23 reviews
Difficult but appealing film..
The plot is wacky enough to promise a great film: a repressed alcoholic middle-class housewife with incestuous tendencies, married to a doctor with infantilism tendencies, encounters a young English guy who turns out to be her lost son (fruit of a teenage rape, whom she had to give for adoption). But it's not clear what's real & what's not. Freud would be proud.
The bad thing is seeing how generic Hollywood-ian Nicolas Roeg's direction has become. There really is very little here that reminds of "Don't Look Now" or "Bad Timing". Not that it's not worth watching. The spanking sequence is hilariously disturbing, the film has the feel of a hysterically surreal 80's soap opera, and the interplay between past, present, reality & fantasy is sometimes inspired.
In fact David Lynch ended up copying lots of stuff from here, particularly on "Twin Peaks" and "Lost Highway". Notice for example the demonic rape scene, or the merging of the truck driver and lost son characters.
The bad thing is seeing how generic Hollywood-ian Nicolas Roeg's direction has become. There really is very little here that reminds of "Don't Look Now" or "Bad Timing". Not that it's not worth watching. The spanking sequence is hilariously disturbing, the film has the feel of a hysterically surreal 80's soap opera, and the interplay between past, present, reality & fantasy is sometimes inspired.
In fact David Lynch ended up copying lots of stuff from here, particularly on "Twin Peaks" and "Lost Highway". Notice for example the demonic rape scene, or the merging of the truck driver and lost son characters.
Toot, toot!
In a small southern American town, housewife Linda Henry lives a unsatisfied life and wants a child to fulfil that gap, but her husband Henry seems more concerned about his model trains and receiving his fetish spanking from nurse Stein. One day in a diner, an odd and mysterious young English lad Martin approaches Linda and her friend. He seems to appear where she is, so when another confrontation eventuates. He admits to being her son, which he was taken from her at birth when she was a teenager, due to the reasoning of his conception. This newfound responsibility is bittersweet for Linda, but has it come at a price for her well-being.
Bizarre, extremely bizarre and sultry! Nicholas Roeg's "Track 29" is really hard to fathom, which can make it quite frustrating, due to the fact the pieces of this hysterically traumatic psychological puzzle never come to be one. Maybe that was on purpose, as the dysfunctional characters (usually lurking in small town settings) we follow seem rather disconnected, never quite sure of themselves and longing for something which could lead to an emotional breakdown. This exploration into the protagonists' wavering consciousness brings out many facets, like revelations of the past and those things that matter most for them to feel anything. The obsessive nature takes hold, where torment and frustration develops with neurotic results, which could finally lose out to fantasy, because reality and their situation is just to hard to come to grips with. Because of that, Dennis Potter's unbalanced, warped screenplay really does put you on the spot and throws around plenty of eye-boggling surreal passages. Symbolic clues feature thickly throughout and the themes that drown the moody, but complex script leave a strong imprint. While I don't think it's all-successful in conveying its ideas, it's still very interesting to watch.
Building it up is the unusual kinky charge, perversely pitch-black humour and a terror-away performance by the nutty Gary Oldman. Boy, Oldman annoys with his infantile portrayal, but that peculiar intensity he generates and his edgy rapport with co-star Theresa Russell has you hypnotised. The two have some curious exchanges. Russell projects a fully realised performance, that bubbles, but you also feel her growing pain and uncertainty of her fragile character. Too bad about the southern accent though. Christopher Lloyd goes offbeat too, but more so in an understated and controlled turn. Sandra Bernhard's Nurse Stein makes an impression. Roeg's leisurely paced direction might not be as beautifully visceral, but winning out is a very gleeful and excessive approach that's high quality. Like Oldman's character, Roeg lets it play out like a kooky tantrum with a lingering mean-streak. The leering camera-work seems to hover on its shots awkwardly, or give it a smothering feeling, and the simmering music score is been kept under-wraps.
Another original and provocative piece of work into the realm of surrealistic ambiguity combined with expressive allegories and a sensually twisted flavour. This one really challenges the viewer (like most of Roeg's work), then highly entertains.
