delirious_angel Its been a while since I've this movie but its always stayed with me and I would strongly recommend it. This film has Hal Hartley's trademark sparse, artsy atmosphere, with the slightly surreal characters, the staged dialogue and set pieces. All the characters are quirky and memorable, I loved Isabelle Huppert's character - the nymphomanical nun - in particular and the story dissects amnesia in a really interesting way. Above all the central love story will draw you in more than you realise; the ending was both crushing and fitting. This is due to the acting, as every movement and expression helps to build characters and relationships. Isabelle Huppert and Martin Donovan both do this perfectly, and the impact of the ending owes a lot to them. The odd 'staging' of the film may put off those expecting a more conventional thriller but open minded viewers will be rewarded.

przgzr This is a surprising movie. It's more crime genre than you expect with Isabelle Huppert in cast, but much more French style than you expect from American director. First part of the movie was Chabrol-like (and it's a complement), second is more action but far from modern American action movies (that I don't like). This change is well made, it has reasons according to the development of the plot. *** spoilers, including end of movie !! ***The movie shows a few days that make a whole life for two main characters. Isabelle was lethargic, almost in a hibernation, living in a nunnery and later waiting for things to happen; now she feels she found the purpose of her existence, to fulfill the task she has been given by Holy Virgin, and starts living. At the end of the movie she succeeded in doing it, her possible lover is killed, she is left empty and seems emotionally dead. For Thomas the situation is even more extreme: suffering complete amnesia it's as if he was born on the beginning of the movie, and (physically) dies at the end. His death is absurd: though he was a criminal, ruining many lives, he is punished for crimes he (because of amnesia) doesn't even know he did. And it makes this execution as pointless as in Easy Rider or Blue Soldier. Photography was better indoors than outdoors (restaurant in the beginning, Sofia and the rose, or empty room where Edward was tortured); good camera angles in country house when Edward looks for Thomas. In a border-reality movie like this some use of slow-motion or Hamilton-like soft photo could be expected, but maybe it would look to much like a dream (Isabelle) or nightmare (Thomas), or too profane, so the director didn't do it. Interesting use of carefully chosen objects, like a lamp in empty room: it seems to be the guy's only possession in a place he uses to make love, and now it is used for violence, for torturing.* spoilers-free part *I don't know how many people will enjoy this movie. It's not like old French crime movies (Delon, Belmondo, Ventura) or modern American action movies, so if you expect it, be careful. Maybe you'll like it, I did. But I like Chabrol and old film-noir movies, so if you're closer to my taste, and if you prefer visual beauty and mood instead of action and dynamic change of scenes, this could be a movie for you.

tedg Hartley is one of the most interesting directors working. Many associate him with French intuitives, but I think his experiments are more intellectual, more New York. His films are not only about other films, but exist in a world abstracted from them where almost everyone else insists on wallowing in the same space they reference.This is still an early work, which I had the opportunity to see with its purported referent: 'Band of Outsiders.'Writing as a fulcrum; performance as porn; film humor as a selfaware deadpan. Sex as an abstract creation. Pain as an act. Huppert as walking hair, early Posey on her way to Jackie K.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

Sara the Weimaraner Yes, I'm aware that Hal Hartley is an acclaimed independent film maker. I like most of his films myself.Yes, I'm aware that I'm supposed to like this film.That having been made clear, I want the $1.50 it cost me to see "Amateur" back! (Hey, it's been eight years and I'm not asking for interest or emotional damages.)I suppose it's only fair that I give some reasons for thinking that "Amateur" is a bad film. 1) It is too long. The story could have been told quicker. 2) Owing, in part, to the first reason, it is boring. 3) It keeps faking you out, making you think that something exciting is about to happen and you, the weary viewer, keep giving it that chance. It's kind of like an abusive relationship: despite being hurt time after time, you can't break it off.Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that I could do a better job or anything like that. It's just that I had really high hopes for "Amateur" and those hopes were crushed.