I found this movie wack as fuck. I was able to overlook the fact that Paul Giamatti's character was just a collection of neuroses that never really go anywhere (look at the gravity given to the scene where he takes money from his mom; nothing ever comes of it), and I was even able to overlook the fact that Virginia Madsen (my crush from the wayback, word to Wayne Wang) only existed as a dewy-eyed sounding board for same (how her role in this movie was supposed to prove that there are still good parts for women is beyond me), but all the shit with Thomas Haden Church was fucking reprehensible. Clearly, his tearful breakdown scene is supposed to be some kind of uber-redemptive money shot, but all of his worst behavior is winked at and hedged; the script is too chicken-shit to let him be truly despicable. I mean, his fucking around with the married waitress for no good reason is supposed to represent some sort of rock-bottom transgression, the lowest of the low, but a few scenes later, she's having sex with her husband and admitting that she actually enjoyed fucking around, and the husband is excited by it, so Church's ostensibly horrible betrayal of his fiancee really just ends up just being some no-harm-no-foul, boys-will-be-boys shit. The whole thing felt like Porky's sympathy-fucking The Graduate, but lacking the honesty of either one. A real ugly way to grow two hours older.
Just curious, what would be an example of a non-"wack as fuck" movie?
I found this movie wack as fuck. I was able to overlook the fact that Paul Giamatti's character was just a collection of neuroses that never really go anywhere (look at the gravity given to the scene where he takes money from his mom; nothing ever comes of it), and I was even able to overlook the fact that Virginia Madsen (my crush from the wayback, word to Wayne Wang) only existed as a dewy-eyed sounding board for same (how her role in this movie was supposed to prove that there are still good parts for women is beyond me), but all the shit with Thomas Haden Church was fucking reprehensible. Clearly, his tearful breakdown scene is supposed to be some kind of uber-redemptive money shot, but all of his worst behavior is winked at and hedged; the script is too chicken-shit to let him be truly despicable. I mean, his fucking around with the married waitress for no good reason is supposed to represent some sort of rock-bottom transgression, the lowest of the low, but a few scenes later, she's having sex with her husband and admitting that she actually enjoyed fucking around, and the husband is excited by it, so Church's ostensibly horrible betrayal of his fiancee really just ends up just being some no-harm-no-foul, boys-will-be-boys shit. The whole thing felt like Porky's sympathy-fucking The Graduate, but lacking the honesty of either one. A real ugly way to grow two hours older.
I looked at my watch twice while reading this post
Nah. I'm more of a ligger enthusiast, but on the rare occasions when I do drink wine, it's usually some scud burgundy that tastes like liquified beef-heart and has a handle on the bottle; I'll drink it all myself and get my viking on. Once in a great while I'll fuck with some grappa, which I think technically qualifies as wine.
I found this movie wack as fuck. I was able to overlook the fact that Paul Giamatti's character was just a collection of neuroses that never really go anywhere (look at the gravity given to the scene where he takes money from his mom; nothing ever comes of it), and I was even able to overlook the fact that Virginia Madsen (my crush from the wayback, word to Wayne Wang) only existed as a dewy-eyed sounding board for same (how her role in this movie was supposed to prove that there are still good parts for women is beyond me), but all the shit with Thomas Haden Church was fucking reprehensible. Clearly, his tearful breakdown scene is supposed to be some kind of uber-redemptive money shot, but all of his worst behavior is winked at and hedged; the script is too chicken-shit to let him be truly despicable. I mean, his fucking around with the married waitress for no good reason is supposed to represent some sort of rock-bottom transgression, the lowest of the low, but a few scenes later, she's having sex with her husband and admitting that she actually enjoyed fucking around, and the husband is excited by it, so Church's ostensibly horrible betrayal of his fiancee really just ends up just being some no-harm-no-foul, boys-will-be-boys shit. The whole thing felt like Porky's sympathy-fucking The Graduate, but lacking the honesty of either one. A real ugly way to grow two hours older.
