DVD Review HTF REVIEW: Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (RECOMMENDED) (1 Viewer)

[Josh Steinberg]

According to American Cinematographer magazine, "Confessions" was shot in Super 35.

 

[Kevin M]

I also thought Sam Rockwell did a very impressive job in this film....he doesn't seem too shy about showing his ass either.

If I had one criticism of the film itself it would be that I have a problem with the apparent new industry standard of over digitally processing the image with gusto...it's fine when used sparingly or with some subtlety but it really is becoming cliche as it is so overused in most hollywood films these days seemingly to lend visual "importance" or perhaps used as an easy route to "style" rather than doing something original...Mtv is ruining our world JMOMY (just my opinion mind you)

 

[BertFalasco]

Movie blew me away. I had been wanting to see/buy this since it was in the theaters but never got around to seeing it and am very very pleased blindly buying this.

Story was told really well and it saddened me. It is so intriguing. Is Chuck a schizo.? This another Beautiful Mind?


I love films based on actual events because you're seeing reenactments of what had actually occured which is really damn neat and just thinking about each scenario of, in Chuck's case, hosting the show, going out to eat afterwards and such, and then moonlighting, etc. It's hard to explain.

I kicked myself in the arse when I realized that Chuck B. was the man the VH1 "I Love the 70's" mini-series talked about him being so high on The Gong Show (it's just odd to me, intoxicated on national television and such).

Aside, Rockwell looks like the baby of Dana Carvey and Al Pacino to me. Regardless, he did a very damn good job.

-Bert

 

[Jodee]

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.

I strongly disagree because I think the cameo made an important point in the film. It was during a sequence of the Dating Game, where a chubby and not very handsome "Bachelor" was sweet-talking the Bachelorette. The camera panned over to Brad Pitt and Matt Damon as the other 2 Bachelors that were obviously losing out. I thought it was a hilarious, laugh-out-loud moment, that wouldn't have been quite as funny had the 2 handsome bachelors just been unknown male-model types.

That was the whole joke: she is going to pick a guy sight unseen based solely on his answers. I remember that was some of the voyeuristic charm of The Dating Game: when you'd see a person pick the least attractive suitor and then watch their face fall at the end when the 2 better -looking people come out. I think it was a very clever joke for Clooney to use two famous Holloywood sex symbols as the runners-up.

Not to mention the fact that many now-famous Hollywood stars once appeared on the Dating Game when they were out-of-work actors.

 

[Michael Reuben]

If I had one criticism of the film itself it would be that I have a problem with the apparent new industry standard of over digitally processing the image with gusto...it's fine when used sparingly or with some subtlety but it really is becoming cliche as it is so overused in most hollywood films these days seemingly to lend visual "importance" or perhaps used as an easy route to "style" rather than doing something original...Mtv is ruining our world

There are probably films that deserve this criticism, but I don't think this is one of them. It's an important aspect of the film that not one shot looks real or unmanipulated, because the entire thing is explicitly a memory. The film is firmly set in the fevered imagination of its protagonist, and the cinematography is just one of the elements used to place you there (the neatly choreographed scenery mixes/changes are another obvious example).

The DP, Newton Thomas Sigel, is perfectly capable of giving a polished, Hollywood look to a feature film; for examples, check out The Usual Suspects or X-Men. But when the circumstances call for it, he is one of the great expressionist painters of modern cinematography. The work in Confessions carries forward the inventive style on display in Three Kings, where Sigel used the photography both to stylize the environment (notably the hot, bleached-out desert) and to comment on the characters (check out his comments on the Three Kings DVD). Sigel's works on Confessions is one of the things I admire most about the movie, right up there with Sam Rockwell's performance and Clooney's direction.

M.

 

[Aaryn Chan]

I didnt' know Drew Barrymore had moustiche.

 

[Kevin M]

The work in Confessions carries forward the inventive style on display in Three Kings, where Sigel used the photography both to stylize the environment (notably the hot, bleached-out desert) and to comment on the characters (check out his comments on the Three Kings DVD). Sigel's works on Confessions is one of the things I admire most about the movie, right up there with Sam Rockwell's performance and Clooney's direction.

I understand what you are saying but it is hardly "inventive" these days as I just think the technique is over used.
As far as the technique, in this film, being used to signify the "color wash" we put on our memories/recollections....interesting idea, I guess I should listen to the commentary as I am sure he will bring this up.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I understand what you are saying but it is hardly "inventive" these days as I just think the technique is over used.

I agree that it's not "inventive" to manipulate the look of the film, because that's been part of the filmmaking craft for a long time. (The documentary Visions of Light covers this beautifully.) And we're not talking about a single "technique", but an array of choices involving lenses, film stock, lighting, processing, etc. I happen to find Sigel inventive in the choices he makes in various films, including Confessions, Three Kings and X-Men.

It's the same with editing; lots of techniques have been around for a long time, but what distinguishes the good editors is knowing when and how to use them.

M.

 

[Kevin M]

I agree that it's not "inventive" to manipulate the look of the film, because that's been part of the filmmaking craft for a long time.

