Logo

Cool News

ONE HOUR PHOTO... You'll never think of a Snapshot the same again

Published at:  Aug 28, 2002 1:45:10 PM CDT

Father Geek here... I used to work at a photo shop for about 4 months when I was in college in 67, we'd get bored and start going through all the pics, making up dialogue and plotlines to go with them. Most were quite ordinary birthday and family outing type shots, buuuuut every now and then we'd open up something that knocked or socks off, like the GO GO Girl's photos (this was pre nudity in Austin, they wore delightful little things called Pasties, all sparkles and knee high boots), or the time we found the Vietnam war shots, 3 rolls of grisly aftermath of battle stuff, lots of dead bodies including women and children, no Americans though. I made slide copies of those and used them later when I had my Rock Lightshow up and running. Well, any how This disturbing flick is a hell of alot closer to truth than you'd like it to be.




ONE HOUR PHOTO - * * *

Hey, Harry. J-Man, here. You have the best
filmlover site of all time. Ok, adulation first.
Next.. I just caught a late night showing of
One Hour Photo and thought I'd send my review.


From his opening monologue about why human eyes appear
red in most photographs, to his explanation of the
word "snapshot" that sets his character's boil-over in
motion, Robin Williams is creepy and effective as Sy
Parrish. Sy "the photo guy", as he's referred to. He
heads the processing booth at the local Savmart, and
he seems to know everyone and vice versa. He takes
pride in his work, especially when it comes to the
Yorkin family: Nina, Will and their son Jake. "I
process these photos as if they were my own," Sy tells
us in soft-toned voice over. Not having a family of
his own, we can sort of begin to see the dangerous
implications involved there.

Or, maybe not. I was reminded of the Robert De Niro
character from "The Fan" - a guy with just a little
too much pressure in his personal life on top of just
a little too much of an obsession for someone for
comfort. Granted, Williams underplays the hell out of
Sy (unlike De Niro's ticking timebomb), and the
someone is a family, in this case, but the obsession
is just as prominent. Also, I didn't get the
impression Sy is big a whack-job. I mean, he's not
exactly insane.. per se... Sure, he's got photos of
this family taped all over a wall of his apartment,
and makes a point to be reading the same book as Nina,
and buys a toy for Jake that daddy wouldn't. AND he
develops an extra stack of Yorkin photos each time
they come in - a move that will eventually get him
fired, and you just know that's going to lead to some
kind of mental breakdown. Or, maybe not.

That's the brilliant thing about Williams'
performance, I think: you expect what he'll do next,
without ever really being certain. There is something
of a dark side behind his welcoming smile and
innocuous disposition. Repressed anger, or desperate
loneliness. And, it - whatever it is - remains locked
away, so that his life appears normal, even if it is
only pretending. Um.. you wouldn't hate a meeting
with this man, you just might think twice about having
too long a conversation.

Is the film up to Williams? Not quite. Mark Romanek
establishes a chilly enough atmosphere, and I liked
the way his script kind of brings everything Sy's been
going on about, in the end. But, there's too
convenient a plot twist halfway through involving a
random woman who stops by to develop film which
contains a particular photo that pushes Sy over the
edge. It's presented and handled well, but I still
found it distracting. Then, there is the end, which
is a copout. We don't need to have Sy's exact
reasoning behind what he does - don't need to have it
spelled out. And, why does he take the pictures he
takes toward the end, when there were several others
that more or less proved the same thing? Who was he
taking them for? They don't lead to any big
revelation or payoff.

Robin Williams may wind up with another Oscar
nomination, but ONE HOUR PHOTO doesn't stand out as
anything more than a showcase for that talent.


P.S. How's Moriarty doing with "Post Human"?

J-Man



    + Expand All

    Readers Talkback

  • Aug 28, 2002 1:52:23 PM CDT

    Thank goodness for digital cameras =)

    by cozmicmonkeychow

  • Aug 28, 2002 1:53:10 PM CDT

    I used to work at a OneHour Photo place

    by renonevada2000

    Sad to say all the nude shots we would get where of people you didn't want to see naked. There was that really cool picture a guy wanted copies of that he took when he was in Egypt after the war. It was of a public beheading of three guys who didn't something evidently very bad...

