Phonearl
Good start, but then it gets ruined
Stoutor
It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.
Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin
The movie really just wants to entertain people.
raindroprhythm
As I watched this, I thought it was funny, kind of. Strong hint on the kind of. Oh my god, the acting was terrible. It was so bad...which disappointed me, as Hal Hartley is big on the whole condition acting- using physical ailments to change how one acts. I've used his method while doing a monologue from Schindler's List and my teacher said it was one of the most powerful monologues done by a student that he's seen- and that was the first time he suggested a Hal Hartley method. So I was expecting Surviving Desire to have exquisite acting. And when Martin Donovan opened his mouth, and twisted his face into what was supposed to be a pained or deep or spaced out expression, I laughed out loud and my teacher glared at me. But man, he was absolutely Oscar winning compared to everybody else (save the woman who kept asking everyone to marry her- she wasn't too bad). While he and the girl had a lot of chemistry, it just didn't...work. I don't know what was missing. I think she was just too much of a hot shot for him.And I know the story was trying to be deep but it just didn't get there for me. It seemed to be forcing it on me.
tedg
Spoilers herein.I'm a recent convert to Hartley's World. And I think he may be only a tentative convert himself.Superficially, he focuses our attention on abstract reductionism in storytelling. Not unsurprisingly, that focuses our attention on the story. This allows him to add more and more explicit metatext which is similarly clarified. The relationship and integration of this stuff is more simply and directly integrated in the story as well: representation and reality; naming and meaning; reflex and deliberation.The effectiveness of this is breathtaking. If he actually had something to SAY, this could be a lifealtering experience. I call this the "Fight Club" effect. Like Jimi Hendrix, he distracts us, opens a pipe deep into our soul, and then pours in the same vacuous truths he reacts and preaches against.Fortunately, he grew sufficiently to satisfy me by ?One True Thing.? He might turn out to be important. Certainly his cinematic intuitions are very sharp. Watch this for a deep understanding of rhythm, and not just the ordinary rhythm of pacing, but in the integrated visual poetry of punctuated attitude.Ted's Evaluation: 3 of 4: Worth watching.
André-7
As Hartley goes through and destroys most of the cliches of traditional love stories, from Shakespeare (with the drunken KATE scene, ref. The Taming of the Shrew) to the musically challenged dance number by Donovan and two extras (a gem which turns all those Hollywood musical numbers on their head. What happens when you're in a funk about a frustrating and failing relationship and you don't feel like singing in the rain?)
Sulo Kallas
For me this one stands out of other work I have seen from Hal Hartley to date (5 films including Trust but not including Unbelievable Truth). This one left a much warmer feeling inside me than his other films. It had less black humour in it, but the characters were more open, warmer, became closer somehow.Its actually surprising that I liked this film that much as after finding Hal for myself, I have watched 5 cassettes worth of his films in a few weeks timeframe (one of them contains 3 of his short films including this one). I was actually afraid that I might get bored of his style, his means of presenting a story and characters, as the means, style change only a little from film to film. He has so many "trademarks" about his filmmaking.I needn't have been afraid. I can feel this one.
