The Letter (IV) (2012) User Reviews

Only if you are waiting for paint to dry

[justbusinessthebook · 3/10 · 19 January 2016]

Okay... I like movies that challenge me to think. But boring me to death as they lead me, an hour later, to pause it because, by god, both my date and I have fallen asleep...?

Art? Yes, this movie is art BUT, I would rather look at some paintings on a wall.... and watch the paint dry... And this review page requiring me to write 10 lines of review on a movie that can be summarized in five lines is almost as bad as being subjected to this movie in the first place.

Pretty Winona and all of the pretty men in this movie did not compensate for the loss of realization by the production people that the art of movies must have some emotional rewards or they are merely nice paintings 'on celluloid".

Good acting, I suppose, given the demands of this movie's intent to puzzle and intrigue. But endless weaK intrigue and puzzling dialogue with brief hints of the final analysis dd nothing to stop my eyelids from dropping shut. The reality is, me thinks, that most of us will find this movie as something we might add to 'an art collection' that would never make it to our display walls. This would be because we would fear too many of our friends actually beating their head, in frustration, upon 'the painting' so that they would never be subjected to it again... or so curious to watch it again and again, to find 'what did I miss'?, that they finally awaken to realize that they have just wasted hours of their lives.

Or, perhaps, awakening to the realization that this was boring art is not a waste of time for others? It was to me. A movie I would not have wasted my time on had I visited this review page first...

Ed Wood Might Have Improved This Disaster!

[geomst3kfreak · 2/10 · 24 May 2023]

As much as I like both James Franco and Winona Ryder, this may be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. A complete snooze-fest from start to finish. The movie's screenplay was as much of a bore as the play within the movie! The cast looks bored most of the time.

Absolutely nothing of consequence happens in this picture...nothing! I kept looking at the timer on the DVD player thinking something should be happening soon...but it never did! Truly a wasted hour and a half of my life! Thankfully, there were no extras to watch on the disk. Had there been any, I wonder if any explanation of the purpose of the film would have been forthcoming? I gave it 2 stars simply for the audacity of putting the story on film!

Artsy Fartsy...To The Point Of Being Hard To Watch

[isantistao · 4/10 · 1 July 2022]

This film is super artistic. So artistic I would go as far as to call it artsy fartsy. It's one of those works of art that just goes too far. In being too artistic, it becomes strange. Very strange. So much so that it is hard to appreciate. Hard to even look at. That is what this films problem is. You see it is not that this is a bad movie. It's not that it is poorly done. It is just hard to watch. And it gets harder and harder to watch as it goes on. Even though it is doing its job of being artistic quite well.

It's just that this film is so abstract that it is hard to follow. It also happens in real time so it slow and boring. And is full of awkward silences and such. As well as uncomfortable situations. So those are all things that make it hard to watch. And it only gets harder because as it goes on, the story only gets more convoluted and harder to follow. Not that there's anything wrong with the story, acting, directing, filming, editing, production, etc.... I think the concept of this style of piece was just not executed in an overall manner that made it engaging and stimulating enough for today's crowd. And also it just went too far with certain things that aren't comfortable to watch, and thus made it difficult to get through. And thats not why people watch film, they watch it to be entertained and to enjoy themselves. And this film isn't really fun to watch. It's like the kind of film that super artsy fartsy people would watch just to talk about.

And thats the thing about films like these, is that you can't appreciate them if you haven't studied film and are just looking for entertainment. These types of films can really only be appreciated by those who have taken a film class or read a book on it or studied it in some capacity and can actually see and understand the finer points, and can intellectualize everything about the art of film.

This is a movie about a woman who's reality and who's writing and imagination become blurred. It does a good job of depicting that. It really does. Does that make it a good movie? No.

However, is it a bad movie? No. Is it enjoyable and entertaining? No. Is it artistic? Yes. Did I like it...not really. I felt like it was kinda neat at times, but honestly I also almost turned it off a couple times. And I can see why it gets bad ratings and why the vast majority of people wouldn't like it. I don't think it deserves such a harsh rating though. I'd give it somewhere between a 4 and a 5, I'd give it a 4.5 if I could, but I can't, so I'm rounding down to a 4. My opinion is pretty much middle of the road, maybe slightly more on the negative. Do I recommend watching it? No. Do I regret watching it? No. I think that with the creativity that went into this film it should have turned out better, but perhaps they just got too involved in their own project and were too close to it to be able to tell that it was actually turning out quite boring. These things can happen with artwork sometimes. Oh well.

