A Confusing and Slow-paced Nightmare

 

Release date: 11 October 1985 (USA)
Genre: Comedy/Dark comedy
Director: Martin Scorsese
Cinematographer: Michael Ballhaus
Budget: 4,5 million USD
Box office: 10,6 million USD

 

5 MIN Read Time

 

Introduction

Martin Scorsese is undoubtedly a legendary director, known for his remarkable contributions to the world of film. However, even the most accomplished filmmakers occasionally stumble, and “After Hours” (1985) is a glaring example of such a misstep. Despite the hype surrounding it, this film left me utterly bewildered and frustrated. Let’s delve into why “After Hours” is a cinematic disaster that deserves a closer look.

 

Storyline

The storyline of “After Hours” can best be described as an exercise in pure confusion. The film follows Paul Hackett (played by Griffin Dunne), an insipid word processor, as he embarks on a surreal odyssey through the nocturnal underbelly of New York City. Paul’s night takes a bizarre turn when he meets Marcy (Rosanna Arquette) at a diner and decides to follow her to her apartment. From that point on, the plot spirals into a series of increasingly bizarre and implausible events that are more headache-inducing than entertaining.

The film’s pacing is excruciatingly slow, making it feel like an eternity as you watch Paul stumble from one absurd situation to another. Scenes drag on without any discernible purpose, and it’s as if Scorsese himself got lost in the labyrinthine mess of the plot. The film tries to blend dark comedy with elements of thriller and surrealism but fails miserably in finding a cohesive narrative thread. Instead, it feels like a random collection of scenes that never come together to form a meaningful story.

 

Facts About Filming and Cast

Despite the film’s convoluted plot, there are some interesting facts about its production worth noting. “After Hours” was shot on location in New York City, capturing the gritty and chaotic atmosphere of the city’s streets. The film’s low budget is evident in its simple yet effective set designs, which contribute to the film’s overall sense of claustrophobia and unease.

The cast, unfortunately, cannot redeem the film’s shortcomings. Griffin Dunne’s portrayal of the hapless Paul Hackett is unremarkable and fails to elicit any sympathy or interest from the audience. The supporting cast, including Rosanna Arquette, Teri Garr, and John Heard, does little to salvage the film, as their characters are equally one-dimensional and unengaging. It’s a disheartening waste of talent, given the caliber of actors involved.

 

Behind the Scenes

It’s worth noting that “After Hours” marked a departure from Martin Scorsese’s usual gangster-themed films. Perhaps the change in genre played a role in the film’s lack of direction and coherence. Scorsese’s attempt to explore the darker side of urban life and the randomness of human interactions falls flat, and it’s evident that his strengths lie elsewhere in the cinematic landscape.

The film’s production was not without its challenges, including a limited budget and a tight shooting schedule. While these constraints may have contributed to the film’s shortcomings, they cannot excuse the baffling narrative choices and lack of engagement with the audience.

 

Reception at the Box Office

Upon its release, “After Hours” failed to make a significant impact at the box office, and it’s not difficult to see why. Audiences were left scratching their heads, wondering what they had just witnessed. The film’s confusing plot and slow pacing were widely criticized, and it struggled to find an audience despite its high-profile director and cast.

It’s worth noting that the film did find a small cult following in the years following its release, with some viewers praising its offbeat and unconventional style. However, for the majority of moviegoers, “After Hours” remained a forgettable and frustrating experience.

 

Final Verdict

In conclusion, “After Hours” is a prime example of a film that falls flat on its face despite the talent involved. Martin Scorsese’s attempt to break away from his usual genre trappings results in a slow-paced and terribly confusing mess of a movie. The convoluted plot, lackluster performances, and overall sense of aimlessness make it an arduous viewing experience that I would not wish upon anyone.

While some may argue that the film’s quirky and surreal nature adds to its charm, I found it to be a jumbled and incoherent mess that left me longing for a more satisfying cinematic experience. Even the most ardent Scorsese fans may find it difficult to defend this particular entry in his filmography.

In the end, “After Hours” is a forgettable blip on the radar of Martin Scorsese’s illustrious career, and one that is best left in the shadows of cinematic history. It’s a film that I cannot, in good conscience, recommend to anyone, and I hope that future viewers are spared the agony of trying to make sense of its disjointed narrative and excruciatingly slow pace.

 

My Rating: 1/10