A homage to the obsessive-compulsive essential New York normal schizophrenic in the form of a film buff. How better to characterize this great town than with portraits of it's neurotic citizens. We love New York and New York loves the movies.
27 Reviews
Not great but definitely worth seeing
aogilmore-129 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I totally disagree with those who say the film is depressing. While I would not to trade places with any of these people (with the possible exception of the guy who inherited a bundle from his aunt -- heh!), I found the characters, on the whole, to be interesting, relatively entertaining and lively. While undoubtedly compulsive, their enjoyment of film was obvious. Roberta was probably the saddest of the lot. She reveals that she will most likely be evicted "by summer" but fortunately we don't see this. Hopefully the eviction was averted.
To the reviewer who thought the film should have covered the entire history of cinemania in NYC and that that the "good old days" are long gone -- well, that may be true and it sounds fascinating, and probably deserves a documentary of its own. But that wasn't really what this film was about. If anything, these characters' devotion to the "pure cinema" in a world of DVDs and video, was even more striking.
To the reviewer who thought the film should have covered the entire history of cinemania in NYC and that that the "good old days" are long gone -- well, that may be true and it sounds fascinating, and probably deserves a documentary of its own. But that wasn't really what this film was about. If anything, these characters' devotion to the "pure cinema" in a world of DVDs and video, was even more striking.
Cinemania (2002)
SnakesOnAnAfricanPlain13 December 2011
This film means I no longer feel bad about how many films I watch. It's a rather depressing tale about how far obsessions really can go, but also how they can comfort those with mental disorders. Clearly there's some debate as to what is normal. The people themselves justify their actions by saying that normal is just what everybody else is like, and who wants to be like everyone else. While this is certainly true, there are limits. They live on the cheap, have very few social skills, and even plan their diets to make sure their bathroom stops are predictable. There are some genuinely sad moments, such as Roberta's reaction to being comforted about the horses dying. She seems genuinely taken aback and devastated when she is told "They weren't really hurt, it's just a movie." "Why would you say that?" comes her response "You can't suspend disbelief for everything else and not that.". We also hear testimony about her physically attacking a woman that tore her ticket stub. When it reaches a point that dreams are films and nightmares are on video, and saying that sex with real people would be disappointing because it wouldn't be in black and white, it all gets a bit sad. Cinema should be an escape from life, these people need a life to escape cinema.
Interesting subject of filmaholics in NYC is given superficial treatment.
lor_27 June 2002
Cinemania, screened recently as a world premiere at AMMI in Queens (where it was partially shot), deals with the marginal world of true movie nuts: New Yorkers who attend anywhere from 500 to 1000 feature films in cinemas per year at the cost of leaving no time for virtually any other activities or "normal" social life.
I am a "recovering cinemaniac" who attended 600 films per year throughout the '70s and '80s, but not now -I've moved on to other pursuits, mainly music. I personally know four of the five principals featured in this documentary. We used to meet on a nearly daily basis at MoMA, Film Forum, Walter Reade, the old Thalia, or many other now-defunct Gotham revival houses including the Gramercy, Regency, Theatre 80 St. Marks, Jean Renoir Cinema, Fifth Avenue Cinema, The New Yorker, Bleecker St. Cinema, Carnegie Hall Cinema, etc. Each of these true "characters" is quite serious about this avocation, collecting memorabilia (Roberta and Harvey), or making endless preparations and cross-referenced lists of upcoming showtimes so as not to miss anything important or rare that is screening (Jack). Eric has sadly succumbed to watching videos, but is still included here as sort of an "emeritus" cinemaniac.
The filmmakers, who stated at the q&a post-screening that they were independently filming Jack when they joined forces on this single project, miss a great opportunity to really dig into the subject -the Golden Age of movie culture in New York, which existed back in the '50s, '60s and '70s. Pioneering figures like Anthology Archives' Jonas Mekas are still on the scene and could have been interviewed, and a study of the days of Amos Vogel, Sid Geffen, Richard Roud, Andy Warhol, et al would have made for a riveting documentary even if the "documents plus voices" approach of Ken Burns were all that could be conjured up of the past.
Instead, the directors took the lazy contemporary approach, for which the audience rightly took them to task at the q&a. The five very interesting individuals are trailed around town during 2000/2001 in lame cinéma vérité style, revealing more silly foibles than insight. I felt very bad for my friends and acquaintances, who deserved a lot more than being treated as figures of fun. Ironically, what the 5 Cinemaniacs had to say at the Q&A (NOT recorded by these filmmakers) was vastly more interesting and revealing than anything shown in the film itself.
The premise of this film is sadly off-target: the claim is made that cinemania flourishes in New York in this new 21st Century, when in fact anyone with any memory knows the Good Old Days are long gone. As Jack frequently points out, print quality is a serious problem. Absence of talented and dedicated projectionists is equally harmful. As imdb fans must know, everything today is driven by DVD, video and new technology. The great revival houses are gone. Sure there are dedicated restoration projects devoted to individual film titles, but the endless feast of revival films is no more, when the collected works of Bergman, Truffaut, Dreyer, Chabrol, Kurosawa, Antonioni and all the American masters were constantly on display right back through to the Silents. Heck, back in the '70s it was routine for COMMERCIAL FIRST-RUN CINEMAS to run Garbo, Keaton, Chaplin and Marx Bros. festivals. I was living in Cambridge back in the '60s when the Bogey and other revival cults really took hold.
Nowhere in this flimsy documentary do we find about the Thousand Eyes film society, the history of midnight movies (begun at the old Elgin Theater, now the Joyce Dance Theater in Chelsea), Cinema 16 and the Underground Film movement (which presaged the Midnight Movies) or even a hint of the once rich ethnic cinemas (foreign language films shown without subtitles, Spanish, Indian, Polish, etc.) that were all killed off by video.
Alas, I hope someone delves into the fun by-gone eras of movie fanaticism -when GOING to catch a rare film was the impetus to self-education about the cinema. Even drive-ins were a great source in "them days", right up through the '70s. Today a movie nut is likely to be building a COLLECTION (undreamed of decades ago) of adulterated VHS or revisionist (how much added footage & commentary can be tossed into the pot) DVD material. As a purist, I never counted seeing a film on tv as actually SEEING it - it had to be on a screen (Marshall McLuhan had an explanation for this but I was merely intuitive). Today's movie buffs have settled for the illusion rather than the real deal (driven by our society's ever-reliance on planned obsolescence, as exemplified by the imminent end of the VHS just as BETA disappeared and DVD will be later destroyed (how about those self-destructing inferior quality laserdiscs??).
Punchline is that this documentary was SHOT ON VIDEO (and then transferred to film), a fact commented upon derogatorily by Jack & others who revere 35mm (or 70mm). The current generation is treating film and video as interchangeable; a near-future generation will not even know what film is (was) once digital technology completely takes over in cinemas. All in the pursuit of (or worse, cutting corners to save) an almighty buck.
I am a "recovering cinemaniac" who attended 600 films per year throughout the '70s and '80s, but not now -I've moved on to other pursuits, mainly music. I personally know four of the five principals featured in this documentary. We used to meet on a nearly daily basis at MoMA, Film Forum, Walter Reade, the old Thalia, or many other now-defunct Gotham revival houses including the Gramercy, Regency, Theatre 80 St. Marks, Jean Renoir Cinema, Fifth Avenue Cinema, The New Yorker, Bleecker St. Cinema, Carnegie Hall Cinema, etc. Each of these true "characters" is quite serious about this avocation, collecting memorabilia (Roberta and Harvey), or making endless preparations and cross-referenced lists of upcoming showtimes so as not to miss anything important or rare that is screening (Jack). Eric has sadly succumbed to watching videos, but is still included here as sort of an "emeritus" cinemaniac.
