General Movie Thread

[Hugman 3.0]

As a HUGE fan of You Can Count On Me, I'm very disappointed that Kenneth Lonnergan's followup Margaret sat on the shelf for five + years, stars Anna Paquin, and doesn't sound like it's very good.

[JonFromMaplewood]

Just watched Source Code. It was a lot better than the name would suggest.

I don't know if you listen to the Doug Loves Movies podcast, but Paul F. Tompkins did a thing about Jeffrey Wright's performance in the movie that ruined both the movie and Jeffrey Wright for me forever (both are things I like, BTW).

Uh oh.  I need to listen to that! I don't think Jeffrey Wright deserves an Oscar or anything. I thought his performance was over-the-top in a comic book villain kind of way and I liked that they did it that way.  But lord knows that PFT is one convincing guy, so I suspect he's going to ruin the movie for me too!

[moonshake]

As a HUGE fan of You Can Count On Me, I'm very disappointed that Kenneth Lonnergan's followup Margaret sat on the shelf for five + years, stars Anna Paquin, and doesn't sound like it's very good.

That's sad to hear. I really love You Can Count On Me too. I'll still try to watch it if it plays anywhere near.

[Omar]

As a HUGE fan of You Can Count On Me, I'm very disappointed that Kenneth Lonnergan's followup Margaret sat on the shelf for five + years, stars Anna Paquin, and doesn't sound like it's very good.

That's sad to hear. I really love You Can Count On Me too. I'll still try to watch it if it plays anywhere near.

I was disappointed to read some of the negative reviews, but critic Mike D'Angelo's recent capsule has me excited for Margaret (I'm also a huge fan of YCCOM):

Margaret (2011, Kenneth Lonergan): 80
So sad that this became such a post-production nightmare -- not just because we probably lost the three-hour masterpiece Lonergan intended, but because now people are having trouble distinguishing (or are just not bothering to distinguish) the ways in which the film is kind of a mess from the ways in which it deliberately employs messiness as a worldview. Practically every scene has half a dozen things happening at once, some of them irrelevant; entire conversations exist solely to demonstrate the difficulty of navigating competing agendas. At the center of it all is one of the least romantic or sentimental portraits of adolescence ever filmed, embodied by Paquin in a courageously off-putting performance that never once flinches from Lisa's misdirected self-absorption. Some folks have complained about the various shouting matches (between Lisa and her mom, during classroom discussions), but one of the things Lonergan so expertly depicts here is people not listening, too focused on their own narrow perspective to pay attention to anything else (which is of course what causes the accident in the first place). He's made great strides as a filmmaker, too -- nothing theatrical about the dazzling cut from Joan having her entire life summarily dismissed by a pissy Lisa to Joan having to hold her opening line until the audience stops applauding her entrance (and then a brisk cut elsewhere before she speaks). I could go on forever citing things I adored: Janney snapping at the bystanders struggling to apply a tourniquet to her severed leg ("Are they doctors? Then get them the fuck away from me!"); an awkward ritual deflowering straight out of Breillat ("You sound insane"); then-unknown Rosemarie DeWitt's epic struggle between suspicion and solicitousness; Lisa firing off a blunt exit line and then having the moment killed when not one but two deadbolts prevent her from swiftly exiting; etc. etc. etc. Only in the last 20 minutes or so does the movie really kind of lose its way -- partly because of the scenes involving Matt Damon, whose character never really works as intended (he seems weirdly lost); partly because Lonergan does what I was praying he wouldn't do and actually has Lisa state aloud her true reason for persecuting the bus driver, which was already abundantly clear to any viewer with an ounce of perception and is the kind of Grand Underlying Behavioral Dysfunction that needs to remain unspoken, lest it seem too tidy. Also, the final scene, though apropos, didn't quite wallop me -- I wanted to be crying with them, and wasn't. But maybe next time. What worries me about Margaret's troubled path is whether or not there'll be a next time for Lonergan. He's too brilliant to lose.


Also, a friend of mine e-mailed me today to say that while he's a bit less enthused about the film than D'Angelo, he still considers it to be one of the best films of "2011."

