Paramount Vantage | Release Date: March 10, 2006
7.6
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 40 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
28
Mixed:
5
Negative:
7
Watch Now
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
7
GREEK-GODJan 8, 2018
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. 1939. John Fante writes "Ask the Dust", the tale of a young man embarking on a literary career. Years later a young Robert Towne stumbles upon and voraciously devours Fante's novels, most of which attempt to paint a portrait of early 20th century Los Angeles. Decades pass. Towne embarks on his own literary career. He scores big with his screenplay for Roman Polanski's "Chinatown", a LA set noir influenced and flavoured by Fante. Towne and Fante personally meet in the 1970s. Fante dies in 1983. Two decades later Towne adapts "Ask the Dust" for the screen. Those looking for a faithful adaptation of Fante's novel will be disappointed. Towne has been sculpted "Ask the Dusk" into a deliberate, five-way romance: a distillation of Towne's long-time love for Fante, Towne's adoration of noir (and its assorted signs, trinkets and decor), Towne and Fante's love for early Los Angeles (its history, its characters, locales and heartbeat), Towne's idealisation of the Romantic image of the struggling artist, and the in-film love affair between an artist (played by Colin Farrell) and a Mexican waitress (Salma Hayek). The film can't touch Nicholas Ray's "In A Lonely Place", but to those attuned to Towne's very specific yearnings it's a very good film. Towne's no visualist, but he's a good enough writer to capture the essence of a noirish LA, with its flapping curtains, decrepit apartments, barflies, lonely hearts, drunks, scroungers, con-men, palm trees and sun-baked pavements. It's a nostalgia rush, all of which is married to an idealised, heavily romanticised portrait of a struggling artist – super good looking of course – who spends his time bedding lush Mexican women (a bosomy Salma Hayek) or sitting valiantly at a typewriter, pounding prose on page while chiaroscuro lighting bathes his body. The most interesting thing about the film, though, is its narrative arc. Farrell, who plays our budding artist (a surrogate for both Towne and Fante), has a massive insecurity complex and hates himself because he's Italian. Of course many burgeoning artists develop their artistic talents as a means of assuaging personal issues (alienation, rootlessness, self esteem problems etc). Art them becomes a means of reconnection; the product of the outsider looking inwards. The marginality of the artist then often results in the artist developing, as a sort of self-defense mechanism, a sense of superiority or inflated ego ("I hate them for making me an outsider", "I want to be with them", "I am too good to be with them", "I'm a great artist", "superior", "going places", "don't need them", "so confused!" etc). As the artist must put him or herself far out on the line, and often stand alone, such an inflation – or an almost bipolar flip-flop from feelings of unworthiness to massive self-exaltation – then becomes all that keeps her or him persevering. Now the Farrell character, because he is supremely self-loathing, begins to lash out at anyone and anything that reminds him of his own lowliness. One of his targets is Salma Hayek's character (too beautiful for such a role), a poor Mexican waitress. She reminds him of that which he wishes to escape. By the film's end, however, Farrell drops his hate, his aloofness, and begins to identify with others, empathize and speak up for them. Being a writer then becomes not a mark of status, but a duty. This tension itself increasingly obsessed Fante, his books ostensibly revolving around arrogant characters seeking independence, fame and success, while actually serving as a vehicle to introduce readers to a city, its inhabitants and their plights. In the film, Farrell's re-connection with the marginalized - the very subjects of his future art - is symbolized as a series of romantic or sexual encounters with physically deformed women and society's dregs. The film is not about "immigration", "racism" and "poverty", as some claim, but something more generalized: artists or spectators forging emphatic connections with their objects. As empathy by definition cannot function without imagination, you might say empathy is itself a kind of art. This is why it is important that Towne prolong the sex scene between Farrell and Hayek, and why it is important that it is at her most desirable moment that she cough and be sickly. Incidentally, evolutionary speaking, empathy or "sharing someone else's emotion" need not yield pro-social behavior. If perceiving another person in a painful circumstance elicits personal, physical or emotional distress, then the observer may tend not to attend fully to the other's experience and as a result seem to lack sympathetic behaviors. As emphatic concern can lead to personal distress, such "commections" are also often blocked out. This may explain why, statistically, excessively empathetic humans are less likely to be pro-social and perhaps why artists prefer to disconnect and engage with the world safely by proxy. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
1
JayE.Apr 10, 2006
