Obviously, you need to see "Longtime Companion" again.ITALIANO wrote:You know how much I usually like to agree with you, Penelope, but at least about Dermot Mulroney I will be completely honest and tell you that I find him a terrible, terrible actor - only slightly better than Tab Hunter.
The Official Review Thread of 2005
-
filmgabber
- Temp
- Posts: 325
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 6:38 pm
- Location: Seattle
- Contact:
"Winners make the rules. Losers live by them" - the only good line from a horrible movie
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
I did not much care for The Family Stone either. I must agree wholeheartedly with Roger Ebert that its unfortunate similarity to this year's Junebug is really its fatal flaw.
In Junebug, I loved Embeth Davidtz's character and I loved the Johnsten family, so their clash felt infinitely more heartbreaking because, well, I just wanted so desperately for these very different people to overcome their differences and get along.
In The Family Stone, I hated Sarah Jessica Parker's character (and her irritating performance) and I found the Stone family equally horrid (McAdams, Nelson and especially Keaton were fine, but could their characters have been any more unlikable?) The film reminded me of the (much worse) Stepmom, in which all the characters are so cruel to one another that I couldn't care less about who was dying from what disease so long as it happened ASAP.
To give it credit, the film has its laughs and its charms, but much of it is so shrill and cartoonish that every slightly human moment in the darn thing seems overwhelmed by the ridiculous nature of its contrived plot and one-note characters.
In Junebug, I loved Embeth Davidtz's character and I loved the Johnsten family, so their clash felt infinitely more heartbreaking because, well, I just wanted so desperately for these very different people to overcome their differences and get along.
In The Family Stone, I hated Sarah Jessica Parker's character (and her irritating performance) and I found the Stone family equally horrid (McAdams, Nelson and especially Keaton were fine, but could their characters have been any more unlikable?) The film reminded me of the (much worse) Stepmom, in which all the characters are so cruel to one another that I couldn't care less about who was dying from what disease so long as it happened ASAP.
To give it credit, the film has its laughs and its charms, but much of it is so shrill and cartoonish that every slightly human moment in the darn thing seems overwhelmed by the ridiculous nature of its contrived plot and one-note characters.
-
Pamela-Marie
- Graduate
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 3:27 am
- Location: n/a
- Contact:
Spoilers here and there ...
So Italiano isn't completely alone. I thought the film was hideous. The performances were mostly strong (I liked Parker and her character actually), but the script's structure was an unholy mess on top of being predictable and it seemed clear that Bazucha had no idea how to direct reaction shots well, especially in the beginning of the film. And the editing, sucks!
The family is plain evil and the writing is responsible. It's a given that Amy is the queen witch and didn't like her brother-in-law any more than Meredith once upon a time. But she can't stand out when miss dying mother earth is being just as rude. And when they are called on it, the family has a meeting to justify their reservations of Meredith instead of really take it to heart.
And why in the heck did this idiot spring this woman on his entire family like that?! Especially after the disaster with dinner and Amy? Let her meet them gradually, with mommy dearest first, not miss judgemental sister!
And when Julie shows up, the film officially becomes ridiculous. That dinner scene is not offense for what Meredith says, but for it being written in the first place. I almost walked out.
The one scene that got me, was Meredith's humiliation after she gives them their presents. But that was because, like I said, I liked her. I related to her. I felt her pain and hurt and I teared up at that. But I was hurt while watching this film, so perhaps the tears came easily.
And after all of that mess, they think they can wrap it up in a Christmas bow????!!!! Puh-lease, it just highlights how the film failed to portray what was really everyone's problem was in the first place. If it wasn't her, if it wasn't that he was marrying her, if it was their own ridiculous issues, then what the heck?! Long before she does one really odd or possibly offensive thing, she's being judged negatively (many, many parents as liberal as they are, don't like their unmarried children sleeping with their significant others in their bedroom). So why all the grief? And what on earth makes them all decide that she's one of them after all then? That stupid picture?! Or perhaps the speech where she rightfully tells them all off (but then she stays, Julie leaves without her?!).
