Review The Movie You Viewed Part VIII: Lance's Mom Takes Manhattan

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I should probably wait until I've seen the film to refute the misogynist accusation, but it's something that's been labeled at most of his films thus far... incorrectly. Maybe that's a discussion to wait until next week though when I've seen it myself.
 
I've heard it's a criticism against his other films, can't comment on that. Wait until you've seen this one.
 
I certainly will. But yeah, there was and still is a pretty strong group who criticize him films back to Breaking the Waves as being misogynist, and label him as a misogynist filmmaker, so I expected much of the same for this one as well. And from everything I've read, I feel pretty confident there isn't any real misogyny going on here either, but as I said, I'm definitely waiting before I see it myself otherwise that would be foolish to claim. I think his film are extremely easy to misread however, so I remain fairly dubious of the similar claims being laid upon this film too.
 
Definitely looking forward to the discussion then. Speaking of new releases, there's a solid chance that I'll be seeing A Serious Man when I go back to Orlando next weekend. Really hyped for that.

Also, have you seen Altered States?
 
Breaking in to the serious film talk to say I watched The Proposal last night and really enjoyed it.

As you were.
 
Also, have you seen Altered States?

A very cool film. I like Ken Russell's work a lot, and of course anything written by Paddy Chayefsky is worth checking out.

I think I might have to buy this; it's been a while since I've seen it, and they have copies for like $1.50 on Amazon.
 
A very cool film. I like Ken Russell's work a lot, and of course anything written by Paddy Chayefsky is worth checking out.

I think I might have to buy this; it's been a while since I've seen it, and they have copies for like $1.50 on Amazon.

I have not. Though I've heard good things for a while now.

/Filmcast... *shudders*

Blew my mind straight out of the back of my head last night. Chayefsky wrote the book that it was based on as well.

Life's been much easier after I stopped listening to those hacks.
 
Fuck. Serious Man was a total bust so I drove to the Uptown1 to see Wild Things with all the hipsters. Show begins in a few minutes.
 
Unfortunate, because you missed an absolute fucking masterpiece. Not just the funniest film I've seen all year (the biggest laughs since Lebowski, I'd argue), but very likely the best.

I don't even know where to start. Imagine a less-abstract Barton Fink, or a Jewish version of The Man Who Wasn't There minus the genre trappings, and you're in the right neighborhood. While clearly a comedy, the existential concerns are as deep as those in No Country For Old Men.

I really need to see this again because it's just too much to process upon one viewing.

Just wow.
 
Where The Wild Things Are

Wow. I really didn't like this.

First the good stuff. I've really fallen in love with artfully-handheld camerawork the last year or two. I mean, Lance Acord's work here isn't on the level of Malick/Lubezki or Dante Spinotti or the like, but it's a very pretty movie. And the Wild Things themselves are wonderful creations.

And that's it for the good stuff. At first, my problems were pretty contained with the first 10 minutes in the "real world." I think, if you're making a 2 hour Wild Things movie, you can really afford to spend more than 10 minutes setting up everything like this. It's like Jonze really couldn't be bothered with the mundane normal stuff and just did his damnedest to condense Max's life into a super-quick prologue to the fun stuff. And technically he succeeded, but I think the beginning suffers from an unnecessary reliance on worn storytelling cliches and a distinct lack of believability in the early characterizations. I was disappointed. But then Max ran away and went to the island and things were pretty and cool-looking and goofy and all was going to be well for the remainder of the film.

Except that only lasted about 15 minutes, then I began to feel fatigued again. Honestly, it's all really well-crafted, but there's almost zero depth to this thing, which is sort of predictable given the adaptation. However, I think it all could have worked if a filmmaker had gone to the whole further extreme with this material and made a total pure-cinema visual excursion... but of course that wouldn't lend itself to such a marketable hipster pop culture commodity like this is. I simply defy anyone to make the argument this film should have been anything longer than 30 or 40 minutes. It might have been fantastic at that length, as none of the narrative weaknesses would have been so magnified and might have maintained the simple charm of the original book.

I will say, I liked the couple moments early on in the Wild Thing Kingdom or wherever, that rather deftly hinted at the hidden dangers under the surface of the story. I might have liked a bit more of that as well. Oh, and also, might have liked a bit less Karen O. Like, a ratio closer to "none whatsoever." Please.
 
Unfortunate, because you missed an absolute fucking masterpiece. Not just the funniest film I've seen all year (the biggest laughs since Lebowski, I'd argue), but very likely the best.

I don't even know where to start. Imagine a less-abstract Barton Fink, or a Jewish version of The Man Who Wasn't There minus the genre trappings, and you're in the right neighborhood. While clearly a comedy, the existential concerns are as deep as those in No Country For Old Men.

I really need to see this again because it's just too much to process upon one viewing.

Just wow.

Clearly, I'm rather disappointed with the way my afternoon turned out.
 
Unfortunate, because you missed an absolute fucking masterpiece. Not just the funniest film I've seen all year (the biggest laughs since Lebowski, I'd argue), but very likely the best.

I don't even know where to start. Imagine a less-abstract Barton Fink, or a Jewish version of The Man Who Wasn't There minus the genre trappings, and you're in the right neighborhood. While clearly a comedy, the existential concerns are as deep as those in No Country For Old Men.

I really need to see this again because it's just too much to process upon one viewing.

Just wow.

Cannot wait. You name-dropped 4 of my 5 favorite Coens movies, the fifth being Miller's Crossing, so that's good.
 
I'm definitely making a point to see A Serious Man some day during the week, and get that in me before Antichrist this weekend.

It's starting to feel like the real movie season is getting started. It's a good feeling. Even if Spike Jonze let me down.
 
Also, Laz. I realize it's too early for concrete reflections, but what's your first impression regarding the film's placement within the Coen canon... so far as rankings are concerned?
 
Well, because it shares so much with The Man Who Wasn't There and Barton Fink, I'm very partial to it. And it's certainly funnier than both. But it's not as much of a visuals-driven film as those two, so it wouldn't be as high for me.

I also love Hudsucker and Lebowski, and it's hard to rank them because it's difficult to say they're objectively better than No Country For Old Men, for example. Also, there's like nine of their films that I think are just flat-out phenomenal, and the difference between them in quality isn't very far apart.
 
Where the Wild Things Are.

I was really apprehensive about seeing this because I couldn't see how they would make it into a movie that I love as much as the book.

I found it really dark and depressing and frankly, a downer. The cinematography is gorgeous, and there are some beautiful shots, and the kid playing Max did a great job, I thought. But overall, I just felt very down after seeing it. The last scene sucked.
 
Fair enough. You certainly have peaked my interest more than any of the critics or promotional materials for the film have so far. I still feel a bit stung by my disappointment with Burn After Reading.
 
Kaufman and Jonze did make two top notch films.


These idiots on "At the Movies" just called it one of the best movies of the year.
 
Kaufman and Jonze did make two top notch films.


These idiots on "At the Movies" just called it one of the best movies of the year.

I wouldn't call Michael Phillips or A.O. Scott idiots, but to each their own.

If the Wild Things screenplay is any indication of this guy's talent...

...then fuck him.

And Away We Go. Ugh.

I've heard great things about his short stories and something called What Is the What? He should stick to that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom