In the little documentary on the DVD, De Palma mentions he had Stamos' character fall through glass in the beginning to signify the dream state -- and the imagery of "falling" (often a metaphor in all of our dreams) along with additional imagery of falling water. However, the scene where Stamos' character falls through glass happens before the dream has even begun!
The above might illustrate where this movie goes wrong, if it goes wrong at all. The focus certainly isn't the plot (as there are some holes) or the dialogue (nothing inventive or new) or even the characters. The focus is style. It kept me intrigued most of the way through, but the movie looses it somewhat toward the end. I think a lot of people felt that.
The dream is simply ill-conceived. The little subtleties to signify it is a dream seem tacked on. I noticed a few of them but they certainly aren't enough to suggest it is a dream. And it's really not a "dream" as the filmmakers say, it is more of an alternate timeline. The filmmakers were too lazy to really create the tapestry of a dream -- with subtlety and imagery that meant something and actually pertained to the characters and story. That would have taken a bit more skill and dedication.
I thought Stamos' acting was serviceable. I don't see anything to nit pick about. What IS "good acting"? This girl has barely acted and considering the varying dimensions she had to play here, I think she did a good job.
Anyway, it's a decent film. The filmmakers' suggest it's worth watching a second time. Only for film afficionados, because you won't get any entertainment out of it unless you enjoy seeing Stamos undress again.
The above might illustrate where this movie goes wrong, if it goes wrong at all. The focus certainly isn't the plot (as there are some holes) or the dialogue (nothing inventive or new) or even the characters. The focus is style. It kept me intrigued most of the way through, but the movie looses it somewhat toward the end. I think a lot of people felt that.
The dream is simply ill-conceived. The little subtleties to signify it is a dream seem tacked on. I noticed a few of them but they certainly aren't enough to suggest it is a dream. And it's really not a "dream" as the filmmakers say, it is more of an alternate timeline. The filmmakers were too lazy to really create the tapestry of a dream -- with subtlety and imagery that meant something and actually pertained to the characters and story. That would have taken a bit more skill and dedication.
I thought Stamos' acting was serviceable. I don't see anything to nit pick about. What IS "good acting"? This girl has barely acted and considering the varying dimensions she had to play here, I think she did a good job.
Anyway, it's a decent film. The filmmakers' suggest it's worth watching a second time. Only for film afficionados, because you won't get any entertainment out of it unless you enjoy seeing Stamos undress again.