Stellead Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

runamokprods I certainly like this film, especially after a 2nd viewing. But it's weak spots kept me from feeling it's one of Altman's very best.There are less than great performances in some key roles -- some actors are miscast, or playing caricatures, and a few are just not that brilliant. Some story lines seem facile, and the ending feels unsatisfyingly convenient and neat.Still, there's a lot that's funny, and a lot that's moving. It just never quite has the depth, or power or overall vision of it's earlier multi-character epic cousin, 'Nashville'.That said, most critics and people seem to like it even more than me, and it's well worth seeing and deciding for yourself. I bought the Criterion DVD, and still like it enough to return to every few years, whatever it's weak spots.

gridoon2018 "Short Cuts" is one of my all-time favorite movies. Essentially soap-opera material, if you think about it, elevated by superior craftsmanship, ingenious structuring, and an unbeatable cast of established and emerging talent (it is probably the movie that launched the career of Julianne Moore). There is laugh-out-loud comedy and heart-breaking drama, but mostly there is understated observation of nothing less than life itself. In Altman's hands, even a small incident like two sisters bursting out in laughter is a wonderful moment. And don't worry about the three-hour running time, the film flows at a perfect pace and carries you along. ***1/2 out of 4.

phd_travel I'm glad I came across this Robert Altman movie set in Los Angeles. This is a long movie and has a lot of characters. Surprisingly if you concentrate it isn't too confusing who is who. It keeps you interested to see how things turned out for the different sets of people and piecing together the jigsaw is quite fun. The story isn't that predictable. Good mix of drama and bizarre comedy, even if some of the eccentric characters are a bit too way off. Liked the fishing trip. The only problem is you don't get enough development of the characters because there isn't enough time. Maybe a few less would have been better. The best part of watching this movie in 2013 is to see the terrific cast and how they have all gone on to so much in their careers. Also a bit poignant how some of them have aged in the 20 years since. Good to see Jack Lemmon in one of his later roles. Madeleine Stowe is lovely. Tim Robbins and Peter Gallagher are quite hilarious. Worth a watch.

tecnodata I saw this movie again last night and, like an old friend with which you had a bit of disagreement long ago but you are happy to see again, I found it most enjoyable. Well, enjoyable by an artistic, cinematic point of view. Certainly not by a human point of view since at the end, the shallowness and downright ugliness of some of the characters, came back to make me feel again that lingering subtle sense of depression at life being sometimes so unpalatable. That same bitterness at the back of your mouth after a not-so-honorable spree the night before. And yet the movie is one that you will never say: I've had enough of this. You do want to follow the different personas, their briefly brushing of self-contained lives, hoping a new story will develop, a redeeming character will appear. But no one enters from the left to shed light. Everyone is self-absorbed.I looked at the some of the other reviews to see if someone else had my same hunch and did not find any reference to what I think is Altman's inspiration for this canvas of American lives: Federico Fellini. Where La Dolce vita was a large fresco of a certain society at a certain point in time, here Altman wants to represent on a large, spread out mural a number of characters loosely connected or separated by their own materialism, hoping that, in the end, what the viewer sees is the colors and shape of a bustling city that can only be L.A. Where Fellini had a Ulysses-like character (Mastroianni) representing himself and his awe at the confusing life of a cynical old city on the verge of modern materialism, Altman does not have an himself watching and connecting the stories but tries to be more objective, more detached, letting the individual stories develop kind of casually. This is because the script does not come from him, from his own experiences ( as I understand the aging singer character is his only contribution to the plot) but from a number of short stories written by someone else. So, where Fellini is telling us of his own fears, surprises and expectations Altman is recounting someone's else story, a story that he is trying to tell not interpret, hoping that it will speak to the viewers by itself. So, if Fellini's fresco reminds me of The Triumph of Death in the cemetery of Pisa, scary, bigger than life and never to be forgotten, Altman's work reminds me of those many , beautiful murals one can see all over the world: busy, colorful, confusing and devoid of perspective but which one goes away from with a bit of bitter aftertaste for not having told a more decisive, clear message. An 8 nonetheless.