I looked at my watch twice while reading this post
I found this movie wack as fuck. I was able to overlook the fact that Paul Giamatti's character was just a collection of neuroses that never really go anywhere (look at the gravity given to the scene where he takes money from his mom; nothing ever comes of it), and I was even able to overlook the fact that Virginia Madsen (my crush from the wayback, word to Wayne Wang) only existed as a dewy-eyed sounding board for same (how her role in this movie was supposed to prove that there are still good parts for women is beyond me), but all the shit with Thomas Haden Church was fucking reprehensible. Clearly, his tearful breakdown scene is supposed to be some kind of uber-redemptive money shot, but all of his worst behavior is winked at and hedged; the script is too chicken-shit to let him be truly despicable. I mean, his fucking around with the married waitress for no good reason is supposed to represent some sort of rock-bottom transgression, the lowest of the low, but a few scenes later, she's having sex with her husband and admitting that she actually enjoyed fucking around, and the husband is excited by it, so Church's ostensibly horrible betrayal of his fiancee really just ends up just being some no-harm-no-foul, boys-will-be-boys shit. The whole thing felt like Porky's sympathy-fucking The Graduate, but lacking the honesty of either one. A real ugly way to grow two hours older.
I looked at my watch twice while reading this post
I found this movie wack as fuck. I was able to overlook the fact that Paul Giamatti's character was just a collection of neuroses that never really go anywhere (look at the gravity given to the scene where he takes money from his mom; nothing ever comes of it), and I was even able to overlook the fact that Virginia Madsen (my crush from the wayback, word to Wayne Wang) only existed as a dewy-eyed sounding board for same (how her role in this movie was supposed to prove that there are still good parts for women is beyond me), but all the shit with Thomas Haden Church was fucking reprehensible. Clearly, his tearful breakdown scene is supposed to be some kind of uber-redemptive money shot, but all of his worst behavior is winked at and hedged; the script is too chicken-shit to let him be truly despicable. I mean, his fucking around with the married waitress for no good reason is supposed to represent some sort of rock-bottom transgression, the lowest of the low, but a few scenes later, she's having sex with her husband and admitting that she actually enjoyed fucking around, and the husband is excited by it, so Church's ostensibly horrible betrayal of his fiancee really just ends up just being some no-harm-no-foul, boys-will-be-boys shit. The whole thing felt like Porky's sympathy-fucking The Graduate, but lacking the honesty of either one. A real ugly way to grow two hours older.
Just curious, what would be an example of a non-"wack as fuck" movie?
That joint looked terrible, just off the previews. I saw that little rat-looking dude with the beard and knew there was not going to be anything in this movie I could identify with. Anthony Lane's write-up in the New Yorker confirmed for me that the sh!t was for poptarts.
I found this movie wack as fuck. I was able to overlook the fact that Paul Giamatti's character was just a collection of neuroses that never really go anywhere (look at the gravity given to the scene where he takes money from his mom; nothing ever comes of it), and I was even able to overlook the fact that Virginia Madsen (my crush from the wayback, word to Wayne Wang) only existed as a dewy-eyed sounding board for same (how her role in this movie was supposed to prove that there are still good parts for women is beyond me), but all the shit with Thomas Haden Church was fucking reprehensible. Clearly, his tearful breakdown scene is supposed to be some kind of uber-redemptive money shot, but all of his worst behavior is winked at and hedged; the script is too chicken-shit to let him be truly despicable. I mean, his fucking around with the married waitress for no good reason is supposed to represent some sort of rock-bottom transgression, the lowest of the low, but a few scenes later, she's having sex with her husband and admitting that she actually enjoyed fucking around, and the husband is excited by it, so Church's ostensibly horrible betrayal of his fiancee really just ends up just being some no-harm-no-foul, boys-will-be-boys shit. The whole thing felt like Porky's sympathy-fucking The Graduate, but lacking the honesty of either one. A real ugly way to grow two hours older.
