-

Jump to content



Photo
DVD Reviews

HTF REVIEW: Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (RECOMMENDED)



This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
38 replies to this topic

#1 of 39 OFFLINE   DaViD Boulet

DaViD Boulet

    Lead Actor

  • 8,805 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 1999

Posted August 28 2003 - 09:06 AM

Posted Image



CONFESSIONS
of a dangerous mind



Studio: MIRAMAX
Year: 2003
Rated: R
Film Length: 114 minutes
Aspect Ratio: 16X9 encoded 2.40:1
Audio: DD 5.1 (English, French)
Extras: Deleted Scenes (12), Behind-the-scenes vignettes (6), feature commentary
Release Date: Sept. 9, 2003




Movie...


Story...

The film is based on the autobiography of Chuck Barris. For those of you (like me) who wouldn’t immediately know, this is the man who spawned a new era of television programming with shows like "The Dating Game" and "The Newlywed Game". For better or worse, he’s the man who many say symbolizes the beginning of the trend for low-brow television entertainment that has now become the standard of what you'll see if you turn on your TV during normal business hours.

To add some drama, in his autobiography Barris claims to have worked for the CIA during his television production career. There is much debate as to the veracity of these claims, but this film takes Barris’ autobiography at face-value and lets the viewer make up his/her own mind.

Overall I found the story interesting and reasonably involving. I think that the creators of this film might have been trying to get closer to "engaging" or "suspenseful" but I’m not sure...but I certainly found it worth the 2 hours nevertheless. This film reminded me heavily of “Network” (a seminal classic to be sure) and I’d say that any of you who really enjoy that film should check out Confessions as well. The film ends with a creative twist that I rather enjoyed and for those of you who haven’t seen it yet, I hope it hits you the same way.

Film Style

This is George Clooney’s first big debut as a director and I have to say I think he’s done a laudable job. This film isn’t perfect, and I’m not convinced it accomplishes everything that it sets out to do, but there are many praise-worthy aspects of this film that keep it going and give it something more substantial than your run-of-the-mill Hollywood flick generally offers these days.

Good...

For one, Clooney and his crew of camera men could easily be considered geniuses of the lens. The 2.40:1 frame is used to scintillating effect—the sensation is that you’re watching a constantly-changing 2.40:1 work of visual art. Color pallet is stylized and only ads to the artistry...whites are often overblown and some scenes almost appear like hand-painted B&W photographs (the director’s commentary does a great job connecting all these things to their artistic intention for those of you interested).

One thing worth noting in particular is the way Clooney achieves “special effects” without ever leaving the camera. Rather than being drowned in a deluge of digital post-production effects, Clooney has taken a bold move to achieve most of his desired “effects” by creative camera movements, stage-scene alterations (on the fly) and fast-moving actors. You’ll see scenes where the camera pans from one side of the room to the other and when it returns back to where you started you’ve changed locations. No...it’s not splicing together different shots by using some digital magic to blend the join...there were people scrambling to move props and change clothes while the camera was in motion before it returned to its place of origin to achieve that effect.

I have to say I really found this marvelous...and even before getting to the behind-the-scenes vignettes or listening to the commentary (which discuss these techniques at length) I found myself inspired and connecting with these “real” effects; even without being sure of how these types of shots were being achieved there was something tangible and physical about them that “connected” to me as a viewer in a way that post-production special effects just can’t match. It felt more visceral...more like watching a live-performance dance which becomes more impressive as you begin to realize you’re not just seeing the final polished moment spliced in with 100 other practiced and polished moments--like a pop recording where each musician just pastes in their track once it’s perfect--but more like a live musical event which involves the coordinated effort of a great many people all working together in perfect synchronicity for minutes at a time. I think that anyone interested in film as an art (or any film-students out there) need to watch this movie to see what I’m talking about.

Not as Good...

What didn’t impress me? Well, for one I never found myself highly emotionally involved with the characters (except Penny) and the story didn’t have quite the suspense that I think it might have been trying to achieve. It’s greatest weakness IMO was the use of big-name actors to play not-big characters. Clooney plays a CIA agent in the film and he pulls it off admirably...mostly because he really doesn’t look or act like George Clooney in the role and so you can take it seriously. I’ve heard others be critical of her but I have to say that likewise Drew Barrymore also did an excellent job and really seemed to fit the part (though she was unmistakably “Drew Barrymore”).

