Page 16 of 21
Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:50 pm
by Penelope
The Original BJ wrote:Penelope wrote:Maybe I just couldn't get past that horrid, obnoxious soundtrack. It really, really turned me off. And those pop culture references were a bit "old" for young twenty-somethings, dontcha think?
Oh, I quite liked the score and song choices (though I could see how someone who didn't like the "hip" elements, as you call them, would find the music a lot more of the same.)
Regarding the pop culture references: I'm a number of years younger than the characters, and I got all three of those jokes. Maybe that's what I liked about them -- the film wasn't afraid to go over the heads of some of its viewers. Obviously, everyone HERE will get the references, but you've got to be relatively well-versed in world cinema to really be in on the joke.
I meant "hip" and pop culture elements as one and the same. Now, I'm one of the biggest fans here for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, so I didn't have a problem with the non-linear story or the "chapter"/transitions.
But it rang rather dissonant for me that Tom and Summer's pop culture references weren't just foreign films from the 50s and 60s but also music from before they were born. A particularly blatant error occurs when the narrator mentions that Tom was adversely affected by British pop music videos, which is highly unlikely to have actually happened: Tom is, let's guess, about 26 or 27, which means he was 1 or 2 when these songs were in heavy rotation on MTV, yet it shows him as at least 9 or 10 years old--in reality, he would've been more affected by the grunge music of the early 90s. Now, had this film been released in 1999 rather than 2009, I'd believe it; but, now, I just don't--it struck me as a script reflecting the creator's influences stamped onto a much younger character. Took me right out of the film.
Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:12 pm
by Zahveed
FUNNY PEOPLE
Eh, minor SPOILERS:
The first half of it was pretty dark, considering the talent involved with the film, and the second half is disturbing when you realize the lengths Sandler's character (George) goes to just make himself happy. It's a battle of morality throughout its entirety: the three up-and-coming comedians' competitive nature, the soulless sex, the adultery, callousness to those trying to help, etc. In the second half, George is given a good thing and he runs with it, until it gets to his head again and he starts destroying those around him.
George also mirrors Sandler's place in show business as the actor who plays in dumb movies and romantic comedies for teenagers and little kids, even going as far as showing Sandler's home videos and early stand-up bits. Unlike those movies though, the only happy ending revelation they come to at the end is their acknowledgment of being fucked up people who need some self-improvement. And that's how real life is.
The length of the movie seems a bit long at times, but the plot still has a good pace. Apatow's direction is also much better than his previous films, though nothing too special, and the cinematography makes for some intimate moments that you normally wouldn't see in a mainstream R-rated comedy.
For the record on phallic jokes (dick jokes, what-have-you), there is a good bit but it isn't overload. There are plenty of moments that don't involve this that are much funnier.
I give it an 'A'.
Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 7:41 am
by Big Magilla
The Original BJ wrote:I wouldn't go to a mainstream studio comedy expecting the profundity of a top-notch writer, but is an endless string of vulgarity really what passes for humor these days?
Unfortunately yes, and has been for a long time.
Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:47 am
by The Original BJ
Penelope wrote:Maybe I just couldn't get past that horrid, obnoxious soundtrack. It really, really turned me off. And those pop culture references were a bit "old" for young twenty-somethings, dontcha think?
Oh, I quite liked the score and song choices (though I could see how someone who didn't like the "hip" elements, as you call them, would find the music a lot more of the same.)
Regarding the pop culture references: I'm a number of years younger than the characters, and I got all three of those jokes. Maybe that's what I liked about them -- the film wasn't afraid to go over the heads of some of its viewers. Obviously, everyone HERE will get the references, but you've got to be relatively well-versed in world cinema to really be in on the joke.
Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:38 am
by Zahveed
Penelope wrote:Maybe I just couldn't get past that horrid, obnoxious soundtrack. It really, really turned me off. And those pop culture references were a bit "old" for young twenty-somethings, dontcha think?
Young twenty-somethings love to make old pop-culture references. I think it pisses my supervisors off at work though.
Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:37 am
by The Original BJ
If one were to judge the success of a comedy by sheer number of laughs, then Funny People would be a pretty good movie. It's funny. Consistently. And some of the laughs are big.