[JonFromMaplewood]

As a HUGE fan of You Can Count On Me, I'm very disappointed that Kenneth Lonnergan's followup Margaret sat on the shelf for five + years, stars Anna Paquin, and doesn't sound like it's very good.

That's sad to hear. I really love You Can Count On Me too. I'll still try to watch it if it plays anywhere near.

I was disappointed to read some of the negative reviews, but critic Mike D'Angelo's recent capsule has me excited for Margaret (I'm also a huge fan of YCCOM):

Margaret (2011, Kenneth Lonergan): 80
So sad that this became such a post-production nightmare -- not just because we probably lost the three-hour masterpiece Lonergan intended, but because now people are having trouble distinguishing (or are just not bothering to distinguish) the ways in which the film is kind of a mess from the ways in which it deliberately employs messiness as a worldview. Practically every scene has half a dozen things happening at once, some of them irrelevant; entire conversations exist solely to demonstrate the difficulty of navigating competing agendas. At the center of it all is one of the least romantic or sentimental portraits of adolescence ever filmed, embodied by Paquin in a courageously off-putting performance that never once flinches from Lisa's misdirected self-absorption. Some folks have complained about the various shouting matches (between Lisa and her mom, during classroom discussions), but one of the things Lonergan so expertly depicts here is people not listening, too focused on their own narrow perspective to pay attention to anything else (which is of course what causes the accident in the first place). He's made great strides as a filmmaker, too -- nothing theatrical about the dazzling cut from Joan having her entire life summarily dismissed by a pissy Lisa to Joan having to hold her opening line until the audience stops applauding her entrance (and then a brisk cut elsewhere before she speaks). I could go on forever citing things I adored: Janney snapping at the bystanders struggling to apply a tourniquet to her severed leg ("Are they doctors? Then get them the fuck away from me!"); an awkward ritual deflowering straight out of Breillat ("You sound insane"); then-unknown Rosemarie DeWitt's epic struggle between suspicion and solicitousness; Lisa firing off a blunt exit line and then having the moment killed when not one but two deadbolts prevent her from swiftly exiting; etc. etc. etc. Only in the last 20 minutes or so does the movie really kind of lose its way -- partly because of the scenes involving Matt Damon, whose character never really works as intended (he seems weirdly lost); partly because Lonergan does what I was praying he wouldn't do and actually has Lisa state aloud her true reason for persecuting the bus driver, which was already abundantly clear to any viewer with an ounce of perception and is the kind of Grand Underlying Behavioral Dysfunction that needs to remain unspoken, lest it seem too tidy. Also, the final scene, though apropos, didn't quite wallop me -- I wanted to be crying with them, and wasn't. But maybe next time. What worries me about Margaret's troubled path is whether or not there'll be a next time for Lonergan. He's too brilliant to lose.


Also, a friend of mine e-mailed me today to say that while he's a bit less enthused about the film than D'Angelo, he still considers it to be one of the best films of "2011."

This makes me happy. I am also a big fan of You Can Count On Me.

[masterofsparks]

Just watched Source Code. It was a lot better than the name would suggest.

I don't know if you listen to the Doug Loves Movies podcast, but Paul F. Tompkins did a thing about Jeffrey Wright's performance in the movie that ruined both the movie and Jeffrey Wright for me forever (both are things I like, BTW).

Uh oh.  I need to listen to that! I don't think Jeffrey Wright deserves an Oscar or anything. I thought his performance was over-the-top in a comic book villain kind of way and I liked that they did it that way.  But lord knows that PFT is one convincing guy, so I suspect he's going to ruin the movie for me too!

It's worth hearing. I can't remember which episode it's on, but I remember it was one of the 3 or 4 episodes recorded at Bumbershoot. It's PFT, Eugene Mirman, and someone else.

[roubaix]

Creepy puppets anyone? 



Here's a classic segment from the British horror film Dead of Night (1945)

It's split into 10 min. chunks, but the finale makes it worth the effort 

[Hugman 3.0]

Margaret (2011, Kenneth Lonergan): 80
What worries me about Margaret's troubled path is whether or not there'll be a next time for Lonergan. He's too brilliant to lose.

True indeed.  I'll see it for sure, keeping those things in mind and hoping Anna Paquin's potentially horrendous presence on the screen is serving the story.