The filmmakers, who stated at the q&a post-screening that they were independently filming Jack when they joined forces on this single project, miss a great opportunity to really dig into the subject -the Golden Age of movie culture in New York, which existed back in the '50s, '60s and '70s. Pioneering figures like Anthology Archives' Jonas Mekas are still on the scene and could have been interviewed, and a study of the days of Amos Vogel, Sid Geffen, Richard Roud, Andy Warhol, et al would have made for a riveting documentary even if the "documents plus voices" approach of Ken Burns were all that could be conjured up of the past.
Instead, the directors took the lazy contemporary approach, for which the audience rightly took them to task at the q&a. The five very interesting individuals are trailed around town during 2000/2001 in lame cinéma vérité style, revealing more silly foibles than insight. I felt very bad for my friends and acquaintances, who deserved a lot more than being treated as figures of fun. Ironically, what the 5 Cinemaniacs had to say at the Q&A (NOT recorded by these filmmakers) was vastly more interesting and revealing than anything shown in the film itself.
The premise of this film is sadly off-target: the claim is made that cinemania flourishes in New York in this new 21st Century, when in fact anyone with any memory knows the Good Old Days are long gone. As Jack frequently points out, print quality is a serious problem. Absence of talented and dedicated projectionists is equally harmful. As imdb fans must know, everything today is driven by DVD, video and new technology. The great revival houses are gone. Sure there are dedicated restoration projects devoted to individual film titles, but the endless feast of revival films is no more, when the collected works of Bergman, Truffaut, Dreyer, Chabrol, Kurosawa, Antonioni and all the American masters were constantly on display right back through to the Silents. Heck, back in the '70s it was routine for COMMERCIAL FIRST-RUN CINEMAS to run Garbo, Keaton, Chaplin and Marx Bros. festivals. I was living in Cambridge back in the '60s when the Bogey and other revival cults really took hold.
Nowhere in this flimsy documentary do we find about the Thousand Eyes film society, the history of midnight movies (begun at the old Elgin Theater, now the Joyce Dance Theater in Chelsea), Cinema 16 and the Underground Film movement (which presaged the Midnight Movies) or even a hint of the once rich ethnic cinemas (foreign language films shown without subtitles, Spanish, Indian, Polish, etc.) that were all killed off by video.
Alas, I hope someone delves into the fun by-gone eras of movie fanaticism -when GOING to catch a rare film was the impetus to self-education about the cinema. Even drive-ins were a great source in "them days", right up through the '70s. Today a movie nut is likely to be building a COLLECTION (undreamed of decades ago) of adulterated VHS or revisionist (how much added footage & commentary can be tossed into the pot) DVD material. As a purist, I never counted seeing a film on tv as actually SEEING it - it had to be on a screen (Marshall McLuhan had an explanation for this but I was merely intuitive). Today's movie buffs have settled for the illusion rather than the real deal (driven by our society's ever-reliance on planned obsolescence, as exemplified by the imminent end of the VHS just as BETA disappeared and DVD will be later destroyed (how about those self-destructing inferior quality laserdiscs??).
Punchline is that this documentary was SHOT ON VIDEO (and then transferred to film), a fact commented upon derogatorily by Jack & others who revere 35mm (or 70mm). The current generation is treating film and video as interchangeable; a near-future generation will not even know what film is (was) once digital technology completely takes over in cinemas. All in the pursuit of (or worse, cutting corners to save) an almighty buck.
Obsession
JackBenjamin5 December 2008
And I thought I had a problem.
I guess obsession is the same no matter what the object is, and many documentaries have dealt with that theme, but obviously this one is much more of a meta-doc.
What I wonder is, are these people so dysfunctional because they continually go to movies; or do they go to movies because they're dysfunctional? There's something really disturbing if the former is the case -- that we consume movies and TV (more than we should) and the result is this deterioration of the mind and total disconnection from society. Are these people examples of over-consumption taken to its logical extreme? Do most of us have the exact same pathology but just watered down?
I guess obsession is the same no matter what the object is, and many documentaries have dealt with that theme, but obviously this one is much more of a meta-doc.
What I wonder is, are these people so dysfunctional because they continually go to movies; or do they go to movies because they're dysfunctional? There's something really disturbing if the former is the case -- that we consume movies and TV (more than we should) and the result is this deterioration of the mind and total disconnection from society. Are these people examples of over-consumption taken to its logical extreme? Do most of us have the exact same pathology but just watered down?
Strange behavior
jotix10023 May 2003
Manhattan is a mecca for the lonely. Nowhere in the world can people survive for years without the need of communicating with other people. Some of them have absolutely no life, or in the case of these five characters in this fantastic documentary, these are people who put all their energy into escaping from the real world. Their refuge is the many film theaters of Manhattan that show non commercial programs such as the ones that attract them.
How much can they absorb? How much can they really enjoy the same films that attract them?. Watching this documentary one can't really say.
Of all five people analyzed in the film only Jack comes close to a normal person. He is a walking encyclopedia. He knows about cinema. I have seen him in numerous occasions and have talked to him. He is the source one wishes to have when one is thinking of an obscure passage of a forgotten film, domestic or foreign. His whole life revolves around the different showings around the city. His life is a mess, but at least, he gives the appearance of normalcy in comparison to the others.
Roberta is an eccentric lady whose whole life revolves around collecting programs wherever she goes. She appears to go to films out of duty, not because she really enjoys what she is seeing. Her own anecdote of taking off her blouse during an air conditioned failure is a hoot. Talking to her after a film will give you no clue if she liked or disliked what she saw. She would be much better off staying home sorting out a whole lifetime at the movies and straightening the mess she lives in. I hate to see a fire in that tenement, or in some of the other apartments, for that matter.
Co-directors Christlieb and Kijak know these people very well. They give us a bit of their world; they have captured the essence of these five lonely souls in the big city.
How much can they absorb? How much can they really enjoy the same films that attract them?. Watching this documentary one can't really say.
Of all five people analyzed in the film only Jack comes close to a normal person. He is a walking encyclopedia. He knows about cinema. I have seen him in numerous occasions and have talked to him. He is the source one wishes to have when one is thinking of an obscure passage of a forgotten film, domestic or foreign. His whole life revolves around the different showings around the city. His life is a mess, but at least, he gives the appearance of normalcy in comparison to the others.
Roberta is an eccentric lady whose whole life revolves around collecting programs wherever she goes. She appears to go to films out of duty, not because she really enjoys what she is seeing. Her own anecdote of taking off her blouse during an air conditioned failure is a hoot. Talking to her after a film will give you no clue if she liked or disliked what she saw. She would be much better off staying home sorting out a whole lifetime at the movies and straightening the mess she lives in. I hate to see a fire in that tenement, or in some of the other apartments, for that matter.
Co-directors Christlieb and Kijak know these people very well. They give us a bit of their world; they have captured the essence of these five lonely souls in the big city.
A fine film
mbrindell10 August 2019
This is a fine documentary dealing with one manifestation of obsessive/compulsive disorder. It does not accurately reflect the lifestyles of the vast majority of our film-obsessed moviegoers. I'm not a doctor; that's my layman's opinion. Having said that, I wouldn't discourage anyone from seeing the film. It's provides a good sense of the malady's symptoms, but provides little information on the disorder itself, let alone a solution.
Again, recommended.
Again, recommended.