Yes yes, but not this particular digital colour alteration which I am refereing to. We're not talking about the bleach prosess, leaving out the silver on the negative, basic color correction, I am referring to this particular and very IMO overused digital colour manipulation that is rather Mtv video in nature. As I said, if used with restraint or at least with some well thought out intent (Pitch Black, the suns - Private Ryan, news reel look - Three Kings, harshness of the environment etc. etc. although those films mainly used chemical/physical processes rather than all digital.) then I have no problem with it but with this film I felt it went more than just a bit over the top in what was needed to convey the state of mind he was describing.
And even if it did involve more than just digital colour manipulation IMO it was garish for the sake of garishness after a point.

My opinion.

 

[Michael Reuben]

One of the reasons why this discussion is fun for me is that it fulfills the prophecy I made when I reviewed the film in its first theatrical run:

There are going to be a lot of complaints about the image when this film hits DVD. The cinematographer was Newton Thomas Sigel, who's responsible for such off-beat looks as Three Kings. Not one shot in the movie looks realistic; it's all overlit and overexposed, and for large stretches of the film, I was sure it had been shot on digital video (though the credits indicate that it was shot on film). Every location looks fake, and every image could be the product of someone's fevered imagination. That's one of the film's strategies for keeping you guessing about how much of Barris's story is true.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...47#post1240747

As you can tell, I do think the techniques were used here "with some well thought out intent". But to each their own. (FWIW, I think the overall effect works better on a big screen.)

M.

 

[Kevin M]

One of the reasons why this discussion is fun for me is that it fulfills the prophecy I made when I reviewed the film when it came out in theaters:
"There are going to be a lot of complaints about the image when this film hits DVD."

Yes but it's not like I'm some close-minded J6P complaining "Gall dangit dem bright colors hurt my eyeballs", it's not like I didn't understand the idea behind it's use, I'm not someone who complained about how green The Matrix was or the funny little light streaks that the fires had in Saving Private Ryan were just weird...I understand.
I just feel that it is so overused in so many films these days that it is rapidly becoming passé.
There's a difference in what I am saying and what your prediction was back then.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I never meant to suggest anything of the kind, Kevin. My point was simply that it was likely to be controversial -- and it is. (Yes, I was also concerned about how the effect would translate to video, but I think the technical people did a fine job given the limits of the medium.)

M.

 

[Kevin M]

I thought the transfer was very good, yet the soundtrack wasn't the slambang sensurround experience that you would have thought the images (and plot) would demand...perhaps some restraint on Clooney's part.
The extras were very good and interesting for a one disc DVD.
I like the film & DVD very much, thumbs up to all involved.

 

[Michael Reuben]

perhaps some restraint on Clooney's part

Or maybe a budgetary sacrifice. Harvey Weinstein has said that the only reason the film got made is because Clooney understood the need to bring it in at a low cost. (I forget where I read this; probably Premiere.)

M.

 

[Kevin M]

I still haven't taken the time to listen to the commentary but I'll bet he/they bring this (limited budget) up in one way or another. Miramax is known for this. It's not like Miramax isn't known for this sort of thing....any studio really.

 

[Lowell_B]

Thanks for the review David. I just loved this movie when I saw it in the theater, and I'll definately be picking up what looks like a solid disc.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I strongly disagree because I think the cameo made an important point in the film. It was during a sequence of the Dating Game, where a chubby and not very handsome "Bachelor" was sweet-talking the Bachelorette. The camera panned over to Brad Pitt and Matt Damon as the other 2 Bachelors that were obviously losing out. I thought it was a hilarious, laugh-out-loud moment, that wouldn't have been quite as funny had the 2 handsome bachelors just been unknown male-model types.

That was the whole joke: she is going to pick a guy sight unseen based solely on his answers. I remember that was some of the voyeuristic charm of The Dating Game: when you'd see a person pick the least attractive suitor and then watch their face fall at the end when the 2 better -looking people come out. I think it was a very clever joke for Clooney to use two famous Holloywood sex symbols as the runners-up.

Jodee,

Excellent point. I never thought of if that way, but I think you're 100% right. Makes a lot more sense looking at it that way...

 

[JoeyNelson]

I just finished watching it last night and the scene where Chuck is confronting his CIA Handler (Clooney) at the pool, I thought my subwoofer was going to blow because the LFE when the rumble hits was so intense! My equipment is calibrated well and this is the first movie to make my sub rattle so loud. All other DVDs with great LFE don't make my sub shake like that.

on the commentary track, clooney says that they actually blew the speakers at a writers guild screening of confessions at that very point.

 

[Brian W]

I agree with Keith regarding the end credits. I thought this was a marvelous transfer as I was seeing the movie, then the end credits came up and I said "what happened"? I have to say I've noticed this with other Miramax titles before too. With this title I realize that the font type and size has much to do with it. But with so many other titles from other studios with a similar small size or font style that are still crystal clear, I notice this reoccurring with some of the Miramax titles and figure it must be something they are doing or not doing with the credits. Seems like they are just dropping the ball sometimes when they get to the credits. My screen is 50" high definition (Elite 510 HD), Panasonic RP-91 player.