But if one judges a comedy on other things -- wit, purpose, economy, even the abilities of the cast -- then Funny People comes up very short.
I have to confess that Judd Apatow, while not without a knack for funny, isn't someone I'd really like to see many more movies from. Some reviewers have called this a dramatic comedy, comparing it to a James Brooks film. I wondered when the last time any of them saw Terms of Endearment or Broadcast News, and thought to compare this witless, emotionally uninvolving picture to those triumphs. (Though Funny People is at least a good deal more watchable than Spanglish.)
My family took my mother to see this film, promising her that this wasn't another Adam Sandler movie, that it was supposed to be more dramatic. After about ten minutes, when the film averaged a penis joke per minute, my sister and I sunk into our chairs for the next two and a half hours, knowing my mom would be "tsking" through most of it.
And what an unnecessarily long two and a half hours! I have to think Apatow is in a situation much like Peter Jackson was when he made King Kong -- he's achieved such a level of name-brand success that no one has the courage to tell him that his film is WAY too damn long. Scenes are stretched ad infinitum, and the entire last act excursion to Northern California seems like an extended excuse to give Apatow's daughters a sizable amount of screen time.
Furthermore, I'm not really sure what the message of this film is supposed to be. Sandler's character, especially during act three, is such a jerk, you halfway wish he was going to die. And Rogen's "lessons learned" seem like too little too late. In fact, a lot of this movie feels like an unwieldy hybrid -- a traditional Sandler yuk-fest might have actually been a better movie. As it is now, the faux serious elements seem like thin stew when snuck in between the non-stop dick jokes and fag jokes.
Which brings me to the maturity level of this thing. I wouldn't go to a mainstream studio comedy expecting the profundity of a top-notch writer, but is an endless string of vulgarity really what passes for humor these days? Again, it's not that the film doesn't have its laughs -- even Mom laughed a good deal -- but it's disheartening to realize that apparently the new gold standard for comedies is this puerility.
(500) Days of Summer (see below) was infinitely funnier (not to mention that it looks like it was shot by someone's who actually picked up a camera once before.)
Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:31 am
by Penelope
Maybe I just couldn't get past that horrid, obnoxious soundtrack. It really, really turned me off. And those pop culture references were a bit "old" for young twenty-somethings, dontcha think?
Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:13 am
by The Original BJ
I think every once in a while a movie comes along that's the right movie at the right time, and you respond to it tremendously well, even if it's not necessarily a great-great movie. That's a bit how I felt about (500) Days of Summer. At the moment, I'm a total soft touch for a sweet and sour romance about twenty-something Angelenos, so I basically enjoyed the hell out of this thing.
The plot is a bit like Two for the Road-lite in the way it bounces around a couple's relationship in non-linear fashion. And the film is a definite attempt to appeal to the audience that adores Eternal Sunshine (in fact, one could even imagine that film's greeting card Valentine's Day line inspiring a good chunk of this movie.) I could see some people around here finding some of the stylistic elements a little twee, but I bought the flights of fancy pretty well enough. Newbie director Marc Webb and the screenwriters find consistently surprising ways to tell their story, and the film is quite sure-footed about this style, making the viewing experience a lot of fun.
I also found it very poignant. It very accurately taps into that messy part of relationships in which one person values the relationship much more than the other, and how hard that can be for both parties. The last scene between Summer and Tom is terrifically written, with Tom's "but you danced with ME!" line a hugely relatable moment -- who hasn't been hurt by someone who had a very different idea of what "just friends" means than they do?
A large portion of the credit for this movie also belongs to the actors. This decade I've frequently admired the work of Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel, and both actors are hugely appealing here. I'd root for Comedy Globe nods for both.
I wasn't wild at all about the younger sister character -- I have almost zero tolerance for the old Kid Who Knows Everything About Relationships joke. And Tom's big outburst scene near the end seems to be straining for meaning when a lot of the rest of the movie is so effortlessly affable. But a lot of the writing is fun, and I view this a strong candidate for an Original Screenplay nomination.