A brilliant collection of lovably strange people.
stedrazed1 November 2003
CINEMANIA is a film for its subject matter: film geeks. I absolutely loved it, which tells you a little about me. This is a great film for anyone who's ever hopped a cab, bus or subway train in a mad frenzy to get from one movie to the next, for everyone who's ever made a list of all the films they've seen in a year just out of morbid curiosity as to how wisely they've spent their time, for anyone who's ever sacrificed a social event to see a movie alone. Yes, I've done all these things and more, but despite my identification with the weirdos that are the subject matter of CINEMANIA, even I was amazed at the absolute compulsion many of them have for cinema. One man is said to choose a carefully orchestrated "constipating diet" in order to avoid the inconvenience of missing the beginning of a film due to the necessity of bodily function; another places a personal ad in which he writes almost exclusively about film; the only woman among them, Roberta, has been known to physically fight ticket sellers at theatres that inconvenience her goal to save the ticket from every movie to which she's ever been. The astounding thing is how proud the cinemaniacs seem of their obsession and the utter lack of anything else in their lives. One film buff proclaims himself a "writer and philosopher", yet we never hear about him writing anything other than the aforementioned personal ad. Another has an extensive collection of movie soundtracks on vinyl, carefully arranged by composer, but doesn't own a record player. But this is not a mean-spirited, satirical film out to expose or poke fun at the "losers" and their passion for passive entertainment. As I have said, it is a film for those who identify with these so-called "losers", hopefully to a somewhat saner degree. Perhaps the most touching and important moment in the film is a scene in which one film buff (proponent of the constipating diet) discusses the escapist quality of film. "In a movie", he says (I'm paraphrasing) "you can just walk out of the restaurant and blend into the crowd, then walk across the street as if moving on into your new life, but in real life, you know, you have to go home; you can't put real life in a frame and make it art." But sometimes real life is art, sometimes it's better without the frame, and I'm happy to know that the tragic, comic and wonderful "characters" of this film are really out there, still passionate about this great art form, even to the point of insanity. Right on, brothers (and sister)!
at times disturbing, but also, in its way, kind of admirable (from afar)
Quinoa198422 April 2016
I think when I first watched this on TV many years ago, it came off like as though all of the subjects were just downright nutty. At best they have obsessive compulsive disorder, and at worst they're head-cases, loners, even in one case a "hoarder" (maybe there are more among the pack, just on lower levels). This was at a time when I hadn't lived as much life as a hardcore cinephile as I have by now; since then I've seen many films, and, as someone from the NYC area, at many of the theaters depicted, and I felt more empathy. This could be me in some alternate reality, easily, and I certainly connect with the ideal of seeing many films in the theater, and even to the point where early on I felt like 'hey, 3 movies a day, that's awesome, I hope to do that more too.'
But of course in this fairly short feature film, we get to see what these people are fully like, and they're not lacking in confessing about who they are and their... idiosyncrasies. I don't know if they still exist in the further dimming world of actual 35mm film projection and the proliferation of DVD and VoD/streaming, but it is a time capsule that reveals psychological mind-sets: making sure everything is to a tee, whether it's with wearing a particular sweater, getting ALL the pamphlets and movie schedule books for these art house theaters, getting the food, getting the memorabilia, what happens when there's a lack of any actual taste and one may go and see ANYTHING playing? These are some seemingly desperate people, but is it still a desperate time in Manhattan?
I think the filmmakers did an excellent job of getting to know these people, though I wish the filmmaking were a little better ironically enough. It's a little too basic, like something that is made for TV as a reality show (today this could potentially play on something like TLC the Learning Channel, albeit compared to many people on their shows these guys seem like rode scholars). It's even tempting to call it something closer to a freak-show, but I don't think that's what the intention was or how it exactly comes off. They are eccentric folks, and none of them seem to have anyone to go to the movies with really, except that some of them by proxy run into one another. It's funny but also quite sad, and the balance between the two makes it never less than interesting.
And, if you're the right particular movie geek, a little close to home... 7.5/10
But of course in this fairly short feature film, we get to see what these people are fully like, and they're not lacking in confessing about who they are and their... idiosyncrasies. I don't know if they still exist in the further dimming world of actual 35mm film projection and the proliferation of DVD and VoD/streaming, but it is a time capsule that reveals psychological mind-sets: making sure everything is to a tee, whether it's with wearing a particular sweater, getting ALL the pamphlets and movie schedule books for these art house theaters, getting the food, getting the memorabilia, what happens when there's a lack of any actual taste and one may go and see ANYTHING playing? These are some seemingly desperate people, but is it still a desperate time in Manhattan?
I think the filmmakers did an excellent job of getting to know these people, though I wish the filmmaking were a little better ironically enough. It's a little too basic, like something that is made for TV as a reality show (today this could potentially play on something like TLC the Learning Channel, albeit compared to many people on their shows these guys seem like rode scholars). It's even tempting to call it something closer to a freak-show, but I don't think that's what the intention was or how it exactly comes off. They are eccentric folks, and none of them seem to have anyone to go to the movies with really, except that some of them by proxy run into one another. It's funny but also quite sad, and the balance between the two makes it never less than interesting.
And, if you're the right particular movie geek, a little close to home... 7.5/10
Brilliant
planktonrules23 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Before I start into the film, I should point out that there are two versions of this documentary about cinema addicts living in New York City. The first I saw was a little less than a hour long and there is a longer version that was for theatrical release. Having now seen both, I actually prefer the shorter TV version because the interviews work so much better because of the editing--with less "dead time" and a tighter focus. Still, both are well worth seeking.
My love for this documentary is for two main reasons. First, I teach psychology and have used this film to illustrate Obsessive-Compulsive behavior, various personality disorders and the recently identified phenomenon of "collectors"--people who hoard items of practically no intrinsic value in a reaction against the shallowness of their lives. Second, with the third largest number of reviews on IMDb as of 12/07, I myself am a bit of a cinemaniac--but not nearly to the degree of those featured on the films. While I do watch a huge number of films (almost exclusively on VHS, DVD and cable TV), I also have a good job, healthy family life and don't think I'm THAT screwed up yet--and the documentary is a great way to warn me against the dangers of compulsively watching films. This was especially brought to my attention when I noticed that almost all the odd art films they mention in the movie are ones I have seen and often loved. In particular, the one man who adores THE UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG said a lot of brilliant things about this masterpiece. Scary, huh?! I have a bit of a kindred spirit out there! However, in the case of these rather sad individuals, enjoying the films in a traditional sense isn't possible. They are so obsessed with the details that often they don't stop to enjoy the film itself! One man has memorized the running times of practically every film (like a Savant) and it tears him apart if the film is shortened by even a minute! Another so obsessively saves every film ticket that she becomes violent if the ticket taker actually rips the ticket in half. And, even more sad, most have no lives or jobs because of this disability or mania. Some of this is because some of these people are indeed mentally ill, but most are not in a legal sense "crazy"--just possessing very disturbed personalities (meaning therapy or medication would probably do nothing to change their odd behaviors).
This film opens up so many discussions for psychology students and sociologists. Much of it is because these people are all a bit different--with different styles of their obsessions, different mental illnesses or personality disturbances. In a way, a psychology student taking a class on diagnosis could almost make a game of spotting the pathology.
As for how this documentary was made, it was made in Europe but is completely in English. Plus, oddly, there is no narration--the subjects and those who know them are just encouraged to speak for themselves. This was a wonderful choice since it was edited so well--and narration often ruins a good documentary as it isn't always helpful or needed.
Brilliant, shocking and a bit disturbing, this is not for everyone's tastes, but a wonderful film nonetheless. By the way, many who did NOT like this documentary had valid reasons but many did not--not liking the subjects personality is NOT a valid reason nor that it wasn't a comedy nor was the knucklehead who was angry because the films the obsessed people liked (mostly art films, foreign films and classics) were not the same films they themselves liked!!! Hello....anyone out there.....this was NOT the purpose of the documentary. Liking the people or their choices of films was certainly NOT the reason for this great film--but the pathology and detrimental effects on their lives was (as most of them did NOT work but were on the public dole due to someone considering this a true disability).
