Neddy Merrill Tom DiCillo's (yeah, never heard of him either) thinly veiled attack on (1) Brad Pitt and (2) Indie film-making is a movie about making movies joining much better films such as "Barton Fink" and, to a lesser extent, "The Player" in this sub-sub-subgenre. It follows the always corpse-like Steve Buscemi as a director just trying to film two scenes in a seemingly awful low-budget independent production that has the distinction of snaring a megastar who is trying to build cred played by Brad Pitt look (sorta)-alike James LeGros. The Pitt character (the comically named Chad Palomino) is pure satire of the spoiled star who believes their least inventive whim is pure genius while the others are fleshed out to the extent that we get a look into their interior lives, anxieties and to some degree hopes. There are extended dream sequences, some attempts at "Spinal Tap"-esque humor (and the smoke machine went crazy!!!!) and a whole lotta characters tossing F-bombs at one another (shocking!!!). Everyone on the set has slept with a least one other person, Buscemi's addled mom shows up and the whole mess tries way too hard to be either funny or poignant or insider hip or something. If you ever wanted to see Buscemi try to carry a film or if like to feel hip by picking a movie that makes fun of movies themselves you might enjoy this -- I didn't. If you want a movie about movie-making, try "Hooper", the 1978 Burt Reynolds vehicle about stuntmen making movies. Believe it or not, there was a (really brief) time when Burt Reynolds was so bankable that studios would sign a blank check and let he, Hal Needham, Dom Deluise, Mary Lou Henner, sometimes Sally Fields and random celebrities like quarterback Terry Bradshaw or drunk (may he rest in peace) Dean Martin just go out and wing it in front of the camera. "Hooper" is a complete mess but actually entertaining as opposed to tightly directed and produced but only conceptually entertaining.

eddiez61 Small, low budget films hold a special place in many film goer's hearts. We embrace them as our own special offspring. It's an irrational attachment we have for them, like kidnapping our neighbor's child. But cinema, apparently, is some sort of expression of our collective desire to be acknowledged, to be contributing to the public conversation. That's a bizarre, absurd role to demand of independent films, of any film, but that's the weird world we've been born into, isn't it? The ignored, unnoticed independent film is often the container and conveyor of our most salient, real desires. Frustration and anxiety are palpable, ever present qualities of modern life, and low budget films should not be exempt. Tom DiCillo has incorporated these discomforting, disturbing qualities into his poignantly absurd film. The production of the film within the film is at the mercy of unpredictable, arbitrary forces, like malfunctioning smoke machines, incompetent crew members, emotionally distracted actors, and just plain bad luck. Nothing is as effortless and perfect as it is in the "real" movies. This revelation elevates this film into the realm of essential; essential for anyone who is considering making their own independent low budget film, and essential for any fan of quality non Studio, non mega budget films.That it can be so impossible just getting a single scene "into the can" — the expression for capturing on film a worthwhile moment — is a potent metaphor for all our own endeavors. We are continually assaulted with the infinite demands of our mundane lives but are so wiling to sacrifice so much of our precious time to the act of getting it just right, whatever "it" may be. We need to be succeeding at something, anything, in order to feel worthy. And maniacal persistence is the indispensable means to success. However, it's usually a non productive hobby, past time or diversion that occupies us so insistently.Living in Oblivion is a rare opportunity to examine this impulse of ours to perfect relatively minor, inconsequential things. The conceit of the film is that we, the audience, like to believe that we are above and beyond such tedious, temporal concerns, yet we are equally, undeniably fascinated by the intricacies of the "inner" film's creation. "How would I do it?" is a question that frames every scene. But our involvement is irrelevant. That's the paradox at this film's core. That's the ultimate message here, that we, the audience, are inconsequential. That might sound bleak and morose to some, but I found it deeply satisfying. I am not responsible, in the end, for this film's success. I am only watching.Tom DiCillo has earned a reputation as an iconoclast, as a rebel, as an anti establishment defender of the individual. I'm not sure just how justified is this reputation - he has lately directed arguably crappy TV such as Law and Order - but still, he proves himself a potent source of genuinely profound insights in this film. You will learn what it feels like to be an ambitious, hopeful, idealistic artist working in a crass, indifferent, commercial world. That's a rare treat.The fact that Steve Buschemi, Katherine Keener, and Dermot Mulroney are so wonderfully natural is proof that Dicillo has golden instincts. We are granted access to these artist's most transcendent talents. I've seen them all in many different, fantastic roles, but here they are at their absolute best, their most real. That's a quality that nearly all films aspire too, but so very few achieve. Enjoy this film for this commendable fact along with the knowledge that it's nearly impossible to make a film like this today or ever again. (David Lynch did it in 2006 with his Inland Empire which has been ignored by the general film going public. It's a monumentally original, powerful, revolutionary film experience. Charlie Kaufman also accomplished a tremendous feat of originality with his phenomenal Synecdoche, NY from 2008. Both films are subtle expressions of artistic desire in the face of a coldly indifferent, if not outright maliciously violent culture.)

