Thanks. I'm fine.
I believe that George's absence is something of a habit for him around his family. He distances himself from them and shows up in their times of need. Adams appreciates this, but his brother (whose name I don't recall but he was terrific) sees it as an air of superiority that he resents. I think both responses to this are correct. I would have liked this to have been explored a little and it might have provided...well, closure seems antithetical to the film's purposes, but maybe climax. Just a little bit of climax would've been nice. A little catharsis and revelation.
I loved so much of the film that it really bugs me that it's not a little bit better.
The Official Review Thread of 2005
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Condolences, Sabin. You know these things pass eventually, but, as we also know, they suck ireddeemably while they're going on.
Anyway, for a review:
How do I deal with a movie that I liked in many ways, but found had a gaping hole at the core? This is my dilemma with Junebug.
Start with the stuff I liked. It’s a (presumably) cheap indie, yet it doesn’t have that cheap/ugly look, a la Pieces of April. It’s fluidly directed, with a sense for the lazy pace of southern life that doesn’t spill over into languid filmmaking. Like everyone says, it presents its characters in clear-eyed fashion, but is scrupulously fair to all – you don’t catch the director/writer taking either simplistic position (“city folk are shallow”; “southerners are rubes”), and you’d be hard-pressed to say with whom the filmmakers’ larger sympathies lie.
The acting is also quite fine. Embeth Davidtz and Celia Weston, at opposite ends of the cultural spectrum, limn characters who alternate between likable and irritating, often in the same scene. Scott Wilson – almost unrecognizable from In Cold Blood days – creates a full-bodied character with a minimum of dialogue. And then there’s Amy Adams as Ashley, the movie’s light. You don’t have to wait for her Oscar scene – from her first entrance, she’s a compendium of Oscar moments (and even on top of that she gets a wonderful change-of-pace scene near the end). I don’t underestimate the difficulty of small indies getting supporting nominations (Steve Buscemi and Peter Sarsgaard can tell you about that), but I expect major attention for her from the critics, and a Spirit Award seems a slam-dunk.
Okay…so what’s my problem? In short, it’s the character of George, Davidtz’s husband. He’s the fulcrum on which the plot turns – his family ties are the reason Type-A urbanite Davidtz ends up interacting with these small-town folk. And I have no idea 1) who George is or 2) how he feels about his family or the visit. For the first near-hour of the film, George is in fact an absence, not a presence – upon their arrival, he disappears to wander aimlessly, leaving Davidtz stranded with her in-laws in much the way Joan Fontaine was left by Olivier in Rebecca. It was such an obvious abandonment that I fully expected Davidtz to confront him over just where the hell he was – but she says not a word. After this, the family moves on to dinner, and I thought, okay, now we’ll see how he interacts with them – but the whole scene was played in mime, with music over. In the days that follow, apart from having sex with Davidtz a few times, George doesn’t seem to do much of anything – he certainly doesn’t convey/communicate any feeling about what’s going on. Finally – as I say, an hour in – he has a lovely scene where he’s asked to sing at a church gathering. We get some small sense of what his background is. But it exists in a vacuum: how do you contrast this to his present-day, Chicago life, when you realize you have no clue what he was doing in Chicago -- for a living or for a life -- before this trip began? It’s even worse when, in reacting to Ashley’s difficult baby delivery, George suddenly starts laying family-obligation pronouncements on Davidtz. I can see this as a legitimate source of conflict, but I’d need some knowledge of who the person making the demands is. Following this, George has another good scene, at the hospital with Ashley, which does finally begin to tell us a bit about him. But this pretty late in the game (I thought of the old expression, “He’s saying hello when it’s time to say goodbye”). And the scene is deceptive, at least for me (and my wife concurred) – I fully expected after it he’d be resistant to Davidtz’s amorous advances; feel some pull to stay with his family. But no dice on either count. I was frankly baffled about what I supposed to think about his behavior. In the end, he seemed content to simply go back to Chicago and resume his life – about which, as at the start, I knew nothing. Who is this guy?