A contrived, sincere, but very limited film

[secondtake · 5/10 · 1 December 2013]

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

[getalong · 1/10 · 27 February 2013]

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.

A bore

[Gordon-11 · 5 October 2014]

This film tells the story of a female playwright, who is preparing for the opening of her play. She experiences weird occurrences, and she begins to doubt her sanity.

"The Letter" tries to be super artistic, as evidenced by super slow pace and the substitution of scenes with narration by the main character, I wish there was no narration, and they just show the events normally. The narration is plain and devoid of emotion, it does not give the first person emotional account that is expected. Winona Ryder does not look convincing as a playwright or as a crazy person. In fact, she looks to pretty and too sane for her role. The so called suspense fails miserably, because the strange events are presented in such subtle manner. There is no intensity, engagement or thrill. The whole film is a complete bore. I don't understand the beginning, middle or the end. The suppose twist at the end is so laughable and unbelievable, because there is no motive described anywhere in the film. Even when taking the low budget into account, "The Letter" could have bee so much better.

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_tiger · 5/10 · 24 September 2012]

"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-.

Total Garbage. Waste of time.

[blakecpa · 1/10 · 25 October 2012]

One of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. It is total garbage. Absolutely nothing goes on for the better part of 90 minutes. There are a lot of artsy scenes, floaty music scores, and incredibly boring (but supposedly deep) moments, all probably trying to make the case that this is an important and meaningful movie. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's film school crap...freshman year of film school. Then, at the end of the movie, you find out Rider's character is nuts.

Great.

If you need to do something for 90 minutes, spend your time more wisely and go get a root canal.

Worst movie I have seen

[vijay-verghese · 1/10 · 25 November 2012]

This was by far the worst movie I have ever seen. I can't believe that I wasted 5 dollars on this movie. I kept waiting for the movie to get better and it never did. Absolutely nothing went on in the movie. Rider just talks in a depressing voice about I don't what, because she was too depressing for me to continue listening. The only interesting part of the movie was the few seconds when the viewers found out that she was drugged and that was the end of the movie. All I know is that the main character, Winona, was the director of a play with 4 characters, one of which is her boyfriend. At one point, the main character accuses her boyfriend of putting copper in his gym bag, he denies it and they go back and forth about it for a few seconds and the whole thing is dropped. And it's never followed up, unless, of course, I missed it. There are so many scenes like this that are never followed up, but I had to keep watching because I was hoping that it would get better.

I'm not sure why some people seem to be confused about this movie

[kaekaedm · 5/10 · 3 October 2012]

A play write making a play for her big night debut, seems to be losing her mind , and it shows in her play that is actually a bit obsessive in itself,the boy friend has so much copper in his bag he could build a small shop of copper figurines then it is gone copper by the way in high doses. can cause mental disorders, Ryder does a very good job. and a good job of making her cast of the play go a bit nuts. it was a tad slow her play seemed to to be like her life. that is what confuses people i believe. its not a 10 to be sure. but it is worth a watch if you like psych thrillers or things on the line that you have to pay attention don't miss a word a figure it out yourself type of movie then this is one you will like

Total Rubbish!

[leonblackwood · 1/10 · 15 February 2014]

Review: What a complete load of rubbish! With a name like Obsessed and a cast with James Franco and Winona Ryder, I was expecting something interesting and entertaining, but this was really bad. Most of the film was set on stage with Winona Ryder directing a play, which was really bad, and on top of that, you've got Winona Ryder narrating the whole story. I really can't see what the director was trying to achieve with this film because there isn't much point to it. I can understand the twist which comes out at the end, but by that time I deliberately made myself busy so I could get through the annoying pile of rubbish. The stupid piano that's going through the whole movie is really annoying and the mood if depressing. Just stay away from the film!

Round-Up: I darn see why the hell James Franco and Winona Ryder agreed to doing this film because the script is appalling. Maybe they were just paying bills. Ever since Winona Ryder got caught thieving, her career has gone from bad to worse, and this movie isn't going to so her any favours. She's need a film like Beetlejuice 2 to bring her our of the dark. As for James Franco, I always knew that he does quirky movies, but I really can't see why he would want this film on his filmography. Anyway, I really can't find anything good to say about this film because there is nothing interesting or entertaining about it.