My love for this documentary is for two main reasons. First, I teach psychology and have used this film to illustrate Obsessive-Compulsive behavior, various personality disorders and the recently identified phenomenon of "collectors"--people who hoard items of practically no intrinsic value in a reaction against the shallowness of their lives. Second, with the third largest number of reviews on IMDb as of 12/07, I myself am a bit of a cinemaniac--but not nearly to the degree of those featured on the films. While I do watch a huge number of films (almost exclusively on VHS, DVD and cable TV), I also have a good job, healthy family life and don't think I'm THAT screwed up yet--and the documentary is a great way to warn me against the dangers of compulsively watching films. This was especially brought to my attention when I noticed that almost all the odd art films they mention in the movie are ones I have seen and often loved. In particular, the one man who adores THE UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG said a lot of brilliant things about this masterpiece. Scary, huh?! I have a bit of a kindred spirit out there! However, in the case of these rather sad individuals, enjoying the films in a traditional sense isn't possible. They are so obsessed with the details that often they don't stop to enjoy the film itself! One man has memorized the running times of practically every film (like a Savant) and it tears him apart if the film is shortened by even a minute! Another so obsessively saves every film ticket that she becomes violent if the ticket taker actually rips the ticket in half. And, even more sad, most have no lives or jobs because of this disability or mania. Some of this is because some of these people are indeed mentally ill, but most are not in a legal sense "crazy"--just possessing very disturbed personalities (meaning therapy or medication would probably do nothing to change their odd behaviors).
This film opens up so many discussions for psychology students and sociologists. Much of it is because these people are all a bit different--with different styles of their obsessions, different mental illnesses or personality disturbances. In a way, a psychology student taking a class on diagnosis could almost make a game of spotting the pathology.
As for how this documentary was made, it was made in Europe but is completely in English. Plus, oddly, there is no narration--the subjects and those who know them are just encouraged to speak for themselves. This was a wonderful choice since it was edited so well--and narration often ruins a good documentary as it isn't always helpful or needed.
Brilliant, shocking and a bit disturbing, this is not for everyone's tastes, but a wonderful film nonetheless. By the way, many who did NOT like this documentary had valid reasons but many did not--not liking the subjects personality is NOT a valid reason nor that it wasn't a comedy nor was the knucklehead who was angry because the films the obsessed people liked (mostly art films, foreign films and classics) were not the same films they themselves liked!!! Hello....anyone out there.....this was NOT the purpose of the documentary. Liking the people or their choices of films was certainly NOT the reason for this great film--but the pathology and detrimental effects on their lives was (as most of them did NOT work but were on the public dole due to someone considering this a true disability).
Upsetting, Pathetic, Crazy, & Sad all at once,
TheEmulator2311 July 2009
I consider myself a huge film buff. I have played HSX.com for @ least a decade & am ranked #135 Lifetime to Date, so I know movies & actors extremely well. Saying that, these people (especially the woman) are no longer film buffs, they are in a whole different extremely unhealthy category. What's infuriating to me is that all of these people are a drain on society. None of them serve any sort of purpose & they all collect disability. How that is possible when there are other more deserving actually handicapped whether physical or mental & are constantly denied makes it all the worse. The film isn't bad but it's not really good either. What's sad is that these people are completely consumed by watching movies. I watch at least 1 or 2 a night before going to sleep, but I don't come close to letting it run my life like these people. What's even more sad then just about anything is just how out of touch w/reality all these people are. I would bet that all of these people have some undiagnosed & yes diagnosed OCD & some other personality disorders because these people are off. Just like their is rehab for drug addicts, these people all need rehab from movies. This is really only for the hardcore fans as most will see 5 minutes say to themselves these people are crazy & turn it off.
I want to move to NY!
ApeStarfighter9 January 2004
This is one of the best documentaries I've ever seen. A rather interesting picture of the cineast of New York. We follow a couple of movie freaks in NY and get to know their every day life and their feelings toward themselves and the movies. In one way this movie makes me want to become obbsessive-compulsive. Long live the cinema!
Voyeurism at its best!
LeRoyMarko11 May 2004
This documentary tells the story of five New Yorkers obsessed with movies. They live for films, doing nothing else. At some point in the documentary, I ask myself the question: do they have a depressing life or do they live in a dream world? Because, I think I would be able to live this kind of life. I'm a big fan of lists, of IMDB of course and of movie houses. Cinema truly offers an escape door to our daily life. At the same time, to find refuge in films, I would have to abandon a lot of things. Then, I'm not so sure I want to live this life! One fact is for sure, after seeing this documentary, you want to see more movies! And explore new fields.
It's voyeurism at its best because the documentary doesn't give us too much information about the five movie buffs. It stays on the surface, using the five New Yorkers almost as freaks, deconnected from real life. There's a certain lack of details to the documentary.
Out of 100, I gave it 76. That's good for **½ out of ****.
Seen at home, in Toronto, on May 2nd, 2004.
It's voyeurism at its best because the documentary doesn't give us too much information about the five movie buffs. It stays on the surface, using the five New Yorkers almost as freaks, deconnected from real life. There's a certain lack of details to the documentary.
Out of 100, I gave it 76. That's good for **½ out of ****.
Seen at home, in Toronto, on May 2nd, 2004.
obsessive compulsive film watching disorder
mcshortfilm30 August 2005
We've seen these types of people before. I used to work at an old movie theater where one of these "cinemaniac" types was a regular customer. He would arrive very early between shows, waiting in the lobby and eat popcorn. Occasionally he would strike up a conversation and repeat a lot of the same stories like "you know, one of my best friends is William Shatner's personal secretary!" This man and the people documented in "Cinemania" are not people we want to pay much attention to. When we hear them, we may be amused by their quirkiness but eventually we just want to get away from them. We feel pity for them because they seem so oblivious. One minute of looking at these people and we know what their problem is. They need to get a life.
Instead of investigating their inner demons, the filmmakers decide to show the attractive qualities of these characters which is that they all love films. These are not the typical film buffs who obsess over Star Trek or Lord of the Rings. These are the types that are obsessed with "art" films. Despite their obsessive compulsive behavior, it is nice to see Americans who are passionate about films by Wim Wenders, Jean Luc Godard, Tarkovsky, and Truffaut. Their taste in films is rare in this country. One of the characters, Roberta takes film culture so seriously that she feels it is an insult to serve popcorn and snacks at the theater. Eric calls a theater and asks if the film playing that day is being shown on a new 35-mm print because otherwise, he won't see it. Another guy has a business card with a title like "philosopher, French New Wave, Godard expert". At one point in the film, we see him writing a blurb for an online dating service and one of his other film geeks is critiquing it. Unfortunately, we know he's not being very objective. The problem I had with this documentary was that it seemed to be mocking these people to the point where it was disturbing. There's not much we learn about these people other then the fact that they all share a form of obsessive compulsive behavior. One of the most depressing scenes was when two friends were sitting in a messy apartment watching an old movie on the VCR. The scene runs too long and the camera zooms right into their faces to show off their twitches and creepy expressions. It seems as though the film was trying to be therapeutic to these characters. At times, there are bits of revelations that we hear. "I watch these old films of Greta Garbo because it's a better alternative to watching porn all the time". That was a positive sign but by the end we just get a hopeless feeling about them. They're living as if they were in a movie, stuck in fantasy and never able to get out. Maybe, that's good for them but this film didn't make me think so.
