Ellen-Burstyn Movie Reviews


Silence of the North
Silence of the North

One of the Scariest Movies in History
What the hell 'possessed' me to watch this alone?
The definitive version of this landmark horror filmThe plot should be familiar to just about everyone. Linda Blair, in a truly remarkable performance, plays Regan MacNeil, the sweet and innocent twelve-year-old daughter of actress Chris McNeil (Ellen Burstyn) who becomes possessed by a demon. Jason Miller is Father Karras, a Jesuit priest battling his own demons of guilt over his mother's final days on earth and starting to lose his faith at the constant scenes of misery he sees all around him. After all medical and psychiatric tests and treatments fail to stop Regan's utter deterioration into a disturbed abomination of a child, Chris contacts Father Karras in an effort to arrange an exorcism. Max von Sydow plays Father Merrin, the pinnacle of good in this film who has battled this demon before and won; he is the exorcist in this ultimate battle of good versus evil.
The Exorcist truly is a powerful movie experience, filled with several of the most shocking scenes to ever appear on film. I was surprised that so many of the more controversial aspects of the story actually made it from novel to screen, especially in the original 1973 incarnation of the film. It's really impossible for me to say which is better, the film or the novel. There are several subplots and very significant details in the novel that did not make it to the big screen, and a few little things in the movie are hard to interpret outside the context of the novel. Among the most disturbing images in this film are those of the medical tests Regan undergoes after the onset of her problems. I find it much easier to watch the most graphic scenes wherein the demon within Regan attacks her and those around her, although Regan's appearance is shockingly horrible in the later stages of her possession. The demonic manifestations and exorcism are done extremely well in the movie; Friedkin did a much more powerful and convincing job than my own imagination in terms of showing the demonic manifestations. The movie adds several things to the exorcism itself that do not appear in the novel and, by and large, gives the exorcism itself more prevalence than Blatty himself did, yet it also manages to capture and express quite well the inner struggle and soul-rending doubts and fears of Father Karras. This inner struggle of good vs evil, of faith vs hopelessness strikes me as the heart of this story, and the movie communicates this surprisingly well.
The added scenes in this updated version of the film are crucial to the integrity of the story, though there are of course other fans who will argue that the new scenes do damage to the power and vision of the original. The film is just too rushed without the new footage, and the original film strikes a discordant note with Blatty's authorial vision. The most memorable scene that, until now, was not shown in the movie was the spiderwalk scene wherein Regan climbs down the stairs in an impossible and deliciously creepy position; I can't imagine for the life of me how that scene could have been left out of the original film. I had several questions along these lines, so I made it a point to listen to the film's commentary by director William Friedkin. Friedkin's initial discussion of the filming of the opening scene in Iraq is fascinating, but throughout the rest of the film he does little more than summarize what is happening, oftentimes quoting characters line for line. I think he makes a couple of misstatements about what we are seeing, and much to my surprise he offers motivations for the characters that I disagree with rather strongly. He tells us nothing about the making of the film, offers no praise for Linda Blair, says nothing about the ways in which the demonic scenes were produced, and mentions the new additions to the film only in passing if at all. There is very little "making of" material among all the DVD features, which is the one disappointment I take with me from this release of what is arguably the most significant and famous horror movie ever made.


