Whatever by today's standards. I mean its an OK film yes, but it downright fails to pass the test of time. And its the test of time that tells whats good and whats not at the end of the day, not the nominations it ought to have fit into that year when I first saw it. Let me be a bit more positive, the main actor was great, he's got those convincing movements and especially them naughty facial expressions which really work here. However my point is that we long know by now the message of this film and the whole drug abuse(especially in this Hollywood working atmosphere) is a long gone cliché. Thing is that this guy did have human love around him, I don't believe in his excuses.

Based on a Tolstoy novel, Bernard Rose's satire on the ephemera of Hollwood is filmed in the hand-held cam style of the Dogme 95 movement of the late 90's. Danny Huston plays an agent who is dead... and then we are shown how he lives and, so, dies.As in Roger Dodger we are treated to a brilliant principal performance from otherwise unknown Danny Huston with his Jack-Nicholson-Joker fixed grin crumbling as his own mortality is brought home to him with quiet diagnosis, using the same euphemism with which he works his deal-making art throughout LA. As in both films there is redemption through a mother figure; unlike Roger Dodger this is a short lived reprieve, and we know that death is the last hand that will be held out to him.The Dogme-techniques give the film a documentary feel which adds both to those scenes which, impressionistically, pan out as if on the drugs Ivan has been taking and also to the real feel of the story. We can afford a little sympathy for the shark. The use of specially 'doubly exposed' productions of the prelude and Liebestod to Wagner's Tristan und Isolde frame the picture and provide a powerful emotional momentum to these poetic and, latterly, ecstatic (xtc?) scenes. However, whilst I was impressed with the impact these made within these two episodes, they are rich oases in a viscerally anaemic film. It's all a little hard to swallow, worth the effort perhaps for its coherence and, notwithstanding the distention of the opening credit sequence and final tableaux it lean storytelling. But the story of a shark storing up wealth on earth rather than in heaven is not new, and there is not enough development of the character that is Ivan to really make one mourn his passing so much as to examine our own behaviour. 6/10

First thing: try not to bring a lot of hang-ups and prejudices when you see this. I've noticed that those who do so can end up disappointed. If you're even slightly open-minded you will see the beauty of this film- as many have, including the nominating committee for the Independent Spirit Awards. Because of the Tolstoy writing credit, I was expecting a historical or period piece. What Ivansxtc does, as does the Paul Thomas Anderson neo-classic Boogie Nights, is to show human beings being very naughty and very nice. Ivans, however, leaves us in darker territory. I suggest reading little about this film before you see it. Check out the comments afterward and you'll see what I mean. Suffice it to say that this is risk-taking, well-acted, under-$500,000(shot on DV) filmmaking with gorgeous photography.

I went to see this film without knowing anything about it except that I was a fan of the director and while it doesn't rank amongst his best work it is certainly engaging. After the longest opening credits I've ever seen (i.e. all of the film's credits are at the beginning except for the music credits), the film introduces us to the backbiting world of Hollywood agents. Ivan is a self confessed 'weekend alcoholic' who 'lives in the fast lane' as he tells his psychiatrist. In nearly any other film we would dislike this character as he takes drugs, has sex with other women behind his girlfriend's back and only seems to care about his status. If I added that he just wants to be loved you might avoid the film altogether, however it is Danny Huston's subtle and involving performance as the lead character that hooks the viewer and keeps you interested. Coming across as a combination of John C. Reilly and Jack Nicholson, Huston is a great character actor and deserves a career as notable as his sister. I'm not a fan of digital video and certainly the lower constrast and flatter cinematograpy here hasn't convinced me of the merits of the medium, but the director has said he wanted the film to look like a documentary and so this approach suits the film. The shots are at least typically well framed and always contain something interesting. This is Rose's second adaptation of Tolstoy following Anna Karenina, and shows the writer holds up well when relocated to the present day. The lead character is apparently also based on Rose's (late) agent which may be why the film is still waiting for a release date. Stylistically the film is most similar to Mike Figgis' Timecode (which also starred Huston) as the performances here were also somewhat improvised but doesn't suffer from the amateur dramatics of that film as the actors in ivansxtc didn't have to keep going for an hour and a half. At the London Film Festival where I saw this film, Rose commented that he wants to work with the same cast and format again and this isn't a bad idea if he goes for stronger and snappier material next time. I enjoyed the film, but it took a while to get going and the undercurrent of homophobia (no doubtedly present in that world) was slightly off-putting. The dovetailing of the images and soundbites in the opening credits with the last scenes of the film worked well and the use of classical music throughout, particularily Wagner's Tristan and Isolde, creates the kind of atmosphere and gravitas (perhaps occasionally heavy-handedly) that you would get from one of Bernard Herrman's Hitchcock scores. Overall I enjoyed it but it is more for the fans of Mike Figgis' films than Rose's. Having made two of the greatest horror films ever made I just wish he would return to that genre.