Customer Reviews

Synecdoche, New York

5 star:		(49)
4 star:		(13)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(18)
1 star:		(26)

 

 

Let me put this review in perspective. I love Charlie Kaufman. "Adaptation" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" are two of my favorite movies of all time. I also have a history of loving bizarre movies, even if I don't understand everything that's going on. "Brazil," "Mulholland Drive," and "Primer" come to mind.

So the problem isn't that "Synecdoche, New York" is "too weird" for me. The problem is that, while those other films used their weirdness to enhance their stories or as pure mind-bending entertainment, the weirdness of this film just felt tedious and self-indulgent. It trampled on my brain rather than engaging it. The premise is intriguing (building a replica of a replica of a replica of reality), and the beginning of the film is quirky and funny, but the story just gets more and more complicated and emotionally detached, to the point that I couldn't wait for it to end. It reminds me of what Quentin Tarantino did with "Death Proof," and P.T. Anderson did with "There Will Be Blood," and M. Night Shyamalan did with "The Happening." You get to a point where you're popular enough to do whatever you want, and then you turn out a boring, self-indulgent mess.

Bottom line: The film bored and confused me more than it entertained, but if you're a Charlie Kaufman fan or a fan of bizarre, challenging, and philosophical movies, you might want to give it a chance. Apparently, many others have had the exact opposite experience as me, so you may find this more mentally stimulating than I did.

Richard Yee, author of Deliveries: A Collection

The first thing I would like to point out is that it will be disliked by a lot of people at first, but later be loved by many just like Citizen Kane. Don't believe me? You can either 1) read Ebert's review, or 2) wait and see for yourself.

Synecdoche, New York isn't only the best movie of the year, but it is the best movie that Charlie Kaufman has written to date. It's a film that everyone needs to watch more than once to get what he is trying to say. There are scenes that is impossible to know if they are real or just a dream. Time moves at a different pace and you never really know where you're at. But the most interesting part of the movie lies with the purpose of the writing; Charlie Kaufman wanted to write a horror movie. And not just any typical genre film, but things that scare him. He puts the fear of being alone, of dying by a random cause, of being rejected in everything that you do. Kaufman does such a good job writing for Caden that you begin to feel his pain, to feel his fear. That is true talent. The movie isn't made to scare you, rather Kaufman wanted to do something original with the horror genre. [...]
If you haven't seen the movie yet don't go to the site. It has spoilers galore. Aside from the writing, the direction and the acting is phenomenal, especially the performance given by Philip Seymour Hoffman. It just goes to show you that the Oscars really do overlook some of the best movies of the year. Once you get into the movie there is no escaping it until it is over.

For me, this movie woke me up about a half hour in with the realization that I was watching and hearing thoughts that have been in my own head for years. If you find your inner voice keeping you up late at night, going over and over the same painful questions then I think you will be familiar with the experience of watching this film.

Keeping in mind that most sane people seek professional help and pharmaceutical relief from this experience, it does seem like an odd choice to market the experience in DVD form. That said, I find it strangely therapeutic to know that I am not alone in my head, Charlie is there to keep me company. I believe it was the philosopher, Pascal, who suggested that the strongest motivation in our lives is to distract ourselves from the reality that life is, for the most part, an horrible and painful experience. This film is not a distraction it is a mirror. For those out there that prefer to believe that life is a precious and beautiful miracle, and take their prozac and church services seriously... You might want to stay away from this movie.

To the nuts and bolts of the film. The only things that are taking some time to get used to are the obvious jumps out of reality. Living in a smoldering house for example, the airplane scene is another. My question is how these whimsical elements fit in film about the torture of life? Maybe that, as predictable as you feel life has become, occasionally you will be surprised by surreal moments? Or maybe it is just Charlie sticking his head in your face reminding you to smile?

If you're a person that should be on antidepressants but choose not to be because you believe life should be experienced rather than hidden from you might appreciate this film.. If you "don't get it" I guess you can be thankful? Or maybe you need to watch it again with the idea in mind that for a lot of people, this the reality that goes on between their ears.

1. Make your hero a cerebral but poorly groomed, doughy depressive in a draining relationship with a moderately more attractive woman on the verge of trading up.

2. When she does trade up, have the slovenly hero deny the obvious: that his personality/appearance/prospects repel stable/attractive/accomplished women.

3. Construct an alternate reality that will never come to pass, one that allows the sad sack hero to bed a woman he could never get, as well as rattle off a few uninterrupted soul cries expressing the sentiment that no matter what he's done, he's either the wronged party or he's so heart-meltingly sad about his faults, that there's no reason to stop being passive aggressive.

