I just can not understand why people think this is a good movie. It sucks.
Eh. I enjoyed it, but I was just looking for a little comedy. Anyone looking to learn something valuable from a Hollywood film is going to be severely disappointed time and time again. That's what books are for.
excellent. i have mixed feelings about jason schwartzman but it's quite amazing that he doesn't flinch when Russell starts getting violent like inches away. he's just lounging in that chair like nothing is wrong
I think dude's probably used to hissyfits and grownup's having major temper tantrums. Just look at his family tree..
Schwartzman was born in Los Angeles, California, the son of Italian American actress Talia Shire and the late producer Jack Schwartzman, who was Jewish. Schwartzman is part of a family of people involved in film. Besides his parents, he is also the nephew of Francis Ford Coppola and cousin of Nicolas Cage, Sofia Coppola, Roman Coppola and Christopher Coppola. He is the brother of actor/musician Robert Carmine (vocalist for the band Rooney), and is the half-brother of cinematographer John Schwartzman. His cousin is entertainment publicist Eric Schwartzman.
im always curious as to why people mention lebowski as the coen bros. film where the characters work as characters, when Fargo came out before Lebowski.
and as much as i love lebowski and think its hilarious, Fargo is incredible and i know, i know "serious film > comedy" but seriously...best film they ever did.
I am a big Coen Brothers fan and was sad to see things trail off a bit.
The early stuff is very good, their scenes and setups are awesome in Miller's Crossing and Barton Fink. I was heavily into these guys coming out of high school and during college.
C'mon, you don't think an attempt to make a "humorous primer in existentialism" is sort of a lofty goal for a movie maker? you act like this was supposed to be some brainless romantic comedy. obviously the dudes behind it wanted it to be a lot more. but it wasn't.
It's tough because someone's always got something to say. If it's not, "Eh. It's not the best movie i ever saw." As if a movie can't be good[/b] unless it's the best of something, then it's "they are shooting to high for a movie".
huh? i never wrote what you quoted or anything even close to that. uh, you're kind of reaching dude. you essentially made up something i didn't say and rebutted it which is pretty next level. the big problem i had with it was pretty clear in my last post about the movie.
A movie is allowed to just entertain without fart jokes or explosions.
I am a big Coen Brothers fan and was sad to see things trail off a bit.
The early stuff is very good, their scenes and setups are awesome in Miller's Crossing and Barton Fink. I was heavily into these guys coming out of high school and during college.
Yeah, The Ladykillers was pretty entertaining, but nowhere near the league of Miller's Crossing or Lebowski. Still, I'll take a mediocre Coen film over most Hollywood terdery any day.
these characters seemed so contrived and superficial. the poet/activist with the moppy hair & the ambitiously dense dialogue. i was kind of insulted because a lot of these details seemed cheap and shallow to me, but they're supposed to be the opposite.
I guess I understand that. It's for the same reasons I don't really like the Coen brother's films.
I think with Huckabees I thought the shallowness was at least somewhat appropriate, as the whole thing felt like an after-school special, or some sort of film they'd show in a high school health class. If the director went through that much trouble and had such lofty ambitions, I can certainly see why people were disappointed. This is probably a case of me going in expecting something awful and being pleasantly surprised by a lighthearted film.
yeah i can see that. the salon critic pointed out that Russell was trying to derive meaning from the absurd, but wasn't a success in my book and seemed more on the side of just absurd. i didn't have high expectations or know that this was Russell's 3 year old baby until after I watched it though so that didn't factor into my opinion of the movie.
the coen bros comparison is on point. sometimes the quirky & weirdly vacant characters are fun and amusing and sometimes i find their quirks irritating and distracting. it really depends on performances and whether or not the character is over-written for me. it's a delicate balance i think. i am not always expecting real characters when i go to a movie but i don't like it when a character has one main-identifying quirk. it seems too cheap. at the very least, i want the absurd characters to be a little less one dimensional in their idiosyncrasies.
I am a big Coen Brothers fan and was sad to see things trail off a bit.