Bizarre, extremely bizarre and sultry! Nicholas Roeg's "Track 29" is really hard to fathom, which can make it quite frustrating, due to the fact the pieces of this hysterically traumatic psychological puzzle never come to be one. Maybe that was on purpose, as the dysfunctional characters (usually lurking in small town settings) we follow seem rather disconnected, never quite sure of themselves and longing for something which could lead to an emotional breakdown. This exploration into the protagonists' wavering consciousness brings out many facets, like revelations of the past and those things that matter most for them to feel anything. The obsessive nature takes hold, where torment and frustration develops with neurotic results, which could finally lose out to fantasy, because reality and their situation is just to hard to come to grips with. Because of that, Dennis Potter's unbalanced, warped screenplay really does put you on the spot and throws around plenty of eye-boggling surreal passages. Symbolic clues feature thickly throughout and the themes that drown the moody, but complex script leave a strong imprint. While I don't think it's all-successful in conveying its ideas, it's still very interesting to watch.
Building it up is the unusual kinky charge, perversely pitch-black humour and a terror-away performance by the nutty Gary Oldman. Boy, Oldman annoys with his infantile portrayal, but that peculiar intensity he generates and his edgy rapport with co-star Theresa Russell has you hypnotised. The two have some curious exchanges. Russell projects a fully realised performance, that bubbles, but you also feel her growing pain and uncertainty of her fragile character. Too bad about the southern accent though. Christopher Lloyd goes offbeat too, but more so in an understated and controlled turn. Sandra Bernhard's Nurse Stein makes an impression. Roeg's leisurely paced direction might not be as beautifully visceral, but winning out is a very gleeful and excessive approach that's high quality. Like Oldman's character, Roeg lets it play out like a kooky tantrum with a lingering mean-streak. The leering camera-work seems to hover on its shots awkwardly, or give it a smothering feeling, and the simmering music score is been kept under-wraps.
Another original and provocative piece of work into the realm of surrealistic ambiguity combined with expressive allegories and a sensually twisted flavour. This one really challenges the viewer (like most of Roeg's work), then highly entertains.
- lost-in-limbo
- Aug 4, 2007
- Permalink
A Difficult Film to Love
A doctor's wife (Theresa Russell) tires of his obsession with model trains, and spends her days wondering about the son she gave up for adoption at birth...
How can you not love a film with Christopher Lloyd as a masochist doctor who drops his pants? And Gary Oldman as a weird, British man-child? And directed by the wonderfully under-appreciated Nicholas Roeg ("Don't Look Now")? Well, with this film, it is possible.
Janet Maslin has more than a few problems with it, as she says "the direction is so laden with contempt for the characters... Roeg's films can often be perverse... (but) they are rarely this silly." The film is "too mindless to have any impact" and she believes the actors' skills are "regrettably wasted". I will agree with that last point -- for as much as I love Oldman and Lloyd, I felt they were too confined by this film to really show off.
Roger Ebert gave the film three stars, despite saying he did not like it. He posits the idea that the film is "perhaps deliberately" unlikeable. Yet, the film is still a good one and "more interesting" because of it. Roeg's work is "strange" and "convoluted", as well as "bad-tempered, kinky and misogynistic."
While I am unsure of all that, I do agree with the overall point Ebert makes. I, like him, did not enjoy the movie. Yet, I see the psychological message it was trying to send, the odd symbolism and the cacophony of images. The direction is, in fact, top-notch. Oldman is frustratingly annoying, but that is who his character is. I think the goal was met, despite being a goal I had rather they were not striving for.
How can you not love a film with Christopher Lloyd as a masochist doctor who drops his pants? And Gary Oldman as a weird, British man-child? And directed by the wonderfully under-appreciated Nicholas Roeg ("Don't Look Now")? Well, with this film, it is possible.
Janet Maslin has more than a few problems with it, as she says "the direction is so laden with contempt for the characters... Roeg's films can often be perverse... (but) they are rarely this silly." The film is "too mindless to have any impact" and she believes the actors' skills are "regrettably wasted". I will agree with that last point -- for as much as I love Oldman and Lloyd, I felt they were too confined by this film to really show off.