Ah man, it was a fun little movie. I don't think you should take it as seriously as he took wine. Just drop that '82 Chateau Latour attitude in a plastic cup and take it to Wendy's.
I found this movie wack as fuck. I was able to overlook the fact that Paul Giamatti's character was just a collection of neuroses that never really go anywhere (look at the gravity given to the scene where he takes money from his mom; nothing ever comes of it), and I was even able to overlook the fact that Virginia Madsen (my crush from the wayback, word to Wayne Wang) only existed as a dewy-eyed sounding board for same (how her role in this movie was supposed to prove that there are still good parts for women is beyond me), but all the shit with Thomas Haden Church was fucking reprehensible. Clearly, his tearful breakdown scene is supposed to be some kind of uber-redemptive money shot, but all of his worst behavior is winked at and hedged; the script is too chicken-shit to let him be truly despicable. I mean, his fucking around with the married waitress for no good reason is supposed to represent some sort of rock-bottom transgression, the lowest of the low, but a few scenes later, she's having sex with her husband and admitting that she actually enjoyed fucking around, and the husband is excited by it, so Church's ostensibly horrible betrayal of his fiancee really just ends up just being some no-harm-no-foul, boys-will-be-boys shit. The whole thing felt like Porky's sympathy-fucking The Graduate, but lacking the honesty of either one. A real ugly way to grow two hours older.
Ah man, it was a fun little movie. I don't think you should take it as seriously as he took wine. Just drop that '82 Chateau Latour attitude in a plastic cup and take it to Wendy's.
Co-sign !....... reading many of your comments ,it is interesting to see how heavy critical praise and a lot of advertisement can damage a funny, well made, little movie.
Ah man, it was a fun little movie. I don't think you should take it as seriously as he took wine. Just drop that Chateau Latour '82 attitude in a plastic cup and take it to Wendy's.
Eh, see, that's the thing: I agree that it was a fun little movie, but I feel that it dressed itself in daddy's clothes, presenting itself as something much deeper. Now, I don't believe that fun and depth are mutually exclusive, but Jesus, having both requires a hell of a lot more finesse than was on display here.
And it should be noted that I went into this movie wanting desperately to like it. A friend of mine was having--god help me--an Oscar party, and I hadn't seen, like, any of the movies in contention, so I felt I should make some token effort. Said friend is a champion of big, spectacular films, and I would have liked nothing better than to have been able to say "See, Sideways whipped some damn ass--where's your Aviator now, huh?"
There's no accounting for taste, though. If anyone needs me, I'll be down at Burrito Beach, getting loosened from my roost with some Orange Jubilee.
I actually think James' comments are on point though, that said, I enjoyed the movie much more than he did.
Here's the thing - three movies came out last year, all of which dealt with forms of personal/existential angst/depression, whateverthefuck (all about white people too):
Garden State - 20-something depression with shades of the kind of romance that, apparently, 20-somethings (like my younger sister) are really into though older folk like myself look on this and just shake our heads because we know that only 20-somethings would find a bunch of whaked-out 20-somethings falling in love to be romantic. We know what it reall is: a recipe for major dysfunction. That said, I thought it was pleasant and watchable and as many pointed out - good soundtrack.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - 30-something break-up film for previously 20-something dysfunctional couple. Now, this is some shit that me and my friends could all get into and understand...you have to be older to have the kind of relationship that's so destructive in its own way that we'd actually want to have the memory of it wiped off our minds. Brilliant concept (Charlie K, holla) and one of the very, very few Jim Carrey films I'll ever admit liking. It did have too many unnecessary secondary characters - Frodo being top of that list.
Sideways - 40-something, post-divorce film for depressed middle-life crisis dudes who realize that all their dreams while being 20 and 30 something are now coming to a crashing end. At this point, it's not about either finding the source of eternal happiness or even the greatest love of your life, but rather, a moment of peace and contentedness.