But McAdams, Keaton, and most of the cast were good. I thought Parker did a wonderful job and the best performance by far is Nelson. It seriously is Oscar worthy. Danes performance was as slight as her role and Mulroney, who I actually like, was the worst thing in this film. It's like no one directed him or he didn't know what to do because his character has zero motivation for anything in this film from start to finish.
Ugh!
And for the record, I don't know any family that "open" and I'm from San Francisco. It is probably accurate that any family that thinks they are that perfectly accepting, is as full of crap as this family, but hey, I was thinking the exact same question Meredith asked over the wishing all her kids were gay thing. Not for the same reasons mind you, but seriously, I've never heard that one before and if true, seems like a subconcious over the top earnest effort to be liberal.
So Italiano isn't completely alone. I thought the film was hideous. The performances were mostly strong (I liked Parker and her character actually), but the script's structure was an unholy mess on top of being predictable and it seemed clear that Bazucha had no idea how to direct reaction shots well, especially in the beginning of the film. And the editing, sucks!
The family is plain evil and the writing is responsible. It's a given that Amy is the queen witch and didn't like her brother-in-law any more than Meredith once upon a time. But she can't stand out when miss dying mother earth is being just as rude. And when they are called on it, the family has a meeting to justify their reservations of Meredith instead of really take it to heart.
And why in the heck did this idiot spring this woman on his entire family like that?! Especially after the disaster with dinner and Amy? Let her meet them gradually, with mommy dearest first, not miss judgemental sister!
And when Julie shows up, the film officially becomes ridiculous. That dinner scene is not offense for what Meredith says, but for it being written in the first place. I almost walked out.
The one scene that got me, was Meredith's humiliation after she gives them their presents. But that was because, like I said, I liked her. I related to her. I felt her pain and hurt and I teared up at that. But I was hurt while watching this film, so perhaps the tears came easily.
And after all of that mess, they think they can wrap it up in a Christmas bow????!!!! Puh-lease, it just highlights how the film failed to portray what was really everyone's problem was in the first place. If it wasn't her, if it wasn't that he was marrying her, if it was their own ridiculous issues, then what the heck?! Long before she does one really odd or possibly offensive thing, she's being judged negatively (many, many parents as liberal as they are, don't like their unmarried children sleeping with their significant others in their bedroom). So why all the grief? And what on earth makes them all decide that she's one of them after all then? That stupid picture?! Or perhaps the speech where she rightfully tells them all off (but then she stays, Julie leaves without her?!).
But McAdams, Keaton, and most of the cast were good. I thought Parker did a wonderful job and the best performance by far is Nelson. It seriously is Oscar worthy. Danes performance was as slight as her role and Mulroney, who I actually like, was the worst thing in this film. It's like no one directed him or he didn't know what to do because his character has zero motivation for anything in this film from start to finish.
Ugh!
And for the record, I don't know any family that "open" and I'm from San Francisco. It is probably accurate that any family that thinks they are that perfectly accepting, is as full of crap as this family, but hey, I was thinking the exact same question Meredith asked over the wishing all her kids were gay thing. Not for the same reasons mind you, but seriously, I've never heard that one before and if true, seems like a subconcious over the top earnest effort to be liberal.
-- "Say I was Tom Cruise, where would you seat me?"
-- "In acting class."
Gilmore Girls, 10/28/03
-- "In acting class."
Gilmore Girls, 10/28/03
Ah, very true, very true, but doesn't Dermot have the most beautiful eyes. Sigh. :pITALIANO wrote:You know how much I usually like to agree with you, Penelope, but at least about Dermot Mulroney I will be completely honest and tell you that I find him a terrible, terrible actor - only slightly better than Tab Hunter.