Instead of investigating their inner demons, the filmmakers decide to show the attractive qualities of these characters which is that they all love films. These are not the typical film buffs who obsess over Star Trek or Lord of the Rings. These are the types that are obsessed with "art" films. Despite their obsessive compulsive behavior, it is nice to see Americans who are passionate about films by Wim Wenders, Jean Luc Godard, Tarkovsky, and Truffaut. Their taste in films is rare in this country. One of the characters, Roberta takes film culture so seriously that she feels it is an insult to serve popcorn and snacks at the theater. Eric calls a theater and asks if the film playing that day is being shown on a new 35-mm print because otherwise, he won't see it. Another guy has a business card with a title like "philosopher, French New Wave, Godard expert". At one point in the film, we see him writing a blurb for an online dating service and one of his other film geeks is critiquing it. Unfortunately, we know he's not being very objective. The problem I had with this documentary was that it seemed to be mocking these people to the point where it was disturbing. There's not much we learn about these people other then the fact that they all share a form of obsessive compulsive behavior. One of the most depressing scenes was when two friends were sitting in a messy apartment watching an old movie on the VCR. The scene runs too long and the camera zooms right into their faces to show off their twitches and creepy expressions. It seems as though the film was trying to be therapeutic to these characters. At times, there are bits of revelations that we hear. "I watch these old films of Greta Garbo because it's a better alternative to watching porn all the time". That was a positive sign but by the end we just get a hopeless feeling about them. They're living as if they were in a movie, stuck in fantasy and never able to get out. Maybe, that's good for them but this film didn't make me think so.
One of the scariest movies I have... ever... seen...!
Renaldo Matlin30 October 2003
The most impressive thing is that these people are real. No CGI or Stan Winston animatronics, and Frank Oz doesn't have his hand up their back, they are real people of flesh and blood just like me and you! Scary, I know.
My favorite has to be Roberta. Maybe because I don't come across to many women who love movies like I do, and Roberta REALLY loves movies. And on the positive side she doesn't freak me out as much as, say Jack. Jack (better than any character Woody Allen ever created) actually eats constipating food so he doesn't have to go to the restroom as often during the day. Which I can understand since he has to get through a gazillion movies each year, so when will he ever find the time to take a dump? But that's only answering one question. Answering that other question: I guess he just pees in an empty bottle during the movie. Hey it's dark in a movie theater, so who would notice?
"Cinemania" is really both sad and beautiful at the same time. And at times it even scared the hell out of me! If you call your self a movie buff, and have a wife or girlfriend who thinks you should spend less time on your hobby: take her to see this and she will realize that she could do a heck of a lot worse.
My favorite has to be Roberta. Maybe because I don't come across to many women who love movies like I do, and Roberta REALLY loves movies. And on the positive side she doesn't freak me out as much as, say Jack. Jack (better than any character Woody Allen ever created) actually eats constipating food so he doesn't have to go to the restroom as often during the day. Which I can understand since he has to get through a gazillion movies each year, so when will he ever find the time to take a dump? But that's only answering one question. Answering that other question: I guess he just pees in an empty bottle during the movie. Hey it's dark in a movie theater, so who would notice?
"Cinemania" is really both sad and beautiful at the same time. And at times it even scared the hell out of me! If you call your self a movie buff, and have a wife or girlfriend who thinks you should spend less time on your hobby: take her to see this and she will realize that she could do a heck of a lot worse.
Slightly disappointing
FlorisV4 July 2007
I love the topic of this documentary and was interested enough to buy it. I was hoping I could identify just a little with these people, being a movie buff myself but they were too different and we don't really get to know them well.
One of the problems I personally had was that all these people loved older films, black and whites, European classics, that sort of work. I have never been very interested in those. Also, their insistence to go to the cinema instead of watching a DVD I could not identify with.
I thought it would also have been interesting to see what made these people what they are, what it is they're afraid of and escaping from. How people around them, family and friends have dealt with their behavior. These topics are neglected way too much. I think it would have been interesting to hear more other people, from outside the little movie buff circle, voice their opinion of the cine-maniacs.
Also, if you want to see a documentary about loneliness this is not it. All of them had (seemingly) at least one friend and they didn't seem like they were hermits. They were all obsessive but not depressed or anything, they just like going to the movies way too much.
We don't get to see their inner conflicts, what they are struggling with. They don't seem to struggle with anything anymore, maybe they decided to give that up long ago and decided for a simple life that consists of going to the cinema. It must be extremely boring, even for film lovers. What's going on with these people? We don't get the answers, too bad.
One of the problems I personally had was that all these people loved older films, black and whites, European classics, that sort of work. I have never been very interested in those. Also, their insistence to go to the cinema instead of watching a DVD I could not identify with.
I thought it would also have been interesting to see what made these people what they are, what it is they're afraid of and escaping from. How people around them, family and friends have dealt with their behavior. These topics are neglected way too much. I think it would have been interesting to hear more other people, from outside the little movie buff circle, voice their opinion of the cine-maniacs.
Also, if you want to see a documentary about loneliness this is not it. All of them had (seemingly) at least one friend and they didn't seem like they were hermits. They were all obsessive but not depressed or anything, they just like going to the movies way too much.
We don't get to see their inner conflicts, what they are struggling with. They don't seem to struggle with anything anymore, maybe they decided to give that up long ago and decided for a simple life that consists of going to the cinema. It must be extremely boring, even for film lovers. What's going on with these people? We don't get the answers, too bad.
New Yorkers And Film Fans Can Relate
Jimmy_the_Gent413 March 2020
This is a documentary about five film obsessed fans in New York City.
I had seen this when first released, I just got the DVD. The subjects of the film are:
1) Jack-he is in his 30s, living off of an inheritance, he sees about 3 films a day every day, only in theaters, he will not watch films on TV or video. He is very verbose and fancies himself an intellectual. He skips family outings (also weddings and funerals) to go to screenings. He seems full of himself at times and a bit pretentious, also judgmental when speaking of the other cinephiles.
2) Eric- he is in his 50s, getting disability payments, he is the only one who likes watching films on video. He prefers 1930s comedies and musicals.He says he cares more for Audrey Hepburn than some of his relatives, he was devastated by her death. He has an unkempt appearance but is soft spoken and unassuming.
3) Bill- he is in his 30s, former grad student, currently collecting unemployment benefits. He prefers European films from New Wave to the present. He is looking for female companionship, hopefully a beautiful French girl. He is the only one who admits to seeing a psychiatrist and takes anti anxiety meds. He seems desperate at times but harmless.
4) Roberta-in her 60s, the only woman in the bunch, lives on disability payments, refuses to have a TV or VCR. She likes 1930s dramas and adventure films, she has a tearful reaction to A Farewell To Arms with Gary Cooper and Helen Hayes. She is a compulsive collector of movie related brochures and flyers. She can be cranky and argumentative at times. She passed away in 2009.
5) Harvey- in his 40s, another one getting disability payments, he watches any kind of film, including low budget trash, he is obsessed with the running times of movies and knows them by heart. He is a jovial character, often has fits of the giggles.
Some of the group have gotten into trouble due to their obsessions. Jack admits to having been arrested a few times. In the most interesting scene, we hear a ticket taker's confrontation with Roberta. Tia, the girl taking tickets, is the only one outside the group to be interviewed. She says she was working at the Museum Of Modern Art, Roberta did not want to give up her ticket. Apparently she has kept every intact ticket and did not want it ripped. Out of patience, Tia rips it and gives Roberta the stub. Roberta then angrily attacks the girl, trying to choke her, though Tia says Roberta obviously does not know what she is doing. Roberta then is banned from MOMA. Tia then recalls Roberta showing up in disguise another time with wig and makeup trying to get in. Tia recognizes her and a sobbing Roberta is escorted out. Tia rather condescendingly says Roberta was probably trying to relive something she saw in a movie.
A personal note here. I am a life long New Yorker and film fan, though not obsessed like the subjects of this doc. I have personally seen two of the people from the film, though I did not speak to them.
I saw Roberta on a ticket line once, I stood back and watched to see what would happen. She appeared to be in a mellow mood and the ticket taker did not rip off her stub.
I saw Harvey once sitting a few rows ahead of me in a theater. He was carrying on a conversation with some people sitting behind him. The conversation was about, you guessed it, movie running times.
The DVD is worth owning, since there are many good deleted scenes where we hear more about the subjects' favorite films which is most interesting for movie fans.