Realize - that description fits almost every single fucking critic in their 40s (or older) which largely explains why so many movie reviewers rode that film's nutsack. I'm still 8 years from my 40s but I already get an inkling for how things could turn out so I can appreciate the film's appeal.
However, I don't get why people thought this was such an incredible film. The comedy, like all of Payne's films, was awkward, especially when it was slapstick. And frankly, I never understood why Madsen's character would fall for a guy like Giamatti's. I'm not shitting on Paulie here, but Madsen exudes such charisma that it makes no sense what she sees in a neurotic wreck like Giamatti's character (but of ocurse, the same could be said of every Woody Allen film ever made where that neurotic weasil scores hot, literary chicks from the Upper East Side to the L.E.S. As if.
I actually think James' comments are on point though, that said, I enjoyed the movie much more than he did.
Here's the thing - three movies came out last year, all of which dealt with forms of personal/existential angst/depression, whateverthefuck (all about white people too):
Garden State - 20-something depression with shades of the kind of romance that, apparently, 20-somethings (like my younger sister) are really into though older folk like myself look on this and just shake our heads because we know that only 20-somethings would find a bunch of whaked-out 20-somethings falling in love to be romantic. We know what it reall is: a recipe for major dysfunction. That said, I thought it was pleasant and watchable and as many pointed out - good soundtrack.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - 30-something break-up film for previously 20-something dysfunctional couple. Now, this is some shit that me and my friends could all get into and understand...you have to be older to have the kind of relationship that's so destructive in its own way that we'd actually want to have the memory of it wiped off our minds. Brilliant concept (Charlie K, holla) and one of the very, very few Jim Carrey films I'll ever admit liking. It did have too many unnecessary secondary characters - Frodo being top of that list.
Sideways - 40-something, post-divorce film for depressed middle-life crisis dudes who realize that all their dreams while being 20 and 30 something are now coming to a crashing end. At this point, it's not about either finding the source of eternal happiness or even the greatest love of your life, but rather, a moment of peace and contentedness.
Realize - that description fits almost every single fucking critic in their 40s (or older) which largely explains why so many movie reviewers rode that film's nutsack. I'm still 8 years from my 40s but I already get an inkling for how things could turn out so I can appreciate the film's appeal.
However, I don't get why people thought this was such an incredible film. The comedy, like all of Payne's films, was awkward, especially when it was slapstick. And frankly, I never understood why Madsen's character would fall for a guy like Giamatti's. I'm not shitting on Paulie here, but Madsen exudes such charisma that it makes no sense what she sees in a neurotic wreck like Giamatti's character (but of ocurse, the same could be said of every Woody Allen film ever made where that neurotic weasil scores hot, literary chicks from the Upper East Side to the L.E.S. As if.
Garden state = sideways...good call. The movie did aspire to great things, and it did fall flat, but I enjoyed it.
Now Eternal Sunshine was the best movie of the year for me. I absolutely loved it and you should see it twice if you see it once. It has one of the most beautiful structures of any movie I've ever seen.
It's really funny though b/c all the people I know who loved Garden State were in their 20s. Me and my 30 something friends all thought "Eternal Sunshine" was the shit and older folks jocked "Sideways."
It's really funny though b/c all the people I know who loved Garden State were in their 20s. Me and my 30 something friends all thought "Eternal Sunshine" was the shit and older folks jocked "Sideways."
I'll be 43 this year and I liked all three of those films.
I actually think James' comments are on point though, that said, I enjoyed the movie much more than he did.
