Own the rights?
4 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :- A Classy, Low Budget Entertainment, 13 August 2001 Author: tabuno from utah
"Starry Night" is a rather odd piece of work because it is obviously a very low budget film with mediocre acting and no name stars, however, the power in this story is its sincerity, its concept, and its simplicity. While never doubt that this movie is really bad in its performance mostly due to the budget I imagine, somehow the magic of the main character rubs off rest of the cast, and the movie becomes entertaining. Who cares how cheesy it is. I enjoyed the movie. It was entertaining. It had a feel good plot. It had suspense. I would recommend this fantasy because it had elements of truth and well it's too bad more movies don't have the heart that this movie has.
4 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :- A real delight; a crowd pleaser, 7 April 2000 Author: rigoleto (rigoleto@table.jps.net) from Santa Ana, CA
This was shown at the Newport Beach Film Festival (April 2000), where it won an Audience Award for Best Feature Film. It's a real delight. Good cinematography and a good story. It's a fantasy/fable in which Van Gogh comes back to life in the present day. When he finds out how much his paintings are worth, he decides to take them back (since he only sold one during his lifetime, the rest are still his) and sell them to raise money for scholarships for art students. Along the way, he runs afoul of art critics and manages to keep one step ahead of the police.
3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :- Better Than Expected!, 4 July 2002 Author: scharbiebarbie from New York, USA
I rented this movie because I knew someone in it. I wasn't expecting much because I usually don't on movies I've never heard of, but this one was good. Director Paul Davids does a good job of coming up with an enjoyable fairy tale story that should appeal to almost anyone. Sometimes the acting can be over the top and I noticed that the actor who played Van Gogh had some trouble with the accent, but in the end does a convincing job. I'm glad that Universal Pictures took a chance with a movie like this instead of some special effects ridden movie. Rent and enjoy
5 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :- the perfect example of just how bad a movie can get..., 23 February 2004 Author: Catscanfly from Edinburgh, Scotland
I'm not quite sure how i managed to see this film... Ah yes, i remember. My brother gave it to me as a joke christmas present, because he, having seen it, and repeatedly describing to me just how terrible it was, wanted me to confirm just how right he was.He was right. The acting, writing, and general execution of this project is so bad, that it is comical to watch. From the first scene with dialogue, it becomes evident that this is going to be an arduous film to watch. The laughably clunking, cliche ridden script, electric keyboard soundtrack, and useless cinematography are topped in awfulness only by the shudderingly bad performances, and rather than a haunting feeling of mystique playing the viewers minds, there is a decided feeling of "what street corner did they scoop these people off?" Abbot Alexander, cast as the flesh creeping "hero" of this piece, is, admittedly, well cast: that is, he is if the makers intended for Vincent Van Gogh to come across as a semi irish, partially swedish, and occasionally glaswegian maniac, prancing around the streets of Hollywood, charitably donating money to "all the starving artists" of the world. And, judging by his performance, one wanders whether this was not what they intended). One can only suppose that he is meant to warm our hearts with his love and idealism, and his apparently selfless actions during his 100 day stay in the modern world. (no remembrance in sight for the general concensus that Van Gogh was, infact, an insane, often violent, and manic depressive homosexual, as opposed to a cuddly, loveable and most definately hetereosexual rogue, with an admirably eccentric lifestyle.) As his love interest, Cathy, (or, as Vincent incessantly, and infuriatingly refers to her: Cat-hee) Lisa waltz displays little to no amount of warmth or affection for her lover; instead, swans around, almost disjointedly, and remaining remarkably undisturbed or otherwise alarmed by her lover's sinister movements, creepy manner, or, worst of all, his frightening mascara. She delivers lines with fatigue and melodrama in equal measure, perhaps (one cannot be sure) experimenting with attempts to compensate for the shockingly stupid dialogue and motivations allotted to her character. However, neither of these two ghastly displays of so-called acting are quite up to challenging Sally Kirkland for the place of "most terrible performance". In the role of the tough, cynical and art detective Brooke Murphy (each introduction she gives to herself in the movie, including her listing all her achievements as an art detective, as well as the scenes inwhich she explains the psychology of "art terrorists" are hilarious) who chases after Vincent throughout the film, She displays a humourless amount of overacting, smouldering with an unreal amount of hatred and anger towards most living beings, particularly Vincent Van Gogh. On the other hand, of course, hers is admittedly, by far the most entertaining performance. Indeed, watching this actress take the possibilities of awfulness in acting to new heights is an all at once engrossing, horrifying, and hilarious spectacle.But perhaps I have been too cruel. Starry night is, if notihng else, a brave, and might I add, ambitious project, which, with the possible exception of Liza waltz, the cast and crew have approached with incredible enthusiasm. some moments, are, infact,beggaring in belief ( watch out for margo the peasant woman's most exceptionally weird wink at Vincent, in the first scene). And, for all it's faults (and there be many) starry night is almost , (almost) endearingly terrible. Or, then again, perhaps it is a clever, almost ingenious, but ultimately failed marketing attempt: make a movie soindescribably awful (ala The Producers) that it will draw in so much incredulous disbelief, and cause audiences to make second, third, or even fourth trips to the cinema, to confirm it's existance.
