Tweekums This film, from director Robert Altman, shows us a few days in the intertwined lives of various Los Angeles residents. Some of the characters already know each other, some will get to know each other and others are merely destined to cross paths. We see snapshots into their various lives. A group of fishermen discover a body but decide not to report it straight away. A waitress hits a young boy in her car; he appears to be fine but is later rushed to hospital. A clown, married to one of the anglers, is invited to dinner at the home of an artist who is married to the doctor treating the boy. An adulterous policeman tries to get rid of the family dog and the ex-husband of the woman she is seeing decides to literally take half of what they own. These are just some of the stories and characters we meet along the way.'Short Cuts' isn't an easy film to describe as there isn't a conventional plot; the characters each have their own little story; some have obvious resolutions, others don't. The opening scenes tell us how the city is being sprayed to deal with a medfly infestation but that has almost no bearing on what we see. This might all sound rather confusing but actually when watching I found it made sense and the way the film skipped from one story to another kept me interested; it certainly didn't feel like I was watching a three hour film. The cast is packed with well-known actors; Julianne Moore, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Robert Downey Jnr, Madeleine Stowe, Tim Robbins, Francis McDormand and Chris Penn to name just a few; these and the others are on great form making their characters believable even during the more extreme moments. This certainly isn't for younger viewers or the easily offended; as well as such things as Jennifer Jason Leigh performing phone-sex while feeding her young children and Julianne Moore arguing with Matthew Modine while half naked there is a nihilistic feel at times with the fishermen's story and a murder in the closing scenes. If you believe a good film needs a strong plot then this probably won't be for you but if you want a film that is all about characters and how they interact then this is definitely one to watch.

Dave This drama film is well-written and is well-acted by its ensemble cast. It's about various characters who live in Los Angeles. Family, luck, death and infidelity are among the topics covered.It's over three hours long, but holds your attention. A similar format and style was used for Magnolia - both films have Julianne Moore in the cast.

breakdownthatfilm-blogspot-com Ensemble cast movies have been proved to be both great and terrible ideas. There are plenty examples of movies that represent both ends of the spectrum. Of this particular type of casting, the most familiar are movies that have intertwining story lines that overlay in some fashion. Initially the plot threads feel a bit out of place and non-related, but in due time they all end up crossing paths and lead to some kind of climax. This kind of execution isn't always the case, but it is more or less the one that is frequently used. Examples of nonlinear story telling would be like V/H/S (2012), V/H/S/2 (2013), V/H/S Viral (2014) and Movie 43 (2013). This is where the stories are fragmented and made into shorts instead of an actual feature length product. The movies that have a more interwoven storyline are works like Crash (2004) and Reach Me (2014). But it wasn't just the start of the 21rst century that screenwriters had come up with this concept. Back in 1993, avant-garde director Robert Altman decided to take a crack at it. The end result was this movie. Based on the writings by Raymond Carver (the same writer to that of Birdman (2014) was based off of) and adapted by Altman and another writer, this movie focuses on the lives of several couples living in Los Angeles. As simple as this sounds, these collaborative threads that make up the film are not very exciting. What truly works in favor for the viewer are the more technical elements. Cinematography by Walt Lloyd (The Santa Clause (1994)) is adequate. Several of Lloyd's shots contain accurate background scenery to L.A. and anything around that has clear lighting. The music composed by Mark Isham is easy going too. Isham as a composer who tends to create music that is more aesthetic than engaging, yet for this score it has all the cool jazz sounds using the double bass and other jazz instruments. It's almost like a precursor towards Christopher Lennertz style,…almost. Lastly is the acting by all cast members. They can act and they do a great job at making the viewer feel the appropriate way for their roles. Sadly, the problem is their roles. This is where unfortunately so many things go wrong. The cast to this movie is enormous. You have Andie MacDowell, Bruce Davison, Jack Lemmon, Julianne Moore, Matthew Modine, Anne Archer, Fred Ward, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Chris Penn, Lili Taylor, Robert Downey Jr., Madeleine Stowe, Tim Robbins, Lily Tomlin, Tom Waits, Frances McDormand, Peter Gallagher, Annie Ross, Lori Singer, Lyle Lovett, Huey Lewis, Robert DoQui, the list goes on and only a couple of the characters this entire list play are sympathetic or likable to some degree. This is actually quite a frustrating watch. Almost no character has respect for anyone or anything. This is not to say that the characters were intentionally written to be mean spirited, but the attitudes portrayed just make the viewing experience feel entirely hateful.In some cases as well, the characters act very strange. Sometimes they don't care how foul their mouth is around other people. One character is a mother who makes a living by making phone-sex calls and she does this from while she takes care of her babies. That's just wrong. Another individual cheats on her husband and has no problem cursing him out in front of her son. How careless. Robert Altman as a director has been known to push boundaries but there are some points that even he should find questionable. It's understood that people in general take on different personalities during different times of the day and some activities diverge a lot further from others but some are just beyond uncomfortable. My question is, what is supposed to be taken away from this viewing? What is the message specifically? Life is what you make it? Life does not always end happily for everyone? What? The list of questions can go on and on because of how little clarity there is in the film's screenplay.The only credit that can be given to the writers is the connectivity they give each storyline. At some point or another each thread will cross one another and it's interesting to see who knows who. That's it though, not even all subplots are or feel properly concluded the right way. There's something going on in L.A. about some MEDfly and the air is being crop dusted and people think they'll get cancer; but that goes nowhere. With that, there is very little buildup to the climax of this three hour movie. Worse yet is that this movie is three hours long and couldn't develop its characters in some fashion to make them likable or at least make them realize how destructive they're behaviors are. Suzy Elmiger and Geraldine Peroni who work as the editors don't do a good job either. Some scenes pertaining to a certain thread last all of a quick 10-20 seconds long and it transitions to another. That's quicker than the editing in Reach Me (2014). It's unfortunate that it feels this poor.Aside from its acting, camera-work and music, nothing else is worth it here. Almost all characters are unlikable, of which most of their behaviors are uncomfortably strange and their development feels somewhat nonexistent. The script also suffers from unfinished subplots, annoying editing and a long running time.