Roger Ebert gave the film three stars, despite saying he did not like it. He posits the idea that the film is "perhaps deliberately" unlikeable. Yet, the film is still a good one and "more interesting" because of it. Roeg's work is "strange" and "convoluted", as well as "bad-tempered, kinky and misogynistic."
While I am unsure of all that, I do agree with the overall point Ebert makes. I, like him, did not enjoy the movie. Yet, I see the psychological message it was trying to send, the odd symbolism and the cacophony of images. The direction is, in fact, top-notch. Oldman is frustratingly annoying, but that is who his character is. I think the goal was met, despite being a goal I had rather they were not striving for.
Gary Oldman- star of the show!
I only rented out the film last night and Ive watched it three times since. Such an interesting little film and it leaves tons of questions. Its thought provoking on whether some scenes are real or some are part of Lindas (Theresa Russell) insanity.
I wasnt too keen on watching Theresa Russell or Christopher Lloyd on screen (the spanking scene was incredibly disturbing) but Gary Oldman somehow saves the film which makes it at least watchable. He was loveable all the way through as Martin.
If you love Gary Oldman, watch this. If you dont, then youll be disappointed.
4/5
I wasnt too keen on watching Theresa Russell or Christopher Lloyd on screen (the spanking scene was incredibly disturbing) but Gary Oldman somehow saves the film which makes it at least watchable. He was loveable all the way through as Martin.
If you love Gary Oldman, watch this. If you dont, then youll be disappointed.
4/5
- Bon_Jovi_chick
- Dec 7, 2003
- Permalink
Intriguing, Sexually-Charged Psychological Drama Of A Ghostly Abandoned Son Reuniting With His Mother
- ShootingShark
- Jun 28, 2008
- Permalink
Is she his mother, his lover, and do we even care
A woman suffers mental trauma twenty years after being raped - at least that's the most obtainable synopsis for this bizarre but entirely unengaging drama. Theresa Russell plays the bored housewife, trapped in a passionless marriage with doctor Christopher Lloyd. When a man claiming to be her son - stolen from her arms at birth after the rape - appears out of nowhere, knowing an awful lot about her, it releases the trauma she has kept hidden for so long.
What should be intriguing is anything but. It is impossible to care for Russell because she's embarrassingly bad. Lloyd has nothing to do (never mind nothing funny). The young Oldman is shown up in this most difficult of roles. That's probably thanks to the director more than himself. Roeg's output is horribly inconsistent. You would have hoped that working from a script by the late, brilliant Dennis Potter would have inspired him to make a masterpiece. He can't even keep the film on the ground.
But then again, the Americans never got a grasp on Potter's humour. And Roeg has hardly been worth watching since he went to the States.
What should be intriguing is anything but. It is impossible to care for Russell because she's embarrassingly bad. Lloyd has nothing to do (never mind nothing funny). The young Oldman is shown up in this most difficult of roles. That's probably thanks to the director more than himself. Roeg's output is horribly inconsistent. You would have hoped that working from a script by the late, brilliant Dennis Potter would have inspired him to make a masterpiece. He can't even keep the film on the ground.
But then again, the Americans never got a grasp on Potter's humour. And Roeg has hardly been worth watching since he went to the States.
- stephen niz
- Jul 22, 2000
- Permalink
B for effort
Oldman's intense performance and an obvious effort to make a surreal, metaphysical statement weren't enough to pull the weight of this film. Long, drawn out scenes reminded me of the guy who goes "Get it? Get it yet? Get it now?" long after the joke has been made. Also irritating were Russell and Camps' performances, which were hard to pinpoint as whiny scripting or whiny acting.