4. Have the gimmick collapse with a resigned hero sharing a codependent moment with a worn-out love interest as the credits roll, and hope the audience doesn't realize that the urge to remake the world rather than the self in response to personal problems is the definition of childishness, and that every problem in the film could have been dispensed with the willingness to take the risks grownups accept routinely (like asking for what he wants directly, asking the woman he really wants out on a date, having candid conversations when real problems arise, letting the rest slide, and maybe working in a salad and a few pushups once in a while).

5. Pick up anything written by William Trevor, and realize all you've ever had is a few intriguing scenes and a few good lines that never gather power as a whole, because you can't tell a story to save your life.

Two stars for the actors. None for the rest.

This is probably the fourth or fifth time I have seen "Synecdoche, New York." I've not felt such emotion as I had this time, crying towards the end. The first viewing, yes, it seemed a bit confusing, albeit very comical and disarming with emotion. The second viewing, I wanted to pay close attention to understand the story. This time, I payed very close attention to each and every character and their names (used several times on other characters as well). I am no expert in drama or theatre, but this whole movie feels like a big metaphor. Nothing is real, but only meant to symbolize something else; the burning house, a play about a man's life while he's living it, the city within a warehouse, lines like "can i have a nickel if i doesn't play with my pee pee" remarked by Caden's second daughter, infectious disease in cattle? I mean, it all seems like an absurdist tragicomedy and yet it all makes perfect, beautiful, wonderful sense and hits you like nothing else I have ever witnessed. Maybe that is what Mr. Kaufman was trying to "say", in a way to present life as an ongoing work of our own art, that the absurd is more real to us than the real, that theatre gives us a way to play out our own emotions, every single one of them, every situation, every person, every character. In short, I do not know, I am not an expert. I just know that this film has touched me every single time. The music, the dark, gray cinematography. I have to admit, I was not a big fan of Philip Seymour Hoffman before this movie, but this is one of the best and most tragic performances I have ever seen. He is perfection from beginning to end with a wonderful cast of supporting ladies. Same with Samantha Morton. Beautiful, beautiful, somewhat ironically endlessly watchable film.

This is a film that's angering to watch at first. It's angering because it's so damn real, and acurate about human sorrow and depression and desperation. It's films like these that have true power; films that anger you at first because it represents how life is, so truthfully that you can't take it. You hate the film when you're done with it. You say you'll never watch it again. But you can't help the fact that it stays with you, and will demand a second viewing, to realize how incredible it really is.

This is a film about the human condition, about depression, about loss. This is the saddest film that Charlie Kaufman has ever wrote, but easily the most universal. Life has the same conditions for all of us; it's simply the time inbetween us not yet being born and us being dead. And we're all crammed into this little world secretly thinking we can live forever, so we fixate on small things for longer than we should be allowed to. Life should be embraced, even if it's damn near impossible to for some of us.

This wasn't a typical review; this film cannot be simply reviewed at all. It's just one that we should all see.

Synecdoche-Noun-A figure of speech in which a part is used for the whole or the whole for a part, the special for the general or the general for the special...

Synecdoche, New York is the directorial debut of Academy Award-winning screenwriter Charlie Kaufman (Best Original Screenplay, Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind (Widescreen Edition)), who has written some of the most acclaimed films of the last several years. Like his previous screenwriting efforts, Synecdoche, New York is a complicated, thought-provoking film that floored many critics, yet somehow, almost blasphemously, escaped Academy attention.

Describing the plot of this film isn't done very easily, but it's something like this:
Oscar-winner Philip Seymour Hoffman (Best Actor, Capote) plays Caden Cotard, a theater director married to an artist named Adele (Catherine Keener), with whom he shares a daughter named Olive. When Adele goes to Berlin for an art show, she tells Caden that she only wants Olive to go with her...She doesn't come back. Caden is lonely, unfulfilled, sick, and without any joy in his life. He confides to a therapist (Hope Davis), "I'm afraid I'm gonna die. I don't know what's wrong with me and I want to do something important while I'm still here." Caden is award a MacArthur grant, which gives him unlimited money to pursue artistic endeavors. This leads him to stage a massive theatre piece in New York, amidst his flirtatious relationship with Hazel (Oscar-nominee Samantha Morton) who lives in a house that's literally on fire...And getting re-married to Claire (Oscar-nominee Michelle Williams).

The film has a ridiculous amount of familiar actors in it, but a couple more include Tom Noonan as a mysterious man who is seen lurking in the background of several scenes before winning the part of Caden in Caden's play. Also, there's Emma Watson as Tammy, who plays Hazel on stage. Academy Award-winner Dianne Wiest, who was everywhere during the 80s and 90s, also appears...This took me away from the spell of the movie had cast on me for a moment to think "Holy s***, is that Diane Wiest?"