This film was so dreadful, my wife has relieved me for cause as the movie chooser. One scene alone really worked: the hero's being nearly overwhelmed by nighttime surf; and even that scene was too long by half. Many of the others were This film was so dreadful, my wife has relieved me for cause as the movie chooser. One scene alone really worked: the hero's being nearly overwhelmed by nighttime surf; and even that scene was too long by half. Many of the others were ludicrous: a desperate down-and-outer spending his last dime on a beer which he then pours into a spitoon to spite a waitress he dislikes ; a destitue Mexican waitresswho can't afford proper shoes, but owns an automobile; an earthquake which leaves its dead victims atop, rather than buried by, fallen buildings; a TB victim on her death bed looking like a cover girl and using her last breath to deliver fluent, Dale Carnegie-like advice onthe value of making a good first impression. This woefully miscast mess lacked credibility, continuity and character development. My genteel wife said it all " I hate this expression, but that movie truly sucked." [The 1 point is for set dressing] Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
GeorgeR.Mar 11, 2006
Narrowing the grand -- though no less lonely -- scope of the book, to the hero
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
CarlinhosB.Mar 7, 2006
It's great. Salma Hayek gives the best performance of her entire career, better than FRDIA!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
KenG.Apr 3, 2006
The irony here is that Towne is well know as a highly talented scriptwriter, yet the biggest problem with this movie is that much of it was terribly written. Basically, every single scene between Farrell and Hayek, for the first 2/3rds of The irony here is that Towne is well know as a highly talented scriptwriter, yet the biggest problem with this movie is that much of it was terribly written. Basically, every single scene between Farrell and Hayek, for the first 2/3rds of movie should have been thrown out and rewritten. It does improve over last 3rd when Farrell and Hayek come across in their scenes together as real people, instead of just mouthpieces for the writer's idea of hardboiled dialogue. But by this time it is too little, too late. Because movie squanders so much in movie's first 2/3rd's, it also never really explores what is was like to have an interracial romance in 1930's L.A. (Which, I gather, it wanted to to). Medina is very good, though. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
BillyS.Apr 4, 2006
ok, its not Chinatown, but compared to seeing Basic Instinct 2 or Failure to Launch, It is. More than worth the price of admission just to see two hours of Caleb Deschanel's cinematography and Dennis Gassner's production design. ok, its not Chinatown, but compared to seeing Basic Instinct 2 or Failure to Launch, It is. More than worth the price of admission just to see two hours of Caleb Deschanel's cinematography and Dennis Gassner's production design. Selma Hayek is the definition of Movie Star and Colin Farrell is slowly getting to a new level on the acting tree. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
FrankDDec 24, 2006
I've seen a hefty percantage of films released in 2006, and this was one was hands-down, the worst. I saw other ones that were terrible, but at least some of them had a few redeeming qualities, if nothing else, unintentionally funny. I've seen a hefty percantage of films released in 2006, and this was one was hands-down, the worst. I saw other ones that were terrible, but at least some of them had a few redeeming qualities, if nothing else, unintentionally funny. This one plays likes one long prison sentence. The main reason I bother to post a comment at all is to say that I've seen four movies starring hot boy-du-jour Colin Farrell (Alexander, Phone Booth, A Home at the End of the World, plus this dreck). Except for his intense good looks, what do film directors see in this guy??? I think he is truly a poor actor. All hyoe, no delivery.("Troy Donahue of the new millenium"). Hopefully, he'll disappear soon, and we can return to watching real actors like Philip Seymour Hoffman, Edward Norton, and others who are far more worthy of their salaries and our ticket money and attnetion. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
SimoneD.Mar 11, 2006
Really underwhelming. Hayek always seemed like she was acting. Never believed she was this poor mexican woman. Perfect make up, hair, even her waitress uniform was spottless. Colin was fine, but that's it. Book is way to literary to Really underwhelming. Hayek always seemed like she was acting. Never believed she was this poor mexican woman. Perfect make up, hair, even her waitress uniform was spottless. Colin was fine, but that's it. Book is way to literary to have been adapted. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
EmaT.Mar 11, 2006
Great film, so faithful to the book, Salma Hayek steals the movie, already a strong contender for next year's oscars. Her best performance yet.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
PeteM.Aug 26, 2006
This is a flawed film featuring fine performances from Salma Hayek and Collin Farrell. I think the work of the actors along with the fine story and visual beauty more than compensate for the underdevelopment of some of the main elements of This is a flawed film featuring fine performances from Salma Hayek and Collin Farrell. I think the work of the actors along with the fine story and visual beauty more than compensate for the underdevelopment of some of the main elements of the plot. This is certainly a film that feels bogged down by the depth of its source material and struggling to match the effects of the book. It is still certainly worth a look, particularly the section featuring Idina Menzel whose character hauntingly lingers with you long after she Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
MiguelV.Apr 7, 2008
It was the film that led me to reading the book
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
FredD.Nov 17, 2007
Hard to watch. stilted and lifeless. too much dialog simply states and restates the obvious. looked good though. the actors are at the mercy of this anachronistic stuff. Ugh.
0 of 0 users found this helpful