Keeley Coleman The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Caryl It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

fedor8 "(Movies are) better than sex", says the Marxist nerd. Desperate self-deception as a means of self-comfort? Don't ask me. I'm not a shrink.To speak of these misfits in terms of their incurable urge to shove their cowardly heads into the sand (read: their favourite cinemas) again and again, like a bunch of frightened ostriches in order to escape the "harsh reality" of everyday life, would still be a major understatement. These five characters make Robert Crumb's siblings look like Wall Street yuppies by comparison. The question begs itself: what would they do if films didn't exist? Books? Alcohol? Drugs? Kiddie porn? Stamp collections? In spite of his relative eloquence, the biggest loser of the bunch is undoubtedly Jack Angstreich (whose name quite fittingly means "rich with fear"): a typical "intellectual moron" (as Daniel J. Flynn calls all such bipeds in his book of the same title), although a more apt label would be "quasi-intellectual moron". I've always pitied the ignorant souls who learn all of their "history" and politics from Tinseltown movies and Continental Euro-trash cinema. Talk about a sound education! "I watch movies therefore I am an intellectual, a historian, and a very wise man." The poor schluck, he doesn't even realize that he'd been brainwashed by those 103,000 Leftist/Marxist propaganda films he'd subjected his long-suffering brain to in the course of his tragically sexless life. (But I guess that's the nature of the beast: like the lunatic who doesn't know he is insane. Brainwashing will do that to you.) I had to laugh out loud when Jack said this about a filmmaker/actor: "He was a Communist, but in a bad way." He said this with a straight face.Evidently, Jack hadn't spent much of his X-legged woodyallenesque existence outside of his NY: the cinema, the subway, and his depressing devoid-of-female-company flat. I'd suggest he visit North Korea or Cuba, to get a badly needed reality check; might shake him out of his self-imposed cowardly "intellectual" slumber. Isolation (or as Marx would call it: "alienation") breeds political extremism, among other things. Were it otherwise, he'd know that there's no such thing as being a Communist "in a good way." There are only two types of Marxists: the anti-social, semi-sociopathic Marxist who is aware of his own misanthropy (which is ironic of course because Leftists are meant to be do-gooders), the other type being the gullible Marxist who actually believes that Utopia (i.e. Heaven) can be achieved. Jack is a typical "couch philosopher": a species of wannabe intellectuals whose sense of reality becomes so warped due to the decades of close-to-zero physical participation in the real world, that they get lost in the thickets of (self-contradicting) theory, losing all focus in their thinking in the process.Jack hates Capitalism precisely because it forces competition within the human species, and if there is anything cowards/misfits hate it's having to compete in a world which tends to devour weaklings and lazy people. How stereotypically hypocritical: his comfortable 5-movies-a-day layabout existence would be far less likely in any Marxist dictatorship. He enjoys the fruits of other people's labour (unemployed; lives off the tons of money his aunt left him), while whining about the imperfect system. But I guess if Michael Antonioni told him that America stinks then it must be true...But let's leave this lonely man and his supposed "ex-girlfriends" - a lie he spreads on several occasions in this documentary to save face. (Nice try, but no cigar!) Roberta is possibly the most fun creature here. Slightly malicious, (un)intentionally amusing, OCD-afflicted, and somewhat insane, she comes off as a kind of female reincarnation of John Huston. (The facial resemblance is as hilarious as it is baffling.) She tried to choke an usher because the latter tore up her ticket. Nuff said.Eric is the one who comes closest to being a half-way normal, sensible human being. (Let's disregard Jack's half-baked semi-philosophical definition of "normal"; he'd love to be "normal" and he knows it.) He is also the only one in the bunch who seems to have common sense (something "intellectuals" generally detest). At one point he says: "Some of the foreign movies are called 'masterpieces' because they're not fun so people think they must be profound." Plus he watches videotaped films. Obviously he has a clearer head on his shoulders than his rather confused, manic-depressive, frantic-yet-lethargic, movie-devouring "buddies".Harvey is a rather likable, cheerful character. He'll watch anything, does not discriminate between Kubrick and Bert I. Gordon. He has an impressive collection of very rare LPs (movie soundtracks) but he does not have a turntable to play them on. You gotta love that...Bill is the ultimate nerd. He constantly gets the chills in the cinema, but not because it's cold there. It must be the fear of life that makes him shake like a leaf. He probably dreads the moment when the movie ends and the lights go on because that means he has to endure an entire 15 minutes until the next movie projection, when he can yet again immerse himself into a world in which HE is Alain Delon. He pretentiously "adores" Euro-trash cinema (if that's even possible), thinking naively that this will impress us (i.e. fool us) into thinking that he is a "movie buff intellectual" of some sort. Alas, there's an oxymoron right there: the species I just named does not even exist.Which brings me to the worrying, puzzling, and downright cretinous over-adoration of cinema and the rampant idolization of its low-IQ thespians and hyped-up, barely educated directors... They're just MOVIES, frcrissakes! People who think they will find all of the world's wisdom in moving pictures - made by greedy businessmen and overrated "artistes" - are just as sadly deluded as those self-loathing cult members who think that comets exist for the solitary purpose of collecting their useless, pathetic souls.For my extensive "Left-wing Propaganda In Cinema" list, email me.