Based on Kaufman's eccentric personality it wouldn't be unreasonable to think Caden is based on Kaufman to some extent.

The story does have Kaufman's stamp on it. Like his previous efforts it is very intricate, confusing at times, and very aware of human conditions. It's probably unjust for me to write about this film until I've seen it more than once. Kaufman has said this film exists in a sort of dream reality and it does have a dreamy feel to it and what occurs in the film isn't very linear. It's the closest thing to I've seen to seeing a dream being filmed. The way the film flows from one scene to another is just like a dream, with not everything making sense immediately, people coming and going, etc.

It's a very complicated film and it's quite impressive that Kaufman chose to direct this film having never directed one before. It was a good choice though, as there are many scenes that would be laughable in the wrong hands. Kaufman keeps everything poignant and deeply affecting.

The performances are amazing. Hoffman is absolutely brilliant. The nuance he brings to this multi-faceted character is no small feat. Tom Noonan comes out of left-field as Sammy, the creepy actor who follows Caden for 20 years before playing him. In a film that's full of great performances, this is surprisingly one of the best.

As it is a film with themes of age, life, death, relationships, time, and identity it was compared to the incredibly overrated The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. This film does have similarities to that film in the themes they share; the difference is that film was made on a bigger budget, with a script that was self-plagiarism on Eric Roth's part (anyone who paid attention while watching it will say it was "Forrest Gump 2"), but looked pretty and had great performances. Synecdoche, New York has a smaller budget, a terrific script, great performances, and it looks pretty. Beyond that, it explores the same themes as the previous film and is much more successful. This film is much more profound than that film and most of the films that were released in 2008...

This film is a fascinating and profound experience, although not a film for the impatient. Synecdoche, New York does something few films can do. It gets you on an emotional level; it plays your emotions like an instrument, making you laugh and breaking your heart at its will. It's really something special and truly one of the best films of 2008. It deserves to be seen, discussed, and seen again. Try not to sit in awe of what you've seen once it's over.

GRADE: A

I raised a smile to the low-star reviews claiming this movie ruined their night. I wasn't smiling out of a sense of snottiness or ego but because I agree with them. This movie ruined my night too. Frankly, I don't remember the last time I felt so affected by a movie.

So why give it five stars? Simple - I don't remember the last time I felt so affected by a movie! It must really say something if a movie can stop me from sleeping! This film is brutally honest (and I am a fan of honesty over decency), moving and inspiring in its artistic vision. The reason this film will get to most who watch it is that this movie is not about the lead characters but about everybody who watches it. To quote the film: "there are no extras in life."

As another reviewer said, reviews on this movie will be strictly divided - I agree and feel it will take some time before this movie gets the recognition it deserves. It's a movie that's not afraid to tell us that roses are only beautiful because they die. Life is only worth living because it's finite.

Bravo Mr. Kaufman! You have crafted a brilliant artistic masterpiece which will no doubt become my favorite. Nothing even comes close to Synecdoche New York.

Many love it, many hate it, few are ambivalent about it. For my money, there's no better confirmation of a work of art's greatness than that.

As is the norm, most reviews tell more about the reviewers than about the film. Some loved it yet admitted they didn't understand it, others hated it because they didn't understand it. I doubt those two groups mix well at cocktail parties.

I prefer reading the reviews by the haters. They're sad, little, short stories of tragedy and outrage, punctuated by frequent dashes of ad hominem. I learn from them that people don't like being made to think of themselves as stupid. They call Kaufman names and want to punch him in the eye. To add to my amusement, I pretend that Flannery O'Conner wrote all the bad reviews, giggling her afternoon away in delight at inventing so many lost souls looking for their grace.

Rather than attempting to explain the film, and chancing eroding the beauty and mystery of its aesthetic, I present just one consideration. In living life, there's an impenetrable disconnect between experiencing the feel of its moments while simultaneously comprehending its meaning. Because of that, there's an urge to learn a fuller truth by stepping back to witness oneself living, to witness from a detached point of view. Synecdoche is somewhat a film version of Rene Magritte's painting, The Human Condition. If you're not compelled to google it, that painting is of an interior scene that includes a painting on an easel in front of a window. Much of what's outside the window is blocked by the painting on the easel, but that painting within the painting is of exactly what it's blocking from view. Well, we believe it's a painting of exactly what it's blocking, but we can't be sure because we can't see past it.

When I saw this movie in theatres, I didn't appreciate what I was watching. This film is immensely thought provoking and although everyone may not see it the same, if you truly want to be "challenged" by a film, this is one for you. I have watched it at home, and it is brilliant. The original score enhances the feel of this movie as well.