But what I found jarring were the instances once the movie had established itself where suddenly you’d find yourself recognizing another famous actor on the screen as if to say “peekaboo...here I am!”. For example, in one scene a camera pan happened to drift by Matt Damon and Brad Pitt who had just dropped in for a brief and gratuitous cameo. The sensation was almost like someone on the screen was shooting a watergun into your face. I think that because Clooney is a big-name actor he doesn’t quite “get” how distracting such cameo appearances can be. For me, it tended to make the movie feel like an actor-jack-in-the-box game and I found myself waiting to see who I was going to see next. To her credit, Julia Roberts played her role well, but I never quite got over my “hey, that’s Julia Roberts!” reaction once she was introduced 3/4 into the film.

In my experience, this sort of thing breaks the movie “spell” for the viewer and therefore big-name actors need to be used sparingly and only when really warranted. I think on a repeated viewing I would enjoy the film more as I’d already know in advance all the actors I’d be meeting and I could enjoy the film without their appearances becoming such a distraction, but I think this is weakness worth noting for first-time viewers (hopefully knowing that they’re coming will help you shake the “hey! That’s so and so” reaction when it happens).

Picture...


On my 16x9 Proscan the image looked marvelous. The stylized color pallet really makes this film look sumptuous. The 2.40:1 image looked outstanding: black-level was solid, colors strong, and detail was good. I’ve seen sharper/more detailed pictures off of DVD and though I think the slight “soft” edge to this movie might be part of the intended look (those who saw it theatrically please offer your comments to assist), I can't help but get the feeling that I’m seeing a bit of softness due to some electronic filtering as well. Don’t get me wrong, the image is stable and detail is good...but I can’t shake the feeling that detail ought to be rendered a little more clearly.

The only time any haloing from “EE” seemed to reveal itself was when from time to time a text-overlay would appear on the screen to announce the location and ringing could clearly been seen on all sides of the sharply defined text. Perhaps just one or two other minor halos could be seen on rare occasion but nothing obvious or distracting to my eyes. Other than that, the transfer looks smooth and natural and very film-like.

Compression artifacting seemed to not be an issue either. I was able to move quite close to my screen...to just about 2 screen widths away (really, really close for my direct-view, I can start to see shadowmask artifacts from here) and still the image looked natural and smooth. I think owners with projection systems or larger HDTVs will be impressed. As usual, once the disc is in your hands I encourage anyone who desires to share your own impressions of picture quality with us here in this thread (making explicit the equipment you use so we’ll know how to put your comments in context).

So shaving off just a fraction for a bit of softness that might be due to a touch of detail filtering (and if anyone out there convinces me this is the source elements and not DVD mastering I’ll change my score):

Picture Rating:

Picture: 4.5 / 5
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

Sound...


Sound quality is very good in this 5.1 mix. The mix is front-heavy but this is not an action film nor is it music or effects laden. Directional dialogue is even used in a few scenes which always impresses me...that shows a mixing engineer who isn’t “locked” into “center mode” and can think outside the box. I never had to adjust levels while watching the film to maintain dialogue intelligibility. Sound was extended and smooth...never edgy or glaring and seemed well extended. Not a mix to show off your surround speakers to your friends and I would have liked to have seen the movie make more use of the surround channels, but as it stands now it’s still a nice mix that didn’t leave me feeling cheated (those of you with “I want to hear sound coming out of my back speakers” will definitely feel somewhat cheated, so be warned).

So docking a point for what I feel was a slightly missed artistic opportunity to make better use of the surrounds in this otherwise great-sounding mix:

Sound: 4 / 5
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

Extras...

WOW.

This should really be labled a “special edition” IMO. We get a total of 12 deleted scenes (4x3 lbxed) with optional commentary, a total of 6 five-ten minute vignettes of “behind the scenes” stuff. We also get a really great commentary (2.0 DD) for the feature film that goes into depth about how many of the scenes (remember the ones I talked about earlier that were actual effects and not post-production editing effects?) were accomplished as well as the usual movie-making trivia. The commentary is relevant and comprehensive—anyone who enjoys this movie or is interested in any of the technical aspects of the film-style and camera techniques should enjoy it. We’ve got a few more extras like a brief documentary on the “real” Chuck Barris and some screen tests. All in all I consider this about as loaded as one can get without going to 2-discs or sacrificing picture quality. Good job Miramax!