RainDogJr Nick (Steve Buscemi) is directing a low-budget film called Living in Oblivion, that is having a lot of problems during the filming. When the crew is ready the actors can't remember their lines and when the actors are making the scene in a superb way the camera isn't filming. Things like that are even in Nick's dreams and in the dreams of his main actress, Nicole (Catherine Keener), so Nick must deal with the problems of making low-budget films."Living in Oblivion", the second film written & directed by Tom DiCillo, is one of the most original films that i have ever seen and is an hilarious and strange low-budget comedy about low-budget film-making. The film is divide in three parts showing the dreams of Nick and Nicole and one real scene of Nick's film. But is all fun with this director and his bizarre crew dealing with a Hollywood star (James LeGros) who wants to change the film and with the mother of Nick (Laurel Thomby) who is interfering with the filming. The dreams are just how Nick and Nicole would love to deal with a problematic situation like that, Nick insulting everyone and Nicole ruining the Hollywood star and falling in love with Nick. But for me the most surrealistic sequence is actually the real one of the film with Nick's mother acting better than the real actors.Basically the plot is really simple, showing a lot of takes of the three different scenes but there is always a different detail for every single take and a different reaction of the great characters, you will be asking: now, what's next? what could f*ck more the film of Nick?The cast is just superb; for me this role ranks in Steve Buscemi's top five, and that's a really difficult decision because he is an amazing actor with many memorable characters like Mr. Pink, Donny or Seymor from "Reservoir Dogs", "The Big Lebowski" and "Ghost World". I really love this character that was based upon Buscemi's own experiences during his first attempts of making his debut film "Trees Lounge". The supporting cast is amazing too, with the lovely Catherine Keener as a not very famous actress who's major recognition was a shower scene in a Richard Gere film. James LeGros is really funny as Chad Palomino, the Hollywood star who works with Nick just because he think Nick was tight with Quentin Tarantino. And Dermot Mulroney as Wolf, the loyal camera man who is always supporting Nick.Conclusion: Tom DiCillo was used to this kind of situations due to the difficult filming of his debut film, in "Living in Oblivon" he creates an hilarious parody of low- budget films that all the cinema lovers must check. This film is one my personal favourites of the 90's and maybe ever and is a gem of low- budget film-making. 10 out of 10DVD: this film is practically unknown in Mexico so i have to order this DVD. Is a single edition with some bonus like comments of Buscemi and interviews with DiCillo and Buscemi. In cases like this one, to can watch a film like this is just enough.

Lee Eisenberg We should all know by now that Steve Buscemi is the unofficial king of indie flicks, and "Living in Oblivion" is possibly the best example. He plays the director of a very small movie - something right up his alley - who has to put up with the various problems on the set. We've seen this sort of story before, you say? Well, remember that Buscemi barely has to do anything to make the movie good; his pop-eyed gaze pretty much acts all on its own.If absolutely nothing else, this movie is a good look into the work that people have to put into making movies. Of course, I think that we need to consider it for much more than that. This movie has something for everyone, in my opinion. Also starring Catherine Keener, Dermot Mulroney, James LeGros, Peter Dinklage and Kevin Corrigan.