I had seen this when first released, I just got the DVD. The subjects of the film are:
1) Jack-he is in his 30s, living off of an inheritance, he sees about 3 films a day every day, only in theaters, he will not watch films on TV or video. He is very verbose and fancies himself an intellectual. He skips family outings (also weddings and funerals) to go to screenings. He seems full of himself at times and a bit pretentious, also judgmental when speaking of the other cinephiles.
2) Eric- he is in his 50s, getting disability payments, he is the only one who likes watching films on video. He prefers 1930s comedies and musicals.He says he cares more for Audrey Hepburn than some of his relatives, he was devastated by her death. He has an unkempt appearance but is soft spoken and unassuming.
3) Bill- he is in his 30s, former grad student, currently collecting unemployment benefits. He prefers European films from New Wave to the present. He is looking for female companionship, hopefully a beautiful French girl. He is the only one who admits to seeing a psychiatrist and takes anti anxiety meds. He seems desperate at times but harmless.
4) Roberta-in her 60s, the only woman in the bunch, lives on disability payments, refuses to have a TV or VCR. She likes 1930s dramas and adventure films, she has a tearful reaction to A Farewell To Arms with Gary Cooper and Helen Hayes. She is a compulsive collector of movie related brochures and flyers. She can be cranky and argumentative at times. She passed away in 2009.
5) Harvey- in his 40s, another one getting disability payments, he watches any kind of film, including low budget trash, he is obsessed with the running times of movies and knows them by heart. He is a jovial character, often has fits of the giggles.
Some of the group have gotten into trouble due to their obsessions. Jack admits to having been arrested a few times. In the most interesting scene, we hear a ticket taker's confrontation with Roberta. Tia, the girl taking tickets, is the only one outside the group to be interviewed. She says she was working at the Museum Of Modern Art, Roberta did not want to give up her ticket. Apparently she has kept every intact ticket and did not want it ripped. Out of patience, Tia rips it and gives Roberta the stub. Roberta then angrily attacks the girl, trying to choke her, though Tia says Roberta obviously does not know what she is doing. Roberta then is banned from MOMA. Tia then recalls Roberta showing up in disguise another time with wig and makeup trying to get in. Tia recognizes her and a sobbing Roberta is escorted out. Tia rather condescendingly says Roberta was probably trying to relive something she saw in a movie.
A personal note here. I am a life long New Yorker and film fan, though not obsessed like the subjects of this doc. I have personally seen two of the people from the film, though I did not speak to them.
I saw Roberta on a ticket line once, I stood back and watched to see what would happen. She appeared to be in a mellow mood and the ticket taker did not rip off her stub.
I saw Harvey once sitting a few rows ahead of me in a theater. He was carrying on a conversation with some people sitting behind him. The conversation was about, you guessed it, movie running times.
The DVD is worth owning, since there are many good deleted scenes where we hear more about the subjects' favorite films which is most interesting for movie fans.
A look at those who obsess about movies and must see their films projected
dbborroughs12 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Cinemania is a documentary about a bunch of crazy people in NYC who spend their lives watching films (in theaters).Either on disability or independently wealthy or working dead end jobs, they exist to just go to the movies...several times a day (and its go to the movies not watch videos). Yea I know they are like me... or not I don't need the projected image, I am happy with video and I do try to actually do things with people other than films or theater...Even by my standards these people are nuts-and I know buffs like them, who are more obsessive then sane (one of which was in a mental hospital- my friends-not in the movie). These are people who for the most part must see good films (one guy who is like me and will watch anything is derided) in good conditions or else they get nuts, complaining to the manager or even getting violent (The sole woman in the bunch was banned from The Museum of Modern Art's screening room for her bad behavior.) I admire their drive and ability to do nothing but sit but these people are too much. I would love to have a screen on 24 7 but I'd do other things while I watched. The film itself is good, if a tad long (Apparently it was originally intended for Finish TV and ran a half hour shorter). We get to know the people pretty well and we see their mania and we even like them. The thing is that running some 85 minutes the film runs out of steam because for the most part these are limited people and watching them talk about movies is different then talking to them about films (Having been around people like this I know its better to be involved then on the sideline). I liked it and recommend it, but I'm not sure I'll watch it again. (I am frightened that I could recognize the inside of most of the theaters shown....)
So relatable in a way
safenoe24 November 2016
Warning: Spoilers
If I had all the time and money in the world, I'd definitely love to spend my time in New York catching as many movies as possible 24/7. It would be a dream! But alas, I have to get the vicarious experience through this fine documentary about five folk who live the dream.
I wish there was a sequel that followed up on the five folk. Are they still pursuing their cinema viewings, albeit at a slower pace? Also, I'd be interested to see how the era of Peak TV has impacted on their cinematic habits? Maybe there should be a documentary called "Binge" where we follow five different folks in their respective lounge rooms debating whether to watch Black Mirror in one hit, or whether to watch the first two episodes of the new season of Orange is the New Black.
I wish there was a sequel that followed up on the five folk. Are they still pursuing their cinema viewings, albeit at a slower pace? Also, I'd be interested to see how the era of Peak TV has impacted on their cinematic habits? Maybe there should be a documentary called "Binge" where we follow five different folks in their respective lounge rooms debating whether to watch Black Mirror in one hit, or whether to watch the first two episodes of the new season of Orange is the New Black.
Admittedly, somewhat identifiable
take2docs16 June 2022
Warning: Spoilers
As far as I'm aware, 'cinemania' is not a psychiatrically recognized mental health disturbance, nor should it be. As for whether support groups exist for people wanting to overcome movie addiction, this I do not know, either, but where would such ones ever find the time to attend these meetings, anyway?
Far from viewing cinemania as a pathology, I for one prefer the term cinephilia and liken this passion to religious devotion, and who are we to be critical of innocuous religious beliefs and practices?
CINEMANIA introduces us to five admirable idolaters, who worship filmdom above all else.
There's Bill, who has sacrificed a career in order to devote all his time and energy to watching motion pictures. As with the other four ardent moviegoers profiled in this, the movie theater is more than just a place one goes to escape the stresses of reality, it's a place you go to worship.
There's Jack. Here's one guy who's not in the least bit afraid of commitment Why, he's completely devoted to the love of his life. There are positive changes to be observed in Jack as we witness him go from being disheveled to clean-cut, as if wanting to impress the gorgeous starlets whom he encounters on the big screen.
There's Eric. Yet another of our cinephiles who lives in poverty and, as most people know, after cleanliness is next to godliness.
There's Harvey. A likable man-child, without a hint of partiality in him. He'll watch almost anything put before him, the omnivorous viewer that he is.
Finally, there's Roberta, a spinster who refuses to have a TV in her humble hole-in-the-wall. True, she may be one foot away from living in the streets but at least it beats being a bag lady.
These are not lazy folks, by any means. Consider that when not in a theater watching movies, these people are constantly on the move, either racing to bus stops or hurriedly flagging down taxis, rushing to get to the next destination point in their hectic itineraries. I suspect they don't have much time even for sleep, let alone for eating. These are bona fide devotees through and through.
CINEMANIA was released in theaters back in 2001. That's over twenty years ago. I wonder if Bill, Jack, Eric, Harvey, and Roberta are still with us and why a follow-up documentary has never been made. If Jack's still around, I picture him perhaps working as an usher or as a film projectionist, some job close to church.
Of the five, I found myself liking Bill and Eric the most. That Bill gave up aspirations of becoming a lawyer is exactly what a devotee would do. Eric, meanwhile, I can't see doing anything else but watching movies and has somehow managed to eke out a subsistence doing so, which can only be a bonus. That he regards, in general, European cinema boring and pretentious, I'm in agreement with.
As for Jack, what are we to make of his claim of having watched 1000 movies in a single month? Do the math and you'll find that that's virtually humanly impossible, akin to a miracle that only an absolute saint would ever be able to pull off.
