The Letter (2012) Reviews

• A contrived, sincere, but very limited film

  secondtake2013-12-01

  The Letter (2012) Wow, such mixed reviews on this movie. Either all thumbs up or bomb? No, but it is weirdly both terrific and horrible at once. Here's my explanation why. This is a re-shaped reality movie in the same big (and growing) genre as "Memento" and "Pulp Fiction." As the movie progresses you are made to figure out what's going on in the most basic sense, separating reality from hallucination from moviemaker's trickery. This is a gripping game at its best that draws you into the dilemma from the character's standpoint, and that also messes with the viewer's basic ability to create sense of it for it's own sake. But what these movies require is a combination of characters you care about and a logic that is purely cemented by the end. The two earlier examples are brilliant at it. Not so "The Letter." This movie has the bones of an excellent, lower-budget variation on a reality bending plot, but it fails to make the characters significant (or sympathetic in any way) and it never makes the illogic within the movie reasonable. This might give something away, but near the end a big sweeping explanation is frankly provided by a doctor, and I told myself I've been wasting an hour making sense of what is really a series of fairly jumbled impressions. They don't quite make sense, I think, though you might be able to chart out the various mixed up sections on a piece of paper if you watched it a couple more times. Maybe. But no one would have the stamina. It's a movie with an exterior of brilliance but it's so stripped down in its other components it's actually, oddly, boring. For one thing, most of the action happens on a theater stage, which allows a kind of reality within a reality (and this ain't new, as lovers of Shakespeare know). Quickly we see that the characters are getting mixed up with the actors—that is, from the point of view of the writer/director of the play in the film, played by Winona Ryder, the expressions and frustrations in the script of the play echo the reality of the real people. When scenes shift (often suddenly) to an apartment or other outside space, the same kinds of personae are at work. The people are the characters. But they have almost nothing to do, no real baggage to explore, no narrative elements that matter. So there is an implied infidelity (who knows?) and a bit of concern about that, and maybe an infidelity that grows as the film is being assembled, perhaps (who knows?). But so what? The final insult to all this is that film's low budget feel and its unwillingness to accept that—it tries to look bigger than it is. It's often filmed in a stale way, and then pumped up with tonal effects or with startling (or confusing) edits. You wish it would add up to something, but it doesn't. Other reviewers have said that it all makes sense by the end. I think not. I think it's explained away at the end, but that's different. And either way it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

• I've seen better pretentious local theatre

  getalong2013-02-27

  I watched the entire film waiting for a payoff. Through the discordant piano key jangling that was the soundtrack, through the dreary, dreary set, repetitive dialogue, artsy camera cuts and through it all, I was thinking of something we joke about at my book club. When a book is self important, draggy and boring, we always tell someone to google the writer to see if it was written by a college professor....it almost always is. At the end of this film, I was feeling cheated out of two hours of my life and I couldn't wait to get to IMDb to check the writer. College professor...and not just any professor, James Franco's professor. Ryder and Franco were irrelevant in this film as it was all about the dialogue. Ryder's role as play-write allowed the dialogue to be repeated over and over ad nauseum. It would have been an effective device had the dialogue been worth listening to once, let alone over again. Good actors were unnecessary in this film as their major contribution was to flash looks at each other. The camera went from one to the next for an hour like a stale SNL sketch...worried look glancing at another actor, horrified look, puzzled look, knowing look, insane look... Culminating in the big payoff... Spoiler! Ryder's character totally breaks down, weeping on a stranger and seeing him as someone else, then screaming and wondering why he was touching her. Jangling discordant piano reaches a crescendo and we cut to a doctor explaining that dumdumdummmmmb she's not insane, she's had poison powder from South America that makes you tell the truth. They blow the powder into the victims face...she's been exposed over a long period and the effect of long term exposure causes neurological problems. Ryder, looking startled and wide eyed looks out through gauzy curtains, daydreams a beach walk as dialogue happens ...fade to black and the viewer shaking their heads in disgust that this "horror" movie was just a poorly written attempt at art....we know it when we see it and this isn't it. "And I heard now, for the first time, the silver breath of wind in the ash tree whispering above me as I saw the shadows of the slender leaves tremble against the skin on my leg" A whole movie of dialogue just like that...save yourself two hours and rent anything else with any of these actors in it.

• One word: Genius

  sudri-karin2013-01-19

  I'm not surprised that such a movie is underrated in the culture of the hunger games and 3d Movies. I never expected I would ever see again a high standard movie and after the movie was over I was shocked.. without spoiling this movie reflects almost accurately that 'situation' Martin finds herself in. I longed for such films which leave a need to think and criticize reality as it is.. what is a dream..are we real..do we see everything as we should..This movie is no less then dogville in style. I hail Winona ryder for her honest and excellent acting. I think this is her best movie! Definitely worth watching!

• A movie that seemed artsy for the sake of being artsy. Tried it's hardest to be "Black Swan" but fell a little short. I say B-

  cosmo_tiger2012-09-24

  "On that first night of course we didn't know who you were, or what you would do to us, or what you would do to me." Martine (Ryder) is a New York playwright who is getting a chance to direct her boyfriend in a new play she wrote. Soon after rehearsals begin an unknown actor, Tyrone (Franco) shows up and begins to cause tension. His acting is good but he is hostile to everyone except Martine. While the rehearsals are going on Martine begins to become paranoid and thinks someone is trying to kill her. Her re-writes of the play begin to confuse the actors and the line between life and paranoia are blurred. First of all I will say this is not terrible but this is another movie that tries to be artsy for the sake of being artsy. I find the easiest way to describe movies sometimes are to compare them to others that many have seen. I open with that because it seemed like this movie tried it's hardest to be like "Black Swan" but never quite making it. Very limited scenery and actors but the main focus is on Martine's slow descent into madness. You begin to question if she is just overly paranoid or if her concerns are legit. This is the type of movie that keeps you wondering about that which helps you make it through. Overall, an OK movie but tried to be artsy for the sake of being artsy. I give it a B-.

• Yes, a movie that makes you think

  faithisagoodthing2012-10-30

  When I first saw the trailer for this movie on YouTube, I like many thought are you joking. The quality of the trailer was shockingly bad but I was still intrigued because I loved James Franco's work and as well as a welcome return in a leading role by Winona Ryder, since I have been a fan of her work for many years. Though, as it has already been stated, this movie is not to everyone's taste, but I'm not sure why this movie has such a low rating either? When you actually watch the movie, the quality seems to be alright. Yes, it has extremely complex levels of dreams by Winona's character (Martine), yet still very much entertaining. I thought the whole cast acted strongly and were great. It kind of reminded me somewhat of elements of Black Swan, Inception and Francophrenia especially in terms of levels. Sometimes, people classify movies as bad, if they can't breakdown the story quickly but I still felt the character's were warm. However, I appreciate a movie that makes you think, and if a repeat viewing is necessary then why not? Anyway, I don't really want to give any spoilers away but I do think more people should view this movie and form their own opinions on the conclusion. It's actually not the worst movie you could ever see and I enjoyed it but maybe, I'm biased because I love James and Winona. Seriously, it deserves a higher rating.