list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Arrested Development [TV Series] on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Arrested_Development_TV_Series/235753/default.aspx Title: Arrested Development [TV Series]
Year: 2003
Director: Anthony Russo, Joe Russo
Plot: Making its Fox network bow on November 2, 2003, the weekly, half-hour Arrested Development would seem to meet all the qualifications of a "cult favorite." It was smart, hip, and savagely funny; it developed a fiercely loyal circle of fans; it was almost universally beloved of the critical establishment; and its ratings were seldom any better than mediocre. Jason Bateman headed the cast as Michael Bluth, a thirtysomething widower with a likable 13-year-old son named George Michael (Michael Cera). The level-headed Michael was disdained as the "white sheep" of his highly dysfunctional family because he refused to luxuriate in the wealth accumulated by his business entrepreneur father, George Bluth Sr. (Jeffrey Tambor), who had built a small Newport Beach frozen-banana stand into a vast financial empire. Instead, Michael broke from tradition by actually going to work for a living, and by not giving in to the ostentatious self-indulgence practiced by the rest of the Bluth clan. But when George Sr. was thrown in jail on a charge of fraud, Michael was forced to return to Orange County, CA, to take charge of the family and the family business, both of which were bankrupt because all of his father's assets had been frozen. Now it was Michael's unenviable task to instill financial responsibility -- not to mention responsibility, period -- in the rest of the Bluth family. These included Michael's snobbish, boozy, hyperjudgmental mother, Lucille (Jessica Walter), who resided in a posh Balboa Bay penthouse and to whom credit cards were life's blood. Also living in Lucille's digs was Michael's youngest brother, Buster (Tony Hale), a perennial graduate student helplessly tied to his mother's apron strings (Buster would later become even more ineffectual, and far more of a thorn in Michael's side, when he lost his hand in an accident and was forced to use an ill-fitting hook). Moving in with Michael until conditions improved (if ever!) were his twin sister, Lindsay (Portia de Rossi), a selfish, scatterbrained liberal activist; Lindsay's husband, Tobias Fünke (David Cross), a former doctor who'd lost his license after administering CPR to a man who didn't need it, and who was half-heartedly trying to break into the acting profession (Tobias was also a deeply closeted homosexual, a fact obvious to everyone but himself); and the couple's spoiled-rotten daughter, Mae, aka "Maeby" (Alia Shawkat), for whom Michael's son, George Michael, harbored a somewhat unnatural crush. And just when you thought that the Bluth family couldn't be any more screwed up, we submit for your approval oldest son George Oscar II, aka "Gob" (Will Arnett), a spectacularly inept stage magician who suffered from a bad case of foot-in-mouth disease and who never had a job -- except when, during Michael's absence in season two, he inexplicably became the darling of Bluth Inc.'s board of directors. Arrested Development also boasted a large cast of semi-regulars, most prominently Henry Winkler as the Bluth family's lovable but dangerously incompetent lawyer, Barry Zuckerkorn; Liza Minnelli as Lucille Bluth's neighbor and chief social rival Lucille Austero, aka Lucille 2, who at one point entered into a ridi
Times Tagged: 9
Number of Lists: 16
Number of blog posts: 8
Number of discussion threads: 2
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:41:06 GMTArrested Development [TV Series]2003Anthony Russo, Joe RussoMaking its Fox network bow on November 2, 2003, the weekly, half-hour <a href=/films/331511/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Arrested Development</a> would seem to meet all the qualifications of a "cult favorite." It was smart, hip, and savagely funny; it developed a fiercely loyal circle of fans; it was almost universally beloved of the critical establishment; and its ratings were seldom any better than mediocre. <a href="/players/P_____4511/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jason Bateman</a> headed the cast as Michael Bluth, a thirtysomething widower with a likable 13-year-old son named George Michael (<a href="/players/P___334354/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Michael Cera</a>). The level-headed Michael was disdained as the "white sheep" of his highly dysfunctional family because he refused to luxuriate in the wealth accumulated by his business entrepreneur father, George Bluth Sr. (<a href="/players/P____69733/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jeffrey Tambor</a>), who had built a small Newport Beach frozen-banana stand