Sure, almost all five of these human subjects were unemployed at the time of filming, but all seem contented if not pleased with their lives, and are no less productive and of value to society than your average politician or parasitic, affluent idler.
Any one of these five subjects I would love to meet and chat film with. Incidentally, for the record, the types of movies I enjoy are indies, art-house, b&w classics, whodunits, spy thrillers, some science-fiction and some foreign films. Whereas, genres I tend to avoid include: Horror, Westerns, rom-coms, fantasy, actioners, and CGI-saturated blockbusters. I mention this, along with the fact that I watch, on average, five movies a week, as it helps to explain why CINEMANIA is a documentary that's so dear to my heart. We can't all be normies, nor do the majority of us outsiders desire to be.
Jack's cinema-related habits and quirks aside, I too have my own personal eccentricity of sorts when it comes to movie-viewing. Sacrosanct it is, in my book, that one sit attentively and silently through the end credits. In my opinion, the movie is not over until the crawl has completely ended! How can one not be riveted by the hauntingly lovely song that plays over the end-credits to director Paul Cox's "Innocence" (a film, by the way, that would make my top ten list of favorite films). Maybe only a cinephile would be able to appreciate what I mean by this. Does that make me one?
Like the Ida Lupino character in the Twilight Zone episode "The Sixteen-Millimeter Shrine," and the protagonist in the movie "Film Geek," Bill, Jack, Eric, Harvey, and Roberta know that there's more to life than simply work, family, social activities, and responsibilities. CINEMANIA proves it.
Far from viewing cinemania as a pathology, I for one prefer the term cinephilia and liken this passion to religious devotion, and who are we to be critical of innocuous religious beliefs and practices?
CINEMANIA introduces us to five admirable idolaters, who worship filmdom above all else.
There's Bill, who has sacrificed a career in order to devote all his time and energy to watching motion pictures. As with the other four ardent moviegoers profiled in this, the movie theater is more than just a place one goes to escape the stresses of reality, it's a place you go to worship.
There's Jack. Here's one guy who's not in the least bit afraid of commitment Why, he's completely devoted to the love of his life. There are positive changes to be observed in Jack as we witness him go from being disheveled to clean-cut, as if wanting to impress the gorgeous starlets whom he encounters on the big screen.
There's Eric. Yet another of our cinephiles who lives in poverty and, as most people know, after cleanliness is next to godliness.
There's Harvey. A likable man-child, without a hint of partiality in him. He'll watch almost anything put before him, the omnivorous viewer that he is.
Finally, there's Roberta, a spinster who refuses to have a TV in her humble hole-in-the-wall. True, she may be one foot away from living in the streets but at least it beats being a bag lady.
These are not lazy folks, by any means. Consider that when not in a theater watching movies, these people are constantly on the move, either racing to bus stops or hurriedly flagging down taxis, rushing to get to the next destination point in their hectic itineraries. I suspect they don't have much time even for sleep, let alone for eating. These are bona fide devotees through and through.
CINEMANIA was released in theaters back in 2001. That's over twenty years ago. I wonder if Bill, Jack, Eric, Harvey, and Roberta are still with us and why a follow-up documentary has never been made. If Jack's still around, I picture him perhaps working as an usher or as a film projectionist, some job close to church.
Of the five, I found myself liking Bill and Eric the most. That Bill gave up aspirations of becoming a lawyer is exactly what a devotee would do. Eric, meanwhile, I can't see doing anything else but watching movies and has somehow managed to eke out a subsistence doing so, which can only be a bonus. That he regards, in general, European cinema boring and pretentious, I'm in agreement with.
As for Jack, what are we to make of his claim of having watched 1000 movies in a single month? Do the math and you'll find that that's virtually humanly impossible, akin to a miracle that only an absolute saint would ever be able to pull off.
Sure, almost all five of these human subjects were unemployed at the time of filming, but all seem contented if not pleased with their lives, and are no less productive and of value to society than your average politician or parasitic, affluent idler.
Any one of these five subjects I would love to meet and chat film with. Incidentally, for the record, the types of movies I enjoy are indies, art-house, b&w classics, whodunits, spy thrillers, some science-fiction and some foreign films. Whereas, genres I tend to avoid include: Horror, Westerns, rom-coms, fantasy, actioners, and CGI-saturated blockbusters. I mention this, along with the fact that I watch, on average, five movies a week, as it helps to explain why CINEMANIA is a documentary that's so dear to my heart. We can't all be normies, nor do the majority of us outsiders desire to be.
Jack's cinema-related habits and quirks aside, I too have my own personal eccentricity of sorts when it comes to movie-viewing. Sacrosanct it is, in my book, that one sit attentively and silently through the end credits. In my opinion, the movie is not over until the crawl has completely ended! How can one not be riveted by the hauntingly lovely song that plays over the end-credits to director Paul Cox's "Innocence" (a film, by the way, that would make my top ten list of favorite films). Maybe only a cinephile would be able to appreciate what I mean by this. Does that make me one?
Like the Ida Lupino character in the Twilight Zone episode "The Sixteen-Millimeter Shrine," and the protagonist in the movie "Film Geek," Bill, Jack, Eric, Harvey, and Roberta know that there's more to life than simply work, family, social activities, and responsibilities. CINEMANIA proves it.
Tragic misunderstanding?
surendeur1 June 2002
This film was a favorite at the Seattle Film Festival. I went to a screening last night with rather high expectations, some of which were met and others, which well... were not.
We follow six oddballs from the big apple whose lives center around thick film festival guides and meticulous prints of "La Dolce Vita". The beginning is a clever montage in which we are introduced to each one and are allowed to laugh at their idiosyncracies. One individual's eccentric voiceover is played while he's spreading half a jar of peanut butter onto a slice of wonderbread. All are extraordinarily unattractive and the nightmare of any suburban mother who's afraid that they're kid is watching too much television. I am beginning to the think the term "film buff" should be given a new meaning. They ride on a subways crowded with anxious people catching the train to work. They sit at the sides of the train, hearts pounding at the pure thought of someone may "stealing their special seat" at the 3:00 showing at MoMA. One even collects thousands of film records. The revelation? He doesn't even own a record player.
The film stays a quirky, safe experience in the first half-hour. Then it becomes repetitive, disturbing, and not necessarily in a poignant matter. We step into their apartments and it's not surprising that they're all packrats (to say the VERY least). Many live with books (mostly related to film) stacked up to the ceilings, struggling daily to find their way out the door. Their social lives are exclusive to their `film society', which consists of spitting out film titles and waiting for ten second criticisms. Only one person is employed. The rest either live off someone else or a dead relatives royalties. The film became progressively more uncomfortable for me upon realizing that this, was, indeed a documentary and that the hypocrisy of sitting in a theatre, laughing at an extreme version of myself became too much for me. Had the filmmakers not been there, I probably might have walked out. As playwright Edward Albee said: `The best art holds a mirror in front of your face and says, THIS IS WHO YOU ARE. NOW CHANGE.' I wish it could have applied to this movie the same way. It never strayed from being a caricature-driven freak show and very much resisted giving us a thorough investigation of who the psychology of these people. What the hell they get out of saving every ticket stub and soda cup from their childhood. Tell me why? Tell me how? Give me answers before the film comes to an end
And of course, as most films do `Cinemania' came to end and left this viewer extremely irritated. Usually, I resist walking out of the theatre commenting on the film's quality. This time, when asked the question, I answered: `Self-conscious. But I'm sure they're thrilled that they're on screen. It's just too bad they don't understand how sad they are ' Which, I will admit is a matter of opinion and surely mine will be battered.
For me, it was a montage of social loners and obsessive-compulsives in the Big Apple. A friend of mine was touched, humored and said it reminded him of well, himself. What I failed to tell him was that it affected me the same way too. He just has a better sense of humor.
Recommended for fans of `Trekkies', `The Cruise' and `Crumb'.