MartinHafer Before I start into the film, I should point out that there are two versions of this documentary about cinema addicts living in New York City. The first I saw was a little less than a hour long and there is a longer version that was for theatrical release. Having now seen both, I actually prefer the shorter TV version because the interviews work so much better because of the editing--with less "dead time" and a tighter focus. Still, both are well worth seeking.My love for this documentary is for two main reasons. First, I teach psychology and have used this film to illustrate Obsessive-Compulsive behavior, various personality disorders and the recently identified phenomenon of "collectors"--people who hoard items of practically no intrinsic value in a reaction against the shallowness of their lives. Second, with the third largest number of reviews on IMDb as of 12/07, I myself am a bit of a cinemaniac--but not nearly to the degree of those featured on the films. While I do watch a huge number of films (almost exclusively on VHS, DVD and cable TV), I also have a good job, healthy family life and don't think I'm THAT screwed up yet--and the documentary is a great way to warn me against the dangers of compulsively watching films. This was especially brought to my attention when I noticed that almost all the odd art films they mention in the movie are ones I have seen and often loved. In particular, the one man who adores THE UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG said a lot of brilliant things about this masterpiece. Scary, huh?! I have a bit of a kindred spirit out there! However, in the case of these rather sad individuals, enjoying the films in a traditional sense isn't possible. They are so obsessed with the details that often they don't stop to enjoy the film itself! One man has memorized the running times of practically every film (like a Savant) and it tears him apart if the film is shortened by even a minute! Another so obsessively saves every film ticket that she becomes violent if the ticket taker actually rips the ticket in half. And, even more sad, most have no lives or jobs because of this disability or mania. Some of this is because some of these people are indeed mentally ill, but most are not in a legal sense "crazy"--just possessing very disturbed personalities (meaning therapy or medication would probably do nothing to change their odd behaviors).This film opens up so many discussions for psychology students and sociologists. Much of it is because these people are all a bit different--with different styles of their obsessions, different mental illnesses or personality disturbances. In a way, a psychology student taking a class on diagnosis could almost make a game of spotting the pathology.As for how this documentary was made, it was made in Europe but is completely in English. Plus, oddly, there is no narration--the subjects and those who know them are just encouraged to speak for themselves. This was a wonderful choice since it was edited so well--and narration often ruins a good documentary as it isn't always helpful or needed.Brilliant, shocking and a bit disturbing, this is not for everyone's tastes, but a wonderful film nonetheless. By the way, many who did NOT like this documentary had valid reasons but many did not--not liking the subjects personality is NOT a valid reason nor that it wasn't a comedy nor was the knucklehead who was angry because the films the obsessed people liked (mostly art films, foreign films and classics) were not the same films they themselves liked!!! Hello....anyone out there.....this was NOT the purpose of the documentary. Liking the people or their choices of films was certainly NOT the reason for this great film--but the pathology and detrimental effects on their lives was (as most of them did NOT work but were on the public dole due to someone considering this a true disability).

FlorisV I love the topic of this documentary and was interested enough to buy it. I was hoping I could identify just a little with these people, being a movie buff myself but they were too different and we don't really get to know them well.One of the problems I personally had was that all these people loved older films, black and whites, European classics, that sort of work. I have never been very interested in those. Also, their insistence to go to the cinema instead of watching a DVD I could not identify with.I thought it would also have been interesting to see what made these people what they are, what it is they're afraid of and escaping from. How people around them, family and friends have dealt with their behavior. These topics are neglected way too much. I think it would have been interesting to hear more other people, from outside the little movie buff circle, voice their opinion of the cine-maniacs.Also, if you want to see a documentary about loneliness this is not it. All of them had (seemingly) at least one friend and they didn't seem like they were hermits. They were all obsessive but not depressed or anything, they just like going to the movies way too much.We don't get to see their inner conflicts, what they are struggling with. They don't seem to struggle with anything anymore, maybe they decided to give that up long ago and decided for a simple life that consists of going to the cinema. It must be extremely boring, even for film lovers. What's going on with these people? We don't get the answers, too bad.

cohenmi I have seen this film several times, and as a fellow New York City film buff find it very fascinating, especially some of the insights Jack has on the workings of the projection rooms. While I would consider it difficult to sit through more than 3 or 4 films in a week, these five people are seeing at least that many per day!!!Unfortunately, one obvious issue the film glosses over is just how these people can afford this lifestyle. Early on it is mentioned that while Jack is living off an inheritance and Bill is a freelance editor, the other three (Harvey, Roberta, and Eric) are living on disability. Now, I'm not exactly a right-wing Republican but surely it must occur to some, if not most, viewers that people receiving disability payments are supposed to be, you know, DISABLED, and not running around Manhattan attending movies all day. Maybe they are conning the system or maybe they really do have some non-obvious disability (besides O-C disorder) that prohibits them from working - the filmmakers make no attempt to find out.