Gary Imhoff Most of the comments are right on point: the cinematography, set design, costuming, and recreation of California of the thirties are wonderful; Hayek is beautiful and Farrell good-looking. The problem with the movie is that not just the plot but also the script is true to its period. The dialogue and spoken narration are from the thirties -- the overwritten, wordy, Broadway-influenced, "literary" scripts of Clifford Odets, Robert Sherwood, Eugene O'Neill, and so on. Towne has an excuse for part of Ask the Dust's script, since he's writing about a writer who's obsessed with and intoxicated by his own words, but the style spills over into the rest of the script. A talky, "literary" movie can have its own charms for sympathetic viewers, but most of the audience will dismiss it as stagy and pretentious.

hall895 Ask the Dust is an entirely unremarkable film. But while there may be nothing spectacular about it in the end it is a reasonably entertaining film. Not a great movie by any stretch of the imagination but there are much worse ways to spend two hours.The film is set in Depression era Los Angeles and the attention to period detail is exceptional, 1930s L.A. brought brilliantly to life. Colin Farrell plays writer Arturo Bandini who is struggling to find inspiration that will allow him to sell some stories for some desperately needed cash. He also struggles with the prejudice he faces due to his Italian heritage. But while Italians may be looked down upon in this time and place they certainly have it better than the Mexicans. Enter Salma Hayek, playing Camilla, a waitress whose goal is to improve her standing in life by marrying a wealthy white man. But maybe just any white man will do if it allows her to become a citizen. Anyhow, Arturo and Camilla meet and although they seem to be an obvious mismatch they inevitably fall for one another. And so off we go, following this relationship which at first is rather awkward but as it evolves...well, actually it's still pretty awkward. Having to deal with prejudices, both those of outsiders and their own, was always going to make this relationship a difficult one. But the pair make it work. More or less. As you watch the two live out their cycle of coming together and drifting apart and coming together again you get the sense the film is at times just standing in place and not really moving forward. The story does drag at times but in the end it works. Barely works perhaps but it does work.Probably the best thing the movie has to offer is its stunning cinematography and period detail. But nice visuals are never enough in a film, you need the story to go with it. And the story here is passable, which is about the best that can be said for it. It never really grabs you but the movie does just enough to hold your interest. Farrell and Hayek are fine in their roles, with Hayek certainly having the Mexican spitfire role down pat by now. Donald Sutherland and Idina Menzel portray a couple of rather unique characters and do a good job with them but those roles are little more than extended cameos. For the most part this film is left to Farrell and Hayek to carry. And they do the best they can with a story which, while certainly not riveting, is interesting. In the end Ask the Dust is a reasonably decent way to spend two hours. You've seen a lot better. You've also seen a lot worse.

Marketa-Janderkova The 1930' were a golden age of Los Angeles with its film industry and great potential of various other possibilities to become rich and famous and happy. People were arriving there hoping to fulfill their dreams. Expecting open arms and welcoming offers there were only a few who managed to succeed and find their way to stardom, majority then condemned to live starving, disillusioned and unwanted, searching for a bit of respect in dirty bars and nasty hotel rooms. Young Italian-American writer Arturo Bandini arrives to LA on a similar quest - to spread his charms around to get one of those beautiful wealthy women and to write an excellent novel that would set him on a career path, having so far written a single short story published in an obscure anthology. Wishing to create a romantic masterpiece he seems to be unable to produce anything without experiencing it himself though, occasionally, he sends pieces of magazine stories to a local editor that helps him survive. He is proud to present himself as an Italian but deep in his heart he truly feels his Italian origin as a burden. The little money and the courage to conquer the world he once had are all long gone and watching his dream turning into a hangover he holds a last single nickel to spend. The coffee she brought him was cold and sour and spitting a curse on her triggers a never-ending relationship of insults, unspoken excuses and a love concealed beneath. Camilla being an uneducated girl trying to receive US citizenship through a marriage also carries her heavy cross of a non-perspective racial heritage. Though she is much of a stronger and life experienced person her situation as a beautiful Mexican woman is much harder to deal with than Arturo is able to realize. Is it obvious that Arturo eventually finds his inspiration to work on the novel? Is it possible that their love finally finds its place in the sun? Is it likely that their romance takes an unlucky turn?It is very surprising to find out that the chemistry between the two main characters, performed by Salma Hayek and Colin Farrell, does not work. The relationship lacks the raw and authentic feelings. Hayek though livelier a character compared to Farrell's forgot to arm Camilla with the passion and strength of her once brilliant character Frida. Also it is hard to have faith in a character which being intelligent but uneducated and illiterate uses quite difficult vocabulary and complicated sentences. A tougher character of a Phil Marlowe sort would definitely suit Farrell better, though he looks stunning in a period costume, he seems very lost trying to find the fragile world of a twenty-year old dreamer balancing between a hidden love and desire to be true to himself. Feeling embarrassed watching the two on the screen is not right. Their relationship might have been wild but it is more likely what a thunder and a lightning are without a storm, far from real passion, feelings just described not felt inside. It is very sad that such a potential of an interesting script and good actors was wasted, turned into a grey average of soon-to-be-forgotten.

Aristides-2 It must have been excruciating to attend the dailies as the shooting continued on this failure of a film. Probably Cruise, the Exec. Prod., saw what was happening and had Towne use much, much more of the nude footage in the final cut then Towne wanted to, to make up for the disaster he saw looming.(Maybe Cruise even thought of "Titanic".)A few items: Colin Farrell can't act his way out of a paper bag. But he's one of the flavors-of-the-decade, a producer's darling and one is forced to avoid the embarrassment of watching him by not attending his films. He has so many moments of not believing in what he's doing and you can see it in his eyes. I think he would have been at his best as a film actor, albeit not as rich or famous as he is now, playing second banana to dynamic leads who can act. The trap of spending a lot of money for period sets, costumes, cars, et al and photographing them as if they just came from the dry cleaner or car wash/wax. No one seems to want anything to look, well, worn. Or dirty. Is this because the production designer was told by the line producer to make sure they didn't ruin the stuff because then the company wouldhave to pay for the ruined items?This was a story about the depression-thirties folks, not a Disney Broadway musical about that era. How about doing it in black and white or better yet, given Caleb Deschanel as your D.P., have him desaturate the colors during the mix to suggest some of the actual grime and poorness of the times. It should have been, after all, a bit depressing to live so desperately as these folks did, in the Depression. More on Farrell. Did anyone for a moment believe this guy was a writer? H.L. Mencken on the wall; did I see his eyes roll at one point? Hayek and Farrell as a sexually dynamic duo? Sending a boy to do a man's work? Perhaps in the book, which I haven't read, the story was about an older woman and a youth. I cannot delve too deeply into the middle to latter parts of the film because I bailed out early on. But the memory of the scenes I did see made me think that someone was doing a not-too-amusing parody of a noir movie. Sort of what Saturday Night Live has been like for the past decade: not funny. (In my mind I kept thinking of a Guy Noir sketch, music and all.)