RATING: 6/10
We follow six oddballs from the big apple whose lives center around thick film festival guides and meticulous prints of "La Dolce Vita". The beginning is a clever montage in which we are introduced to each one and are allowed to laugh at their idiosyncracies. One individual's eccentric voiceover is played while he's spreading half a jar of peanut butter onto a slice of wonderbread. All are extraordinarily unattractive and the nightmare of any suburban mother who's afraid that they're kid is watching too much television. I am beginning to the think the term "film buff" should be given a new meaning. They ride on a subways crowded with anxious people catching the train to work. They sit at the sides of the train, hearts pounding at the pure thought of someone may "stealing their special seat" at the 3:00 showing at MoMA. One even collects thousands of film records. The revelation? He doesn't even own a record player.
The film stays a quirky, safe experience in the first half-hour. Then it becomes repetitive, disturbing, and not necessarily in a poignant matter. We step into their apartments and it's not surprising that they're all packrats (to say the VERY least). Many live with books (mostly related to film) stacked up to the ceilings, struggling daily to find their way out the door. Their social lives are exclusive to their `film society', which consists of spitting out film titles and waiting for ten second criticisms. Only one person is employed. The rest either live off someone else or a dead relatives royalties. The film became progressively more uncomfortable for me upon realizing that this, was, indeed a documentary and that the hypocrisy of sitting in a theatre, laughing at an extreme version of myself became too much for me. Had the filmmakers not been there, I probably might have walked out. As playwright Edward Albee said: `The best art holds a mirror in front of your face and says, THIS IS WHO YOU ARE. NOW CHANGE.' I wish it could have applied to this movie the same way. It never strayed from being a caricature-driven freak show and very much resisted giving us a thorough investigation of who the psychology of these people. What the hell they get out of saving every ticket stub and soda cup from their childhood. Tell me why? Tell me how? Give me answers before the film comes to an end
And of course, as most films do `Cinemania' came to end and left this viewer extremely irritated. Usually, I resist walking out of the theatre commenting on the film's quality. This time, when asked the question, I answered: `Self-conscious. But I'm sure they're thrilled that they're on screen. It's just too bad they don't understand how sad they are ' Which, I will admit is a matter of opinion and surely mine will be battered.
For me, it was a montage of social loners and obsessive-compulsives in the Big Apple. A friend of mine was touched, humored and said it reminded him of well, himself. What I failed to tell him was that it affected me the same way too. He just has a better sense of humor.
Recommended for fans of `Trekkies', `The Cruise' and `Crumb'.
RATING: 6/10
Movie geeks who need to get a life
FeverDog2 December 2003
CINEMANIA runs sometimes on the Trio channel so I've seen it a few times. Its characters are what I'd probably become if I had unlimited time and resources to go to the movies five times every day. I've already been to some of the rep houses they frequent (like the Film Forum).
But even though this movie purports to be a comedy, I don't find it particularly funny. These people are sad loners who go to the movies all the time because they don't have anything else in their lives to do. Nowhere in the movie do we see them loving the films they see, or even enjoying them. No post-film chitchat about what they just saw, what they think of it, if they even liked it.
Roberta collects memorabilia. She's got a fast-food tie-in beverage cup for LAST ACTION HERO, but what does she think of the movie? Has she even seen it? Does she go to summer blockbusters or stick to film festivals and rep houses?
Do any of these maniacs have opinions? It's like they're obligated to partake in this ritual day after day, and any joy the cinema once gave them is long gone.
Oh, and I object to a movie called CINEMANIA that's shot on video.
But even though this movie purports to be a comedy, I don't find it particularly funny. These people are sad loners who go to the movies all the time because they don't have anything else in their lives to do. Nowhere in the movie do we see them loving the films they see, or even enjoying them. No post-film chitchat about what they just saw, what they think of it, if they even liked it.
Roberta collects memorabilia. She's got a fast-food tie-in beverage cup for LAST ACTION HERO, but what does she think of the movie? Has she even seen it? Does she go to summer blockbusters or stick to film festivals and rep houses?
Do any of these maniacs have opinions? It's like they're obligated to partake in this ritual day after day, and any joy the cinema once gave them is long gone.
Oh, and I object to a movie called CINEMANIA that's shot on video.
If you enjoy people-watching, you'll love this.
vixvox9 December 2002
Get a sneak peek into the lives of some "different" people. You probably know that people who are fanatic about subjects tend to be interesting anyway, but this movie takes you further.
If you enjoy watching people and making up stories for them, you have to see this movie! The real lives of these strange people are more interesting than anything you could think up!
If you enjoy watching people and making up stories for them, you have to see this movie! The real lives of these strange people are more interesting than anything you could think up!
argument against the welfare state
cohenmi1 December 2003
I have seen this film several times, and as a fellow New York City film buff find it very fascinating, especially some of the insights Jack has on the workings of the projection rooms. While I would consider it difficult to sit through more than 3 or 4 films in a week, these five people are seeing at least that many per day!!!
Unfortunately, one obvious issue the film glosses over is just how these people can afford this lifestyle. Early on it is mentioned that while Jack is living off an inheritance and Bill is a freelance editor, the other three (Harvey, Roberta, and Eric) are living on disability. Now, I'm not exactly a right-wing Republican but surely it must occur to some, if not most, viewers that people receiving disability payments are supposed to be, you know, DISABLED, and not running around Manhattan attending movies all day. Maybe they are conning the system or maybe they really do have some non-obvious disability (besides O-C disorder) that prohibits them from working - the filmmakers make no attempt to find out.
Unfortunately, one obvious issue the film glosses over is just how these people can afford this lifestyle. Early on it is mentioned that while Jack is living off an inheritance and Bill is a freelance editor, the other three (Harvey, Roberta, and Eric) are living on disability. Now, I'm not exactly a right-wing Republican but surely it must occur to some, if not most, viewers that people receiving disability payments are supposed to be, you know, DISABLED, and not running around Manhattan attending movies all day. Maybe they are conning the system or maybe they really do have some non-obvious disability (besides O-C disorder) that prohibits them from working - the filmmakers make no attempt to find out.
Strange
Michael_Elliott29 February 2008
Cinemania (2002)
*** (out of 4)
I had never heard of this film until reading Brook's review of it and I think I enjoyed it a bit more than he did, although I agree that this film is somewhat disturbing to watch. It follows five New York film buffs who go to all ends to see the films they love. I always thought I was near the top of those who watch films but after this film I realized that I'm rather tame. One of the men claims to have seen nearly a thousand movies in one month. One guy refuses to have sex with women because the sex can't be in B&W like in the movies. There's another woman who has a collection of soda cups, which she bought at various movies. I'm not going to sit here and call these people freaks or weirdos because they enjoy what they do and if it makes them happy then who am I to call them out on it? At first I thought these people made a few good points but soon their obsession got pretty damn scary with some of the things that were being said. The most bizarre thing was one guy who said he should kill people talking in the theater but he might not get to finish watching the movie because he'd get arrested.
*** (out of 4)
I had never heard of this film until reading Brook's review of it and I think I enjoyed it a bit more than he did, although I agree that this film is somewhat disturbing to watch. It follows five New York film buffs who go to all ends to see the films they love. I always thought I was near the top of those who watch films but after this film I realized that I'm rather tame. One of the men claims to have seen nearly a thousand movies in one month. One guy refuses to have sex with women because the sex can't be in B&W like in the movies. There's another woman who has a collection of soda cups, which she bought at various movies. I'm not going to sit here and call these people freaks or weirdos because they enjoy what they do and if it makes them happy then who am I to call them out on it? At first I thought these people made a few good points but soon their obsession got pretty damn scary with some of the things that were being said. The most bizarre thing was one guy who said he should kill people talking in the theater but he might not get to finish watching the movie because he'd get arrested.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