Here's the thing - three movies came out last year, all of which dealt with forms of personal/existential angst/depression, whateverthefuck (all about white people too):
Garden State - 20-something depression with shades of the kind of romance that, apparently, 20-somethings (like my younger sister) are really into though older folk like myself look on this and just shake our heads because we know that only 20-somethings would find a bunch of whaked-out 20-somethings falling in love to be romantic. We know what it reall is: a recipe for major dysfunction. That said, I thought it was pleasant and watchable and as many pointed out - good soundtrack.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - 30-something break-up film for previously 20-something dysfunctional couple. Now, this is some shit that me and my friends could all get into and understand...you have to be older to have the kind of relationship that's so destructive in its own way that we'd actually want to have the memory of it wiped off our minds. Brilliant concept (Charlie K, holla) and one of the very, very few Jim Carrey films I'll ever admit liking. It did have too many unnecessary secondary characters - Frodo being top of that list.
Sideways - 40-something, post-divorce film for depressed middle-life crisis dudes who realize that all their dreams while being 20 and 30 something are now coming to a crashing end. At this point, it's not about either finding the source of eternal happiness or even the greatest love of your life, but rather, a moment of peace and contentedness.
Realize - that description fits almost every single fucking critic in their 40s (or older) which largely explains why so many movie reviewers rode that film's nutsack. I'm still 8 years from my 40s but I already get an inkling for how things could turn out so I can appreciate the film's appeal.
However, I don't get why people thought this was such an incredible film. The comedy, like all of Payne's films, was awkward, especially when it was slapstick. And frankly, I never understood why Madsen's character would fall for a guy like Giamatti's. I'm not shitting on Paulie here, but Madsen exudes such charisma that it makes no sense what she sees in a neurotic wreck like Giamatti's character (but of ocurse, the same could be said of every Woody Allen film ever made where that neurotic weasil scores hot, literary chicks from the Upper East Side to the L.E.S. As if.
good analysis. I think sideways just suffered from too much hype. There are so few decent movies, and even fewer incredible movies, that when one comes along that's funny without being stupid, and has a good pace to it, people get all excited, especially when you consider that movie critics have to watch all the other dreck that comes out.
31. Eternal Sunshine was way deeper than either of those movies. I thought my dad would like Sideways, but he was lukewarm. These older folks will throw you a curveball now and then.
I'm in the 20 something cateogry, late 20's................I thought garden state was wack as hell. Especially glaring when compared to either Eternal or Sideways.
Maybe Garden State resonates well w/ the 20 something sect because of a lack of identity. A lot of scenes were too contrived and mtv emo-esque (ie. gas pump handle ripped off and stuck in nozzle). Personally, I felt the soundtrack sounded like a "blazing downtempo" car commercial. I do like some of the songs but collectively, it felt like an overdose.
Comments
Just curious, what would be an example of a non-"wack as fuck" movie?
My favourite moment is Giamatti using pinoit noir grapes as a metaphor in describing himself to Madsen.
That's the movie's defining scene right there.
I looked at my watch twice while reading this post
Nah. I'm more of a ligger enthusiast, but on the rare occasions when I do drink wine, it's usually some scud burgundy that tastes like liquified beef-heart and has a handle on the bottle; I'll drink it all myself and get my viking on. Once in a great while I'll fuck with some grappa, which I think technically qualifies as wine.
Zing-a-ling-a-ding-dong-diddly-doo[/b]
Fair enough. Now you know how I felt watching this shit.
That joint looked terrible, just off the previews. I saw that little rat-looking dude with the beard and knew there was not going to be anything in this movie I could identify with. Anthony Lane's write-up in the New Yorker confirmed for me that the sh!t was for poptarts.
C.H.U.D.
Ah man, it was a fun little movie. I don't think you should take it as seriously as he took wine. Just drop that '82 Chateau Latour attitude in a plastic cup and take it to Wendy's.
This kinda explains things.
Co-sign !.......
reading many of your comments ,it is interesting to see how heavy critical praise and a lot of advertisement can damage a funny, well made, little movie.
"Wine tasting is for pussies, dude!"
Eh, see, that's the thing: I agree that it was a fun little movie, but I feel that it dressed itself in daddy's clothes, presenting itself as something much deeper. Now, I don't believe that fun and depth are mutually exclusive, but Jesus, having both requires a hell of a lot more finesse than was on display here.