puts the 'loco' back in locomotive
Poor Theresa Russell is once again subjected to her husband Nicholas Roeg's own unique brand of cinematic shock therapy, playing a frustrated southern belle trapped in a loveless marriage to model train fanatic Christopher Lloyd (hence the oblique title). When a disturbed young stranger wanders into town claiming to be her long-lost son, she begins to wonder if her mind has snapped, but there's much less to the film than what meets the eye. Roeg likes to mask the meaning of his scenarios behind a smokescreen of self-indulgent style, inside of which is a more-or-less conventional story struggling to get out. His collaboration here with writer Dennis Potter would seem to be a match made in heaven, but stripped of its visual and narrative razzle-dazzle devices the film emerges as little more than a perverse and uneasy mix of satire and psychodrama, with several flamboyant performances and a great mental breakdown montage, showing trains colliding and buildings collapsing, all inside Theresa Russell's pretty, mixed-up head.
Lavender symbolizes purity, silence, devotion, serenity, grace, and calmness
- drgreenthumb1001
- Aug 10, 2021
- Permalink
Interesting but unsatisfying film.
Yet another indecipherable movie from director Roeg; it plays like a puzzle that is never solved. Definitely not uninteresting, because of the unique nature of the plot, but so muddled and inconsistent (for example, a seemingly imaginary character interacts with other people as if he really existed) that it's not likely to satisfy many viewers. One or two (intentionally) funny scenes help. Extremely offbeat performance by Gary Oldman. (**)
Probably for Potter fans only
Oedipus train wreck...
The bored, lonely wife of a retirement-home physician in North Carolina dreams up an adult embodiment of the baby boy taken away from her when she was an unmarried teenager who got knocked-up at the county fair. Her husband, a train enthusiast, has no patience with his wife's melancholia and cheats on her with his lascivious nurse, while the young man/substitute son comes to represent the wife's anger and isolation. Disconnected filmmaker Nicolas Roeg predictably provides no simple solutions for our heroine, and screenwriter Dennis Potter (who would seem to be the perfect movie-companion for Roeg) merrily keeps the inscrutable scenario on a schizophrenic track. This isn't the weirdest movie to come from either Roeg or Potter--the film, in fact, is one of Roeg's more accessible entries--but very few of the details or ideas come to fruition (such as the wife always being dressed in lavender, or her fetish for cartoons and dolls). Gary Oldman, just off "Sid and Nancy", seems stuck in a revolving door of violent angst and aggression (only in a later scene at the piano does he show some charm), while Christopher Lloyd (as Henry Henry--perhaps an ancestor of Humbert Humbert) relies far too much on his rubbery facial expressions. In the lead, Theresa Russell works hard at conveying her character's inner-demons; in the vivid flashback scenes to her youth, she makes a terrific impression just by using her faraway eyes and smile. However, Russell never gets her little-girl twang quite right--her voice sounds disembodied--and her temper tantrums aren't shaped and have no comic pay-off (which is the fault of the director, who turns a blind eye). After the perverse-glossiness of something like 1986's "Blue Velvet", the scrubby ordinariness of "Track 29" is disappointing and dispiriting (it was shot by Alex Thomson, who has worked with Roeg before). Roeg, a brilliant cinematographer in his youth, gets a kinetic vibe going in the flashbacks to the fairground; however, aside from those startling early shots and some stray funny moments, "Track 29" seems to lose its way awfully soon, and the apocalyptic final act is simply a mess. *1/2 from ****
- moonspinner55
- Sep 2, 2010
- Permalink
Jumped Track 29
Hard as it is to imagine a film starring Christopher Lloyd, along with Gary Oldman and the incredible Theresa Russell as long-lost mother and son reunited in the most unmateral way, to be unwatchable, but this one was. Her accent was so atrocious I could not get past that, fascinating as her relationship with her son--whether dream, fantasy or reality I could not figure out and soon lost any interest in deciphering--may have been.
What comes out is a jumbled, middled mess. You really can look away from a trainwreck.
What comes out is a jumbled, middled mess. You really can look away from a trainwreck.
What a train wreck
What a wacky ride
Oh God, this movie. It's such avant-garde art. I love it. I love Gary Oldman, of course. He is the obviously shining star of this film. When he starts playing the piano and singing, I truly was mesmerized by his beauty and talent.
