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.
Reviews2
adam-1268's rating
I think the problem with this film is Altman's obvious disdain for his subject - Nashville. And almost nothing in his portrayal rings true, except as it might to those who are unfamiliar with Nashville, or have an axe to grind with its culture. It is as if the characters are all based on two-dimensional negative stereotypes gleaned from listening to the Grand Ol' Opry, a few visits to Nashville itself, or speculations into the motivations behind a culture that - according to Altman's portrayal - can have no good or understandable motivation.
That said, Nashville - especially in its bloated 1970's incarnation - was and is deserving of some pointed criticism. But Altman was not the right man for the job. Good criticism requires a real understanding of its subject - its motivations, its positives as well as its negatives. Altman's unfortunate conclusion about his subjects is that to teach them anything "you've got to crack their skulls" (in the words of 'Nashville's Madame Pearl).
This lack of understanding is in marked contrast to his complete understanding of his subject in 'The Player.' Here, Altman is at his best. 'The Player' is an informed, biting criticism of a culture Altman obviously understands, and can't help but love in spite of himself. A similarly brilliant cinematic slice of 1970's country music life exists, but not in 'Nashville'; for a deeper and more heartfelt portrayal I highly recommend 'Tender Mercies.' Altman's style, when properly applied as in 'The Player' or 'Short Cuts', produces brilliant results. In 'Nashville' it falls flat - snippets and asides that were conceived (with much smirking condescension I would assume) as biting and insightful, ring patently hollow, especially 30 years later. This film is almost unwatchable today for anyone with any real knowledge of Nashville, but will surely satisfy anyone looking to reinforce their uninformed negative stereotypes of Nashville culture.
Altman is a brilliant if uneven filmmaker, and as someone who has lived in both L.A. and Nashville, I can highly recommend 'The Player' and urge you to steer clear of 'Nashville'.
That said, Nashville - especially in its bloated 1970's incarnation - was and is deserving of some pointed criticism. But Altman was not the right man for the job. Good criticism requires a real understanding of its subject - its motivations, its positives as well as its negatives. Altman's unfortunate conclusion about his subjects is that to teach them anything "you've got to crack their skulls" (in the words of 'Nashville's Madame Pearl).
This lack of understanding is in marked contrast to his complete understanding of his subject in 'The Player.' Here, Altman is at his best. 'The Player' is an informed, biting criticism of a culture Altman obviously understands, and can't help but love in spite of himself. A similarly brilliant cinematic slice of 1970's country music life exists, but not in 'Nashville'; for a deeper and more heartfelt portrayal I highly recommend 'Tender Mercies.' Altman's style, when properly applied as in 'The Player' or 'Short Cuts', produces brilliant results. In 'Nashville' it falls flat - snippets and asides that were conceived (with much smirking condescension I would assume) as biting and insightful, ring patently hollow, especially 30 years later. This film is almost unwatchable today for anyone with any real knowledge of Nashville, but will surely satisfy anyone looking to reinforce their uninformed negative stereotypes of Nashville culture.
Altman is a brilliant if uneven filmmaker, and as someone who has lived in both L.A. and Nashville, I can highly recommend 'The Player' and urge you to steer clear of 'Nashville'.
"Season on the Brink" is one of my favorite books of all time - an insightful unflinching look at Bob Knight and his Indiana Hoosiers. And Dennehy is one of my favorite supporting actors of all time. So I made a point of watching this adaptation.
It disappointed on every level. Dennehy's performance was less than inspired, and he seemed unprepared to play Knight - like he had accepted the role just prior to filming. The rest of the cast isn't much better.
And it was obvious that this was ESPN's first movie. It was poorly directed, poorly filmed, and the lack of budget was obvious anytime games were being simulated (smaller gyms, empty seats, etc.) Skip this adaptation and read the book - it holds up well to this day!
It disappointed on every level. Dennehy's performance was less than inspired, and he seemed unprepared to play Knight - like he had accepted the role just prior to filming. The rest of the cast isn't much better.
And it was obvious that this was ESPN's first movie. It was poorly directed, poorly filmed, and the lack of budget was obvious anytime games were being simulated (smaller gyms, empty seats, etc.) Skip this adaptation and read the book - it holds up well to this day!