One of the Scariest Movies in History
What the hell 'possessed' me to watch this alone?
The definitive version of this landmark horror filmThe plot should be familiar to just about everyone. Linda Blair, in a truly remarkable performance, plays Regan MacNeil, the sweet and innocent twelve-year-old daughter of actress Chris McNeil (Ellen Burstyn) who becomes possessed by a demon. Jason Miller is Father Karras, a Jesuit priest battling his own demons of guilt over his mother's final days on earth and starting to lose his faith at the constant scenes of misery he sees all around him. After all medical and psychiatric tests and treatments fail to stop Regan's utter deterioration into a disturbed abomination of a child, Chris contacts Father Karras in an effort to arrange an exorcism. Max von Sydow plays Father Merrin, the pinnacle of good in this film who has battled this demon before and won; he is the exorcist in this ultimate battle of good versus evil.
The Exorcist truly is a powerful movie experience, filled with several of the most shocking scenes to ever appear on film. I was surprised that so many of the more controversial aspects of the story actually made it from novel to screen, especially in the original 1973 incarnation of the film. It's really impossible for me to say which is better, the film or the novel. There are several subplots and very significant details in the novel that did not make it to the big screen, and a few little things in the movie are hard to interpret outside the context of the novel. Among the most disturbing images in this film are those of the medical tests Regan undergoes after the onset of her problems. I find it much easier to watch the most graphic scenes wherein the demon within Regan attacks her and those around her, although Regan's appearance is shockingly horrible in the later stages of her possession. The demonic manifestations and exorcism are done extremely well in the movie; Friedkin did a much more powerful and convincing job than my own imagination in terms of showing the demonic manifestations. The movie adds several things to the exorcism itself that do not appear in the novel and, by and large, gives the exorcism itself more prevalence than Blatty himself did, yet it also manages to capture and express quite well the inner struggle and soul-rending doubts and fears of Father Karras. This inner struggle of good vs evil, of faith vs hopelessness strikes me as the heart of this story, and the movie communicates this surprisingly well.
The added scenes in this updated version of the film are crucial to the integrity of the story, though there are of course other fans who will argue that the new scenes do damage to the power and vision of the original. The film is just too rushed without the new footage, and the original film strikes a discordant note with Blatty's authorial vision. The most memorable scene that, until now, was not shown in the movie was the spiderwalk scene wherein Regan climbs down the stairs in an impossible and deliciously creepy position; I can't imagine for the life of me how that scene could have been left out of the original film. I had several questions along these lines, so I made it a point to listen to the film's commentary by director William Friedkin. Friedkin's initial discussion of the filming of the opening scene in Iraq is fascinating, but throughout the rest of the film he does little more than summarize what is happening, oftentimes quoting characters line for line. I think he makes a couple of misstatements about what we are seeing, and much to my surprise he offers motivations for the characters that I disagree with rather strongly. He tells us nothing about the making of the film, offers no praise for Linda Blair, says nothing about the ways in which the demonic scenes were produced, and mentions the new additions to the film only in passing if at all. There is very little "making of" material among all the DVD features, which is the one disappointment I take with me from this release of what is arguably the most significant and famous horror movie ever made.

The film focuses on a quartet of doomed souls, but it's Ellen Burstyn--in a raw and bravely triumphant performance--who most desperately embodies the downward spiral of drug abuse. As lonely widow Sara Goldfarb, she invests all of her dreams in an absurd self-help TV game show, jolting her bloodstream with diet pills and coffee while her son Harry (Jared Leto) shoots heroin with his best friend Tyrone (Marlon Wayans) and slumming girlfriend Marion (Jennifer Connelly). They're careening toward madness at varying speeds, and Aronofsky tracks this gloomy process by endlessly repeating the imagery of their deadly routines. Tormented by her dietary regime, Sara even imagines a carnivorous refrigerator in one of the film's most memorable scenes. And yet... does any of this have a point? Is Aronofsky telling us anything that any sane person doesn't already know? Requiem for a Dream is a noteworthy film, but watching it twice would qualify as masochistic behavior. --Jeff Shannon

awsomemy only problem(s) with the movie is just the way it made me feel. i didnt really ever wanna see it again afterwords. it fascinated me but i didnt feel... i dunno... good, watching it. it felt like something was horribly horribly wrong. i got the same disturbed feeling from "a clockwork orange". another fascinating masterpiece of stanley kubrick ( one of the greatest directors of ALL time ) if you have a weak stomach.. you may wanyt to avvert you eyes at times. the performances where convinceing and the story, although semi-plotless. now im giving it a 4 because... i didnt like the way the movie made me feel. BUT, i thought the movie was excellent.
Heartbreaking, brilliant, unforgettableThe resulting film is as horrific and fascinating as anything ever put on a screen. The plot isn't complicated: Junkie Harry (a nearly unrecognizeable Jared Leto) takes to pawning his mother's TV set for heroin. His buddy Tyrone (Marlon Wayans, in a performance that makes his turn in "Scary Movie" and other junk look like total red herrings) hatches a plan with him to score for a pound of pure and put them on the fast track to riches. Harry's girlfriend Marion (Jennifer Connelly) has vague plans of opening a boutique with her share of the gains. And Harry's mother (a truly amazing Ellen Burstyn) is obsessed with appearing on her favorite TV show.
Movies like this are not about plotting but emotion. We know there is no happy ending possible here; what matters is not what happens but how and to what extent. The final 20 minutes -- which have been written about endlessly elsewhere -- are a masterpiece of Soviet-style intercutting and gradually mounting, excruciating tension that does not even end with the release of death, but with the promise of unending, ongoing pain.
This isn't a pretty movie. This isn't a movie for your mother (well, I guess that depends on the family), or a movie for the whole family. This is a movie about despair and destroyed dreams. In short, this is a movie about something -- and it tells its story with such fierce style and power that it almost makes issues of taste or subject matter irrelevant. You may not like the film -- and there are many who don't -- but you can't deny its power, or the skill involved in making it.
A very heavy, important film
The film focuses on a quartet of doomed souls, but it's Ellen Burstyn--in a raw and bravely triumphant performance--who most desperately embodies the downward spiral of drug abuse. As lonely widow Sara Goldfarb, she invests all of her dreams in an absurd self-help TV game show, jolting her bloodstream with diet pills and coffee while her son Harry (Jared Leto) shoots heroin with his best friend Tyrone (Marlon Wayans) and slumming girlfriend Marion (Jennifer Connelly). They're careening toward madness at varying speeds, and Aronofsky tracks this gloomy process by endlessly repeating the imagery of their deadly routines. Tormented by her dietary regime, Sara even imagines a carnivorous refrigerator in one of the film's most memorable scenes. And yet... does any of this have a point? Is Aronofsky telling us anything that any sane person doesn't already know? Requiem for a Dream is a noteworthy film, but watching it twice would qualify as masochistic behavior. --Jeff Shannon