Some minor bits: the Fellini/Bergman homages were fun references, and the musical number is probably one of the funniest things I've ever seen in a movie theater. I could barely control my laughter. Plus, for this Angeleno who loves Los Angeles, this film gave me some idea what New Yorkers must have felt about Annie Hall -- it's sweet to see a romance which paints such a loving portrait of the city you call home.
So, all in all, not an earth-shattering movie, but a very enjoyable one for me.
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:12 pm
by Penelope
(500) Days of Summer (2009; Marc Webb) 6/10
Excessively "hip" (in the most banal way possible) indie romance that charms only due to the lovely performances of Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel.
Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 6:34 am
by anonymous1980
PUBLIC ENEMIES
Cast: Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, Marion Cotillard, Jason Clarke, Billy Crudup, Stephen Dorff, Stephen Lang, Giovanni Ribisi, Rory Cochrane, David Wenham.
Dir: Michael Mann
Director Michael Mann is no stranger to shootouts and there's plenty of excellently staged ones here in this film based on crime life of John Dillinger. Though it's far from perfect and doesn't add anything new, Mann's choice of shooting it in HD-video gives the film, I feel at least (I know there are people who disagree with me), a sense of authenticity. I felt I was transported back to the 1930's and really kept me engaged all through the film.
Oscar Prospects: Deserves nominations for Best Cinematography, Art Direction, Sound and Sound Editing.
Grade: B+
Posted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 7:20 pm
by Penelope
The Proposal (2009; Anne Fletcher) 7/10
Ok, so it's a re-hash of While You Were Sleeping, but this romcom is actually quite entertaining, thanks primarily to the deft comic abilities of Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds.
Posted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 6:45 pm
by Sonic Youth
Penelope wrote:The Hangover (Todd Phillips) 7/10
Yes, the script is a bit clod-headed and misogynist, but Phillips brings a clear-eyed visual perspective to it and the three leads are engaging enough to let the audience have a good time.
...um... okay, this was gross.
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:07 pm
by Damien
Zahveed wrote:What did you think of his show's test screening?
Hilarious. One of the highlights of the picture.
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:00 pm
by Zahveed
Damien wrote:Bruno -- In its best sequences, the film is extraordinarily funny, ingenious and subversive, and there are moments of jaw-dropping audacity. But overall, it's pretty ramshackle and the pacing is off. Still, it's on the side of the angels, and I was never so happy to see Fred Phelps's lunatics as I was when they showed up here.
6/10.
What did you think of his show's test screening?
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:13 am
by Sabin
The Girlfriend Experience (Soderbergh)
All of Steven Soderbergh's films are about transactions of one thing or another. He makes blockbusters of joyous artifice and experiments of joyless transactional confession. The ones that aren't (like Erin Brockovich) are essentially (O.C.) transactions of commercial merit for artistic freedom. His masterpieces from both these worlds are sex, lies, and videotape and Out of Sight (where two transactors find something real) and The Limey (where what is found can never be returned). The Girlfriend Experience is an evocation of his themes, gorgeously shot and edited, explicitly about a world of transaction in which nothing is real and everything is for sale. But it's more than simply saying that nothing is real and everything is for sale. It's that it's being offered. At a certain point, how can you say no when you can have everything personal now? Especially when the ability to offer is power?
There is an innate pull to that which is private, that which is confessional and intimate. Soderbegh does it very well but in The Girlfriend Experience it cannot sustain an entire movie or hide that what Soderbergh rejects in the editing process is failed morality, empowered fake sexy weakness. The world between real and fake offers leaves the world in ruins. It's not cool, it's scary. The Girlfriend Experience is cool in collapse, but what it collapses into is the hug it denies itself. Worth seeing as a film but more worth rejecting as an idea. Still thinking about it. Don't know if I like it. The movies I enjoy of Soderbergh's feature SOMETHING that survives the black hole of Soderbergh's confession booth.
This makes no sense. The film is its own Girlfriend Experience. Providing fake intimacy, almost impossible to relate to, and of dubious origin. Gorgeous technique, relishes in its phoniness. Godard comparisons are surface at best.