Dylan Horrex
I believe that I've Heard the Mermaids Singing should have done far better in the box office. It is a clever movie that tells an original story about a unique character who takes quirkiness to a new, and quite charming, level. The film utilizes the main character, Polly's, odd dreams to foreshadow and explain events throughout its 81 minuet running. Although some may find it to be too complicated, or think that it makes no sense, a closer look reveals many creative and clever elements that can help one better understand the film and its characters. Some such elements are Polly's first dream, which in about a minuet manages to foreshadow the entire film, and the film's final scene, which demonstrates that Gabrielle has come to realize that aging does not take away from beauty, thanks to Polly. The film also shows its aptitude for symbolism in the names of certain locations, namely the Church Gallery. The art gallery's name represents Polly's "worship," as one could call it, of Gabrielle and the world of art. Despite all of this, I've Heard the Mermaids Signing only grossed $1,408,491 in the box office, far less than the 597th most grossing movie of all time, Collateral, which made $100,003,492. I believe that a movie with such a creative plot, and with characters that are extremely relatable and lovable, deserves to be much higher on the list. A list, I feel I should point out, that it didn't even make. Saying that this film is under-appreciated is a massive understatement.
tomm-25
This film was made by artless people - artless writer(s), artless actors, artless cinematographer(s), artless sound, costumes, editor(s), and everything else and all other film folx who should know better.The only attraction was Sheila McCarthy's hair. I watched it to the end, ever hopeful that this piece if incompetent film-making would have some redeeming feature(s). NONE found. It's simply an amateurish PoS.I do not understand the positive reviews that others have given, nor the overall high score.Perhaps the offbeat, somewhat mystical/fanciful nature displayed from the outset held up for those who liked this film. It certainly did not for me.
tedg
Wow. There are four rather fine things in this, and one that ruins it all.First the good. The key role is perfectly realized. Though the supporting actors and the way things are staged are mundane, this actress and the writer/directer created someone memorable. This was Napoleon Dynamite before he was cool.While dialog and pacing are uneven, the music isn't. It is uniformly apt. The performance and the music alone are just about enough to sustain the thing until the end.And there's one brilliant piece of stagecraft. Some paintings figure in the plot. These paintings have impressed our heroine who -- it is made explicit -- is our narrator. She describes them as miraculous and when they are shown, they are blank, white glowing rectangles. Until this point, the imaginary and real segments are clearly distinguished, and when we see this clever trick, we move forward on our chair, waiting for what is next.And the final great thing is the way the thing is structured. In several ways, we are told that this is an artwork that is about artwork and the "message" is both in the story and how the story is told: there are matters of authorship and genuineness; a bit about filming and being filmed; other bits about reality and representations of reality. Hey, we see, this is one smart woman behind this. And we lean ever more forward in the chair, ready to leap.And then the end hits us with such a banal notion that we are gobsmacked back. Hey! Is that all? All that energy and cleverness to tell us something Art Linkletter or Reader's Digest could (and does)? Jees.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
harry-lin
I first saw this Canadian film when it was released in 1987. I was a college undergraduate, and the film has never left my memory since then. The movie is original, startling, lovely, hilarious, and thought-provoking.It's a shame that it hasn't been made available on DVD, but I read on the director's official Web site (patriciarozema.com) that Miramax Films is going to re-release the movie. That's exciting! Perhaps they'll also release it on DVD. (Miramax, if you're reading this -- put it out on DVD!)If you ever have a chance to see this film, see it.
AD