awsomemy only problem(s) with the movie is just the way it made me feel. i didnt really ever wanna see it again afterwords. it fascinated me but i didnt feel... i dunno... good, watching it. it felt like something was horribly horribly wrong. i got the same disturbed feeling from "a clockwork orange". another fascinating masterpiece of stanley kubrick ( one of the greatest directors of ALL time ) if you have a weak stomach.. you may wanyt to avvert you eyes at times. the performances where convinceing and the story, although semi-plotless. now im giving it a 4 because... i didnt like the way the movie made me feel. BUT, i thought the movie was excellent.
Heartbreaking, brilliant, unforgettableThe resulting film is as horrific and fascinating as anything ever put on a screen. The plot isn't complicated: Junkie Harry (a nearly unrecognizeable Jared Leto) takes to pawning his mother's TV set for heroin. His buddy Tyrone (Marlon Wayans, in a performance that makes his turn in "Scary Movie" and other junk look like total red herrings) hatches a plan with him to score for a pound of pure and put them on the fast track to riches. Harry's girlfriend Marion (Jennifer Connelly) has vague plans of opening a boutique with her share of the gains. And Harry's mother (a truly amazing Ellen Burstyn) is obsessed with appearing on her favorite TV show.
Movies like this are not about plotting but emotion. We know there is no happy ending possible here; what matters is not what happens but how and to what extent. The final 20 minutes -- which have been written about endlessly elsewhere -- are a masterpiece of Soviet-style intercutting and gradually mounting, excruciating tension that does not even end with the release of death, but with the promise of unending, ongoing pain.
This isn't a pretty movie. This isn't a movie for your mother (well, I guess that depends on the family), or a movie for the whole family. This is a movie about despair and destroyed dreams. In short, this is a movie about something -- and it tells its story with such fierce style and power that it almost makes issues of taste or subject matter irrelevant. You may not like the film -- and there are many who don't -- but you can't deny its power, or the skill involved in making it.
A very heavy, important film
The film focuses on a quartet of doomed souls, but it's Ellen Burstyn--in a raw and bravely triumphant performance--who most desperately embodies the downward spiral of drug abuse. As lonely widow Sara Goldfarb, she invests all of her dreams in an absurd self-help TV game show, jolting her bloodstream with diet pills and coffee while her son Harry (Jared Leto) shoots heroin with his best friend Tyrone (Marlon Wayans) and slumming girlfriend Marion (Jennifer Connelly). They're careening toward madness at varying speeds, and Aronofsky tracks this gloomy process by endlessly repeating the imagery of their deadly routines. Tormented by her dietary regime, Sara even imagines a carnivorous refrigerator in one of the film's most memorable scenes. And yet... does any of this have a point? Is Aronofsky telling us anything that any sane person doesn't already know? Requiem for a Dream is a noteworthy film, but watching it twice would qualify as masochistic behavior. --Jeff Shannon

awsomemy only problem(s) with the movie is just the way it made me feel. i didnt really ever wanna see it again afterwords. it fascinated me but i didnt feel... i dunno... good, watching it. it felt like something was horribly horribly wrong. i got the same disturbed feeling from "a clockwork orange". another fascinating masterpiece of stanley kubrick ( one of the greatest directors of ALL time ) if you have a weak stomach.. you may wanyt to avvert you eyes at times. the performances where convinceing and the story, although semi-plotless. now im giving it a 4 because... i didnt like the way the movie made me feel. BUT, i thought the movie was excellent.
Heartbreaking, brilliant, unforgettableThe resulting film is as horrific and fascinating as anything ever put on a screen. The plot isn't complicated: Junkie Harry (a nearly unrecognizeable Jared Leto) takes to pawning his mother's TV set for heroin. His buddy Tyrone (Marlon Wayans, in a performance that makes his turn in "Scary Movie" and other junk look like total red herrings) hatches a plan with him to score for a pound of pure and put them on the fast track to riches. Harry's girlfriend Marion (Jennifer Connelly) has vague plans of opening a boutique with her share of the gains. And Harry's mother (a truly amazing Ellen Burstyn) is obsessed with appearing on her favorite TV show.
Movies like this are not about plotting but emotion. We know there is no happy ending possible here; what matters is not what happens but how and to what extent. The final 20 minutes -- which have been written about endlessly elsewhere -- are a masterpiece of Soviet-style intercutting and gradually mounting, excruciating tension that does not even end with the release of death, but with the promise of unending, ongoing pain.
This isn't a pretty movie. This isn't a movie for your mother (well, I guess that depends on the family), or a movie for the whole family. This is a movie about despair and destroyed dreams. In short, this is a movie about something -- and it tells its story with such fierce style and power that it almost makes issues of taste or subject matter irrelevant. You may not like the film -- and there are many who don't -- but you can't deny its power, or the skill involved in making it.
A very heavy, important film
The film focuses on a quartet of doomed souls, but it's Ellen Burstyn--in a raw and bravely triumphant performance--who most desperately embodies the downward spiral of drug abuse. As lonely widow Sara Goldfarb, she invests all of her dreams in an absurd self-help TV game show, jolting her bloodstream with diet pills and coffee while her son Harry (Jared Leto) shoots heroin with his best friend Tyrone (Marlon Wayans) and slumming girlfriend Marion (Jennifer Connelly). They're careening toward madness at varying speeds, and Aronofsky tracks this gloomy process by endlessly repeating the imagery of their deadly routines. Tormented by her dietary regime, Sara even imagines a carnivorous refrigerator in one of the film's most memorable scenes. And yet... does any of this have a point? Is Aronofsky telling us anything that any sane person doesn't already know? Requiem for a Dream is a noteworthy film, but watching it twice would qualify as masochistic behavior. --Jeff Shannon

awsomemy only problem(s) with the movie is just the way it made me feel. i didnt really ever wanna see it again afterwords. it fascinated me but i didnt feel... i dunno... good, watching it. it felt like something was horribly horribly wrong. i got the same disturbed feeling from "a clockwork orange". another fascinating masterpiece of stanley kubrick ( one of the greatest directors of ALL time ) if you have a weak stomach.. you may wanyt to avvert you eyes at times. the performances where convinceing and the story, although semi-plotless. now im giving it a 4 because... i didnt like the way the movie made me feel. BUT, i thought the movie was excellent.
Heartbreaking, brilliant, unforgettableThe resulting film is as horrific and fascinating as anything ever put on a screen. The plot isn't complicated: Junkie Harry (a nearly unrecognizeable Jared Leto) takes to pawning his mother's TV set for heroin. His buddy Tyrone (Marlon Wayans, in a performance that makes his turn in "Scary Movie" and other junk look like total red herrings) hatches a plan with him to score for a pound of pure and put them on the fast track to riches. Harry's girlfriend Marion (Jennifer Connelly) has vague plans of opening a boutique with her share of the gains. And Harry's mother (a truly amazing Ellen Burstyn) is obsessed with appearing on her favorite TV show.
Movies like this are not about plotting but emotion. We know there is no happy ending possible here; what matters is not what happens but how and to what extent. The final 20 minutes -- which have been written about endlessly elsewhere -- are a masterpiece of Soviet-style intercutting and gradually mounting, excruciating tension that does not even end with the release of death, but with the promise of unending, ongoing pain.
This isn't a pretty movie. This isn't a movie for your mother (well, I guess that depends on the family), or a movie for the whole family. This is a movie about despair and destroyed dreams. In short, this is a movie about something -- and it tells its story with such fierce style and power that it almost makes issues of taste or subject matter irrelevant. You may not like the film -- and there are many who don't -- but you can't deny its power, or the skill involved in making it.
A very heavy, important film
The film focuses on a quartet of doomed souls, but it's Ellen Burstyn--in a raw and bravely triumphant performance--who most desperately embodies the downward spiral of drug abuse. As lonely widow Sara Goldfarb, she invests all of her dreams in an absurd self-help TV game show, jolting her bloodstream with diet pills and coffee while her son Harry (Jared Leto) shoots heroin with his best friend Tyrone (Marlon Wayans) and slumming girlfriend Marion (Jennifer Connelly). They're careening toward madness at varying speeds, and Aronofsky tracks this gloomy process by endlessly repeating the imagery of their deadly routines. Tormented by her dietary regime, Sara even imagines a carnivorous refrigerator in one of the film's most memorable scenes. And yet... does any of this have a point? Is Aronofsky telling us anything that any sane person doesn't already know? Requiem for a Dream is a noteworthy film, but watching it twice would qualify as masochistic behavior. --Jeff Shannon