I expect there could be some claim the frequent absence of George from the narrative is a deliberate choice, meant to replicate for us the “stranded in foreign territory” sensation experienced by Davidtz. If so, it’s not an effective dramatic choice for me (George’s feelings about his family interest me far more than the cultural clash). And I suspect the problem both goes deeper, and is more mundane: I think the flaw here is the tendency of a young writer to identify too closely with a single character (usually of his own age and gender) and to assume that character’s interior life (so vivid to the omniscient writer) will be obvious to an audience. I think the writing-directing team so saw the film through their own (George’s) eyes, they didn’t realize he needed to be drawn as a character the same as the others did. For me, his non-presence in the film keeps a solid effort from getting much above the the three-star level.
Anyway, for a review:
How do I deal with a movie that I liked in many ways, but found had a gaping hole at the core? This is my dilemma with Junebug.
Start with the stuff I liked. It’s a (presumably) cheap indie, yet it doesn’t have that cheap/ugly look, a la Pieces of April. It’s fluidly directed, with a sense for the lazy pace of southern life that doesn’t spill over into languid filmmaking. Like everyone says, it presents its characters in clear-eyed fashion, but is scrupulously fair to all – you don’t catch the director/writer taking either simplistic position (“city folk are shallow”; “southerners are rubes”), and you’d be hard-pressed to say with whom the filmmakers’ larger sympathies lie.
The acting is also quite fine. Embeth Davidtz and Celia Weston, at opposite ends of the cultural spectrum, limn characters who alternate between likable and irritating, often in the same scene. Scott Wilson – almost unrecognizable from In Cold Blood days – creates a full-bodied character with a minimum of dialogue. And then there’s Amy Adams as Ashley, the movie’s light. You don’t have to wait for her Oscar scene – from her first entrance, she’s a compendium of Oscar moments (and even on top of that she gets a wonderful change-of-pace scene near the end). I don’t underestimate the difficulty of small indies getting supporting nominations (Steve Buscemi and Peter Sarsgaard can tell you about that), but I expect major attention for her from the critics, and a Spirit Award seems a slam-dunk.
Okay…so what’s my problem? In short, it’s the character of George, Davidtz’s husband. He’s the fulcrum on which the plot turns – his family ties are the reason Type-A urbanite Davidtz ends up interacting with these small-town folk. And I have no idea 1) who George is or 2) how he feels about his family or the visit. For the first near-hour of the film, George is in fact an absence, not a presence – upon their arrival, he disappears to wander aimlessly, leaving Davidtz stranded with her in-laws in much the way Joan Fontaine was left by Olivier in Rebecca. It was such an obvious abandonment that I fully expected Davidtz to confront him over just where the hell he was – but she says not a word. After this, the family moves on to dinner, and I thought, okay, now we’ll see how he interacts with them – but the whole scene was played in mime, with music over. In the days that follow, apart from having sex with Davidtz a few times, George doesn’t seem to do much of anything – he certainly doesn’t convey/communicate any feeling about what’s going on. Finally – as I say, an hour in – he has a lovely scene where he’s asked to sing at a church gathering. We get some small sense of what his background is. But it exists in a vacuum: how do you contrast this to his present-day, Chicago life, when you realize you have no clue what he was doing in Chicago -- for a living or for a life -- before this trip began? It’s even worse when, in reacting to Ashley’s difficult baby delivery, George suddenly starts laying family-obligation pronouncements on Davidtz. I can see this as a legitimate source of conflict, but I’d need some knowledge of who the person making the demands is. Following this, George has another good scene, at the hospital with Ashley, which does finally begin to tell us a bit about him. But this pretty late in the game (I thought of the old expression, “He’s saying hello when it’s time to say goodbye”). And the scene is deceptive, at least for me (and my wife concurred) – I fully expected after it he’d be resistant to Davidtz’s amorous advances; feel some pull to stay with his family. But no dice on either count. I was frankly baffled about what I supposed to think about his behavior. In the end, he seemed content to simply go back to Chicago and resume his life – about which, as at the start, I knew nothing. Who is this guy?