    Reply to Talkback

  • Aug 28, 2002 2:09:04 PM CDT

    where's the "one hour photo" review?

    by brother putney

    Oh, there it is. Just below the ad for "one hour photo." Or, if you prefer, just to the right of the ad for "one hour photo." You can take your pick. I know bills gots to be paid but it's hard to read the reviews objectively with Robin Williams staring at me so intently.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Aug 28, 2002 2:10:04 PM CDT

    Well I saw One Hour Photo at the Edinburgh Film Festival...

    by dr_zoidberg

    And thought it was very disturbing. Robin Williams should at least get nominated and it puts his performance in Insomnia to shame. I hope this film does great box office when it gets a full release as it is very good.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Aug 28, 2002 2:14:14 PM CDT

    They should do "One Hour Photo" vs "Memento"!

    by rev_skarekroe

    I'm not sure why, or how, but they just should. sk

    Reply to Talkback

  • Aug 28, 2002 2:18:59 PM CDT

    Disturbing and friendly

    by ansai

    I found this movie to be refreshingly disturbing in a really weird way. There was just something about the way Robin Williams played the character that gave me the willies ... although I did get the idea that his motives were pure and not at all evil. I'm not sure how to explain it ...

    But the end - what in the hell was that ?

    Reply to Talkback

  • Aug 28, 2002 3:23:45 PM CDT

    "No Americans though"???

    by kall99

    Whew, thank god! who fucking cares if they weren't americans? what kind of stupid idiotic comment was that? the people were dead, that's bad enough. they were maybe killed by american soldiers though...

    Reply to Talkback

  • Aug 28, 2002 3:32:32 PM CDT

    uncle sy

    by bottlerocket

    This movie is great, and Robin Williams delivers a creepy character that probably exists in every town. Hopefully not, but, you know. He delivers this line in a mall about being Uncle Sy, and it's great. Very uncomfortable. Go See It.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Aug 28, 2002 4:04:17 PM CDT

    funny practical joke

    by fun guy

    when I was in college some "friends" swiped my camera that had a roll of film in it (with few pictures of myself on it), and then proceeded to take snapshots that would be considered vulgar. I was oblivious to this until after I went to have the film developed. When I went to pick up the photos, the clerk went to get them, then came back to the counter after a few moments and gave me a "you're a sicko" look, and said: "We have a policy against processing photographs like that!" I didn't know what the pictures were, but they musta been pretty gross. One of my friends later told me what they did, and then we did the same thing to another guy once. It's a funny joke. If you try it on somebody, make sure there are photos of them on the roll. The clerks will think.. well, you understand.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Aug 28, 2002 4:19:27 PM CDT

    i will never be tricked into seeing another robin williams movie

    by eau hellz gnaw

    He is a sexually confused yeti on speed and has the uncanny ability to choose starring roles in some of the ass-lickingest films in recent years.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Aug 28, 2002 4:51:07 PM CDT

    Is it me, or is Robin Williams' spastic, manic, oompa-loompa

    by andrecrabtree111

    I mean, come on! His "zaniness" that people always seem to love is nothing more than gibberish. Seriously, try slowing down some supposedly brilliant comic rant of his, and it's nothing more than frenetic movements and supposedly funny voices. It's NOTHING! Don't get me wrong, he used to be very funny, but his bit has NEVER changed. It's just an older, sadder guy doing it now. Another thing: why can't the guy every be "off"? I swear, he can't see a camera and just talk normally. He instantly begins doing that dumbass mugging he does, and launches into his oh-so-hilarious munchkin voice. Why can't the guy just be a normal guy. I think his serious work is generally very good and that he is a good actor, but I CANNOT STAND his stupid, tired, played manic-comic schtick anymore. Is it just me, or do some of you feel the same way.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Aug 28, 2002 4:56:02 PM CDT

    No Americans though. part 2

    by zenchaos

    Thanks Kall99, I thought I was the only one who thought that comment was totally ignorant and prejudiced. A dead body is a dead body. That is typical media mentality. The news will show dead bodies and people being executed as long as they are not Americans. They do that also when they mention tragedies (i.e.: plane crash. 200 dead, 10 Americans. What about the other victims). Father Greek should just stick to reviewing "Matlock" reruns.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Aug 28, 2002 5:00:55 PM CDT

    Enough with the "No Americans though" stuff

    by andrecrabtree111

    Guys, calm down. I don't think any disrespect was intended nor any prejudice shown by that comment. It's simply an American, reporting on a website that is based in America. I bet you would read the same type of comment if the situation were centered around another country, say Norway. For example: a Norwegian paper reports the crash of a transatlantic flight, saying "210 dead, 14 Norwegian." Would that be out of order? I don't think so, but tell me if and why I'm wrong if I am.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Aug 28, 2002 6:43:11 PM CDT

    Um... Just a thought....

    by irvingwashington

    Is it at all possible that you guys have interpreted the "no americans" coment wrong? Could this guy not be making the point that this film may in fact have been taken at the scene of some Mi Lai (sp?) type massacre where Americans did the killing of innocents, not the dying? Could it be that the author is actually expressing outrage (albeit dulled by several decades and the fact that this is not his central point) as opposed to flaunting his own ethnocentrism? Just wondering.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Aug 28, 2002 6:49:18 PM CDT