Conclusion...


I’m not sure if everyone would walk away liking this film as much as I did; I’m aware that much of what I liked about it had more to do with stylistic images and innovative camera techniques that really excited me. However, I do think that this film has something special to offer everyone...especially if you're interested in the art of film-making. So give this movie a try...rent or buy. And the very good image transfer and soundtrack, along with great extras, make it a no-brainer for those of you who enjoyed this film theatrically.

Enjoy!
Be an Original Aspect Ratio Advocate

Supporter of 1080p24 video and lossless 24 bit audio.

#2 of 39 OFFLINE   Damin J Toell

Damin J Toell

    Producer

  • 3,761 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 07 2001

Posted August 28 2003 - 09:10 AM

This was my favorite film of 2002, and it looks like this disc is a winner. This film, barely seen theatrically, may well end up being something like the next Fight Club or Donnie Darko by finding a cult fanbase on DVD. It certainly deserves it. Then again, the Clooney name and the awful DVD cover may make many who would love it unwilling to see it...

DJ

#3 of 39 OFFLINE   Michael Reuben

Michael Reuben

    Studio Mogul

  • 21,769 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 12 1998

Posted August 28 2003 - 09:35 AM

This was one of the funniest films I saw last year. (The FCC compliance scene deserves to be a classic.) I'm delighted to hear that the image turned out so well, because, as I indicated in my Movies forum comment, there's not one shot in the film that looks "real". I'm sure it was a challenge for the telecine crew and the compressionist.

Quote:
So shaving off just a fraction for a bit of softness that might be due to a touch of detail filtering (and if anyone out there convinces me this is the source elements and not DVD mastering I’ll change my score):
I haven't seen the disc yet, but I remember numerous shots in the film that looked softened and processed. So I suspect it's the source elements.

M.
COMPLETE list of my disc reviews.       HTF Rules / 200920102011 Film Lists

#4 of 39 OFFLINE   Ronald Epstein

Ronald Epstein

    Studio Mogul

  • 40,002 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 03 1997

Posted August 28 2003 - 10:00 AM


Posted Image

Awww....(clap!)...David, David, David .....

I really enjoyed that review....but then again....I
really enjoy Jock Itch!

(actually a really great review - especially since
I am a HUGE fan of Chuck Barris. Loved this film!)

Ronald J Epstein
Home Theater Forum co-owner

 

gallery_269895_23_10043.jpg Click Here for the latest/hottest Blu-ray Preorders gallery_269895_23_1316.jpg Click Here for our complete Blu-ray review archive

gallery_269895_23_773.jpg Click Here for our complete 3D Blu-ray review archive gallery_269895_23_992.jpgClick Here for our complete DVD review archive

gallery_269895_23_7246.jpg Click Here for Blu-Ray Preorder Release Schedule gallery_269895_23_3120.jpg Click Here for forum posting rules and regulations


#5 of 39 OFFLINE   Adam_Reiter

Adam_Reiter

    Second Unit

  • 462 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 07 2001

Posted August 28 2003 - 10:15 AM

Great review as always, David. I am definately going to have to rent this one to see if it deserves a buy. Thanx.

Posted Image

#6 of 39 OFFLINE   Herb Kane

Herb Kane

    Screenwriter

  • 1,353 posts
  • Join Date: May 07 2001

Posted August 28 2003 - 10:39 AM

Another great review.... good job Dave!

Herb.
My Top 25 Noirs:

25. 711 Ocean Drive (1950), 24. Odds Against Tomorrow (1959), 23. Desperate (1947), 22. Pushover (1954), 21. The Blue Dahlia (1946), 20. The File on Thelma Jordon (1949), 19. He Ran All the Way (1951), 18. The Asphalt Jungle (1950), 17. The Killing (1956), 16. I Walk Alone (1948),...

#7 of 39 OFFLINE   Adam Horak

Adam Horak

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 123 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 03 2002

Posted August 28 2003 - 10:39 AM

Great review David. I didn't like this film very much when I saw it in the theater, but I might rent it to see if it grows on me.

#8 of 39 OFFLINE   Marc Colella

Marc Colella

    Screenwriter

  • 2,607 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 19 1999

Posted August 28 2003 - 10:48 AM

Nice review!