Budget: $10million (Waste Of Money!) Worldwide Gross: N/A

I recommend this movie anyone that wants to get bored to death. 1/10

One word: Genius

[sudri-karin · 10/10 · 19 January 2013]

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!

The Descent of Winona

[cheynesn · 7/10 · 27 October 2012]

While "The Letter" is certainly a film that thankfully didn't hit theaters (despite its $10 million budget), that's not to say that it's complete trash.

The film, which stars Winona Ryder as Martine, a playwright who slowly begins to lose her mind and descend into madness. The film primarily takes place in the theatre, and things begin to change when Tyrone (James Franco), joins the group and displays hostile behavior to those surrounding him, while Martine develops a growing attraction toward him. Sound familiar? The film is very reminiscent of "Black Swan," Ryder's comeback role in which she played the fading ballerina. While that film garnered critical acclaim and box-office success, its safe to say that "The Letter" director Jay Anania was attempting to do the same. And that's where Winona Ryder came in. Her casting was probably one of the strategies Anania used in order to attract art house audiences. (Too bad the film went straight to DVD.) "The Letter" isn't a film that's complete trash, rather, there were quite a few perks in it that made it interesting. For one, Ryder never fails to impress me. Despite the unusual camera angles and amateur lighting, she still manages to shine through and deliver a solid performance. I'd also like to mention that she's Forty ONE and still looks good! While the lackluster script prevents her from flaunting the acting skills she's capable of, Ryder nevertheless convinces the audience that someone (in the five person cast) is trying to poison her character and kill her. And as the relationship between her and her thespian boyfriend begins to disenigrate, she changes the fictional names of the characters in the script to the respective names of the actors portraying them. Her character also includes actual dialogue that has recently happened in her life. This was also one of the techniques used by Anania to convey Martine's descent into madness.

Franco, on the other hand, had no purpose of being in the film. Anania, who heads the directing program at NYU, is also one of Franco's professors, which most likely explains his involvement. I'm sure Franco got a few extra credit points for his (probably unwilling) participation in this 'little film that could.' Toward the end of the film, it is revealed that Martine is just plain crazy, and that was the reason for her bizarre actions and behavior. This ultimately took away from what could've been a great ending that makes the audience think about what was really going on. Here, her sickness was explained, whereas in "Black Swan," Natalie Portman's character isn't diagnosed schizophrenic, and lets the audience decide that for themselves. In "The Letter," Mr. Sound Effects decided to include the sound of an abrupt braking of a truck after every change in behavior Martine displays. What could have made this effect better was a fluid dramatic score that conveyed her madness.

So yes, "The Letter" isn't the greatest film of Ryder's career, however, it stands as a test of her acting skills, and she succeeds. She compensates for the lackluster script and plot, while managing to convince us of her character's madness. As a fan of psychological thrillers, I was a bit disappointed with this film, and even though it lacks originality, it's definitely worth seeing.

Enjoyable

[amassistants · 3/10 · 30 September 2015]

This is a slowing moving movie. Its a movie that encourages thinking outside of the box and it requires paying attention. I thought Franco was as always, secretive, alluring, haunting, sexy and menacing. Winona Ryder, what can I say.....thumbs up on this performance. I was appalled reading other reviews with spoilers......that she was just crazy. Its called mental illness people and its very real. She probably had lots of experience to pull from for this part and without her, the movie would have been crap. The ending of this movie moved me to tears. If you've ever known anyone with a mental illness and have ever watched anyone's slow decent into madness & paranoia you will SO get this movie. Frankly, I don't care if it was a film school project or Franco's professor or lighting or angles or all of these things some reviewers just pick on in every movie. It was thought provoking, emotional, confusing.....and basic people watching. Its not for everyone but don't knock it because you don't understand the content.

OK - my beef is with the hair pieces

[av_m · 1/10 · 13 January 2024]

Well, hard to pile on anything more in the way of making fun of this thing.

So, I'll tack on my two cents regarding the various characters' hair pieces - which, for me were atrociously distracting and took up all my concentration.

For example, Josh Hamilton - as a younger but nonetheless middle aged man, why is it so horrible to just show his naturally receding hairline - why add a "piece" on top and then comb strands of that piece down over his forward such that all you spend your watching time doing is trying to figure what he'd look like without the piece.