    Andre, Watch the HBO Gig

    by boxcutter

    A return to form, stand-up-wise. Even if it's less of the improv, funny voices schtick, the writing and the political stuff were sharp. The riffs on Dubya, the "War" and the lads in DC cut to the chase in a way a billion whinng NY Ties editorials couldn't. His range of reference, anger and intelligence shone through. Almost enough to make up for Patch Adams, Jumanji, Bicentennial Man, etc etc.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Aug 28, 2002 6:57:44 PM CDT

    americans

    by fun guy

    You are absolutely correct, andrecrabtree. Journalists have a goal in anything they write, and that goal is relating the story to the audience. It's called localizing the story. All journalists are trained to do it. In a nation-wide or larger media, stories are related to where ever the expected audience may be. It's not cold or callous. It's just something that the PC police haven't caught up with, yet.

    Reply to Talkback

  • "Now, brother, put your thingy in her mouth and hold it...hold it...hold it...hold it..."

    Reply to Talkback

  • Aug 28, 2002 7:21:51 PM CDT

    Meaning of NO AMERICANS...

    by fathergeek

    WOW... You guys need to read with better eyes... My comment followed a statement of there being women and children among the dead,but NO americans. In over 100 bodies there were NO US soldiers dead, just standing around showing off their trophies, and believe me THAT is what this sick group of GI's were doing , mugging for the camera and making crude visual jokes with some of the dead. I didn't go into this in the article because it wasn't my point there. I am certainly no American First Chest Thumper... Vietnam was a crock of shit, I thought it then, and I know it now. Remember I said I used the slides in my Lightshow. A LIGHTSHOW for Christsakes, do you think I toured with late 60's rock bands like Creedance, Steve Miller, The Dead, Grand Funk, Mountain, and ZZ Top promoting the war in Vietnam... Damn!

    Reply to Talkback

  • Aug 28, 2002 8:25:00 PM CDT

    DONT READ THIS IF YOU HAVENT SEEN THE MOVIE! I AM RUINING THINGS

    by iamsmarterthanu

    My understanding of the ending to the film:
    At the end of the film, we see Sy at the table being interogated by a policeman. Sy describes how his parents forced to him to do certain sexual "things" in front of a camera. This scene should not, in my opinion, have been in the movie; it was as subtle as a chaisaw ripping through strawbelly jello. But as far as the developed pictures at the end, I thought that was perfect. The wife didnt mention the pics she found with her husband cheating on her, so Sy decides to screw with the mind of the husband. He didnt want to take pictures of the cheating couple naked, he wanted to scare them. Or more appropriately, scar them (and it worked too). In that scene, he also tells them "not to touch". I believe this is due to Sy being reminded of the abuse his parents put him through (notice how Sy gets a migraine, and grips his head, every time he sees something sexual).
    I thought 1hr Photo was an intense, disturbing, and funny movie that kept surprising me. It didnt end up the exact way I thought it was, and if it had, I would then call it a "cop-out" ending, but I found it to be completely satisfying. I will definetly be seeing this movie again within the next couple of weeks..

    Reply to Talkback

  • Aug 29, 2002 11:24:30 AM CDT

    1 Hour photo is Red Dragon?

    by pelverud

    Is it just me or is this movie directly lifted from the main character in Thomas Harris's "Red Dragon." You all know it as "Manhunter" and a soon to be released A. Hopkins film. The main "hook" of that novel, the "shocking way" that the serial killer picks his victims sure seems to be the entire reason that "One-Hour-Photo" exists. Oh, and to give Robin Williams another "prestige" picture I guess....
    Am I wrong on this?

    Reply to Talkback

  • Aug 29, 2002 12:30:36 PM CDT

    Thoughts about working where photos are done

    by mjbok1

    It IS wrong to look at other people's photos, but I think everyone does it. It is MORE wrong to make copies for yourself of said photos. It is EVEN MORE wrong to share those photos. But the worst is publicly displaying someone else's photos without their permission, no matter what the subject of the photos is. It is definately an invasion of privacy and is quite likely illegal, even in Texas. And no matter how you spin it, no, that ain't cool. That being said, Robin Williams has moved into the I'll see that on HBO if ever category. His ratio of entertaining (to me) films to schmaltzy, family oriented crap ain't to good.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Aug 29, 2002 2:18:12 PM CDT

    SEE IT IN THEATERS

    by kong33

    good movie, I hardly toss that out.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Sep 02, 2002 1:46:20 PM CDT

    What on earth happened?!

    by sepulchrave

    Did Williams change his agent or something? I kept thinking that he should try for a psycho or a paedophile and...along comes two. Harry will probably try to take credit for it. Watch this space.

    Reply to Talkback

User Login

Forgot password? Retrieve it here

or register as new user

Quick Talkback Form

Please login to post talkback