robert-temple-1
Yes please, I want Tim Robbins with me everywhere I go. He will stop all those car alarms, building alarms, all the worst traffic noise, and keep me safe from being driven crazy by the noise of modern life. If only! This extraordinarily original film written and directed by Henry Bean utters the same sentiments of the vox populi as were expressed by Peter Finch in Paddy Chayefsky's script for NETWORK (1976): 'I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!' (You may remember if you ever saw that film that Finch used the medium of television to persuade tens of thousands of people all over America to throw open their windows and scream that protest into the streets.) The noise of modern urban life is clearly intolerable, and this wonderful comedic treatment of the subject is full of laughs tempered by the solemn realization that it is all, alas, too true. We have all been beaten down into passive acceptance of the intolerable, and that is the theme of this film: Tim Robbins is mad as hell and he isn't going to take it anymore. So he becomes 'The Rectifier', a kind of anonymous heroic Batman figure who goes round Manhattan disabling car alarms which have gone off on the streets, by smashing the car windows and cutting the alarm cables. This leads to a confrontation with the Mayor of New York, gauchely portrayed by William Hurt as a hectoring bully in a wig of the wrong colour and with an effete manner (amusing: where did that characterisation come from?) Tim Robbins is perfect, absolutely perfect, in the part of the rebel against the noise pollution. He is a master of that dreamy face of the idealist lost in his own quest for some unattainable perfection (in this case, silence). His wife, played by Bridget Moynahan, does not understand or tolerate him. Although she is a professional cellist and should know better, she is above all things a petite bourgeois and reacts as one: she commences an affair and throws him out of the house after saying of his crusade against car alarms: 'How can you do this to me?', with the emphasis on the me. Am I the only one who has noticed it, or are there others out there who have also noticed, that 95% of American movies over the past twenty years have contained angry young women? They are usually angry and vindictive ex-wives, but sometimes, as in this film, they are angry and vindictive wives. What they all have in common is an unquestioning narcissistic arrogance, total lack of rapport with any partner, and a contempt for all men, especially those whom they use as dispensable husband-toys. Is this really going on in life itself, or is it only in the movies? Surely this is a symptom of malaise in contemporary American society of a most troubling kind. It is more troubling to me than the urban noise, frankly. As a marital reject, living on his own in an even noisier neighbourhood (24th Street and Sixth Avenue, help!), Robbins is emotionally rescued by an extremely weird girl who hero-worships him (or at least does so temporarily), played scarily by the Russian/Jewish/American actress Margarita Levieva, who is sometimes a bit difficult to understand because of her accent. She is into sex in a major way and there is a threesome scene which is rather hilarious where she brings back to Robbins's apartment an even wilder creature, a Spanish gal played with droll panache by Maria Ballesteros, whose accent is even more impenetrable. The two gals have an interesting discussion about the relative merits of their private organs, which they take turns examining, while Robbins sits smoking a joint and speculating about the urban nose outside. Levieva is always pontificating about philosophy and quoting Hegel and being an aspiring hyper-intellectual. All of this is wonderfully funny satire, possibly based upon Henry Bean's private experiences, or should I suggest possibly his private parts experiences. There are numerous comedic characters and brilliant minor touches throughout the film where Bean succeeds in giving depth to minor players, with considerable success. Many 'members of the crowd', and even two irrepressible members of a jury, turn miraculously into hilarious characters, as the entire story is littered with the pathos of the multiple stories of the lives of countless supporting players. This is an amazing feat of screen writing and direction, and I wonder whether anyone has really appreciated the extent of Henry Bean's incredible talent and achievement. This film really is a classic, it truly is. Woody Allen ought to take a refresher course in comedy by studying the meticulous construction and realization of this film, which has a freshness and creativity about it which is lacking in, for instance, Allen's MELINDA AND MELINDA. What a pity that Henry Bean has made so few films. Perhaps he is too original, but thank God that he is.
rgcustomer
I enjoyed the movie.There are some truly blissful moments, such as the first time a wailing car gets what's coming to it, or when the mayor suffers an even greater offence than our hero. Truly, these are worth the price of admission, just to see.But the movie stumbles in places, trying to get all philosophical on us at points. I don't care about Hegel. Hegel's dead. Let's move on. To a three-way? What's that about? Seriously, someone this obsessed with car alarms isn't having a three-way. Or a two-way for that matter. Let him be the hero he is. That's enough.Some other comments claimed to point to "hypocrisy". Not so. All of the sounds that he appreciated were sounds that many people want to hear, like a live music performance in your own home -- a sound created specifically to be appreciated and admired. Few people actually want to hear car alarms under any circumstances, or jackhammers, or garbage trucks, or any of the other utterly pointless noises that fill a city.But, in summary, I did enjoy the film, and I was lucky enough not to be interrupted by the jerk two floors up from me who likes to blare his stereo (with sub-woofer) at all hours of the evening and night, into the morning. The police do nothing.It's foolish to think a film will spur action, but at least we can enjoy it for 90 minutes or so.
terralux
I really enjoyed most of this movie. I identify with the main character's (Tim Robbins is delightful and capturing) complete and utter distraction by the car alarms and the horrific head splitting noise that they make. His vigilante antics were funny and inspiring, albeit illegal, but I understand how noise can drive you mad when there is no rest from it. I definitely was rooting for him. The movie stagnated when a menage a trois was thrown in out of nowhere having nothing to do with plot development or understanding the characters better. It didn't add anything to the movie. Instead it took away from the continuity and left me wondering what the point of it was. It seemed like it was from another movie altogether as filler for time purposes. Once that was over and the movie plot resumed, it had a satisfying ending.
Jay Harris
Henry Bean both wrote & directed this comedy about (based on his own true experience) a man who take revenge on those blasted car horns & other noise polluters.Side note:Mr Bean also wrote & directed the excellent Ryan Gosling film THE BELIEVER a few years back. NOISE is his second film, I do hope he plans to make more films. He is talented.Tim Robbins is very good as this man who is so disturbed that he must act this way,The story takes place in New York City & that is one NOISY city to begin with.William Hurt adds another delightful role to his resume as a befuddled Mayor of NYC.Bridget Moynahan is our hero's not too patient wife & is very good, the entire cast is quite good.As I stated above, I was not fully satisfied, Its one of those films I can say I liked, but then wonder why.Maybe it cause I no longer am a New Yorker.The movie played in few festivals & had a very short theatrical run.It does warrant my rating but only faint praise.Ratings: *** (out of 4) 82 points (out of 100) IMDb 7 (out of 10)