Bravo, I'm glad George Harrison produced this trippy piece of art. The director has a real concept of what surrealism can bring to a film. Just an absolute masterpiece. It's like an acid trip. Not sure what is real or what is implied. It's a wild ride!
Gary Oldman is my favorite actor. He just belongs in the spotlight of every film he is in. This film shows how well he has mastered his craft. 10/10.
Bravo, I'm glad George Harrison produced this trippy piece of art. The director has a real concept of what surrealism can bring to a film. Just an absolute masterpiece. It's like an acid trip. Not sure what is real or what is implied. It's a wild ride!
Gary Oldman is my favorite actor. He just belongs in the spotlight of every film he is in. This film shows how well he has mastered his craft. 10/10.
Ineffective & bizarre incest fest
I consider myself a huge Nicolas Roeg fan (The Witches & Don't Look Now are two very important, iconic films to me) and I really didn't think I'd find a movie by him I didn't like, but WOW, this one-of-a-kind freak show is pretty much an ABOMINATION.
First and foremost, I find Theresa Russell's voice and presence to be like nails on a chalkboard throughout this entire film, and she is the lead. I'm sorry Nic - I know she was the love of your life, but damn, she's tough to swallow in this one. I thought she was really great in Eureka which I also watched somewhat recently and was very impressed by, but in this one her overacting just hits in the all the wrong ways. It's not goofy enough to laugh at, but way too over-the-top to take seriously. Then you have Gary Oldman in his second big role, and that which has to be the most absurd performance of his career - through the entire film he's literally going back and forth between an obnoxious 7 year old boy in a grown man's body and a sniveling rapist (I think?) - the sequences that revolve around this interchanging are as confusing and discomforting as they sound, but without much redeeming value, if any at all. You'll find yourself asking, "So, this is incest then, right?" Normally, concepts more on the taboo side tend to resonate with me, since they generally come off as stemming from a place of pain and sincerity - in this case, and I think it's mostly due to an unfocused tone, it feels too much like middle-ground schlock - no heart but also not enough camp to at least give it mere entertainment value. On the subject of camp, the bizarre hospital scenes between Christopher Lloyd and the iconic Sandra Bernhard, which are the only comedic scenes, feel like they are in the wrong movie entirely - what is going on here?!
Honestly, the movie just gets less enticing as it goes. The one thing Track 29 has going for it is that I've never seen anything quite like it - the problem is simply that I dislike almost everything about it - it never quite feels like it's ON TRACK to go anywhere enjoyable, and it doesn't - but, if you've ever wanted to see Gary Oldman acting like a 6 year old child crossed with a horny dog, humping a woman's leg repetitively - this is the only place you'll find it. It's currently free on Tubi in a "transfer" that might look even WORSE than VHS? I can't tell if that enhanced the experience , or made it worth - either way, this is one bizarre and unexpected stinker.
First and foremost, I find Theresa Russell's voice and presence to be like nails on a chalkboard throughout this entire film, and she is the lead. I'm sorry Nic - I know she was the love of your life, but damn, she's tough to swallow in this one. I thought she was really great in Eureka which I also watched somewhat recently and was very impressed by, but in this one her overacting just hits in the all the wrong ways. It's not goofy enough to laugh at, but way too over-the-top to take seriously. Then you have Gary Oldman in his second big role, and that which has to be the most absurd performance of his career - through the entire film he's literally going back and forth between an obnoxious 7 year old boy in a grown man's body and a sniveling rapist (I think?) - the sequences that revolve around this interchanging are as confusing and discomforting as they sound, but without much redeeming value, if any at all. You'll find yourself asking, "So, this is incest then, right?" Normally, concepts more on the taboo side tend to resonate with me, since they generally come off as stemming from a place of pain and sincerity - in this case, and I think it's mostly due to an unfocused tone, it feels too much like middle-ground schlock - no heart but also not enough camp to at least give it mere entertainment value. On the subject of camp, the bizarre hospital scenes between Christopher Lloyd and the iconic Sandra Bernhard, which are the only comedic scenes, feel like they are in the wrong movie entirely - what is going on here?!