And James France - again, understandably - and quite comfortably, naturally - thinning on top - but, oh no, let's first, stick a hair piece on top and - brace yourself - hot curl that sucker into "boyish" twirlicues. And, to add insult to injury, his whole head of hair - real and toupe - is dyed a shiny greasy shoe polish black - every time he leaned back on any of the stage furniture upholstery I pictured a big black stain residue.

And the women -first, I don't know if Katherine Waterson just naturally has a lot of hair, but if they did add extensions then they way overdid it - she often looks like nothing else so much as "Thing" on the Addams family.

And does Winona escape this hair piece Armageddon? Oh no, - there is one chunk of a very strangly strand of wiry hair that is consistently combed from sort of the top of her head down over the middle of her forehead down over her eyes - like more of a forelock of some sort rather than just bangs - it's quite bizarre - not sure what cosmetic effect it was intended to achieve. And, btw, Winona's various dye jobs are also way too dark - more shoe polish.

Well, you get the idea - of course, there's all the other stuff that makes this thing utterly insufferable - the plinking piano notes score, the ever pretentious in-focus/out-of-focus shots of random New York City tree foliage, the claustrophobic "Greenwich Village theatre scene denizens" of it all, the incredibly tedious dreamlife, and incessant articulation of and fixation on, Wynona's character's dreams, etc etc.

In sum, this thing is mainly a joke on itself. I mean with dialogue lines like "And then I heard birds" delivered with absolutely breathless self-awareness, how can you not do a spit-take of your popcorn laughing out loud. Lol.

Yes, a movie that makes you think

[faithisagoodthing · 10/10 · 30 October 2012]

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.

The greatest movie you'll ever hate

[rooprect · 9/10 · 8 August 2015]

If you saw the trailer and thought it was interesting then don't bother; you'll hate this film. I mean it. Don't even think about watching.

If, on the other hand, you saw the trailer and thought "oh great, another forgettable thriller about a creepy guy and clueless chick. When will anyone try anything new for chrissake??" then hold your horses because this movie might be just for you.

"The Letter" marks the 2nd pairing of the phenomenal acting/directing team of James Franco and his professor Jay Anania (the first being the excellent film "Vincent" aka "Shadows & Lies"). This time Winona Ryder joins the group and adds her own perfect eccentricity to the mix. Ryder plays the part of "Martine" a playwright who is putting on a production with 5 actors including a shadowy newcomer "Tyrone" (Franco).

As the play progresses, reality begins to wrap itself around imagination and vice versa. Some have compared this to other recent mindbenders like "Black Swan" and "Memento", but I would say this film outshines them all due to Anania's fierce, stylistic approach which really gets into your head. There aren't really any shocks, thrills, chills, gore or other cheapshots to make you spill your popcorn. Instead, it's a very insidious, unsettling visual approach, as well as disjoint audio, that draws you into the mounting tension and confusion of Martine's mentally unbalanced psyche. No monsters or broken mirror shards required. That's one thing to remember about this film: it doesn't stoop to cheap thrills but instead stands by its somber, anti-Hollywood approach.

Something else to know about this film; it moves at the speed of reality, that is "slowly" by movie standards. So if you get bored easily, you might want to look elsewhere. There are scenes of dialogue with actual pauses between people speaking, like in real life, how about that? Sometimes there are periods of silence that might make the audience feel uncomfortable if they're expecting some sort of rapid fire, scripted tit-for-tat. But if you're prepared for a voyeuristic experience of watching other people's lives, this nails it. Don't get me wrong; not a single scene is wasted and there's no fluff or filler. It's just that Anania allows the scenes to breathe a little. The pacing is similar to something you might get in from a European director (Kieslowsky, Tarkovsky, maybe Bela Tarr after a few cups of coffee) and the visual poetry is reminiscent of the Japanese masters Kurosawa & Teshigahara with a distinct, hip, modern look (extreme saturation, contrast and exposure) as you might see in Aronofsky or Paul Thomas Anderson. The overall package is distinctly Anania.

And how can I end this without a word about Franco. Although his role may strike you as being smaller than you'd expect (Winona Ryder is the star), each time he graces the camera it's done with so much poise and confidence you find yourself wondering who would win in a cool-off between Franco & Bogart. Hate to admit it, but I think Franco would win by a hair.

Makes Sense at the End, James Franco is Incredible

[Laurenosaur · 9/10 · 28 July 2013]

THIS REVIEW WILL CONTAIN MAJOR SPOILERS!

