is this on film".
Just watch Goodfellas again and save the $3.

All we really have here is a good performance by Depp, as usual, who is convincing when you can look past the atrocities inflicted upon him by the hair and makeup department, and an even better one by Reubens who effectively steals every scene in which he appears. Penelope Cruz has a way smaller part than I imagined, but since her character only struck a range from uninteresting to annoying beyond belief, it's hard to care.

Yep, I agree exactly with Mitty.
[Edited last by Seth Paxton on September 16, 2001 at 02:37 AM]

 

[Rich Malloy]

Please note that I'm not even criticizing the "morality" (or lack thereof) regarding the George Jung character as portrayed in this movie. A very good film certainly could be made about a highly immoral man. It's not the moral character of the protagonist - or his real-life counterpart - that I'm criticizing.
I do criticize, however, the character of the filmmakers. And not for simply whitewashing Jung's life. That's expected. Filmmakers do it all the time, though it's particularly laughable in this instance as it departs so utterly from the real story of his life. But, again, that's not the moral issue I have with this film.
My accusation of the filmmakers - and Ted Demme, in particular - is that they chose to create a story arc that ended with what they portray as a betrayal of this man by his daughter. But everything upon which they based this man's character - and any notions of love or loyalty owed him by his daughter - is a lie. Everything.
And while this would merely make us roll our eyes and shake our heads when used to glorify an undeserving individual, it should disgust us and make us question the scruples of the filmmakers when used to demonize another person. Let's not forget for a moment that George Jung's daughter is a real person. She has a life. She did not choose her father. And I can't imagine she's at all happy about being demonized by this film for choosing not to visit him. And I think we can easily question the way in which the filmmakers portrayed Jung's mother, his wife... indeed, everyone. It's a film built upon one big lie and myriad little lies.
But all of this is merely in addition to the basic fact that BLOW is a terrible movie by any definition, created by a hack filmmaker without a single original idea in his head, who in the end couldn't even manage to make a convincing facsimile of the better movies he so obviously sought to copy. This is the very definition of a hack.

 

[Kevin Leonard]

Jonathan and Ted Demme are uncle and nephew, respectively.
------------------
Have you ever noticed anyone driving slower than you is an idiot? And anyone driving faster than you is a maniac!! - George Carlin
ICQ: 55259446 (or just search for "John Shaft"...can you dig?)

 

[Nate Anderson]

I actually enjoyed the movie...it was entertaining and I enjoyed Johnny Depp, as always.
Paul Rubens stole the show, hands down. Too bad we don't see him more.
I was in awe at the house full, literally full of money! My god, I couldn't believe it.
"We're gonna need a bigger boat..."
------------------
"What if he honks in the car?"
"I'm giving you a no honk guaruntee."

 

[Jim Rankin]

I just watched the movie and have some of the same concerns that previous posters had of it being cliched, and a poor imitation of a Scorsese film. However, my bright spot was the Spanish actor who played George's partner in the film, (Diego?) I thought his performance was amazing, going from a fairly likable and loyal partner to such a cold blooded jerk, just one of the facets of the drug business I guess. But man, you would of swore that guy was truly wired on coke when he gave his performance!!

 

[JonZ]

I've seen this movie twice, and to tell you the truth I think it has more in common with Boogie Nights than Goodfellas or Casino-I can see why people would make the comparison though.
I liked it, but Im a biography freak - Nixon, Malcolm X,Bugsy,Drugstore Cowboy,Citizen Kane - I love these types of movies.
This movie was obviously about the person,and how he hurt the 2 people he cared about most.This guy made some really bad choices-and it definitely shows you reap what you sow,your past and the wrong choices you make will almost always come back to haunt you.
BTW, If I had to squeeze someones life into 2 hours ,Id study Goodfellas too,as it doesnt get much better than that.
Until I saw Memento, this was at the top of my movie of the year list(which isnt saying much as the past 2 years have been horrible).
------------------
Visit My Pathetic WebPage
"....With that in mind,I humbly add my own prophecy of
what the dawn of the new millennium shall bring forth-
one thousand more years of the same old crap" Jose Chung
[Edited last by JonZ on September 18, 2001 at 07:46 AM]