The early stuff is very good, their scenes and setups are awesome in Miller's Crossing and Barton Fink. I was heavily into these guys coming out of high school and during college.
Yeah, The Ladykillers was pretty entertaining, but nowhere near the league of Miller's Crossing or Lebowski. Still, I'll take a mediocre Coen film over most Hollywood terdery any day.
I think Ladykillers is a perfect example of vacant yet quirky Coen Bros. characters. Mr. Waynes (I forget which one) was just embarrassing, like he was playing the exact same dude as he did in Don't Drink Juice in the Hood.... Same thing with that Asian dude, the old white guy with IBS (irritable bowl syndrome) and the dumb football player.
That said, the movie had some hilarious moments. Especially with grandma and the "hippity-hop." Left my wallet in El Segundo... Possibly the strangest Tribe reference eva!
C'mon, you don't think an attempt to make a "humorous primer in existentialism" is sort of a lofty goal for a movie maker? you act like this was supposed to be some brainless romantic comedy. obviously the dudes behind it wanted it to be a lot more. but it wasn't.
It's tough because someone's always got something to say. If it's not, "Eh. It's not the best movie i ever saw." As if a movie can't be good[/b] unless it's the best of something, then it's "they are shooting to high for a movie".
huh? i never wrote what you quoted or anything even close to that. uh, you're kind of reaching dude. you essentially made up something i didn't say and rebutted it which is pretty next level. the big problem i had with it was pretty clear in my last post about the movie.
A movie is allowed to just entertain without fart jokes or explosions.
thank you for pointing that out.
I'm confused too...i was quoting someone else from the thread in there.
Unless you are referring to: "Eh, it's not the best...." because that is what every person says about every movie. I wasn't trying to make it look like you said something you didn't. Apologies if it reads that way. In that post i was responding to the person talking about lofty goals for filmakers to shoot for. I was just trying to say that there are such bold opinions in each direction. Either a filmmaker is making substance-less crap or is accused of being too clever, too indie/weirdo or too smart.
C'mon, you don't think an attempt to make a "humorous primer in existentialism" is sort of a lofty goal for a movie maker? you act like this was supposed to be some brainless romantic comedy. obviously the dudes behind it wanted it to be a lot more. but it wasn't.
It's tough because someone's always got something to say. If it's not, "Eh. It's not the best movie i ever saw." As if a movie can't be good[/b] unless it's the best of something, then it's "they are shooting to high for a movie".
huh? i never wrote what you quoted or anything even close to that. uh, you're kind of reaching dude. you essentially made up something i didn't say and rebutted it which is pretty next level. the big problem i had with it was pretty clear in my last post about the movie.
A movie is allowed to just entertain without fart jokes or explosions.
thank you for pointing that out.
I'm confused too...i was quoting someone else from the thread in there.
if you had read my main problem with the movie, then you would know this doesn't matter. it's wasn't the story, it was the characters that were a failure to me from the beginning. i made it through 2/3 of it anyway.
ahh! my bad. sorry. your orig post said that it quoted me, so i was like wtf?
but yeah, i don't agree with your stance that a movie has to be watched from beginning to end to have a "real" opinion on it, especially if the characters can't convince you 2/3 into the movie.
No problem. I see where you're coming from with the character gripe and i'd agree to some extent, believe me I'm not 100% rallying for this movie in any sense. If a movie isn't doing it for you, it isn't doing it for you, our time is too greater.
We'll just have to be at opposite ends on the viewing thing. To me condeming it without watching all the way through isn't the most valid ground for critique, but i guess if you hate the characters there's no hope for redemption in that last 1/3 of the film.
When i was in school we had a speaker come who had something to do with the Cannes' Film Fest and she said the hardest thing she had to get used to when she first got involved was walking out of movies. But she said in those situations if something doesn't grab you in the first 3-5 minutes, you move on to something else.