awsomemy only problem(s) with the movie is just the way it made me feel. i didnt really ever wanna see it again afterwords. it fascinated me but i didnt feel... i dunno... good, watching it. it felt like something was horribly horribly wrong. i got the same disturbed feeling from "a clockwork orange". another fascinating masterpiece of stanley kubrick ( one of the greatest directors of ALL time ) if you have a weak stomach.. you may wanyt to avvert you eyes at times. the performances where convinceing and the story, although semi-plotless. now im giving it a 4 because... i didnt like the way the movie made me feel. BUT, i thought the movie was excellent.
Heartbreaking, brilliant, unforgettableThe resulting film is as horrific and fascinating as anything ever put on a screen. The plot isn't complicated: Junkie Harry (a nearly unrecognizeable Jared Leto) takes to pawning his mother's TV set for heroin. His buddy Tyrone (Marlon Wayans, in a performance that makes his turn in "Scary Movie" and other junk look like total red herrings) hatches a plan with him to score for a pound of pure and put them on the fast track to riches. Harry's girlfriend Marion (Jennifer Connelly) has vague plans of opening a boutique with her share of the gains. And Harry's mother (a truly amazing Ellen Burstyn) is obsessed with appearing on her favorite TV show.
Movies like this are not about plotting but emotion. We know there is no happy ending possible here; what matters is not what happens but how and to what extent. The final 20 minutes -- which have been written about endlessly elsewhere -- are a masterpiece of Soviet-style intercutting and gradually mounting, excruciating tension that does not even end with the release of death, but with the promise of unending, ongoing pain.
This isn't a pretty movie. This isn't a movie for your mother (well, I guess that depends on the family), or a movie for the whole family. This is a movie about despair and destroyed dreams. In short, this is a movie about something -- and it tells its story with such fierce style and power that it almost makes issues of taste or subject matter irrelevant. You may not like the film -- and there are many who don't -- but you can't deny its power, or the skill involved in making it.
A very heavy, important film
The film focuses on a quartet of doomed souls, but it's Ellen Burstyn--in a raw and bravely triumphant performance--who most desperately embodies the downward spiral of drug abuse. As lonely widow Sara Goldfarb, she invests all of her dreams in an absurd self-help TV game show, jolting her bloodstream with diet pills and coffee while her son Harry (Jared Leto) shoots heroin with his best friend Tyrone (Marlon Wayans) and slumming girlfriend Marion (Jennifer Connelly). They're careening toward madness at varying speeds, and Aronofsky tracks this gloomy process by endlessly repeating the imagery of their deadly routines. Tormented by her dietary regime, Sara even imagines a carnivorous refrigerator in one of the film's most memorable scenes. And yet... does any of this have a point? Is Aronofsky telling us anything that any sane person doesn't already know? Requiem for a Dream is a noteworthy film, but watching it twice would qualify as masochistic behavior. --Jeff Shannon