I expect there could be some claim the frequent absence of George from the narrative is a deliberate choice, meant to replicate for us the “stranded in foreign territory” sensation experienced by Davidtz. If so, it’s not an effective dramatic choice for me (George’s feelings about his family interest me far more than the cultural clash). And I suspect the problem both goes deeper, and is more mundane: I think the flaw here is the tendency of a young writer to identify too closely with a single character (usually of his own age and gender) and to assume that character’s interior life (so vivid to the omniscient writer) will be obvious to an audience. I think the writing-directing team so saw the film through their own (George’s) eyes, they didn’t realize he needed to be drawn as a character the same as the others did. For me, his non-presence in the film keeps a solid effort from getting much above the the three-star level.
Sigh...moving...broke up with my girlfriend...parents in town...C- in Production II (too many projects at the same time)...how's about a little laughter for Sabin?
I was astonished by how much I enjoyed Wedding Crashers. It's overlong and tries too hard to convince us that Rachel McAdams' fiance doesn't deserve her, but I laughed almost throughout and found the friendship/romance between Vaughn and Wilson delightful, just delightful. It's like Sideways in many ways and almost earns the comparisons. The final act is a drag, but this film deserves its success.
The 40 Year Old Virgin is like Anchorman in that it doesn't really feel like a movie but an assemblage of bits that everybody involved maybe likes a bit too much. But these are far, far funnier bits. Sadly, this film drags out and out and - I'm not surprised to find out - this is the result of a $hit load of audience testing. I didn't find the ending terribly satisfying or funny...or even that healthy. MINOR SPOILERS...
Should a 40 year old virgin shack up with the first girl he has sex with? He's just beginning to find himself. Should he settle down with the first girl that he wants to have sex with, let alone marry the broad before they do the deed? Maybe my baggage is showing a little bit; the movie's a riot, albeit a flawed one. Seth Rogen's impromptu story about going to Mexico to see a girl f uck a horse is one of the biggest laughs I've had in the theater this year. Great for Steve Carrel and good for Judd Apatow, who's capable of more but I can certainly understand the guy coasting on what pleases the audience (I mean, if they won't take the time for "Freaks and Geeks" and "Undeclared" -- which I recently caught up with and is a bit lacking but has charm to spare -- what will they?).
I was astonished by how much I enjoyed Wedding Crashers. It's overlong and tries too hard to convince us that Rachel McAdams' fiance doesn't deserve her, but I laughed almost throughout and found the friendship/romance between Vaughn and Wilson delightful, just delightful. It's like Sideways in many ways and almost earns the comparisons. The final act is a drag, but this film deserves its success.
The 40 Year Old Virgin is like Anchorman in that it doesn't really feel like a movie but an assemblage of bits that everybody involved maybe likes a bit too much. But these are far, far funnier bits. Sadly, this film drags out and out and - I'm not surprised to find out - this is the result of a $hit load of audience testing. I didn't find the ending terribly satisfying or funny...or even that healthy. MINOR SPOILERS...
Should a 40 year old virgin shack up with the first girl he has sex with? He's just beginning to find himself. Should he settle down with the first girl that he wants to have sex with, let alone marry the broad before they do the deed? Maybe my baggage is showing a little bit; the movie's a riot, albeit a flawed one. Seth Rogen's impromptu story about going to Mexico to see a girl f uck a horse is one of the biggest laughs I've had in the theater this year. Great for Steve Carrel and good for Judd Apatow, who's capable of more but I can certainly understand the guy coasting on what pleases the audience (I mean, if they won't take the time for "Freaks and Geeks" and "Undeclared" -- which I recently caught up with and is a bit lacking but has charm to spare -- what will they?).