When i was in school we had a speaker come who had something to do with the Cannes' Film Fest and she said the hardest thing she had to get used to when she first got involved was walking out of movies. But she said in those situations if something doesn't grab you in the first 3-5 minutes, you move on to something else.
man i think i've only walked out of the theater once. it was for some really bad Woody Allen wannabe comedy called something completely ridiculous like "Love with a Side of Fries". I am very serious. I think we watched it out of desperation cause we had 2 hours to kill near the theater.
3-5 minutes is kinda premature though! i think i'm more patient than that. i generally finish movies even if i'm not feeling them, but this movie was hard for me.
Ha, i'm sayin'. The credits are just getting done at that point on some of these movies.
I will usually sit through because i am always curious about where they will take things in the story. Every once in a while it pays off, but i've sat through some unnecesarily hot garbage. I do remember turning off some movie, "Four Aces" or something, maybe Charlie Sheen was in it?
Am I the only person who thought the film was less like the Coen Brothers and much more like a really pretentious Wes Anderson clone (which means it was really REALLY pretentious).
Am I the only person who thought the film was less like the Coen Brothers and much more like a really pretentious Wes Anderson clone (which means it was really REALLY pretentious).
For the record, I don't think anyone was attempting to compare the film as a whole to the Coen Brothers' work, just the similar lack of depth found in the respective characters in both films.
And yes, it was much more like a Wes Anderson film. But I like those too, pretension and all.
I like even his bad movies. Wes Anderson has major daddy issues though. Not sure that angle has been explored but in every one of his films, most of the fathers have either been gone or complete assholes.
Maybe Anderson's entire film career has been elaborate -ing of his own dad.
Wes Anderson has major daddy issues though. Not sure that angle has been explored but in every one of his films, most of the fathers have either been gone or complete assholes.
Maybe Anderson's entire film career has been elaborate -ing of his own dad.
No doubt check the plot of his next movie:
The brothers believe their father has been reborn as an albino leopard, and trace their mother to a convent where she teaches poor children. The train they travel by is The Darjeeling Limited, and they are on a search for their father/Leopard.
Wes Anderson has major daddy issues though. Not sure that angle has been explored but in every one of his films, most of the fathers have either been gone or complete assholes.
Maybe Anderson's entire film career has been elaborate -ing of his own dad.
No doubt check the plot of his next movie:
The brothers believe their father has been reborn as an albino leopard, and trace their mother to a convent where she teaches poor children. The train they travel by is The Darjeeling Limited, and they are on a search for their father/Leopard.
You better not be making that up cause I really wanna see it now.
Wes Anderson has major daddy issues though. Not sure that angle has been explored but in every one of his films, most of the fathers have either been gone or complete assholes.
Maybe Anderson's entire film career has been elaborate -ing of his own dad.
No doubt check the plot of his next movie:
The brothers believe their father has been reborn as an albino leopard, and trace their mother to a convent where she teaches poor children. The train they travel by is The Darjeeling Limited, and they are on a search for their father/Leopard.
You better not be making that up cause I really wanna see it now.
Comments
This movie bored the fuck out of me. I guess I'm not "emo" enough?
I just can not understand why people think this is a good movie. It sucks.
Eh. I enjoyed it, but I was just looking for a little comedy. Anyone looking to learn something valuable from a Hollywood film is going to be severely disappointed time and time again. That's what books are for.
I think dude's probably used to hissyfits and grownup's having major temper tantrums. Just look at his family tree..
and as much as i love lebowski and think its hilarious, Fargo is incredible and i know, i know "serious film > comedy" but seriously...best film they ever did.
The early stuff is very good, their scenes and setups are awesome in Miller's Crossing and Barton Fink. I was heavily into these guys coming out of high school and during college.
huh?
thank you for pointing that out.