I will be honest: at the beginning, I did not like this movie. It was very confusing to me. It jumps around, cuts out at weird times, and is kind of repetitive (maybe more than is needed...). But it also keeps you intrigued.

Winona Ryder plays Martine, a director of a play starring her boyfriend Raymond, her friends Anita and Julie, and newcomer Tyrone, played by James Franco. It is unknown whether Martine is slowly losing her sanity, or if someone is slowly poising her over time (she at one point accuses Raymond of having an excess of copper supplements, and goes on to tell him that enough copper in your system can cause schizophrenia).

At the same time tension is brewing between Tyrone and the others (except Martine). During dinner Anita is talking about how she doesn't know how to play "secretive" as Martine has directed her to do. Tyrone heavily implies that she is very good at being secretive, to which Anita and Raymond both are angered by. Throughout the film Anita almost seems to be repulsed by Tyrone, and Raymond is very vocal about his hard feelings for him.

At the end of the movie EVERYTHING is explained. There was a creepy guy early in the movie who when Martine walked by him, he blew in her face. Of course, that left you wondering "WTF was that about?!"... well, it turns out that he blew a powder in her face, causing her slow descent into madness (truthfulness, willingness, delusions... this same powder was used in a Criminal Minds episode ..s6e23). And, curve ball. He was hired by Raymond to do it. Why you may ask? Well, Tyrone hit it right on the nail, and Martine figured it out as well. He was being naughty with Anita. I was left wondering though, if Martine would make a recovery or not.

This movie could not have succeeded without the marvellous subtext done by the actors. Shout out to James Franco, who was just stunning with his... well everything. His body language, his dizzying array of facial expressions, his tone fluctuations... By far the best actor in the movie.

Overall, definitely worth a watch if you're willing to pay attention. Some of James Franco's scenes are worth it alone ;)

Some films demand to be seen again

[lukebria · 8/10 · 1 February 2013]

Beautifully made, well-performed and thought-provoking film.

I just finished watching this and cannot say for sure what happened to Winona Ryder's character. But you know what, that's not necessarily a liability. Is she suffering a schizophrenic breakdown, did she die and now she's talking to us from the afterlife, was she the victim of a murderous conspiracy by her cheating boyfriend--I don't know, but I look forward to watching this again and trying to figure it out.

For those who gave this film 1 star and couldn't appreciate what the writer/director was doing with the slow pacing, the fading sound, the out-of-focus shots, etc., go see The Expendables 2: they keep things REAL SIMPLE there, just the way you likes 'em!

It is a film worth watching if you are looking for something thought provoking.

[ldkumer · 8/10 · 1 July 2013]

This movie is most certainly not trash. You must, however, be willing to give it your undivided attention. There is a plot and if you pay attention you will pick up on the subtle contributors to the plot. All of the performances are excellent and raw. Though the movie is very artsy I think it is for good reason and not just for the sake of being artsy. I believe all of the elements of the film are crucial to the storyline. I am a huge fan of James Franco and of course he delivers, as does Winona Ryder. For fans of either actors this is certainly a film to add to your must sees. Movies that are thought provoking may not be as exciting as some but they are worthwhile. This is one such film and should be recognized for its merit. I recommend it for film buffs everywhere!

This movie should be rated for high IQ only

[armstrong-karin · 10/10 · 19 January 2013]

I read the IMDb description of the movie and obviously the one who wrote it either didn't watch or didn't understood what the movie is about. Martin was never a playwright *no spoiling* but come on..is that the top of your understanding ? do not watch this film if you can't think or don't want to, it will be a waste of time for those who never knew what real theater is all about. when seeing this movie I felt at first sorry for Winona Ryder, it seems that she brings her confusion to the stage, it took me a while to understand what is going on and why it's like that. in that the director did an excellent job for I thought I have a problem in connecting the plot when actually Martin faced the same problem. Amazing film and one of a kind!

