Short Cuts (1993)
4/10
And this movie is great... why?
20 March 2000
After seeing Magnolia, I would constantly read reviews of it that said it was but a pale imitation of a masterpiece called "Short Cuts". Well, I loved Magnolia, so it seems I should be utterly flabbergasted by Short Cuts, right? Hmm... you'd think, wouldn't you?

Short Cuts could have succeeded, if it had set for itself some less lofty goals. It contained 22 main characters. I don't care what kind of brilliant director you are, there is no way to provide adequate characterization for 22 main players in a 3 hour movie. The end result is that I cared about none of them. It also didn't help that most of the stories were really pretty boring. A guy cheats on his wife. A couple is going to have dinner at some other people's house. Yet another couple babysit some fish. Whee. About 90 minutes into the story, things begin to get more interesting. There's a dead body involved, and some characters actually show an emotion that isn't boredom. By this point, though, I completely stopped caring. And it doesn't help that, for every minute devoted to, say, the dead body plot line, another 5 minutes are devoted to something completely banal. And as a final complaint, it's all just so random. There are tie-ins between story lines, but there's no justification for most of them. If Bob suddenly dines at the restaurant where Joe works, that's enough reason to devote an entire side-story to how Bob overcame his bowel problems. And the Great Ending has no relevance whatsoever. Yaaaaawn.

This movie had a few amusing moments, but "a few amusing moments" in a 3 hour movie just doesn't cut it. Yeah, it parallels real life, but who wants to spend 3 hours watching their own life on the screen? My life is boring enough; I don't need to have my entertainment be boring, too. This movie earns a whopping 4/10 from me.
21 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed