Oakland

Oakland

Philip Seymour Hoffman’s debut film... since it’s hitting TV tonight, I’m guessing people are going to have some thoughts—so, here we go—starting a thread!

It’s a damn shame this isn't getting a wide theatrical release! 😢
But whatever, I can't wait to finally catch it tonight. 🎉

Who’s actually going to stick around until 9 o'clock...

just so I can witness this absolute comedy of errors—and all those powerhouse actors we haven't seen on the big screen in ages, plus the ones who haven't been seen anywhere for a hundred years!! yup😍 😍 😍

casualharbor852 said:Let me see this comedy of errors you're talking about.

That isn't a "comedy of errors"—it’s a comedy of the absurd. Personally, I love it. I especially have to point out the scene where Vejzović, Brankov, and Cvetko doći Vulić show up right on Vulić's doorstep. 😂 👍

Paul Mendoza8 said:It’s such a shame this movie isn't hitting theaters!😢
Actually, I am counting down the minutes until I can watch it tonight. 🎉

I agree, 👋 I'm a huge fan of Philip 😁.

Through thick and thin... You can't just buy your way to health! 😁

And right during the era when they were releasing "Long, dark night" too! 🙂

So I watched it, and honestly, all I can say is:

Bravo, bravo, bravo, bravo! 😍 😍 😍 😍 😍

The movie is great—if it weren't quite so sappy, it wouldn't just be good, it would be freaking legendary...

But overall? It’s solid.

Go get 'em, Philip!

Zidarić, and I’m talking about Zidarić with the shaved head 😍

Is there going to be a rematch??

casualharbor852 said:the movie is great—if it weren't quite so messy, it wouldn't just be good, it would be a masterpiece...

What’s that supposed to mean? The film's greatest strength is precisely that it dares to be this messy. If it were any more polished, it would just be some pretentious social satire—God forbid.

Ben Webster said:Are we getting a sequel??

Look, Ben, this movie was such a disaster that even the bottom-feeders at the local multiplex wouldn't touch it, and you're actually asking for a sequel? How? When? Since we apparently have to keep airing mediocre American indie flops on major networks? For instance, next Sunday they’re showing "Here"—or as Zrinko likes to call it, "There." And you want a sequel set in Oakland? Forget it. Sit down and cry about it. It’ll hit DVD eventually, and if they include some actual commentary, it might be the most brilliant domestic DVD ever made. Or you could just go hang out with someone who actually filmed 😛

The film was wonderful, though I must admit I didn't quite grasp it

Kenneth Castillo71 said:The movie was wonderful, even if I didn't understand a single thing about it.

Isn't that just perfect? 😍

Could my missing those first ten minutes be the reason I felt so lost throughout the entire experience?
Consequently, I found myself feeling rather bored for much of the runtime
but it truly is a beautiful film! It’s packed with such brilliant, witty dialogue. Yet, I have to ask, why on earth was everything so incredibly difficult to follow?

Terry Ramos60 said:it's a great movie, though. the dialogue is actually pretty sharp. but seriously, why on earth is everything so hard to follow?

..yeah.. I was wondering the same thing 😕 ..still 👍 for the movie...

Do you even comprehend the world you’re living in?

Terry Ramos60 said:—but why on earth is everything so incomprehensible?

I don't get "Love in the Hinterland"—not that I understood "Mary Villa" either—and don't even get me started on "Forbidden Love" or those trashy reality shows. Yet, they air every single day and pull massive ratings.

You haven't quite grasped my point! It isn't that I am complaining about not having everything handed to me on a silver platter, oh no. Rather, it is that I found myself having to exert an exhausting amount of mental effort just to decipher the basic relationships between the characters—you know, trying to figure out who owes what to whom and why! When two people are speaking, I suddenly find myself utterly lost as to what their actual connection is or what they would actually be to one another in a real-world context.
Now, I truly cannot say whether this confusion stems from my missing the first ten minutes or if this disorientation is simply how the piece is intended to function.
But if this ambiguity is indeed intentional, then I must ask: to what end? I will gladly admit that there might be a deeper layer of meaning here that perhaps eludes my own comprehension. Therefore, if the director’s specific intention was to leave the fundamental details of these characters shrouded in mystery, why on earth would they choose such a path? I certainly won't pretend to have figured it all out—I haven't!—so I am sitting here earnestly seeking some clarity. Is it really such a difficult thing to provide an explanation?

Lali Puna said:you missed the point. I'm not complaining about things being handed to me on a silver platter—that's not it. It's just that I had to really strain myself to figure out the character dynamics—who's doing what for whom, and why. Or who's actually with who. Two characters talk, and suddenly I have no clue what their relationship even is—or what they would be in real life.
I don't know if that’s because I tuned out during the first ten minutes or if it was actually designed that way.
If it *was* intentional, then why? I'll admit there might be some deeper meaning I'm just not catching. So, if the director intended for basic character details to be obscure, what's the purpose behind that? I'm not even going to pretend I figured it out—I didn't—so I'm asking for clarification here. Is that really too much to ask?

I wasn't taking shots at you. 🙂
The film has a pretty straightforward plot—one that isn't made any clearer by the sheer amount of scenes included. It's highly likely you didn't miss much in those first ten minutes; most of that section consists of three or four soliloquies which, while well-executed individually, aren't strictly necessary to follow the story.