Speaking of movies where we never got to see the full cut of, (and I know this might get me excommunicated but) I always wished I could see the four-hour cut of All The Pretty Horses.

[Hugman 3.0]

I saw Moneyball today and loved it.  I kept thinking throughout it, "I think I owe Dave From Knoxville an apology."

[dave from knoxville]

I saw Moneyball today and loved it.  I kept thinking throughout it, "I think I owe Dave From Knoxville an apology."

Ouch! Did I sell it so hard you backed off of it? Apologies. I will even take back all the "damn yous" I have been dropping on you on Facebook. GO CARDS

[Hugman 3.0]

I saw Moneyball today and loved it.  I kept thinking throughout it, "I think I owe Dave From Knoxville an apology."

Ouch! Did I sell it so hard you backed off of it? Apologies. I will even take back all the "damn yous" I have been dropping on you on Facebook. GO CARDS

No, I mean for denigrating your system of evaluating players, even though it was the mildest of denigrating.

[Paul DeLouisiana]

Saw 30 Minutes or Less which was pretty unfunny. I think Jesse Eisenberg has worn out his welcome. I see him as a young Woody Allen if Woody Allen was charmingless and a complete asshole.

The only actor playing a role that they haven't played over and over was Swarsdon(sp) which was good at times. But MAN Danny McBride is a whole lotta suck.

[Greggulator]

THINGS I SAW RECENTLY:

1) The Trip: This movie RULES. Coogan's expectedly awesome but that other dude -- I haven't seen him anything before and he's pretty incredible. A buddy of mine from work is a Brit and swears by him. The Rob dude also apparently went to the same high school (or whatever they call it across the pond -- I should really know these things) as Catherine Zeta Jones who now magically lists her age as three years younger than him despite growing up right near each other. I can't stop saying, "It tastes like a childhood garden." I doubly like this since I'm subjected to non-stop food-related shows and blogs courtesy of Mr. Ulator.

2) Moneyball: As a movie, it's pretty great. It's well-acted, Jonah Hill really delivered in his first serious role. But as a baseball nerd, I can't stress enough how full of shit the film and book both are. Scott Hatteberg was a great story (and indeed did hit the home run in the legendary 20th win game -- that was accurate to what happened in the game itself, and Billy Beane did never watch games in person but did watch that one. But for him to be cast as the savior of the A's that season is a tad ridiculous -- he had a good year and did get on base a lot, but he was a contributing factor. The movie and book both conveniently forget that Tim Hudson, Barry Zito and Mark Mulder were three of the top 10 pitchers in the AL that year. Barry Zito won the CY Young and Miguel Tejada was the team's MVP -- nary a mention of that in either version, which is complete bullshit and misleads the multitudes of non-baseball fans who read/saw both (and helped both Michael Lewis and Billy Beane end up with fat wallets.) I also loved short, squat Jeremy Giambi -- in real life, he's a musclebound, steroid-using creep.

The movie also trashes Art Howe. By all accounts, Howe's a really great guy. And by a lot of accounts, he was totally and unfairly treated like dirt by Billy Beane who completely marginalized him.

So I am completely torn on that film. It is pretty amazing they took what's essentially a book about statistical analysis and made it into a film which might grab a few Oscar nominations. But it's accuracy is so misleading that it's somewhat revolting.

[Omar]

I enjoyed Unguarded (2011, Jonathan Hock) on ESPN last night.  I was familiar with Herren (mainly from his presence in that highly touted Big East class with Iverson and Felipe Lopez), but I didn't know that much about his story.  It's powerful stuff.

Quite a change of pace from last week's Leave Home-style Jeff Feuerzeig effort.

[gravy boat]

I saw Martha Marcy May Marlene this past weekend. 

The Olsen sister is very good and will be a fine actress.  John Hawkes is great in it as well. (You may remember him from Winter's Bone, which you FOT went gaga for.)

I thought the movie overall was just OK, though it was shot well. It sort of seem undecided about whether it was a run-of-the-mill thriller or a deeper movie contrasting a cult and a modern American family.

My verdict: save your dough and wait for it on the small screen.