Wow! Such a good movie.

The Worst Film Ever

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Spalding Gray discusses his participation in the film "The Killing Fields" (1984) and the background story about the troubles of Cambodia.On the surface, this is really simple: a man sits at a table with a couple of maps and rambles about his time filming a movie. No further props, no other actors, nothing. But it is also a bit of amazing because Gray not only memorizes the entire ramble, but keeps the audience captivated the whole time -- his stories are actually more interesting than the film he is talking about.Gray did many monologues, but this is arguably his best. I actually watched it as something of a tribute to director Jonathan Demme, though the question ought to be asked what role a director plays in a film such as this... there is very little executive decision-making, one would think.

This a truly unique film. It is just a man at a desk, with maps behind him, talking. Nothing else happens. Yet it is so spellbinding you don't even dare blink.When I was a kid my parents would read to us. They would make up different voices for each of the characters. My uncle Tom had a special story-telling voice. He would tell tales about his life and the people he met, relishing the details, letting you experience almost for yourself what happened. Spalding Gray is like that, only a pro.It is about war, drugs, sexual decadence in Thailand, making movies, relationships, mania... He has so much to tell you. It just comes tumbling out in a rush.I avoided the movie all these years because I thought it would be just another shoot-em-up.He opens up his head and lets you in to look around, like a friend who lets you drop in without calling first. He has no embarrassment about his imperfections. He was such an open, lovable, exuberant guy. He committed suicide in 2004 after complications from a car accident made life unbearable.

It doesn't get much lower-budget than this: A guy sitting at a desk on a stage with a notebook, a pointer, and a map of Cambodia on the wall behind him. And for an hour-and-a-half, he keeps you absolutely mesmerized, by doing little more than talking. The special lighting, cinematography, musical effects, and odd film inserts that Demme's production brings to Gray's monologue (which, like so many of the films I truly love, was performed on a stage before it was brought to the screen) work ever-so-slightly to enhance the performance at certain points, but by and large this is just Spalding Gray, a wonderful story-teller, doing his thing. In terms of bang for your production buck, Swimming to Cambodia has to be right up there with The Blair Witch Project. A great film.

One day a couple of years ago, while I was waiting for a television show, I was flipping through the channels and I caught part of Spalding Gray's monologue film -Monster in a Box- and I was so blown away by it that I missed the show that I had been waiting for. I don't know why it took me so long to rent another one of his monologue films, but this week I picked up his first one, -Swimming to Cambodia-. It was good, but nowhere near as good as -Monster in a Box-.For one thing, -Monster in a Box- was very well directed, and the "special effects" do not get in the way. But in -Swimming to Cambodia-, the sound effects are often too loud, and thecutting is too quick and artsy, when it should have been nothing but slow pans and zooms, sort of like -My Dinner With Andre-. Then there is this awful effect with the lights, basically shutting them off to cut the emotional rhythm. This was unneeded. Gray's performance itself establishes rhythm enough.My second big complaint is with the monologue itself. It is mostly very interesting, but it is not polished or cohesive. Just as he does in -Monster in a Box-, Gray alternates between very hilarious narrative (such as the descriptions of the sex acts in Thailand) and very harrowing narrative (such as the descriptions of Pol Pot's revolution). That technique works extraordinarily in -Monster in a Box-, but the two halves of the narratives don't seem to do with each other at all. The funny half concerns the work on the movie -The Killing Fields-, and the harrowing half very intensely examines the true story of the Kamir Rouge and America's dealing with these kinds of situations. Also, the monologue seems to end almost arbitrarily.This film is definitely worth a rental. It is under 90 minutes, which I always count as a plus. But if you want to be impressed, rent -Monster in a Box-. 7/10