خرائط للنجوم

فيلم جيد!

Review: I really didn't enjoy this movie at all. I found the storyline slow and uninteresting and the spoilt rich movie stars got on my nerves. There are quite a few story lines going on at once, which doesn't help the round the bend concept, and the different characters were a strange mix which didn't really work, in my opinion. You've got this cocky young movie star whose rude to everyone around him, including his parents, and you've got an elderly lady whose also a film star whose got personal issues after a strange upbringing. Then you've got a limo driver who struggling to get into the movie world and then there's the main character whose just been released from a psychiatric ward and tries to rekindle her relationship with her family. Personally, I think that there was just too much going on at once and it ended up seeming like a right mess. Some of the scenes were a bit over the top, like the woman setting herself alight, and the ending made the movie seem pointless. It's basically a look into the dark world of fame in Hollywood, through Cronenberg's eyes, and how everything really isn't what it seems. I didn't enjoy the film but I'm sure that there's people who are in that strange world that can relate to it. Disappointing! Round-Up: After seeing the cast list of this movie, my expectations were quite high, but I should have known that it was going to be something strange after seeing that Cronenberg was directing it. He really does have a unique style of directing which you either love or hate. Movies like Spider, Dead Ringers, Videodrome and Scanners have always got mixed reviews but he has also come out with some all time classics like The Fly remake and Crash. Robert Pattinson is on fire at the moment, which is why I thought that this movie was going to be bigger than it was but his small role wasn't that impressive. Julianne Moore put in an emotional performance but it wasn't enough to save this off the wall movie. John Cusack also put in a great performance but his character was a bit weird. Anyway, I personally won't be watching again in a hurry and it looks like it didn't go down well in Hollywood either. Budget: $13million Worldwide Gross: $3.5million I recommend this movie to people who are into there weird dramas about the various problems that can arise whilst dealing with fame in Hollywood. 3/10

How this movie got such a high rating on IMDb is beyond me.... All these "critics" before me that call this a "masterpeace" !? Oh please...who's butt are you crawling up into ? Have they been watching the same crap I just did...the same crap I couldn't even finish... I stopped the agony half way through ! I wanted to watch this movie because of all the big names in the cast...and maybe the acting wasn't all that bad...but the script ? OMG ! Who wrote this pile of dirt ? And they even got nominated for a Palm D'Ore ??? Well if this is what they nominate for best picture then I can't even imagine what kind of fools do the selecting for those awards....

Anyone worried that a David Cronenberg film about the inner workings of Hollywood would not be filled with copious amounts of ick, rest assured. The ick abounds in "Maps to the Stars," a fascinating film that must be something like what watching a grisly car accident in slow motion would feel like. Julianne Moore won her Oscar for the bland and award-bait "Still Alice" last year, but THIS is the movie for which she should have won. Utterly lacking in vanity, Moore tears into the role of a washed up actress struggling night and day to stage her comeback. Think Norma Desmond without the black and white studio sheen of "Sunset Boulevard" and the filters that were necessarily in place back when Billy Wilder's dark satire was released. This film is like rummaging through Norma Desmond's underwear. Mia Wasikowska is great as well as Moore's hanger on and personal assistant who unravels and goes off the deep end and beyond. Swirling around these two characters are plot lines involving a troubled child star, lots and lots of incest, and enough frantic desperation to fill a sequel to "Mulholland Drive." Whenever I see a movie like this, I immediately wonder how true it is vs. how exaggerated for effect. For example, did Halle Berry or Nicole Kidman at one point in their careers have to subject themselves to the indignities shown or implied in this film? But then I think there has to be a lot of truth to movies like this, "Mulholland Drive," etc., which makes me glad I decided to be an anonymous Joe as opposed to a superstar. For every Julia Roberts, there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of desperate people out there waiting for the big break that will never come, or who can't handle it when it eventually does. Grade: A-

Slick direction and some good acting could not save this movie. The talents were wasted, and so was the time spent watching it. There was little to like in the story line, and nothing to learn from; it would be akin to watching the worst of reality TV. It started innocently enough with a young girl's arrival in Hollywood and the mystery surrounding her search there. Even the title suggested something light or, at worst, innocuous, since "maps to the stars" refers to the maps you can buy on Hollywood street corners that tell you which houses are occupied by the rich and famous. It ended up as an unwarranted view into the details of the lives of people no normal person should have any interest in. There wasn't even the guilty pleasure of a voyeur into the lives of the weird or wicked. These were just losers. So was the film.

