The Age of Commercialism

Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

It's very interesting that the most positive review for this film is written by someone who used to work in the same industry. But it makes sense, because to anyone else this film is just mind-numbingly dull. It's basically about a man who is diagnosed with lung cancer and so hides it from everyone and continues his usual life of hookers and drugs. Its best redeeming feature is that it is short so you don't waste too much of your life.Ivan is played by a decent actor, but quite a few of the others seem like amateurs. Being shot with a hand-held camera just compounds that feeling, although it's different I guess. This film was so dull, that for the first time, IMDb has said my comments were too brief even though I can't think of what else to say.

This is really one of the most honest, most genuinely unnerving films I have ever seen (and I have seen a lot, by any standards). My lady and i didn't speak the whole hour driving home, just sat in stunned contemplation of this stunning film. As we drove, I could almost not believe just how superb this film was.Huston is an absolute revelation as Ivan, a once-in-a-lifetime performance that seems to have sprung into life fully formed and whole. His is one of the greatest faces cinema has offered, full of humanity and pathos, at once a recognisable everyman and a unique and extraordinary figure.The narrative's initially gimmicky flashback structure become essential as we are allowed to see the fundamental pointlessness of the feckless Ivan's life even before we meet him.Flashing back, we then see the last few weeks of Ivan's life as he finds he has terminal cancer and slowly wastes away, surrounded by the most tacky/glamourous trappings of Hollywood life.From the early realisation of Ivan's insignificance, we are drawn to see him as fully alive and utterly human.This is the triumph of the director's intensely humanist vision, a moving testament to the individual worth and humanity of each of us, even the most lost and dissolute amongst us.Equally rich are the surrounding performances, the whole cast working tiny wonders, but special mention certainly belongs to Huston and also Peter Weller, the latter giving what I think must be his strongest ever role. His sleazy big-shot actor is an instant classic, utterly true and blackly comic.I lived and worked in the industry in Hollywood and I recognised many of the characters and situations. In the whole film, not one false note was struck. The locations expertly chosen, from the Sky bar to the winding backroads around Mulholland and Hollywood Blvd at dawn, the feel of Ivan's Hollywood was exactly right.I recommend this film to anyone looking for difficult but richly rewarding, thought-provoking cinema. It is not entertainment, but it performs the quiet miracles that few film-makers even attempt, let alone achieve with these devastating results. A triumph, a truly visionary work and clearly a labour of love for all involved, Ivan's xtc is simply astounding, quite the equal to the early works of Ingmar Bergman and I can think of no higher praise than that.

Knowing nothing about the techy side of things, the impact of the DV was to create an uneven viewing spectacle that worked very well at the intimate and personal moments. In the group and open scenes it seemed somehow shallow and amateurish. It did not capture the documentary feel for me properly. Was "Dog Show" done this way? It did feel like a documentary.I watched the film on a rainy Monday night in Bradford's wonderful Pictureville and the audience barely spoke on leaving the auditorium. This film had a powerful ending with the score working well. Certainly not a film to see if you are feeling fragile or in poor health.The lead performance was just that, conveying the innocence,joy, optimism, charm and sleazy hedonism with great conviction. The remainder of the cast and characters were far less substantial giving it an uneven quality.A film with flaws and not one of my favourites but one that I would not have wished to miss.

I went to see this film without knowing anything about it except that I was a fan of the director and while it doesn't rank amongst his best work it is certainly engaging. After the longest opening credits I've ever seen (i.e. all of the film's credits are at the beginning except for the music credits), the film introduces us to the backbiting world of Hollywood agents. Ivan is a self confessed 'weekend alcoholic' who 'lives in the fast lane' as he tells his psychiatrist. In nearly any other film we would dislike this character as he takes drugs, has sex with other women behind his girlfriend's back and only seems to care about his status. If I added that he just wants to be loved you might avoid the film altogether, however it is Danny Huston's subtle and involving performance as the lead character that hooks the viewer and keeps you interested. Coming across as a combination of John C. Reilly and Jack Nicholson, Huston is a great character actor and deserves a career as notable as his sister. I'm not a fan of digital video and certainly the lower constrast and flatter cinematograpy here hasn't convinced me of the merits of the medium, but the director has said he wanted the film to look like a documentary and so this approach suits the film. The shots are at least typically well framed and always contain something interesting. This is Rose's second adaptation of Tolstoy following Anna Karenina, and shows the writer holds up well when relocated to the present day. The lead character is apparently also based on Rose's (late) agent which may be why the film is still waiting for a release date. Stylistically the film is most similar to Mike Figgis' Timecode (which also starred Huston) as the performances here were also somewhat improvised but doesn't suffer from the amateur dramatics of that film as the actors in ivansxtc didn't have to keep going for an hour and a half. At the London Film Festival where I saw this film, Rose commented that he wants to work with the same cast and format again and this isn't a bad idea if he goes for stronger and snappier material next time. I enjoyed the film, but it took a while to get going and the undercurrent of homophobia (no doubtedly present in that world) was slightly off-putting. The dovetailing of the images and soundbites in the opening credits with the last scenes of the film worked well and the use of classical music throughout, particularily Wagner's Tristan and Isolde, creates the kind of atmosphere and gravitas (perhaps occasionally heavy-handedly) that you would get from one of Bernard Herrman's Hitchcock scores. Overall I enjoyed it but it is more for the fans of Mike Figgis' films than Rose's. Having made two of the greatest horror films ever made I just wish he would return to that genre.