6 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :- Extremely cheesy, 13 May 2002 Author: CaptionsGirl from Burbank, CA
This is SOOOOO BAD. I have so many problems with this movie. #1 How does van Gogh know how to speak English? #2 Why of all places is he reincarnated in Hollywood? How does he steal all these paintings when not all of his paintings are located in the Los Angeles area? The overacting by the police officers who think he's an "Art terrorist" is painful to watch. This is a puff piece for people who want to show off how much they know about van Gogh. Also, the production values seem quite low.
2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :- Universal does it right!, 10 November 2000 Author: aimulti from LA
Starry Night is the perfect family film. I would recommend it to anyone who would enjoy a non-violent, optimistic and charming film with great acting and direction.It is clear why it is the first movie, with a budget well under one million, to be released by Universal Pictures since the days of the silent film.Well done Universal and Paul Davids.MH
2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :- Great picture. Web site to dig deeper., 12 October 2000 Author: Hunter Paalman from Walnut Creek, California, USA
Producer Paul Davids is an artist and independent film maker who is strongly influenced by Van Gough and has conceived a delightful fantasy film. Vincent returns to the modern world in wonderment of the acceptance and prices of his works. Entertaining personal and artistic adventures ensue.
1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :- The Reasons To Hate Or Love This Movie !!, 1 August 2007 Author: ahmed elshikh (ahmed_abd_elreheem@yahoo.com) from Egypt
Of course after watching you'll catch yourself wondering : how did THE WAVES bring Vincent from Europe to Hollywood ?!, the girl loved him in a very easy way !!, how on earth he could be that genius as a thief to steal all that paintings of him ?!!, when he went to the auction to claim all of that millions.. That was unbelievably stupid ?!!, and how his sane girlfriend didn't stop him ?!, and what is it with all of that back-projection photography to make us believe that Vincent and his two friends in Paris ?!!, so that shots (from 2 cameras) which the news bulletin of the American T.V aired for Vincent in jail ?!; it was part of the movie's drama not like a news shooting as it meant to be !!.It looked sometimes like a project of cinema school student with all the faults, video's photography, and that zero budget !! But the story was beautiful. Also the cover version of (Starry Night) at the opening credits was so good and tender like the performance of all the cast : (David Abbott) was fine as sensitive gentle Vincent with the crazy look lasting in his eyes, (Lisa Waltz) was wonderful although her part gave her nothing to do except loving the man and believing in him ! (Lou Wagner) was that childish in the same way the movie itself was. Actually all of them was pretty amazing and believing the true fantasy of the situation with a smile on their faces as they're telling a story for a kid, and that's the real purpose of this very tiny movie anyway.. To tell a story which's honoring in an unassuming way the memory of (Vincent Van Gogh) and in the same time can learn us good things : how to believe in miracles and not to be that logical all the time (like the detective who loses because of this very reason), love your friend (Vincen here cut off his earlobe as a regret for insulting his friend Paul Gauguin !), have faith in your dreams, high art is not for the rich people only ..whom must ensure sponsorship for the young unknown artistes, and the good message about the late evaluation of the artist and how that wouldn't delay the one's resolution or doubt one's talent (to shoot himself like Vincent). It's a naive, some kind of poor, movie but nice and well–meaning for any child around, including the one inside every person of us.
Bad in a funny way, 6 August 2007 Author: kjellham from Norway
I watched it for the second time yesterday, and I have to say that "Starry Night" is entertaining. Mostly because it's so bad that its funny - if you have that kind of humor. The acting is bad, the story/script is bad - and basically it seems like the director have no idea on how to create a dramatic situation. The cinematography is also cheap - it seems like the video-quality we see in the TV-news; just a video-camera (Betacam maybe? It seems analog to me..) - and no lightning (or sometimes - just flat lightning). There were nothing that reminded me of any production-design. But there are a lot of makeup - specially on Van Gogh himself - a make up that would work better on a stage than on a film. How they managed to sell this film twice to a Norwegian TV-station is a mystery to me.But it seems like the film is made with on a very low budget (or maybe no-budget) - so anyway I do admire the filmmakers for their effort on making this with such a ambitious story. And if we look at it as an amateur project (which I do) - I'm impressed that they pulled it off - it is after all a full length feature, and the intentions are good.I read some of the other comments posted here, and most agrees with me. Others are very positive - but come on - I would be very surprised if the positive comments weren't written by the filmmakers themselves. How can anyone - not attached to the project - say that this is a great film or a masterpiece?
Cheesy, Corny, but funny and likable, 9 December 2006 Author: laura_hammond57 from Canada
Granted, it was a low budget movie, but the concept was a very entertaining, fascinating and heart warming one. For those people who feel the need to trash, are you so ingrained in the grim realities of modern life, that you've forgotten how to just enjoy a simple and enjoyable fantasy? Have you forgotten that movies were originally created to help us escape into another world? Personally, I didn't mind this one despite the admittedly bad acting in many cases, I must admit. In many ways, this corny little piece was far more entertaining than a lot of the bloody dreck that Hollywood's been putting out for the last few years.
Add another comment