Honestly, the movie just gets less enticing as it goes. The one thing Track 29 has going for it is that I've never seen anything quite like it - the problem is simply that I dislike almost everything about it - it never quite feels like it's ON TRACK to go anywhere enjoyable, and it doesn't - but, if you've ever wanted to see Gary Oldman acting like a 6 year old child crossed with a horny dog, humping a woman's leg repetitively - this is the only place you'll find it. It's currently free on Tubi in a "transfer" that might look even WORSE than VHS? I can't tell if that enhanced the experience , or made it worth - either way, this is one bizarre and unexpected stinker.
- Stay_away_from_the_Metropol
- May 16, 2021
- Permalink
Goes off the rails (spoilers throughout)
- Ricky_Roma__
- Feb 10, 2008
- Permalink
Ball Of Confusion. Wackos who are not funny, not meant to be either. Interested?
- JohnRayPeterson
- Mar 24, 2012
- Permalink
Just a bunch of truly disturbed individuals with their train way off the track.
- mark.waltz
- Aug 14, 2022
- Permalink
Oldman shines
Nowhere else is Roeg's filmmaking as elemental and visceral as it is in Track. Black comedy is an inadequate label, for certain. "Models" and their uses and abuses are examined in the film. It is almost as gut wrenching to watch Christopher Llyod being spanked by Sandra Bernhardt as it is to watch Ricky and his mother in <Better Off Dead>. Oldman lends his untamed (yet not quite perfected) style to a film that would be richly sleek even without him.
An exercise in mystery and frustration
Nicholas Roeg's "Track 29", while confusing and frustrating, appears to accomplish what the director and writer set out to do. The film introduces and examines many aspects of Linda's life that are never very clearly answered. If Martin is a figment of her imagination, what is truly imagined? He does appear at the hamburger stand, so is he real after all? Early in the film, a television program is overheard discussing the idea that "two things may ocupy the same time and space". If this is indeed true, than maybe one thing can ocupy more than one time and space. It appears that Linda and Martin may in fact be "exploring" alternate dimensions. The film seems to explore the occurrence and outcome of many different events, and ends with the viewer unclear about what truly happened and what did not. After undergoing real or imaginary emotional torture, Linda calmly collects herself and leaves the house a new woman. To further confuse the lines between imaginary/real, her husband is heard calling to her, even though a pool of blood is forming over her head. (presumably from the stabbing death of the same husband) It is through these very strange events and ideas that the director and writer force the viewer to attempt to decide what is real and what is imagined. The most frustrating thing of all is that there is no real answer to this question.
Another crazy masterpiece from Nicholas
A young man is going around provincial USA searching for his mother that he never saw. As soon as he was born his young and careless parents sent him to mental hospital. Now Gary Oldman is free to go so he decides to find his mother, the one he was missing all those mental hospital days. His mother Linda (Theresa Russell) lives in American dream but doesn't seem to be happy. Her husband is fond of collecting railways for children. Sure, he has one of the largest railway-toy system in the whole state. He is proud of his railway model and pays more attention to his railway-world than to his young wife. Who used to have some nasty experiences before became a noble woman. But all that world is just smashed by the coming of that crazy son, who wants the revenge for such unhappy childhood. Finally Mummy lets her successful husband to meet her naughty son. Great, rather cynic, cold black humour film. www.myspace.com/neizvestnostlab
- andreygrachev
- May 25, 2009
- Permalink
A WASTE OF GOOD TALENT
It's a shame to see the talents of actors like Christopher Lloyd, Theresa Russell and Gary Oldman squandered on such a hideous flick (but then, in my humble opinion, every movie I've seen directed by Nick Roeg is rather bad). I'm a HUGE Theresa Russell fan; she's on my list of the top two most beautiful women I've ever seen, and although I could never tire of just looking at Ms. Russell this movie is so very horrible that I could never sit through it even a second time. Ditto "Aria," another of Nick Roeg's works.
- orneryrenegade
- Sep 22, 2002
- Permalink