Author Topic: Sliding Doors (1998)  (Read 2123 times)

Offline Antares

  • Super Heavy Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 4100
    • View Profile
Sliding Doors (1998)
« on: February 01, 2010, 11:31:48 PM »
Sliding Doors





Year: 1998
Film Studio: Paramount Pictures, Miramax Films, Mirage Productions
Genre: Comedy, Romance
Length: 99 Min.

Director
Peter Howitt (1957)

Writing
Peter Howitt (1957)...Writer

Producer
Helen Booth
Philippa Braithwaite
Guy East
William Horberg
Sydney Pollack (1934)
Sandy Poustie
Nigel Sinclair
David Wisnievitz

Cinematographer
Remi Adefarasin (1948)

Music
David Hirschfelder (1960)...Composer

Stars
Gwyneth Paltrow (1972) as Helen Quilley
John Hannah (1962) as James Hammerton
John Lynch (1961) as Gerry
Jeanne Tripplehorn (1963) as Lydia
Zara Turner as Anna
Douglas McFerran as Russell
Paul Brightwell as Clive
Nina Young (1966) as Claudia

Review
       A young woman is rushing to the subway to catch a train back to her apartment after losing her job. As she is coming down the stairs towards the platform, a child coming up the stairs slightly brushes her to the side. This slight diversion in her descent to the platform causes enough of a delay to prohibit her from entering the train, as the doors slide closed just ahead of her. Reversing the scene and restarting the sequence again, what if the same child’s mother suddenly whisks her daughter to the side before she brushes against the young woman and instead of impeding her progress towards the train; she continues unabated to the subway car and enters just as the doors slide shut? Would that somewhat insignificant instance drastically alter the outcome of the rest of her day, and possibly the rest of her life? It’s an interesting philosophical question and a very ingenious concept for a screenplay.
 
       This the heart of the story in Sliding Doors, starring Gwyneth Paltrow as a young woman named Helen whose life travels down two different paths concurrently after the aforementioned twist of fate. As one version of the narrative reveals the infidelity of her fiancé, she opts to start her life anew in fresh surroundings with a complete makeover of her appearance and character. This change helps to keep the viewer from becoming confused as to which account they are watching at the time. As the two plots unfold, one path seems to take her on a journey towards a bright future, while the other descends her life deeper into despair. Just when you think the film is leading to the inevitable conclusions to both tales, fate once again steps in and changes the outcome of both stories.

       It’s refreshing to watch a film with a screenplay that is completely unpredictable and at the same time entertaining. All too often, one element must be sacrificed to insure the other elements success. Nowadays it takes an independent film company to bankroll a film of this nature, and thank God for that. With Hollywood stuck in a blockbuster remake mode of filmmaking, moviegoers who are tired of rehashed tripe, full of violence, nudity and special effects, must have an alternative avenue for their entertainment dollar.


Ratings Criterion
5 Stars - The pinnacle of film perfection and excellence.
4 ½ Stars - Not quite an immortal film, yet a masterpiece in its own right.
4 Stars - Historically important film, considered a classic.
3 ½ Stars - An entertaining film that’s fun or engaging to watch.
3 Stars – A good film that’s worth a Netflix venture.
2 ½ Stars - Borderline viewable.
2 Stars – A bad film that may have a moment of interest.
1 ½ Stars – Insipid, trite and sophomoric, and that's its good points.
1 Star – A film so vacuous, it will suck 2 hours from the remainder of your life.
½ Star - A gangrenous and festering pustule in the chronicles of celluloid.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2010, 06:36:17 PM by Antares »

Offline Achim

  • Mega Heavy Poster
  • *******
  • Posts: 7171
  • Country: 00
    • View Profile
    • ya_shin's site
Re: Sliding Doors (1998)
« Reply #1 on: February 02, 2010, 05:14:44 AM »
Sliding Doors bored me, a lot. I have seen the first part once and then lost interest. But yes, the concept is very intriguing and I should give it another try, maybe.


I thought The Butterfly Effect basically explores the same idea and at least had me more interested in the proceedings (in fact, I may want to watch it again soon).

Najemikon

  • Guest
Re: Sliding Doors (1998)
« Reply #2 on: February 02, 2010, 06:33:48 PM »
Maybe I should try Sliding Doors, because I thought The Butterfly Effect was dreadful...  ;)

Offline goodguy

  • Heavy Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1464
  • Colleen West never liked the first light of day.
    • View Profile
Re: Sliding Doors (1998)
« Reply #3 on: February 02, 2010, 11:16:18 PM »
Maybe I should try Sliding Doors, because I thought The Butterfly Effect was dreadful...  ;)

God, yes. I have repeatedly heard good things about "Sliding Doors", but somehow it never accumulated to me actually getting it. And - same year, similar concept: Tykwer's "Lola rennt" (Run Lola Run) is pretty good too.
Matthias

Najemikon

  • Guest
Re: Sliding Doors (1998)
« Reply #4 on: February 03, 2010, 12:30:20 AM »
Run Lola Run is really great. Very inventive.

Offline Dragonfire

  • Mega Heavy Poster
  • *******
  • Posts: 6911
    • View Profile
    • Dragonfire88 Pbwiki
Re: Sliding Doors (1998)
« Reply #5 on: February 03, 2010, 03:07:20 AM »
I saw Sliding Doors several years ago..I didn't hate it, but I didn't like it that much either.  I don't remember why.

Offline Achim

  • Mega Heavy Poster
  • *******
  • Posts: 7171
  • Country: 00
    • View Profile
    • ya_shin's site
Re: Sliding Doors (1998)
« Reply #6 on: February 03, 2010, 05:08:35 AM »
Hmmm, yeah, Run Lola Run is also similar 8as are others..., just saying), and is definetly up for a re-watch on my end! Wasn't it suggested in the Movie Analysis thread...?