|
| • Advanced Search • Help |
Stone Reader (Special Edition) | Year: 2004 Classification: Documentary Directed: - Mark Moskowitz 10% actual content, 90% padding... As someone who loves books, I thought this movie would really appeal to me. The whole idea of making a documentary about tracking down the writer of your favorite obscure book seemed very neat. Unfortunately, the film-maker has very little story to tell and so, instead, subjects the viewer to over an hour of failed attempts to track the guy down. You see him interviewing people who have never heard of the author he's looking for. <BR>"So, you've never heard of him?"<BR>"No... can't say as I have."<BR>"Heh... isn't that something? Well, what do you think I should say to him if I find him?"<BR>"I don't really know."<BR>"Yeah. Yeah, I don't know what I'll say if I find him."<BR>"Huh."<BR>"Yeah. Heh. So, can you think of any other writers who have written one great book and then disappeared?"<BR>"Well, there was that one guy..." and so on. You also get to see the film-maker raking leaves a lot. And driving places. And interviewing people but not really listening to them because all he really wants them to talk about is this author that they've never even heard of. I really, very seriously did not like this movie. Not a bit. A movie for people that would rather read I don't know why so many people are down on this film. Mark Moskowitz' documentary about his search for the long-forgotten author of a book that he loved succeeds at something that I've never seen another movie even attempt. It revels in the joys of reading and makes devoted readers seem like members of an extended family. I enjoyed the meandering style of the film. Finding Dow Mossman, while being an important part of the film, was never the entire point of it. The conversations about books and authors and the long, lingering shots of shelves full of books is not the filler that some people felt it to be; it goes right to the heart of what this film is about--the love of books. There are some interesting characters in this movie, too. I liked Mark Moskowitz' style, enthusiastic but kind of goofy. I can't remember the name of the old man who was in close contact with Mossman during the writing of the book (Frank Conroy?), but he was delightful, full of good humor and the love of reading. Mossman himself was a pleasant surprise, not at all the disheveled, disturbed recluse that I had been fearing to see. This film isn't for everyone and I suppose it could have been a bit shorter, but it's a real winner. It made me want to reach for a book right away. Please hire an editor! I rented this after seeing a preview in the theater...<BR>I would recommend watching the preview, and then maybe the last 10 minutes of the movie instead.<BR>Really. This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen.<BR>It just seemed so incredibly self-important it was sickening after a while. After an hour and 45 minutes of really really poor detective work we finally get to meet Mr. Mossman and find out that he is a rather sad figure with obvious mental and emotional sickness. He was sympathetic and interesting, but he's unfortunately only in the last half hour... and did we really need to follow him around his house looking through boxes? During the fruitless first hour of the movie found myself wondering if Mr. Moskowitz owns a phone? It would have saved him and us quite a lot of time. Before driving 4 hours, it might be good to call ahead and ask a few questions. And did we really need the Michael Moore-ish tactics in the library? I was cracking up watching the students working in the library glancing at each other, saying with their eyes, "What's with this moron?" as he came in with cameras running, trying to catch them off guard in their failure to know who Dow Mossman is. Did we really need the shots of his poor son going to an amusement park? Cleaning a pool... leaf raking.<BR>Did we really need the shots of Mr. Moskowitz trying to name drop books and authors to anyone he can find to talk to, in some desperate attempt to show the world how well read he is?<BR>(I'm trying to imagine some guy filming himself showing up at Yo-Yo Ma's studio and handing him a stack of favorite records.)<BR>It's just absurd. And to top it off, when we finally meet the reclusive author, for some odd reason the camera man keeps giving us shots of the poor disheveled man's crotch. The story itself was a good idea, but this movie just kills it. In the end, it is this sort of self-important elitist trash that winds up making most Americans distrust academia and intellectualism, which then sticks us with leaders like George W. Bush. 10*ctual content, 909adding... As someone who loves books, I thought this movie would really appeal to me. The whole idea of making a documentary about tracking down the writer of your favorite obscure book seemed very neat. Unfortunately, the film-maker has very little story to tell and so, instead, subjects the viewer to over an hour of failed attempts to track the guy down. You see him interviewing people who have never heard of the author he's looking for. and so on. You also get to see the film-maker raking leaves a lot. And driving places. And interviewing people but not really listening to them because all he really wants them to talk about is this author that they've never even heard of. I really, very seriously did not like this movie. Not a bit. Buy Stone Reader at Amazon.com Buy posters at Allposters.com Jamster - the latest ringtones for your phone!  Search with Walhello on the Internet on Stone Reader Search with the Priority Search Engine on Stone Reader This page in other languages: Suomeksi | Nederlands | Deutsch
|