Yeah, The Ladykillers was pretty entertaining, but nowhere near the league of Miller's Crossing or Lebowski. Still, I'll take a mediocre Coen film over most Hollywood terdery any day.
yeah i can see that. the salon critic pointed out that Russell was trying to derive meaning from the absurd, but wasn't a success in my book and seemed more on the side of just absurd. i didn't have high expectations or know that this was Russell's 3 year old baby until after I watched it though so that didn't factor into my opinion of the movie.
the coen bros comparison is on point. sometimes the quirky & weirdly vacant characters are fun and amusing and sometimes i find their quirks irritating and distracting. it really depends on performances and whether or not the character is over-written for me. it's a delicate balance i think. i am not always expecting real characters when i go to a movie but i don't like it when a character has one main-identifying quirk. it seems too cheap. at the very least, i want the absurd characters to be a little less one dimensional in their idiosyncrasies.
I think Ladykillers is a perfect example of vacant yet quirky Coen Bros. characters. Mr. Waynes (I forget which one) was just embarrassing, like he was playing the exact same dude as he did in Don't Drink Juice in the Hood.... Same thing with that Asian dude, the old white guy with IBS (irritable bowl syndrome) and the dumb football player.
That said, the movie had some hilarious moments. Especially with grandma and the "hippity-hop." Left my wallet in El Segundo... Possibly the strangest Tribe reference eva!
I'm confused too...i was quoting someone else from the thread in there.
Unless you are referring to: "Eh, it's not the best...." because that is what every person says about every movie. I wasn't trying to make it look like you said something you didn't. Apologies if it reads that way. In that post i was responding to the person talking about lofty goals for filmakers to shoot for. I was just trying to say that there are such bold opinions in each direction. Either a filmmaker is making substance-less crap or is accused of being too clever, too indie/weirdo or too smart.
I quoted you, but in a seperate post.
nope, you weren't. no one said that. check it
if you had read my main problem with the movie, then you would know this doesn't matter. it's wasn't the story, it was the characters that were a failure to me from the beginning. i made it through 2/3 of it anyway.
Check RootlessCosmo at the bottom of Page 3.
In my opinion, Hal Ashby was a director who was able to find this balance with his characters.
but yeah, i don't agree with your stance that a movie has to be watched from beginning to end to have a "real" opinion on it, especially if the characters can't convince you 2/3 into the movie.
We'll just have to be at opposite ends on the viewing thing. To me condeming it without watching all the way through isn't the most valid ground for critique, but i guess if you hate the characters there's no hope for redemption in that last 1/3 of the film.
When i was in school we had a speaker come who had something to do with the Cannes' Film Fest and she said the hardest thing she had to get used to when she first got involved was walking out of movies. But she said in those situations if something doesn't grab you in the first 3-5 minutes, you move on to something else.
man i think i've only walked out of the theater once. it was for some really bad Woody Allen wannabe comedy called something completely ridiculous like "Love with a Side of Fries". I am very serious. I think we watched it out of desperation cause we had 2 hours to kill near the theater.
3-5 minutes is kinda premature though! i think i'm more patient than that. i generally finish movies even if i'm not feeling them, but this movie was hard for me.
I will usually sit through because i am always curious about where they will take things in the story. Every once in a while it pays off, but i've sat through some unnecesarily hot garbage. I do remember turning off some movie, "Four Aces" or something, maybe Charlie Sheen was in it?
Jude Law doing on a Southern accent?
IT'S NO STRAW DOGS, DAWG!
I'm so glad this post found it's way to you.
For the record, I don't think anyone was attempting to compare the film as a whole to the Coen Brothers' work, just the similar lack of depth found in the respective characters in both films.
And yes, it was much more like a Wes Anderson film. But I like those too, pretension and all.
I like even his bad movies. Wes Anderson has major daddy issues though. Not sure that angle has been explored but in every one of his films, most of the fathers have either been gone or complete assholes.
Maybe Anderson's entire film career has been elaborate
No doubt check the plot of his next movie:
The brothers believe their father has been reborn as an albino leopard, and trace their mother to a convent where she teaches poor children. The train they travel by is The Darjeeling Limited, and they are on a search for their father/Leopard.
certainly not Hot Shots, or the one with him and Emilio Estevez as garbagemen.
You better not be making that up cause I really wanna see it now.
Not making it up...