Redundant and unnecessary.

As Good As It Gets

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

The intention was good, but the film was not made right way to enjoy. Of course the story, the setting were not cheerful kind, but too slow, silent, dragged scenes, all made it even worse. Watching it from the beginning to the beginning of the final segment was challenging. Only at the final few minutes it all made sense. I thought at least it ended better.A blind man happily married with a kid, one day wakes up in the morning with a miracle. He regained his vision, following that, all the sudden his life getting changed. That also leads him over taking some tough decisions. With his new lease of life, he has shaped his life as he wanted. Now a fresh trouble surfaces and its consequences are hard hitting. What his choices and how the story ends are the remaining parts.Dan Stevens was good. You could say it was a one man show. But as I said, the screenplay lacked pace, as well as guessable overall storyline. Which makes it not for everybody. The rest of the cast was good, and so the direction. I don't dislike it, I just did not enjoy it, I got bored of it in parts. One time watchable film for the selected ones, but being not dozed off while watching it is what they have to look out for.4/10

The Ticket (2016)A serious movie, and sincere. The obvious thrust is the poster lines, and this is no spoiler—a man who has been blind for a decade gains his sight back. The metaphor here (and repeated throughout) is that it's like winning the lottery (hence the title of the film).Now what?Slowly (too slowly for most of us) the man goes through several broad phases as he reassesses his world, both personally and physically (viusally) around him. The euphoria, the wanting more, the doubts, the challenges, each section is simple (to the point of simplistic, I think) but heartfelt. The leading character (played by Dan Stevens) is compelling enough as a regular guy swept up with things bigger than most of us encounter. It's maybe unfair to say this isn't enough—but it isn't. It's a lot, but there needs to be other layers, complications of plot, but also nuances of feeling that someone in this situation would experience. It would not and could not be an easy arc from one zone to another. Disruption should be really ruinous and ecstatic, not a dull slow ride.Also, and an odd comment but needed to be made—the audio is weird. A lot of the film is murmured, as if people are conversing their inner best. But much of the time a gentle music also plays and it's just plain hard to hear! Mood triumphs over content, but it's not enough.

Just saw this (Spoiler ALERT)....nothing else to rent so rented this one...figuring it was probably a chick flick. I give it 2.5-3 stars. Probably was deeper than what I saw it as. Not to spoil it for you but to give you the premise...you can go deeper into the movie if you would like....Guy is blind, guy miraculously gets his vision back, guy become successful by becoming greedy, guy looses family, in the end...well...guy. looses his eye sight again......you can put 2 and 2 together and see the human drama unfolding...not an action flick but human drama with a proverbial moral. Acting..GOOD, a solid 6.5 out of 10, production 5 out of 10.

In "The Ticket" we get to meet a blind man, who regains his vision in the beginning of the film. When he does, he starts to pay more attention to his exterior, starts to buy fancier things and basically becomes an asshole.The film was directed by Ido Fluk in a visually fine way, but in other ways lesser good. The shots looked nice, with some good use of shadow. They also play around with the use of focus and lighting, which really fits the film. The color grading was nice and it reminded me quite a lot of the film "Demolition", staring Jake Gyllenhaal, which was a notable better film than this one. But it did make sense that the film would look very good, because the main character is able to see again, so the world must look gorgeous to him, which the film succeeded at doing. I liked what they did in the beginning of the film: they put us in complete darkness, with only the voices of characters in the background. From that moment we know that we're seeing things from the perspective of Dan Stevens' character: blind. But slowly the light starts to come through the iris of Stevens, and we feel how he regains his sight. They really sold me on that opening scene, but what was to come, was quite disappointing in comparison to that. What the director tried to do was to give the film a deeper meaning, which I thoroughly understand. It's an independent film and it wants to draw attention, so why not do it by making the film a bit odd, and by having it have a deeper meaning. This deeper meaning though, wasn't as deep as it wants to be. It's pretty obvious from the get-go, namely: when man is granted something big, it's doomed to fail. The film also does get boring pretty fast. The way characters speak in a very soft manner, the soft colors and the slow soundtrack all made the film feel longer than it was and made it feel very boring.The acting wasn't a flaw, though. It was one of the best parts of the film even. Dan Stevens, who played the main character, has proved since 2014 in "The Guest" that he's a wonderful actor. Since then he's only been growing. This year he was phenomenal in "Legion" and in this film to he really sold it. The kid actor, Skylar Gaertner too was pretty good, just not as good as Dan Stevens, as he overshadows quite a lot of the cast. Skylar Gaertner played the son of Dan Stevens and there was a fun dynamic between the two of them. Someone else who was pretty good is Oliver Platt, who played the blind friend of James (Dan Stevens). The rest of the supporting cast also did quite a good job, but just like the kid actor they were overshadowed by the wonderful acting of Dan Stevens. The main premise was good, but not well enough explored, which is quite a shame, because it all sounds so interesting. They only bring it up to create some tension between Oliver Platt and Dan Stevens, because Platt is still blind, whereas Stevens has regained sight. They glance over the regaining sight, which I would've liked to see a more in depth approach to. The screenplay by the way was also written by the director, Ido Fluk. I like when directors do this, because it shows the dedication that they put into this film, and it shows in the final result. I liked that they evolve Dan Stevens' character, but I don't like how they do it. We get introduced to James when he regains his vison, it was a good scene, but due to this we don't get to know him when he was blind, because when he regains his sight he turns into a total asshole and I don't really get the motivation for becoming one. So I believe that if we got introduced to him earlier, we got to sympathize with him, so we later could understand why he changed and by doing that the development wouldn't be as abrupt as it was now. But only the part where he turns into an asshole was handled badly, the other developments were more subtle and made me care more for James. The other characters weren't highlighted as much as Stevens, which is really understandable, because the film is told from his perspective and the other characters really don't need any development, so I found no problem in that. In the end "The Ticket" was an OK film that's worth your time. The deeper lying message was pretty obvious, but the visuals totally make up for it. The acting was wonderful, but at times the character motivation is lacking. That's why this film gets a 6.5/10 from me.