I thought one of the better films from 2002.

Hard to believe that I'd like a film that has Julia Roberts and Drew Barrymore in it, but luckily their roles weren't very big.

George Clooney deserves alot of credit for his great direction, and it's hard to believe this was his directorial debut. He deserved an Oscar nod, as well as Sam Rockwell for his performance.

I recommend that everyone (at the very least) give it a rental.

#9 of 39 OFFLINE   Estevan Lapena

Estevan Lapena

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 211 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 21 2003

Posted August 28 2003 - 09:16 PM

He deserved an Oscar nod, as well as Sam Rockwell for his performance.


I was actually pleasantly surprised with this film. I thought it was just going to be a waste of celluloid but in fact was quite entertaining and very worthwhile. Rockwell was excellent, and was happy with Clooney's directorial debut. I had a glimpse of the cover art from the review, that would be my gripe with the DVD, its cover stinks, I think the original poster art looked a lot better.

Posted Image

#10 of 39 OFFLINE   Chuck Watwood

Chuck Watwood

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 122 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 08 2002

Posted August 28 2003 - 11:20 PM

David,

You sold me on this one. I was a Gong Show fan when I was a kid and I gotta see this. Nice job on the review. I do gotta say that I like cameo's in movies. Especially Julia Roberts. Posted Image I'm also a big Drew Barrymore fan. I wonder how Sam Rockwell will come across as a good guy. Most of his movie roles are villains. The extras are the ice cream. Thanks again.
Chuck Watwood

Hello my name is Chuck and I'm an HT addict.

#11 of 39 OFFLINE   Ronald Epstein

Ronald Epstein

    Studio Mogul

  • 40,002 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 03 1997

Posted August 29 2003 - 12:46 AM

Expanding upon what I wrote in my silly
little post above....

I have always been a huge Chuck Barris fan.
The Gong Show became a very big part of my
life when I was in High School as I went on
to host several shows our class put together.
Yeah, you can laugh, I was up there on stage
in front of hundreds of people doing my best
Chuck Barris impersonation. It was a lot of
fun!

When I originally heard that George Clooney
was making a movie about the life of Chuck
Barris, I thought that it was one of the
craziest ideas I had ever heard of. It
certainly was not the kind of material that
Hollywood was known for making films out of.

I must say that I was certainly surprised by
and very pleased with Confessions of a
Dangerous Mind
. Sam Rockwell most
effectively captured all the nuances of
Chuck Barris under Clooney's clever and
stylish direction.

This is one of those films that is off the
Hollywood beaten path. It's quite original
and even if you're not a Barris fan, the film
is very entertaining -- especially for those
of us that grew up in the era of THE DATING
GAME, THE NEWLYWED GAME and THE GONG SHOW.

I also agree with most that the film would
have been much better without Julia Roberts
and the star cameos.

Most certainly worth checking out.

Ronald J Epstein
Home Theater Forum co-owner

 

gallery_269895_23_10043.jpg Click Here for the latest/hottest Blu-ray Preorders gallery_269895_23_1316.jpg Click Here for our complete Blu-ray review archive

gallery_269895_23_773.jpg Click Here for our complete 3D Blu-ray review archive gallery_269895_23_992.jpgClick Here for our complete DVD review archive

gallery_269895_23_7246.jpg Click Here for Blu-Ray Preorder Release Schedule gallery_269895_23_3120.jpg Click Here for forum posting rules and regulations


#12 of 39 OFFLINE   Marc Colella

Marc Colella

    Screenwriter

  • 2,607 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 19 1999

Posted August 29 2003 - 12:59 AM

Just wanted to add that I don't think anyone's enjoyment of this film depends on their liking/disliking (or even being familiar) with The Gong Show.

I remember watching it a number of times as a kid, and I didn't really like it much, and I still walked away enjoyed the film.

In any case, the film isn't realy centred around the actual gameshows; the focus was geared more towards Chuck Barris' supposed involvement with the CIA.

Definitely check this one out.

#13 of 39 OFFLINE   Craig S

Craig S

    Producer

  • 5,511 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 04 2000
  • Real Name:Craig Seanor
  • LocationLeague City, Texas

Posted August 29 2003 - 01:31 AM

Great review, David. This one ended up on my Top Ten of 2002, even ahead of the more-lauded Charlie Kaufman-penned effort Adaptation. I just thought it was a more satisfying film from start to finish. Hopefully Damin is right and it will find an audience on DVD.