First review I've ever written

[sdanilina · 10/10 · 20 March 2013]

I rented this movie because initially I was a fan of James Franco... I did not even know what it was about nor did I care much because if it was a thriller with him, it's good enough for me to see in my down time. Now, enough about me... The movie itself; I feel like it is completely underrated, thus the review... The acting by the characters, I thought was amazing... The plot was simplistic at its best, in my viewpoint... there could have been two variations of what occurred; either Winona's character was honestly just bored with life in general and had hidden desires for Franco and thus created a world where all those familiar to her and she trusted had wronged her to give her an excuse to "take" action on her deeper feelings for this new man (the attempt to "kiss") OR her boyfriend was just a dirt bag who was wronging her from the very beginning. I found the story and the filming extremely interesting and refreshing in the sense that it really made you dive deep and think into the psychology of each character. Every point in the movie had indications leading you further into thinking more deeply. The bottom line as I saw it is that it's easy to see the main character as a psychotic and to "imagine" everything going on, it's a harder thought to see it is as the main character coming to terms with the fact that everyone around her is betraying her and thus her changing the script and using the "play" as her tool to deal with the actual reality that her boyfriend is cheating on her and that everyone around her knows it. I think just as in life, this movie tries to express that point; while things are clear to others, they make not be as clear to us as individuals who are invested. In a last note, I believe it is extremely difficult to attempt to film a movie in a first person narrative, so I completely applaud this one... It made me think and I enjoyed it, there should be more pieces like this.

deeply psychological and worth the viewing

[willcarson4358 · 9/10 · 20 March 2013]

Just wanted to weigh in on this film as it is worth viewing.

Very well cast and acted. Not an easy film to fit into a description or type. A personal deeply psychological and moody film. One of the strong point of the film is the cinematography and sound. The film goes back and forth between the mind and dreams of the main character who has written a play and is taking a group of actors through rehearsals. As she psychologically goes downhill, her play is changed and begins to reflect

what she images is happening around her -or is she imaging it? - To the credit of the main actor, Wyonna Rider, as I was watching the film, I began to think that the film has been written by her. She was very well cast for this role. Also brings some depth to an ancient practice in some cultures of writing letters to deceased relatives. Again worth seeing.

A crepuscular, reality-warping, existential nightmare!

[Weirdling_Wolf · 8/10 · 11 November 2020]

While I found this obliquely structured, sporadically unsettling, independent feature to be both fascinating, fitfully frustrating and in part, more than a little bit confusing, 'Obsessed' aka 'The Letter' ultimately proved to be an altogether engrossing, plainly ambitious, densely layered psychodrama that might well reward the more diligent, esoterically-minded movie fan. The tricky, ceaselessly claustrophobic narrative is primarily a doomy decent into the beleaguered existence of an emotionally disordered playwright, 'Martine' (Winona Ryder); her increasingly paranoid state given a disturbing verisimilitude with a bravura performance by the still adorably elfin film & TV icon, Winona Ryder. No doubt some may find the overtly 'stagy' dynamics of this demonstratively theatrical piece a little forced, illogical, or even alienating, but I enjoyed the pervasive strangeness maintained throughout, and the film's febrile sense of dramatic dislocation frequently reignited my waning interest in the profoundly insular travails of Ryder's uncomfortably fragile, noticeably desperate retreat from normality; her seemingly inexorable attraction to moody, taciturn hunk, James Franco's darkly ambivalent persona proving no less irresistible to me too! This patently wasn't to be a readily digestible time-waster, as there was a steely integrity to the work that continually rewarded my curiosity with a modicum of intrigue over the truly baffling nature of these quixotic characters wholly bizarre motivations, both on and off Winona's increasingly disordered stage! While there is, on occasion, the niggling sensation of enduring a film student's over-earnest graduation project, it was, perhaps, this undeniably charming naïveté that finally won me over, and either way, I'm always mustard keen to watch sophisticated, multifaceted dramas that aren't afraid to keep at least one of its myriad secrets to itself, thereby actively encouraging the viewer to formulate their own unique interpretations. And the inspired casting of the preternaturally empathic Winona as the luminous lead in this crepuscular, reality-warping, existential nightmare lessened the film's very own burgeoning identity crisis; as by creating such a fragmented, wilfully interior world, no matter how artfully presented, almost certainly engenders its own unique set of issues! (It cannot go unsaid that the truly odious DVD artwork and incongruous trailer are not at all representative of the film's far more subtle sensibilities.)

Excelent movie!

[pippettadepons · 10/10 · 10 April 2022]

This movie is a challenge for people who loves to watch good movies. The plot it is so interesting because it showed the development of the madness of the protagonist due to a poison effects.

Winona and James Franco are a very good actors. I love to see films with Franco because they are always very good performing.