Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews11
Paul P's rating
First, I want to acknowledge that Dreams is one of the most beautifully filmed movies I've ever seen. It also contains several very haunting visual images, including the woman in "The Blizzard" and the soldiers in "The Tunnel."
That having been said, the pace of the movie is awfully ponderous for my tastes. Shots that need last just a few seconds go on, literally, for minutes. While this does give the viewer a chance to drink in the imagery, I think it tends to undercut the theme of the movie. I remember my own dreams as fleeting glimpses of another world. But these "Dreams" seem like never-ending clinical stares. For me, the movie would have been just as effective if it was an hour shorter.
Next, it was irritating that several of the dreams, such as the first one, started to tell stories and then abruptly stopped. I felt teased. Either tell a story or don't.
The movie is further weakened by the fact that the worst segments come near the end. The political theme that these attempt to develop is not particularly original. And the explicit message is not particularly characteristic of the mystery and enigma I associate with dreams.
Before you dismiss me as uncultured, I do like many experimental and art-house flicks. I just feel that this one has little to recommend it other than the visual style.
That having been said, the pace of the movie is awfully ponderous for my tastes. Shots that need last just a few seconds go on, literally, for minutes. While this does give the viewer a chance to drink in the imagery, I think it tends to undercut the theme of the movie. I remember my own dreams as fleeting glimpses of another world. But these "Dreams" seem like never-ending clinical stares. For me, the movie would have been just as effective if it was an hour shorter.
Next, it was irritating that several of the dreams, such as the first one, started to tell stories and then abruptly stopped. I felt teased. Either tell a story or don't.
The movie is further weakened by the fact that the worst segments come near the end. The political theme that these attempt to develop is not particularly original. And the explicit message is not particularly characteristic of the mystery and enigma I associate with dreams.
Before you dismiss me as uncultured, I do like many experimental and art-house flicks. I just feel that this one has little to recommend it other than the visual style.
As with most musicals, much of whether you enjoy Hair will depend simply on whether you like the music. I think it's great, from the exuberant choreography of the opening "Aquarius" number to the silliness of "Black Boys/ White Boys" to the stunning finale. Also of note is the "Be In" sequence. It's extremely difficult to depict subjective, drug-induced mental states on film, and this one does it well.
In general, the adaptation to the screen is excellent, primarily because it adds a story to build the songs around. Additionally, the movie wisely cuts out most of the shocking-for-the-sake-of-shock-value aspects of the stage version (including the cast-call nude scene). And the decision to film several of the musical scenes outdoors rather than on a set was excellent. I do think a couple more of the weaker songs could have been axed, however.
If you supported the Viet Nam War, you probably won't appreciate the depiction of military officers or the general tone of the film. But a strength of Hair is that it doesn't romanticize its hippie characters. They are mostly depicted as immature and irresponsible. In a strange way, this is also the movie's central weakness, as it is often very difficult to root for some of the would-be protagonists. Fortunately, the decision to build the story around Claude and his dilemma makes Hair much more than a collection of good song-and-dance numbers.
In general, the adaptation to the screen is excellent, primarily because it adds a story to build the songs around. Additionally, the movie wisely cuts out most of the shocking-for-the-sake-of-shock-value aspects of the stage version (including the cast-call nude scene). And the decision to film several of the musical scenes outdoors rather than on a set was excellent. I do think a couple more of the weaker songs could have been axed, however.
If you supported the Viet Nam War, you probably won't appreciate the depiction of military officers or the general tone of the film. But a strength of Hair is that it doesn't romanticize its hippie characters. They are mostly depicted as immature and irresponsible. In a strange way, this is also the movie's central weakness, as it is often very difficult to root for some of the would-be protagonists. Fortunately, the decision to build the story around Claude and his dilemma makes Hair much more than a collection of good song-and-dance numbers.