awsomemy only problem(s) with the movie is just the way it made me feel. i didnt really ever wanna see it again afterwords. it fascinated me but i didnt feel... i dunno... good, watching it. it felt like something was horribly horribly wrong. i got the same disturbed feeling from "a clockwork orange". another fascinating masterpiece of stanley kubrick ( one of the greatest directors of ALL time ) if you have a weak stomach.. you may wanyt to avvert you eyes at times. the performances where convinceing and the story, although semi-plotless. now im giving it a 4 because... i didnt like the way the movie made me feel. BUT, i thought the movie was excellent.
Heartbreaking, brilliant, unforgettableThe resulting film is as horrific and fascinating as anything ever put on a screen. The plot isn't complicated: Junkie Harry (a nearly unrecognizeable Jared Leto) takes to pawning his mother's TV set for heroin. His buddy Tyrone (Marlon Wayans, in a performance that makes his turn in "Scary Movie" and other junk look like total red herrings) hatches a plan with him to score for a pound of pure and put them on the fast track to riches. Harry's girlfriend Marion (Jennifer Connelly) has vague plans of opening a boutique with her share of the gains. And Harry's mother (a truly amazing Ellen Burstyn) is obsessed with appearing on her favorite TV show.
Movies like this are not about plotting but emotion. We know there is no happy ending possible here; what matters is not what happens but how and to what extent. The final 20 minutes -- which have been written about endlessly elsewhere -- are a masterpiece of Soviet-style intercutting and gradually mounting, excruciating tension that does not even end with the release of death, but with the promise of unending, ongoing pain.
This isn't a pretty movie. This isn't a movie for your mother (well, I guess that depends on the family), or a movie for the whole family. This is a movie about despair and destroyed dreams. In short, this is a movie about something -- and it tells its story with such fierce style and power that it almost makes issues of taste or subject matter irrelevant. You may not like the film -- and there are many who don't -- but you can't deny its power, or the skill involved in making it.
A very heavy, important film
The film focuses on a quartet of doomed souls, but it's Ellen Burstyn--in a raw and bravely triumphant performance--who most desperately embodies the downward spiral of drug abuse. As lonely widow Sara Goldfarb, she invests all of her dreams in an absurd self-help TV game show, jolting her bloodstream with diet pills and coffee while her son Harry (Jared Leto) shoots heroin with his best friend Tyrone (Marlon Wayans) and slumming girlfriend Marion (Jennifer Connelly). They're careening toward madness at varying speeds, and Aronofsky tracks this gloomy process by endlessly repeating the imagery of their deadly routines. Tormented by her dietary regime, Sara even imagines a carnivorous refrigerator in one of the film's most memorable scenes. And yet... does any of this have a point? Is Aronofsky telling us anything that any sane person doesn't already know? Requiem for a Dream is a noteworthy film, but watching it twice would qualify as masochistic behavior. --Jeff Shannon

awsomemy only problem(s) with the movie is just the way it made me feel. i didnt really ever wanna see it again afterwords. it fascinated me but i didnt feel... i dunno... good, watching it. it felt like something was horribly horribly wrong. i got the same disturbed feeling from "a clockwork orange". another fascinating masterpiece of stanley kubrick ( one of the greatest directors of ALL time ) if you have a weak stomach.. you may wanyt to avvert you eyes at times. the performances where convinceing and the story, although semi-plotless. now im giving it a 4 because... i didnt like the way the movie made me feel. BUT, i thought the movie was excellent.
Heartbreaking, brilliant, unforgettableThe resulting film is as horrific and fascinating as anything ever put on a screen. The plot isn't complicated: Junkie Harry (a nearly unrecognizeable Jared Leto) takes to pawning his mother's TV set for heroin. His buddy Tyrone (Marlon Wayans, in a performance that makes his turn in "Scary Movie" and other junk look like total red herrings) hatches a plan with him to score for a pound of pure and put them on the fast track to riches. Harry's girlfriend Marion (Jennifer Connelly) has vague plans of opening a boutique with her share of the gains. And Harry's mother (a truly amazing Ellen Burstyn) is obsessed with appearing on her favorite TV show.
Movies like this are not about plotting but emotion. We know there is no happy ending possible here; what matters is not what happens but how and to what extent. The final 20 minutes -- which have been written about endlessly elsewhere -- are a masterpiece of Soviet-style intercutting and gradually mounting, excruciating tension that does not even end with the release of death, but with the promise of unending, ongoing pain.
This isn't a pretty movie. This isn't a movie for your mother (well, I guess that depends on the family), or a movie for the whole family. This is a movie about despair and destroyed dreams. In short, this is a movie about something -- and it tells its story with such fierce style and power that it almost makes issues of taste or subject matter irrelevant. You may not like the film -- and there are many who don't -- but you can't deny its power, or the skill involved in making it.
A very heavy, important film