Andrew Judkins By the time Robert Altman directed Short Cuts, in 1993, his style of interconnected and quirky characters in the format of a large cast was becoming trendy. The nineties would see other famous examples of this approach by big name directors, notably Tarantino's Pulp Fiction in 1994 and Paul Thomas Anderson's' Magnolia from 1999. There was even a Simpson's episode in this vein in 1996 called '22 Short Films About Springfield'. Even though Altman was one of the inventors of this style, or grouping of styles, Short Takes suffers some from being in the age of such movies, rather than a monumental predecessor. Altman came close to perfecting the large, interconnected ensemble film in 1975 with Nashville. This film was more of a portrait of a unique city with its own music and culture and a portrait of the times rather than a character study or a gripping pot boiler. So the title made sense. Perhaps an even more accurate title would have been Nashville 1975. Altman excited audiences by making a large scale portrait of a time and place, full of complexity and brimming with interesting little stories and people. By 1993, the charms of these new developments were starting to wear off, and the nineties would sap the creative reservoir (and audience patience) of such sprawling films.Nashville is a better film---it cracks with energy and humor, it radiates a cynicism that was new in the 70's but is now commonplace. Short cuts fails to be a larger portrait as Nashville was. Nashville's true main character was the city herself. All the pieces fit to make a larger structure. This large structure may have been gaudy and odd, but it was worth building. Short Takes takes place in L.A. Suburbs, but is not about them. It feels like it takes place there because it was convenient, not because Altman had developed a Nashville-like interest in the area. The stories are thus highly reliant on their connections, though these can feel contrived. There is too much material here, even for 3 hours, to mine much real depth with individuals, and so the shattered pieces of a whole are hurt by never fitting into a larger structure. Nashville was 'weird' because it was about a city, Short Takes is 'weird' because it is about nothing. It seems appropriate that this movie came from the age of Seinfeld.Nashville was better and more innovative, but Short Takes was still on the front edge of the nineties trend of piecemeal interconnection dramas. It seems unfair that Pulp Fiction is so much more heralded and Magnolia is more remembered and loved. Why? Pulp Fiction might be more silly fun, and Magnolia might be by arguably the most gifted director of the three, but Short takes feels left behind by these films even though it was first, from a historical point of view. Part of this comes from the tone. The film is not touching or dramatic in the conventional sense. The viewer doesn't care about anyone in particular. We feel as upset for the girl killed by Chris Penn's character (she has only a few lines) as we do for anyone. Through its sheer fun Pulp Fiction makes you care about the characters in at least a passing way. Magnolia is a web of quirky, interconnected characters, but has more thematic and emotional focus. Short Cuts feels insincere at times, dramatically, and falls into clichés which are amplified by the lack of time any one line of a character is given. The attempts at darkish humor fall flat or feel confusing as to whether they are serious or tongue in cheek. Despite a huge cast of huge names, the actors seem as confused and aimless as the audience. There are very good actors everywhere here and so sometimes good acting comes here and there, but there is a subdued feeling like all the talent has been handicapped. This is a good film if you are in a patient mood, but far from Altman's best work. Six stars.