And it should be noted that I went into this movie wanting desperately to like it. A friend of mine was having--god help me--an Oscar party, and I hadn't seen, like, any of the movies in contention, so I felt I should make some token effort. Said friend is a champion of big, spectacular films, and I would have liked nothing better than to have been able to say "See, Sideways whipped some damn ass--where's your Aviator now, huh?"
There's no accounting for taste, though. If anyone needs me, I'll be down at Burrito Beach, getting loosened from my roost with some Orange Jubilee.
That depends: do you mean "eat" in the conventional sense, or in the Judas Priest "Eat Me Alive" sense?
Here's the thing - three movies came out last year, all of which dealt with forms of personal/existential angst/depression, whateverthefuck (all about white people too):
Garden State - 20-something depression with shades of the kind of romance that, apparently, 20-somethings (like my younger sister) are really into though older folk like myself look on this and just shake our heads because we know that only 20-somethings would find a bunch of whaked-out 20-somethings falling in love to be romantic. We know what it reall is: a recipe for major dysfunction. That said, I thought it was pleasant and watchable and as many pointed out - good soundtrack.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - 30-something break-up film for previously 20-something dysfunctional couple. Now, this is some shit that me and my friends could all get into and understand...you have to be older to have the kind of relationship that's so destructive in its own way that we'd actually want to have the memory of it wiped off our minds. Brilliant concept (Charlie K, holla) and one of the very, very few Jim Carrey films I'll ever admit liking. It did have too many unnecessary secondary characters - Frodo being top of that list.
Sideways - 40-something, post-divorce film for depressed middle-life crisis dudes who realize that all their dreams while being 20 and 30 something are now coming to a crashing end. At this point, it's not about either finding the source of eternal happiness or even the greatest love of your life, but rather, a moment of peace and contentedness.
Realize - that description fits almost every single fucking critic in their 40s (or older) which largely explains why so many movie reviewers rode that film's nutsack. I'm still 8 years from my 40s but I already get an inkling for how things could turn out so I can appreciate the film's appeal.
However, I don't get why people thought this was such an incredible film. The comedy, like all of Payne's films, was awkward, especially when it was slapstick. And frankly, I never understood why Madsen's character would fall for a guy like Giamatti's. I'm not shitting on Paulie here, but Madsen exudes such charisma that it makes no sense what she sees in a neurotic wreck like Giamatti's character (but of ocurse, the same could be said of every Woody Allen film ever made where that neurotic weasil scores hot, literary chicks from the Upper East Side to the L.E.S. As if.
I think either could have worked, actually...
Garden state = sideways...good call. The movie did aspire to great things, and it did fall flat, but I enjoyed it.
Now Eternal Sunshine was the best movie of the year for me. I absolutely loved it and you should see it twice if you see it once. It has one of the most beautiful structures of any movie I've ever seen.
It's really funny though b/c all the people I know who loved Garden State were in their 20s. Me and my 30 something friends all thought "Eternal Sunshine" was the shit and older folks jocked "Sideways."
I'll be 43 this year and I liked all three of those films.
good analysis. I think sideways just suffered from too much hype. There are so few decent movies, and even fewer incredible movies, that when one comes along that's funny without being stupid, and has a good pace to it, people get all excited, especially when you consider that movie critics have to watch all the other dreck that comes out.
Clearly, your expertise in things genius starts and ends with music and Black.
He refused to watch American Splendor with me.
Is American Splendor what you're referring to as "genius"? I've seen that guy in a number of things, but never knew his name.
You're right, though, that film has never been a medium that's interested me much.
Maybe Garden State resonates well w/ the 20 something sect because of a lack of identity. A lot of scenes were too contrived and mtv emo-esque (ie. gas pump handle ripped off and stuck in nozzle). Personally, I felt the soundtrack sounded like a "blazing downtempo" car commercial. I do like some of the songs but collectively, it felt like an overdose.