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
I certainly agree with this. Family Stone is VERY predictable: you know where it's going within 10 minutes of the start, and that's precisely where it goes (I had the same problem with Bazucha's previous film, Big Eden--and it played out exactly as I thought it would). But the difference here, for me, at least, was the benefit of a strong cast playing well off of each other--one of the rare times an all-star cast meshes extremely well.ITALIANO wrote:Everything in this movie is predictable, obvious, by-the-numbers - including the reaction shots - and while it is true that the family is not always seen in a totally positive light (the scene of the game, with McAdams accusing Parker of pointing at the black guy, literally made me cringe), my problem with the whole thing is that I found them fake and annoying even when for the writer-director - and, it seems, for the American viewers - they were obviously delightful.
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
Some slight spoilers maybe.
Well, I don't know - let me at least hope that this is not the typical American family, but the kind of family Americans LIKE to think they have - maybe a bit messy but ultimately open minded, politically correct, and warm hearted (it's interesting that by the end nobody is prevented from being part of it - if it had been me I'd have run away after five minutes in that house, especially after having being treated like Parker was in the movie).
Everything in this movie is predictable, obvious, by-the-numbers - including the reaction shots - and while it is true that the family is not always seen in a totally positive light (the scene of the game, with McAdams accusing Parker of pointing at the black guy, literally made me cringe), my problem with the whole thing is that I found them fake and annoying even when for the writer-director - and, it seems, for the American viewers - they were obviously delightful.
So I think that the movie - which objectively isn't a masterpiece - becomes interesting only if you see it for what it really is: an in-your-face celebration of America society - a society which is going through a deep crisis and needs to believe again in itself and its values. A society by which not only gays or blacks, but even yuppie bitches can be accepted and understood - or so the movie suggests. Reality is, we know, quite different, but it's nice to see that Americans, young and not so young, have the same kind of reaction to this mild, not especially inventive comedy. And I'm not being sarcastic - I really find this nice and very interesting.
Well, I don't know - let me at least hope that this is not the typical American family, but the kind of family Americans LIKE to think they have - maybe a bit messy but ultimately open minded, politically correct, and warm hearted (it's interesting that by the end nobody is prevented from being part of it - if it had been me I'd have run away after five minutes in that house, especially after having being treated like Parker was in the movie).
Everything in this movie is predictable, obvious, by-the-numbers - including the reaction shots - and while it is true that the family is not always seen in a totally positive light (the scene of the game, with McAdams accusing Parker of pointing at the black guy, literally made me cringe), my problem with the whole thing is that I found them fake and annoying even when for the writer-director - and, it seems, for the American viewers - they were obviously delightful.
So I think that the movie - which objectively isn't a masterpiece - becomes interesting only if you see it for what it really is: an in-your-face celebration of America society - a society which is going through a deep crisis and needs to believe again in itself and its values. A society by which not only gays or blacks, but even yuppie bitches can be accepted and understood - or so the movie suggests. Reality is, we know, quite different, but it's nice to see that Americans, young and not so young, have the same kind of reaction to this mild, not especially inventive comedy. And I'm not being sarcastic - I really find this nice and very interesting.
Penelope wrote:I've seen the film twice, now (took my mom to see it, as I knew she'd enjoy it, and even she remarked on the hypocrisy of the family), and SJP improved on a second viewing--there's no denying this lady has incredible comic timing.
I agree, it's a very enjoyable film and nothing like the critics were harping about. I've seen it twice, too. And, yes, SJP does kind of grow on you.
And yes, ITALIANO, this an accurate depiction of a lot of American families. I saw a lot of my family in the Stones.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Besides, I don't know that the family was supposed to be seen in an entirely positive light--I mean, weren't they being hypocritical in judging SJP's character so harshly? I think that was the point. I've seen the film twice, now (took my mom to see it, as I knew she'd enjoy it, and even she remarked on the hypocrisy of the family), and SJP improved on a second viewing--there's no denying this lady has incredible comic timing.