This is the story of a bunch of creeps, Hollywood-style. If you can sympathise with the following characters, you probably will like the movie: *Benji, ex-junkie teenager TV show star, jealous about child actors; *Cristina and Stafford, couple of weirdos parents, exploiting said teenage junkie; *Agatha, homicidal schizophrenic girl stalking her family; *Havana, washed-up actress, consumed by the desire of playing her mother's part in a remake. On the other hand, if you think that the rich are different from you and me, you will probably find it difficult to sympathise with a "poor" kid actor earning only 6 million per season instead of 8. In fact, you might not get the point of this flaccid tale, unless that is "even rich people have their problems". If emotional engagement is not your thing, you might still have problems with the script and editing. The movie contains several overlong scenes that add nothing to story, except underlining how depraved the Hollywood crowd is. The party scene, with the despicable conversation among teenagers is a very good example. Then there is a scene with Havana, the Moore character, sitting on the crapper and farting away, while having a conversation with her assistant. This is usually described as "vanity-free" interpretation by the critics. Which means, Hollywood stars looking like you and me in the morning, rather than their red-carpet version. In turn, this is interpreted as "mega-stars demeaning their supernatural status, thus deserving an Oscar". Finally, several "ghost scenes" are scattered liberally in the story. They are among the worst I have ever seen, Havana's ghost mum being the most risible of the bunch. Eventually bad things happen to bad people and the movie ends not a second too soon, but who cares: this is a movie -as somebody wrote- that you want to forget you saw.

It's always good to see that some writers still can write real good dialogues that are able to captivate, and this quality participates greatly to the enchanting aspect of the movie. But if David Cronenberg and Bruce Wagner managed to depict the cruel world of Hollywood and its backstage with verve, cynicism and a lot of humour, why did they feel compelled to do too much especially with those ludicrous visions that completely annihilate a movie that started off pretty well ? As often happens with Cronenberg, we therefore wind up with a few risible and unbelievable points that makes the film look like a Z movie, just thinking about the scene with the dog and the reactions of the characters, or the final confrontation between Havana and Agatha — and Julianne Moore's terrible acting — is cringeworthy. It's real shame because the writing quality only serves a scenario whose plot is badly defined and weighed down by some very dispensable elements.

The apparent, laudable, intention of basing the plot of this film on a subjective and distorted vision of reality, is shipwrecked by an excess of clichés and a poor characterization of the characters, constructed so contrived and trivial. Is this the representation of what Hollywood people really are? Thanks, but we already knew that! No reason to go to the cinema only to listen this lesson again. The result is a hodgepodge of clichés and stereotypes already seen on Hollywood and its flaws, without a plot, without wit, without malice, without feeling, all packaged and presented in a neutral manner, and that leaves neutral and fails to thrill the audience. The movie tediously flows in the total absence of emotions and surprises, despite the surreal outbursts of violence, until the trite ending, that does not vary so much compared to what you can already imagine after you've seen the first fifteen minutes of the movie.

Honestly, a waste of a good cast, and a waste of my time. I saw this at a film festival recently, and it was the only "1" review I gave, out of the 41 movies I saw. Who doesn't already know that Hollywood is chock full of self obsessed tossers? It was not even entertaining in its awfulness. Talking about the film after (which is what one does while standing in lines at festivals), no one could figure out how Julianne Moore and John Cusack and other fine actors could have let themselves in for this. If you want to see a decent send-up of Hollywood, go back and watch The Player.

Before talking about "Maps to the Stars", I have to say that, two years ago, I had already seen and deeply appreciated David Cronenberg's "Cosmopolis": this particular movie, as its ideal sequel, represent not only, as many people may suggest, a critic towards the Hollywood society, but a consideration about a larger group of people. People afflicted by an attitude of alienation, that is taking a distance from themselves in order to reach qualities or values imposed, often not manifestly but in a rather faint way, by society. The protagonist of Cosmopolis is in fact a rich young man (even his tender age could be meaningful) who completely embodies a certain role and a certain stereotype, and who, therefore, has completely lost himself, insofar as he cannot create solid relationships with anybody anymore. Maps to the Stars includes and, at the same time, goes beyond this matter: being probably influenced by Sigmund Freud's theories about childhood traumas and their long-term consequences, Cronenberg depicts a society full of neurotic individuals, who, though adult, still have to deal with past events and are deeply influenced by them. Ironically, all the children in the movie, who may have the possibility to live a different existence from their parents' one, are destroyed by the faults of the latter. Thus giving birth to a vicious circle which ends with no less than a conclusion as much pessimistic as striking: an act of liberation (not to spoiler anything at all) of two main characters. The wonderful poem "Liberté" by Paul Éluard, as a matter of fact, echoes across the entire movie, as much in the words of the characters as in a fading kind of way, like a "fil rouge" that represent both the other face of the corrupted society and an escape to it as well. As far as the technical sphere is concerned, cinematography and music play a fundamental role in determining a quite distorted vision of reality, insofar as they may as well represent the psychology of characters itself: cold colours and a peacefully rhythmic air create an atmosphere of strangeness that vibrates into the depths of the spectator's mind, making the latter fall into a sort of constant hypnosis. Hypnosis that could last until the very end of the movie. As it may be already clear, I deeply recommend watching this movie, in theaters especially - given its majestic technical qualities. Nevertheless, I have to say that, also being a "Palme d'Or" nominated movie, Maps to the Stars is not recommendable for people who are looking for a funny and simple movie: Cronenberg's critic is not comparable to a Woody-Allen kind of irony - although I really love his one as well - but it is a more serious and interpretive one.