Customer Reviews

November

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(14)

 

 

"November" is a mystery/suspense in which the structure of the film, itself, provides the mystery behind the traumatic memories of Los Angeles photographer Sophie Jacobs (Courteney Cox). Sophie's live-in boyfriend Hugh (James LeGros) was shot to death in a convenience store robbery. Now Sophie is having debilitating headaches and seeing a psychiatrist (Nora Dunn), who believes her symptoms may be the result of guilt. But Sophie seems to be doing things she doesn't remember, seeing things that don't make sense, and when a photo taken of the convenience store the night of the robbery turns up, Sophie's confusion deepens and the line between imagination and reality is blurred.

"November" moves slowly and is sporadically non-narrative. It's a circular, inscrutable account of the tricks that memory play on Sophie in the aftermath of some trauma....or perhaps no trauma. The film's strength is that it draws the audience into the mystery of Sophie's memory with flashbacks of the shooting throughout, giving the impression that there is something more to know which may be revealed if we follow the film's disjointed progression. "November" has 2 big strikes against it, though. One is that it is like a jigsaw puzzle with too many pieces. It doesn't add up. Director Greg Harrison has erroneously called this "ambiguity". That would imply that "November" can be interpreted more than one way. I challenge anyone to interpret it at all. Harrison does not have a clear idea of what he wants to say, so, ultimately, it doesn't come across.

The second strike against "November" is the way it looks. This film was shot in 15 days on Mini DV, and it looks even worse than that implies. It doesn't help that most of the film was shot in low light. It's very grainy. The lighting is multicolored, but primarily deathly tungsten blue or sickly fluorescent green. That's intentional. Add to this cheap, jarring visual effects, and "November" is practically unwatchable. I've been hearing for years how DV would revolutionize independent film by making it affordable for anyone to be a filmmaker. Well, I've seen a handful low-budget DV films in the past year, and I don't think I can take many more films that look this bad. I'm sure some of these filmmakers see themselves as innovative or avant-garde, but there is nothing in the world more conventional or commonplace than ugliness.

The DVD (Sony Pictures 2005): There is an "Alternate Opening Sequence" (3 min), with commentary, that is not as good as the credit sequence that made the final cut. In "A Conversation with Lew Baldwin, composer/visual effects" (9 min), director Greg Harrison and Baldwin talk about creating the first sequence in the convenience store. "Photo Galleries" includes slide shows of 3 galleries: New York photographer Michele Asselin provides the photos that make up Sophie (3 min) and Jesse's (1 min) portfolios, which we see hanging on the walls in the movie. There are also behind-the-scenes photos (1 min). There are 2 audio commentary tracks: The first is by director Greg Harrison and screenwriter Benjamin Brand. They discuss the narrative structure of the film and compare the film to the script. The second commentary is by director Greg Harrison and cinematographer Nancy Schreiber. They talk about the film's colors, in-camera effects, lighting set-ups, and a lot about filming. Subtitles for the film are available in French.

Kudos to Courtney Cox for pushing the envelope and striking out in a new direction in her acting career. She does quite well in creating a believable woman who has experienced a violent and very traumatic event - as has her boyfriend. From the start of the film, the viewer knows parts of what has occured and then must figure out the entire story.
Part of the mystery of this film is figuring out exactly WHAT Cox's character has experienced and separting truth from fantasy. At the end of the film, you'll have to decide much of that yourself. The film is divided into titled sections like "Denial"..."Acceptance"...etc. But how much of what is being shown is actually in "real" time and how much is memory? That is the question around which the film focuses.
Films like this (it has echoes of Momento) can be riveting but I found the various plot lines to be distracting and (often) quite confusing. For that reason, I can't recommend this film as highly as I'd prefer, although it was a unique attempt to provide a very different point of view from the usual films.
The "Extras" section of the DVD is worth watching to learn about how special effects were created, often without any planning but simply on the spur of the moment. I was awed by that fact as some of these effects were riveting.
This movie definitely held my attention but it left me feeling unsatisfied as well. There were too many loose ends, too many unanswered questions. Perhaps this lack of clarity was intentional and maybe the ending makes sense in the context of the entire film and the state of mind of the woman in the film.
I admit I have very mixed emotions about this movie. I wouldn't go out of my way to watch it again, yet I was intrigued enough to want to figure out the plot and solve the mystery.

Courtney Cox stars as Sophie, a young photography teacher who is traumatized by the death if her boyfriend, who was shot in a convenient store robbery while she waited for him in the car. Sophie is dealing with the trauma by seeing a therapist and reveals that she cheated on her boyfriend with a coworker. Afterwards, a photo of her in the car the night of the robbery mysteriously appears in a slide show presentation given by one of her students. Then the surveillance video from the robbery pops up on her television one night.