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19339
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
At least Parker gets props for not playing it safe. I can't image Jennifer Aniston, for one, taking a chance on playing such an unlikeable character. Still, I didn't like either the character or the performance. But, yes, American families are like that, more so than in any other recent film. Family members can be very annoying to one another, but quickly rally together if an outsider finds fault with one of them.
Was I the only one to hate this loving, tolerant, politically correct American family (which may love, and my god how it shows it!, its gay, deaf son and his BLACK lover - Stanley Kramer would love that - but would probably vote for Bush if it had a third chance to do so?). The cardboard character badly played by Parker was unbearably grotesque, true, so it was admittedly difficult to like her (though I tried), but the more realistically portrayed members of the family were equally annoying, let's face it (the only likable character - and the only good performance in the whole movie - was the father). I can't believe that American familes do really behave this way: being optimistic by nature, I still hope that I could still find Americans still untouched by homophobia and racism, or brave enough not to hide those under such forced, uncalled for, and suspiciously loud proclaims of universal love and acceptance.
-
dylanfan23
- Temp
- Posts: 475
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:46 pm
- Location: Belleville, NJ
Lets see, i'll review two films that i saw for a second time.
Walk the Line
Very well made. I'm a very big johnny cash fan so i knew this would be easily accesible for me. I knew a lot of the story going in but there were a few things that were surprises. The story was very well told, it didn't stay still at all, almost moving too fast sometimes, a few times i was thinking, wow they're already here. But thats ok, i'd rather then than the other way. The performances were truely amazing. Reese Witherspoon was born to play this part i think, well actually june carter would have been the only one who could be june carter, if you have ever seen any footage of her, she was a complete character all in herself. But reese was the perfect one to play the dynimite or a person june was. And phoenix was also picture perfect, he needed to be for this story to work and he was. I know he's compared to jaime foxx, and as good as i feel foxx was, i feel phoenix was better here. Two great performances, i would nominate them both and probably give witherspoon the award at this point, i'd have to think about it more. Phoenix too maybe, but he's got some serious competition that witherspoon does not. All in all great story, entertaining story, music was great....4 and a half out of 5 stars.
The Family Stone
This movie was a shock to me, i really had no idea what to expect going in. I didn't know what type of film it was going to be except that it was an ensemble christmas film. What a great surprise though, there were a lot of flaws mind you in the screenplay, but it somehow found its way through those flaws and hit all the right notes. The reason this film finds the light i think is because of hte characters. Such great well written characters. And what a fantastic family, not fantastic as in great citizens, but fantastic in terms of being honest and open with themselves and they're feelings. Not being held back by society and just loving each other for whatever they are. This is a modern family, theres homosexuality, theres interacial relationships, theres sickness, theres challenges, theres casual drug use, theres open talk about sex, they don't take themselves and anything all that serious, except the things you should take seriously, thats love, happiness and death....and we follow this family through this holiday and its very interesting and funny. The performances were all great, luke wilson and craig t. nelson led the men, these two performances will get overlooked, but they shouldn't, both there best works of there careers. As for the ladies, mcadams, parker and keaten were all perfect. Parker's never been better(not a big fan) and i haven't seen mcadams take a misstep yet, i hope she continues working a lot. Keaton was pretty perfect for this part and it shows. Great story, 4 out of 5 stars.
Walk the Line
Very well made. I'm a very big johnny cash fan so i knew this would be easily accesible for me. I knew a lot of the story going in but there were a few things that were surprises. The story was very well told, it didn't stay still at all, almost moving too fast sometimes, a few times i was thinking, wow they're already here. But thats ok, i'd rather then than the other way. The performances were truely amazing. Reese Witherspoon was born to play this part i think, well actually june carter would have been the only one who could be june carter, if you have ever seen any footage of her, she was a complete character all in herself. But reese was the perfect one to play the dynimite or a person june was. And phoenix was also picture perfect, he needed to be for this story to work and he was. I know he's compared to jaime foxx, and as good as i feel foxx was, i feel phoenix was better here. Two great performances, i would nominate them both and probably give witherspoon the award at this point, i'd have to think about it more. Phoenix too maybe, but he's got some serious competition that witherspoon does not. All in all great story, entertaining story, music was great....4 and a half out of 5 stars.