"How's the despair?"
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
Re: 2046
I didn't care for it either, and I loved In the Mood for Love. While the latter film was intoxicating and entracing in its slowness, I found 2046 tedious and, sadly, boring. It's very scattershot, and I had no idea what most of it was supposed to mean, and quite honestly, I didn't much care. I also was a little frustrated at the repetitive depiction of sex in e film, if only because Wong created such a touching feeling of romantic longing in Mood with two characters who barely even hold hands. 2046 felt over the top in nearly every way, and pretty pointless to boot. To be fair, it does look gorgeous, the cast does fine work, and Wong always pays plenty of attention to the details of his cramped interiors, but I have no desire to sit through the thing again any time soon. In fact, I want to run out and watch In the Mood for Love again. I can't hate 2046, but it was certainly a depressing misfire.
I didn't care for it either, and I loved In the Mood for Love. While the latter film was intoxicating and entracing in its slowness, I found 2046 tedious and, sadly, boring. It's very scattershot, and I had no idea what most of it was supposed to mean, and quite honestly, I didn't much care. I also was a little frustrated at the repetitive depiction of sex in e film, if only because Wong created such a touching feeling of romantic longing in Mood with two characters who barely even hold hands. 2046 felt over the top in nearly every way, and pretty pointless to boot. To be fair, it does look gorgeous, the cast does fine work, and Wong always pays plenty of attention to the details of his cramped interiors, but I have no desire to sit through the thing again any time soon. In fact, I want to run out and watch In the Mood for Love again. I can't hate 2046, but it was certainly a depressing misfire.
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Sonic Youth wrote:On the other hand, it will be too bad that this film will be forgotton, never mind by Oscar time, but two weeks from now, because it doesn't deserve to be.
I agree. Gilliam's films, for me, often seem a little messy (or perhaps chaotic is a better word), and, in most cases, that's just fine, because that's probably the point he's trying to make--the mind, whether naturally or chemically altered, can be chaotic at times. This works in films like Brazil, 12 Monkeys, even The Fisher King.
It almost works in The Brothers Grimm, but the problem is that Ehren Kruger's story is possibly a little too basic and so, I suspect, Gilliam and co. made changes and elaborations that make it more chaotic than it needs to be. However, there are so many incidental pleasures in this film--so many moments of delightful (or horrifying, such as with the kitten) originality--that it's a shame that it is being trounced upon while a thoroughly disagreeable, blandly made film like The 40 Year-Old Virgin is praised to the heavens.
And, because of that, some fantastic aspects of the film are likely to be overlooked come Oscar time. The art direction and costumes are feasts for the eys, but I'm more directly talking about Dario Marianelli's score, which is one of the best I've heard so far this year.
And can I please praise Heath Ledger? I'm amazed, really, and quite gratified to see him really trying new things, really pushing his range. I liked his charm and ease on the eyes in films like 10 Things I Hate About You and A Knight's Tale, but thought of him as essentially a lightweight. But this year I've seen him make leaps and bounds as an actor. First, in the also unfortunately underappreciated Lords of Dogtown, he scored with a thoroughly ingratiating performance; true, at times I think he needed to be reined in, but his final scene in that film is a marvel of efficient subtlety--frustration, resignation, and even joy--all done with perfect timing. Here, in The Brothers Grimm, he again might've been reined in at times, but again there are moments when hits his notes so perfectly, so astutely, I was just stunned--he plays Jacob as a manchild who thrills to wonder of folklore, and he enhances his performance with the grace of a dancer. These may not be Oscar-worthy performances, but it'll be interesting to see what he does with Brokeback Mountain.
"...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
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6385
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
MANDERLAY
Cast: Bryce Dallas Howard, Isaach de Bankole, Danny Glover, Willem Dafoe, Michael Abiteboul, Lauren Bacall, Jean Marc Barr, Jeremy Davies, Zeljko Ivanek, Udo Kier, Chloe Sevigny, Mona Hammond, Voice of John Hurt.
Dir: Lars Von Trier.
The second of Von Trier's U.S.A. Land of Opportunity Trilogy that began with Dogville is not quite as effective as that film but still his penchant for controversy and cinematic daring-do is still very much evident. This time around, Von Trier, ever the provocateur, dares to tackle race relations in the U.S. by going to its roots: slavery. People will see this either as a painfully unfair attack by a clueless pretentious outsider or a savagely truthful critique from an honest observer and is sure to provoke passionate arguments from both sides. As for me, I don't know. But the film is fascinating (though the DV, avant garde style is sorta getting old), has a lot thought-provoking and emotionally powerful moments and Howard's (Oh boy, what wouldn't I pay to see Opie's face when he sees his little girl in this one!) performance is true marvel backed up by a perfectly capable supporting cast.
Oscar Prospects: If there is one member from the Howard's family I wouldn't mind seeing holding an Oscar, it's Bryce Dallas but I highly doubt it'll happen given the independent nature of the film and its potentially very controversial nature.
Grade: B+
Cast: Bryce Dallas Howard, Isaach de Bankole, Danny Glover, Willem Dafoe, Michael Abiteboul, Lauren Bacall, Jean Marc Barr, Jeremy Davies, Zeljko Ivanek, Udo Kier, Chloe Sevigny, Mona Hammond, Voice of John Hurt.
Dir: Lars Von Trier.
The second of Von Trier's U.S.A. Land of Opportunity Trilogy that began with Dogville is not quite as effective as that film but still his penchant for controversy and cinematic daring-do is still very much evident. This time around, Von Trier, ever the provocateur, dares to tackle race relations in the U.S. by going to its roots: slavery. People will see this either as a painfully unfair attack by a clueless pretentious outsider or a savagely truthful critique from an honest observer and is sure to provoke passionate arguments from both sides. As for me, I don't know. But the film is fascinating (though the DV, avant garde style is sorta getting old), has a lot thought-provoking and emotionally powerful moments and Howard's (Oh boy, what wouldn't I pay to see Opie's face when he sees his little girl in this one!) performance is true marvel backed up by a perfectly capable supporting cast.
Oscar Prospects: If there is one member from the Howard's family I wouldn't mind seeing holding an Oscar, it's Bryce Dallas but I highly doubt it'll happen given the independent nature of the film and its potentially very controversial nature.
Grade: B+
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6385
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
The Brothers Grimm is likely to be one of the biggest box office bombs of the year, and could be the last time Terry Gilliam is ever entrusted with a project this large and this expensive. It's very difficult to recommend this movie. The screenplay's storyline, themes, ideas and characters are witless and banal. The film flails about, the actors mug painfully, the overall color palette is oppressively dark and monochrome, and the way the film unimaginitively riffs off of and 're-interprets' its source materials (the Grimm fairy-tales) until it's transformed into generic Hollywood product is all too reminiscent of the dreaded and equally reductive "Sleepy Hollow".