Just when you are starting to get spooked, the whole scenario is repeated with the boyfriend still being alive. Every event is repeated, Sophie visiting the therapist, Sophie having lunch with her mother, the robbery, etc. Just when you think that this is it, boom! The scenario is changed again. In the end, you are left with four or five different stories and no clarity about what actually happened.

The cinematography was excellent, very dark and grainy reminiscent of a student film. The acting was good, but I think they should have had one story and stuck with it. It was entertaining, but there was more style over substance.

Its a great film, put together well, I bought this this film for an entirely differnt reason though. It was shot with a sub 4k camera: DVX100a. I was excited how this film would come out with this camera and the DP being Nancy Schreiber. I was very happy with this purchase and recommend it not only to movie lovers, but to cinematographers and directors for the extras on use with this camera, Its very interesting to see how she put everything together.

LouP
SPXSTUDIOS.com

If you like to sit and think about a movie for awhile after watching it, then I think this is a great movie to watch. I can understand how a person might get frustrated with the odd sequence of events, the seemingly changing plotline and the visual effects. However, if you are willing to give this movie a try, then you will hopefully understand the point in the unconventional elements of this movie.

Everything pulls together in the end of the movie, and if you do not pick up on what the movie is really conveying (because it really does make sense-honestly), then listen to the film's commentary. Once you get the ending, you can really enjoy the point of view and the tone of the movie. I found it to be truly unique.

So, you're a very famous TV star, who had some highs and lows when it comes to the big screen. Although very rich, you still want to take credit as a serious and competent movie actress. So, what did Courteney Cox do? She found herself a small budget independent movie and went for it.

But I think she should have read the scritp first. This movie is simply obnoxious. I tell you, there isn't no puzzle here. Just a director and screenwriter messing with the audience for LONG 73 minutes.... How can a movie so short be so boring, so excruciantingly slow?!! It's almost a miracle... Shot on Digital Video Camera, the visual is bad, grainy, most of the times GREEN. That's it: green!

As for the history, it's almost unbeliavable, so bad, meaningless and utterly manipulative. It seems that there was no script available at all, the director and producers were shooting as the "ideas" appeared...

This is one of the worst movies I've ever watched, simply put. And that's a shame, because I personally like Courteney Cox very much.

This movie started out very interesting, but going through the same day over and over got very confusing, and at the end of the movie felt let down. At first, I thought someone was going insane, hallucinating, or dreaming different things, or that possibly it was in fact the woman who shot her boyfriend, or that someone was playing mind games with her. It was very intriguing trying to figure out the plot just to find that(SPOILER ALERT)
?these are the thoughts that are going through her mind as she is dying?

this mystery/puzzler will definitely cure your insomnia..well least i only had to sit thru this crap for 78 mins

If you want an idea of why people aren't going to movies anymore, I dare you to rent "November" -- all 68 minutes of it (not counting the long credits at the end, primarily designed to pad this turkey out to 78 minutes.

This is, at best, a film school project shot for $1.5 million and thankfully only grossed $198,000 at the box office, redeeming my faith in humanity.

Why be so harsh on this movie? Simple. The director and the writer have no respect for the audience. They jerk you this way and that way, only to finally pull an ending out of nowhere -- just because they can. It's not unlike the infamous season of TV's "Dallas" when Bobby's death was suddenly dismissed as a dream.

There is this recent annoying trend among directors that movies can only work if there are surprise endings --- it has to be twist after twist after twist. Good old narrative storytelling has come to be too passe.

So go ahead and rent this crap. I tell you this much --- "November" makes "Friends" look like Ingmar Bergman. Unbelievable.

When I watched "November", I was simply in the mood for a movie and just about any movie would do. This one started out interesting, though not much different from other movies of the same ilk. Couple stops outside a convenience store, man goes inside to get woman some chocolate, perpetrator enters right behind him, man is shot for no other reason than not giving the perp his wallet (which he didn't have - woman gave him money in the car). The rest of the movie is spent unraveling multiple mysteries - who took the photos from outside the store moments before the shooting, why does the same day play out a second time where it's the woman who goes into the store and has an altercation with the perp, is the man still alive or was he really shot, why does the woman keep seeing strange images of blood-soaked articles, etc etc etc. In the end the solution, as one reviewer has already pointed out, is quite similar to several movies in recent years - the most recent being (WARNING, SPOILERS AHEAD) the Ewan McGregor/Naomi Watts movie "Stay". I give this movie 3 stars for keeping me watching until the end, and unlike some reviewers I saw a method to the film technique madness. The quality of the picture improves as we get closer to the revealing ending. Notice in particular the three trips Sophie makes to her psychiatrist. Anyway, one final note - did anyone else think a better name for this movie would have been "Nov 07"?