The two things that really stood out about this one for me are (1) Sam Rockwell's Oscar-nomination-worthy lead performance. He goes beyond mere mimicry (although he does do a mean Barris) and gives us glimpses of what makes this guy tick. (2) George Clooney's surprisingly assured directorial debut. He was obviously paying attention when he was working with the likes of Jonze, Soderburgh, and the Coens. After a few stumbles at the beginning, Clooney has really mapped out an interesting career. Rather than just make a string of RomComs & actioners, he's used his Hollywood clout to help get truly interesting projects going (CoaDM would almost assuredly not have been made without his involvement). The move into the director's seat was a good one for him, and I can't wait to see what he does next.

Three truths about movies, as noted by Roger Ebert:

 

* It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it.

* No good movie is too long, and no bad movie is short enough.

* No good movie is depressing, all bad movies are depressing.


#14 of 39 OFFLINE   Holadem

Holadem

    Lead Actor

  • 8,972 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 04 2000

Posted August 29 2003 - 02:21 AM

Would someone who has never heard of Chuck Barris or his shows enjoy this film?

--
H - eh... foreigner here...

#15 of 39 OFFLINE   Marc Colella

Marc Colella

    Screenwriter

  • 2,607 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 19 1999

Posted August 29 2003 - 03:26 AM

Quote:
Would someone who has never heard of Chuck Barris or his shows enjoy this film?


Definitely.

You may enjoy Rockwell's performance a bit more since you'd be able to see how closely he imitates Barris, but knowing the history of the man and his shows isn't a prerequisite to enjoying the film.

#16 of 39 OFFLINE   DaViD Boulet

DaViD Boulet

    Lead Actor

  • 8,805 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 1999

Posted August 29 2003 - 03:28 AM

Holadem,

I hadn't ever heard of him until reviewing this movie and I enjoyed it.
Be an Original Aspect Ratio Advocate

Supporter of 1080p24 video and lossless 24 bit audio.

#17 of 39 OFFLINE   Tony-B

Tony-B

    Producer

  • 3,768 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 30 2002

Posted August 29 2003 - 03:50 AM

I have always wanted to see this film, but I never caught it in the theater. I am definitely going to rent it, since I am a huge game show fan, and really like the Gong Show and the Newlywed Game. Thanks for the review, David, and I can't wait to see this film! Posted Image
DVD Collection/Video Game Collection/Music Collection
"The Weighted Companion Cube will never threaten to stab you." -GLaDOS

#18 of 39 OFFLINE   Michael Reuben

Michael Reuben

    Studio Mogul

  • 21,769 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 12 1998

Posted August 29 2003 - 04:34 AM

One unfortunate omission is the original trailer with the soundtrack that played in theaters. It was a great little mini-movie scored to The Who's "Who Are You?" The version that's been appearing on recent Miramax DVDs uses a different soundtrack. I'm guessing the rights cost too much.

M.
COMPLETE list of my disc reviews.       HTF Rules / 200920102011 Film Lists

#19 of 39 OFFLINE   BarryS

BarryS

    Second Unit

  • 424 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 01 2002

Posted September 03 2003 - 10:30 AM

I loved this movie and I'll be buying the DVD on Tuesday.

But... does anyone know what cinematographic process the movie was shot with? The IMDB says Panavision, but I would swear that it's Super 35 (out of focus lights appear as circles not ovals.) Did anyone notice that scene near the beginning where Sam Rockwell's face is in close-up, but only the top half of his face is visible? I can't remember exactly what happens in the scene. I think he's talking to some TV execs. It didn't look quite right. I didn't see Confessions at the theater, I just saw a preview DVD copy. Does anyone remember that from the theatrical film? It doesn't seem likely they would make a huge framing error just in that one scene.

#20 of 39 OFFLINE   JohnDMoore

JohnDMoore

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 192 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 16 2002

Posted September 03 2003 - 03:43 PM

Excellent review as always. I'm finding myself more and more anxious to see this film again. I pretty much liked it when it was in theaters but have found myself thinking about it a lot in the past 9 months or so. I'm looking forward to seeing how I enjoy it the second time through.
-John D. Moore