Sometimes — and I think it is often with sculptural films — the essence of the movie is concentrated in a few elements. There is a lot of surrounding story here, but it is there for only two things. These are things that need that context to have power.The surrounding story is pretty sad: a man, someone who literally sells vision, lives with a woman, and next door to the woman he used to live with. He cannot help but hurt them, being emotionally incompetent; he has problems he carries about his dad. At the end, he facilitates a possibility of real love with another man for his recent lover. She has run away, scared by loss. It is slow. He has a sort of redemption.One bit with power is in the middle. Our hapless guy travels to the home where his estranged parents are, only to find them long dead. The house is occupied by a deaf old man and his 18 year old granddaughter, played by Alicia Witt. This was 1993, when in Hollywood, she was a sort of mystical token, following her use by Lynch in "Dune," and his wild pronouncements of her symbolism. This sequence has a tone apart from all else you see; more dreamy, more like Kusturica, the production of whose "Arizona Dream" overlapped with this. Alicia has her high point as a young actress here, desperately lonely with a man who cannot hear her.The other bit is contrasted with the lack of hearing. The desert is photographed with one intent: to provide something to lay lush sounds upon, as if to give us the richnesses the characters on screen are denied. The sounds are of three kinds: desert sounds; Gram Parsons songs from his period where he gave his life to this same desert out of similar loneliness; and a lovely girls choir with something merged from Indian chants, space music and aeolian chords.If you are not already desperately lonely, this will do the job.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

A very good movie. Its about philosophy of life and relationships between man and woman. And of cause Bridget Fonda - she is my favorite actress. OK, my English is a bit unorthodox and poor, but I'll add more comments. The movie is about making a choice in your live. And this depends on your philosophy of life and priorities you've got. But it comes the time when love demands you to change your lifestyle. Its about people around us with absolutely different philosophy and values. And sometimes its good to listen to them. Maybe we are wrong and they are right. The movie is about the clash of two different lifestyle - and both lose in the end. It's about - what we really are looking for in this life. I saw this movie a few years ago and still have a feeling of something very kind, very sweet and very deep. Its a movie not for your mind, but for your heart.

If you have an attention span of sit-com-length, this is not your movie. True, it's 90 minutes or so, but those moments are stretched- as they should be. Sid's character (the sage, of sorts) wants to stretch a moment, and that is what this movie seeks to do. For the most part, these characters are ordinary people- and the actors play them as such. The dialogue isn't expository, but it's real- the characters interact as any person would. There are no huge turning points, explosions, love-struck stares, and all the rest of the hollywood spin supposed to be "real." These are people who could live down the street.The best part, though, was the cinematography- the camera work is beautiful. There are just enough jump cuts to get your attention, but for the most part, the camera frames these ordinary lives without intruding on them, all while capturing the oranges, reds, and warm whites of the Arizona landscape. While the character of the painter is supposed to be a sage- offering wise comments about identity and humanity, I was relieved when his mistakes/flaws were finally revealed at the end. All-in-all, the symbols and stress points made for a thoughtful movie.

I got pulled in to this one because Bridget Fonda was in it. Also, the score had lots of Gram Parsons. And some good reviews here. It just was not my cup of tea. Some may love it. This movie was making a profound statement about generation X. The problem is that it did not say it enough. The lack of dialog made this movie completely inert. I am sure it's creators meant for that to be part of the point but good gosh. The dialog that was there was good. Just not enough lines. Anyone bother to count them? I pay money to see people talking or visual stimulation or both. This movie had neither. Save your money and go down to the library and watch people who are not speaking just sit there.