The Family Stone
This movie was a shock to me, i really had no idea what to expect going in. I didn't know what type of film it was going to be except that it was an ensemble christmas film. What a great surprise though, there were a lot of flaws mind you in the screenplay, but it somehow found its way through those flaws and hit all the right notes. The reason this film finds the light i think is because of hte characters. Such great well written characters. And what a fantastic family, not fantastic as in great citizens, but fantastic in terms of being honest and open with themselves and they're feelings. Not being held back by society and just loving each other for whatever they are. This is a modern family, theres homosexuality, theres interacial relationships, theres sickness, theres challenges, theres casual drug use, theres open talk about sex, they don't take themselves and anything all that serious, except the things you should take seriously, thats love, happiness and death....and we follow this family through this holiday and its very interesting and funny. The performances were all great, luke wilson and craig t. nelson led the men, these two performances will get overlooked, but they shouldn't, both there best works of there careers. As for the ladies, mcadams, parker and keaten were all perfect. Parker's never been better(not a big fan) and i haven't seen mcadams take a misstep yet, i hope she continues working a lot. Keaton was pretty perfect for this part and it shows. Great story, 4 out of 5 stars.
-
filmgabber
- Temp
- Posts: 325
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 6:38 pm
- Location: Seattle
- Contact:
One of the films that slipped by me this summer, which I just rented on DVD was "The Exorcism of Emily Rose".
I saw it twice. The first time it freaked me out and I was mesmorized by Jennifer Carpenter's work. But the second time I watched it, I found myself laughing. The music is ridiculously bad, the screenplay is a bit wonky and while I love Laura Linney, she pretty much reinvents her tough-lawyer role from "Primal Fear".
The scene inside the barn was rather effective - I turned on all the lights in my house after that. And Campbell Scott was quite exciting to watch, as of course was Carpenter.
Edited By filmgabber on 1136077216
I saw it twice. The first time it freaked me out and I was mesmorized by Jennifer Carpenter's work. But the second time I watched it, I found myself laughing. The music is ridiculously bad, the screenplay is a bit wonky and while I love Laura Linney, she pretty much reinvents her tough-lawyer role from "Primal Fear".
The scene inside the barn was rather effective - I turned on all the lights in my house after that. And Campbell Scott was quite exciting to watch, as of course was Carpenter.
Edited By filmgabber on 1136077216
"Winners make the rules. Losers live by them" - the only good line from a horrible movie
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
What I did this Christmas Eve...
I watched helplessly as another movie jumped into the death-battle ring with Batman Begins and Jarhead for the coveted Worst Film of 2005 title. And this is a film many people seem to like!
The Upside of Anger is a patronizing, obnoxiously high-minded, atrociously written, poorly directed, bafflingly performed, fifteen-years-out-of-fashion (at least) piece of dreck, the type of film whose time is waaay gone. I knew I was in for it when I saw that spacious country kitchen. Ye gods, yuppie-angst strikes again!
I watched helplessly as another movie jumped into the death-battle ring with Batman Begins and Jarhead for the coveted Worst Film of 2005 title. And this is a film many people seem to like!
The Upside of Anger is a patronizing, obnoxiously high-minded, atrociously written, poorly directed, bafflingly performed, fifteen-years-out-of-fashion (at least) piece of dreck, the type of film whose time is waaay gone. I knew I was in for it when I saw that spacious country kitchen. Ye gods, yuppie-angst strikes again!
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler