Final Cut

Blaine

Blaine

Mr. Hollywood
I just got through watching a movie I picked up for $7.50. Final Cut.
http://yoursay.imdb.com/title/tt036...9NTAwfGNvPTF8aHRtbD0xfG5tPTE_;fc=1;ft=29;fm=1
It starred Robin Williams :undecided , Mira Sorvino :love4: , and Jim Caviezel. Really interesting Sci-Fi concept. People have implants that are edited after their death by "cutters" for their family's memories. I think the editor in all of us would find this movie interesting. I had never heard of it when I picked it up. It unfolds in a leasurely but steady manner but just drew me in from the beginning and carried me along to the end.:thumbsup:
 
I loved the IDEA of this movie, but hated its execution. Or maybe I was just bummed cuz I thought I was the one who came up with the idea of video tombstones several years ago. You know, a little flat-panel summarizing their life that you could watch when you visited the gravesite. And a new revenue stream for myself. #$%!
 
I thought this was a pretty good movie as well. I loved his wooden editing machine, I wish I had one of those!

Jim Caviezel did a great job, and Robin Williams pulled off a convincing performance. It kept reminding me of Minority Report for some strange reason, but overall a good flick.
 
I saw it... decent flick... kinda moved pretty slow... loved the whole concept a ton! And, I actually like Robin Williams as an actor.
 
I thought it was a crazy idea but the movie's story wasn't the type that could fully utilize an idea of that magnitude. I felt like the idea was wasted on the movie.
 
I didn't like it. The film had so much potential that just sat there. I found myself having to interpolate too much to make the film make sense. The whole concept of "sin eaters" that William's talks about is really facsinating, and obviously a metephore for himself, but the connection is never made very well in the film. Williams is set up as a Christ figure, but the director never really drives that point home, and therefore the whole piece just falls appart.

I was never sure how I was supposed to be feeling through the film. For example, the old man whose life Williams is editing throughout the course of the movie. Are we supposed to feel pitty for this character? From William's stand point it would seem so, I mean, he can erase the bad parts of people's lives, and he does so without even watching. He forgives their sin and remembers it no more. But the man's daughter obviously remembers and resents Williams for what he does. So who's right? The film never says, and even though ambiguity can sometimes be a strength I think this film would have been better served in the writer/director had taken a stance and stuck with it.

Also, the comparison between Williams and Caviezel was interesting, but wasted. Caviezel watches all of the footage. He sees the bad that people do, and he's changed because of it. So much so that he becomes a revolutionary of sorts. Williams just deletes bad stuff without seeing it. I assume that we're supposed to accept that Williams is doing the more noble thing, but what does that mean? That people should be forgiven completely for really horrible crimes? There was no balance between mercy and justice in the film. As I said before, that might have been the point, but I think the movie was weakened by not have a "right" answer.

The film wasn't bad. Esspecially for a director's first movie, it was pretty good. But because it put so much interesting and intelligent stuff on the table, but some of it was a little undercooked, I find myself disliking it more than if it had just been a bad movie.

Could you tell that this review has been building up inside of me just waiting to discuss? :)

Oh, and another thing. Is the term "editor" just not cool and sci-fi enough? Do they have to be called "cutters?"
 
Last edited:
krestofre said:
I was never sure how I was supposed to be feeling through the film. For example, the old man whose life Williams is editing throughout the course of the movie. Are we supposed to feel pitty for this character? From William's stand point it would seem so, I mean, he can erase the bad parts of people's lives, and he does so without even watching. He forgives their sin and remembers it no more. But the man's daughter obviously remembers and resents Williams for what he does. So who's right? The film never says, and even though ambiguity can sometimes be a strength I think this film would have been better served in the writer/director had taken a stance and stuck with it.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think the movie is saying what Williams' character, Hakman, is doing IS wrong. He was mortified to find out that he had been fitted with a device at birth. He took measures to "shut it down." I think Hakman was torn up by the little girl's tragedy but he lives by a rigid code to show only the good. This is his fatal flaw. While the story tells us this technology can be used for good, as is shown when Hakman finds out he didn't "kill" or let his childhood friend die, it also shows us how history can be corrupted when rewritten by "political correctness" or only wanting to show the good. That's what the protesters was all about. If we forget the bad parts of history we are doomed to repeat them.

Now, I'm not trying to defend this movie against all comers because I didn't feel it was a great movie...but it was interesting and made me think. I also thought about how I would have done it myself. As I mention in my original post (perhaps a bit kindly by calling it leisurely) is was a bit slow and plodding. But it never lost me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top