On the other hand, it will be too bad that this film will be forgotton, never mind by Oscar time, but two weeks from now, because it doesn't deserve to be. Despite its attempts at irreverency, The Brothers' Grimm is a horror film, a catalogue of night terrors, and much of it genuinely frightened me... and I don't scare easy. The scares and the horror-fantasy images and scenarios are children's nightmares played to the hilt: a forest full of tree roots and branches slithering like reptiles, ready to pull you into the earth; eyeballs flying about through the air; torture chambers; witches and wolves, and corpses lying in their chambers; the eyes, nose and mouth stolen from a child's face, leaving it an oval pouch of skin with hair; disappearing children swallowed by horses, slowly sliding into the abdomen as they scream. It is these images (and sounds) that were clearly left unsullied by the evil corporate studio empire, that's purely Gilliam's vision, and they tap into the primal fears and psychologies with a ferocity that many movies don't seem willing to dare try. The first terror scene is simply a witch flying around in a barn - boring! - except that witch is such a terrifying "old school" image, redolent of dusty libraries of the black plague or the creatures hiding under your bed, it shames so many of the special effects teams and the creatures they try to create that end up looking so derivative and artificial. Some of the f/x, unfortunately, are too obviously CGI'd, so the overall effect is not technically seamless. But despite the formulaic plot and story-telling, Gilliam has truly created a Heironymous Bosch universe, and it will be a shame that the film's technical qualities - the costumes, make-up, f/x, sets, and especially the sound effects - won't be given a second thought by the Academy or anyone else, because there is some real imagination at work here.
It's also too bad that the look througout is tiresomely dim and grimy - it's like watching a film through a dirty windshield - and that the humor is too over-the-top European for American audiences tastes. Had those tendencies been tempered, I think the movie would have had a good chance at being a hit.
And speaking of scares, I saw the preview for - what was it? - The Excorsist: Audrey Rose? Something like that. Well, if scary movies don't usually scare me, the previews of scary movies NEVER scare me. But wow, man! THIS one did! In fact, I was so unsettled, I don't want to see it.
On the other hand, it will be too bad that this film will be forgotton, never mind by Oscar time, but two weeks from now, because it doesn't deserve to be. Despite its attempts at irreverency, The Brothers' Grimm is a horror film, a catalogue of night terrors, and much of it genuinely frightened me... and I don't scare easy. The scares and the horror-fantasy images and scenarios are children's nightmares played to the hilt: a forest full of tree roots and branches slithering like reptiles, ready to pull you into the earth; eyeballs flying about through the air; torture chambers; witches and wolves, and corpses lying in their chambers; the eyes, nose and mouth stolen from a child's face, leaving it an oval pouch of skin with hair; disappearing children swallowed by horses, slowly sliding into the abdomen as they scream. It is these images (and sounds) that were clearly left unsullied by the evil corporate studio empire, that's purely Gilliam's vision, and they tap into the primal fears and psychologies with a ferocity that many movies don't seem willing to dare try. The first terror scene is simply a witch flying around in a barn - boring! - except that witch is such a terrifying "old school" image, redolent of dusty libraries of the black plague or the creatures hiding under your bed, it shames so many of the special effects teams and the creatures they try to create that end up looking so derivative and artificial. Some of the f/x, unfortunately, are too obviously CGI'd, so the overall effect is not technically seamless. But despite the formulaic plot and story-telling, Gilliam has truly created a Heironymous Bosch universe, and it will be a shame that the film's technical qualities - the costumes, make-up, f/x, sets, and especially the sound effects - won't be given a second thought by the Academy or anyone else, because there is some real imagination at work here.
It's also too bad that the look througout is tiresomely dim and grimy - it's like watching a film through a dirty windshield - and that the humor is too over-the-top European for American audiences tastes. Had those tendencies been tempered, I think the movie would have had a good chance at being a hit.
And speaking of scares, I saw the preview for - what was it? - The Excorsist: Audrey Rose? Something like that. Well, if scary movies don't usually scare me, the previews of scary movies NEVER scare me. But wow, man! THIS one did! In fact, I was so unsettled, I don't want to see it.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
When it comes to this in a relationship where you spend 30 min trying to convince your partner that she is more important to you than a tree, it is time to think. She should know this without a 30 min explanation. It's time to get rid of the girlfriend and keep the tree instead. New girlfriends are easy to come by but it is difficult to find the right $50 plastic Christmas tree!Sabin wrote:Admittedly, I had to talk to my girlfriend for thirty minutes in the midsts of posting about leaving her $50 plastic Christmas tree behind in a move and how the tree is not our relationship and that I do make time for her...