into a vast financial empire. Instead, Michael broke from tradition by actually going to work for a living, and by not giving in to the ostentatious self-indulgence practiced by the rest of the Bluth clan. But when George Sr. was thrown in jail on a charge of fraud, Michael was forced to return to Orange County, CA, to take charge of the family and the family business, both of which were bankrupt because all of his father's assets had been frozen. Now it was Michael's unenviable task to instill financial responsibility -- not to mention responsibility, period -- in the rest of the Bluth family. These included Michael's snobbish, boozy, hyperjudgmental mother, Lucille (<a href="/players/P____74490/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jessica Walter</a>), who resided in a posh Balboa Bay penthouse and to whom credit cards were life's blood. Also living in Lucille's digs was Michael's youngest brother, Buster (Tony Hale), a perennial graduate student helplessly tied to his mother's apron strings (Buster would later become even more ineffectual, and far more of a thorn in Michael's side, when he lost his hand in an accident and was forced to use an ill-fitting hook). Moving in with Michael until conditions improved (if ever!) were his twin sister, Lindsay (<a href="/players/P___198456/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Portia de Rossi</a>), a selfish, scatterbrained liberal activist; Lindsay's husband, Tobias Fünke (<a href="/players/P____15909/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>David Cross</a>), a former doctor who'd lost his license after administering CPR to a man who didn't need it, and who was half-heartedly trying to break into the acting profession (Tobias was also a deeply closeted homosexual, a fact obvious to everyone but himself); and the couple's spoiled-rotten daughter, Mae, aka "Maeby" (Alia Shawkat), for whom Michael's son, George Michael, harbored a somewhat unnatural crush. And just when you thought that the Bluth family couldn't be any more screwed up, we submit for your approval oldest son George Oscar II, aka "Gob" (<a href="/players/P___214970/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Will Arnett</a>), a spectacularly inept stage magician who suffered from a bad case of foot-in-mouth disease and who never had a job -- except when, during Michael's absence in season two, he inexplicably became the darling of Bluth Inc.'s board of directors. <a href=/films/331511/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Arrested Development</a> also boasted a large cast of semi-regulars, most prominently <a href="/players/P___117062/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Henry Winkler</a> as the Bluth family's lovable but dangerously incompetent lawyer, Barry Zuckerkorn; <a href="/players/P____49495/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Liza Minnelli</a> as Lucille Bluth's neighbor and chief social rival Lucille Austero, aka Lucille 2, who at one point entered into a ridi9Taggedy Taggged (6-10)16824http://www.spout.com/images/no_image.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Arrested_Development_TV_Series/235753/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/7/37081.aspxPost By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/7/2008 5:00:55 PM
Body: The song “I Thought I Lost You,” from the soundtrack to Disney’s animated Bolt, is intended as an innocent duet between a young girl and her pet dog, and lyrically there’s not one hint that it’s anything more, but that doesn’t stop me from thinking there’s something terribly creepy about the above music video. Maybe it’s that villainous goatee that John Travolta is sporting. Or maybe it’s just weird to think of the purpose of the song and then imagine Travolta being the beloved pet of Miley Cyrus. The only thing worse, perhaps, would be if Billy Ray Cyrus were the voice of the film’s title character. And that reminds me of the also relatively creepy duet from Duets, in which a father and daughter (played by Huey Lewis and Gwyneth Paltrow) perform Smokey Robinson’s “Cruisin’” at karaoke. Now, that song is certainly more sexual than the Bolt track. But either way, it’s just a song, right? What kid hasn’t innocently sung a love song duet with his mom or her dad? Or performed a karaoke rendition of “Afternoon Delight” with his or her aunt or uncle? For a great episode of Arrested Development that deals with the subject of creepy dueting, check out another clip after the jump. And for a potentially more appropriate, cartoon rendition of “I Thought I Lost You,” go see Bolt when it opens on November 21. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 22:00:55 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/7/2008 5:00:55 PM The song “I Thought I Lost You,” from the soundtrack to Disney’s animated Bolt, is intended as an innocent duet between a young girl and her pet dog, and lyrically there’s not one hint that it’s anything more, but that doesn’t stop me from thinking there’s something terribly creepy about the above music video. Maybe it’s that villainous goatee that John Travolta is sporting. Or maybe it’s just weird to think of the purpose of the song and then imagine Travolta being the beloved pet of Miley Cyrus. The only thing worse, perhaps, would be if Billy Ray Cyrus were the voice of the film’s title character. And that reminds me of the also relatively creepy duet from Duets, in which a father and daughter (played by Huey Lewis and Gwyneth Paltrow) perform Smokey Robinson’s “Cruisin’” at karaoke. Now, that song is certainly more sexual than the Bolt track. But either way, it’s just a song, right? What kid hasn’t innocently sung a love song duet with his mom or her dad? Or performed a karaoke rendition of “Afternoon Delight” with his or her aunt or uncle? For a great episode of Arrested Development that deals with the subject of creepy dueting, check out another clip after the jump. And for a potentially more appropriate, cartoon rendition of “I Thought I Lost You,” go see Bolt when it opens on November 21. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/8/31/34589.aspxPost By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/31/2008 2:00:26 PM
Body: Veteran documentarian Ken Burns is on the Board of Governors for the Telluride Film Festival. The creator of classic PBS documentary mini-series like The War, Baseball, and Jazz, all of which have a total runtime of many hundreds of minutes, it’s a wonder this guy watches anything other that the archival material he uses to assemble his films. He mentions a film called Hunger by Steve McQueen that’s playing here. No, it’s not the ghost of the Steve McQueen you might be thinking of, this Steve McQueen is a Turner Prize winning British video artist turned filmmaker. A full review of Hunger with an interview is coming soon. Spout: What films have you been watching lately? Ken Burns: Well, I come to the Telluride Film Festival to sort of end a draught. Being a very busy person, and living in rural New Hampshire, and having a small child, I  don’t get into the communion of dark theaters very often. So to be here, to see Hunger by Steve McQueen, this great British director, is a revelation. I’ve sponsored a tribute to David Fincher, so we’re looking forward to seeing the uncut directors version of his Zodiac, and of course to see the clips from his others films is exciting, and looking forward to the whole rest of the cinema. You know, during my daily life I spend a lot of time with sports, I spend a lot of time with politics, which I follow astutely, and this is a particularly exciting year. And as a member of the Academy, I wait for those screeners that come sometime around Thanksgiving and don’t stop until January, that gives me a chance to catch up on what I’ve been missing. Spout: My next question is what you’ve been watching on TV, but I guess you already hinted at that. Burns: I’m mostly a sports… I’m a huge baseball fan, I’m a devoted fan specifically of the Boston Red Sox, so I spend a lot of time catching up with their activities. I watch a lot of news. It’s funny, it’s been a long time since I’ve had that addiction to a fiction program that I have to see. My kids tell me what they are, and buy the DVDs for Arrested Development and Mad Men, and I catch up that way. But I’ve got that kind of schedule that makes it literally impossible commit to a specific time. Spout: What about the internet? Is there anything originating there that you’re sort of tuned in to, or no? Burns: I don’t have the time. I see a lot of my friends who spend a lot of time there, and I just don’t have the time. I can’t spend two or three hours surfing, I just have a lot of work to do, and kids to raise, and movies to make. It’s something that I miss. When I do have a moment and play around, it’s always fun, but I’m not there as much as most of the people I know are. Spout: Thanks so much. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Sun, 31 Aug 2008 18:00:26 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com8/31/2008 2:00:26 PM Veteran documentarian Ken Burns is on the Board of Governors for the Telluride Film Festival. The creator of classic PBS documentary mini-series like The War, Baseball, and Jazz, all of which have a total runtime of many hundreds of minutes, it’s a wonder this guy watches anything other that the archival material he uses to assemble his films. He mentions a film called Hunger by Steve McQueen that’s playing here. No, it’s not the ghost of the Steve McQueen you might be thinking of, this Steve McQueen is a Turner Prize winning British video artist turned filmmaker. A full review of Hunger with an interview is coming soon. Spout: What films have you been watching lately? Ken Burns: Well, I come to the Telluride Film Festival to sort of end a draught. Being a very busy person, and living in rural New Hampshire, and having a small child, I  don’t get into the communion of dark theaters very often. So to be here, to see Hunger by Steve McQueen, this great British director, is a revelation. I’ve sponsored a tribute to David Fincher, so we’re looking forward to seeing the uncut directors version of his Zodiac, and of course to see the clips from his others films is exciting, and looking forward to the whole rest of the cinema. You know, during my daily life I spend a lot of time with sports, I spend a lot of time with politics, which I follow astutely, and this is a particularly exciting year. And as a member of the Academy, I wait for those screeners that come sometime around Thanksgiving and don’t stop until January, that gives me a chance to catch up on what I’ve been missing. Spout: My next question is what you’ve been watching on TV, but I guess you already hinted at that. Burns: I’m mostly a sports… I’m a huge baseball fan, I’m a devoted fan specifically of the Boston Red Sox, so I spend a lot of time catching up with their activities. I watch a lot of news. It’s funny, it’s been a long time since I’ve had that addiction to a fiction program that I have to see. My kids tell me what they are, and buy the DVDs for Arrested Development and Mad Men, and I catch up that way. But I’ve got that kind of schedule that makes it literally impossible commit to a specific time. Spout: What about the internet? Is there anything originating there that you’re sort of tuned in to, or no? Burns: I don’t have the time. I see a lot of my friends who spend a lot of time there, and I just don’t have the time. I can’t spend two or three hours surfing, I just have a lot of work to do, and kids to raise, and movies to make. It’s something that I miss. When I do have a moment and play around, it’s always fun, but I’m not there as much as most of the people I know are. Spout: Thanks so much. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/7/14/32539.aspxPost By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/14/2008 5:00:42 PM
Body: It’s been almost two weeks and Hancock has grossed almost $350 million, so it’s time to start the academic discussions — with spoilers, of course (anyone who wants to avoid knowing the “twists” should discontinue reading now). Maybe it’s just the film scholar in me, but I have been desiring a good analysis of the film’s allegorical meaning since viewing the less-than-perfect superhero movie last week. While others may feel that the movie is hardly worth reading into (especially over-reading, as I’ve always felt my M.O. to be) or that it’s too obvious that the first half is really about the role of the U.S. as a superpower, I’m nevertheless eager to figure it out. Basically, I’ve been wracking my brain trying to understand where the allegory goes, or was meant to go, once Charlize Theron’s character is introduced as Hancock’s super-powered wife. Does she somehow fit in with or in response to Hancock’s representation of America (the patriotic name, the eagle emblem on his uniform, etc.)? I’m still at a loss, but I’ve come up with 5 possibilities (some a lot less likely than others) for what screenwriters Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan intended for her character to be. The United Kingdom - So sue me if part of my reasoning is inspired by Theron’s role on Arrested Development, in which she also seemed to be harboring a secret from beau Jason Bateman (if only Hancock had stolen Jeffrey Tambor from Hellboy II, it could have been considered a reunion), but if Hancock represents America, then Mary (Theron) is some other superpower, right? I don’t recall any hints that she signifies the Soviet Union, so she must be a stand-in for the British. Is her desire to be a housewife representative of a desire by the British to no longer be a world-stomping empire? Is Mary’s defending of the French boy a nod to Britain-France relations in contrast to U.S.-France? But then is the movie also saying that the UK and the U.S. are less powerful when united together? History would say otherwise. Hillary Clinton - In at least two separate reviews, I’ve seen Will Smith/Hancock compared to Barack Obama. So, I guess that would mean Charlize Theron/Mary is Hillary Clinton, though of course the domesticated preferences don’t fit. Still, despite the fact that Hancock was mostly filmed before the heat of the Democratic race, I can see where the Hancock vs. Mary battle, after which both characters are weaker, could be a parallel for the Clinton-Obama fight for the nomination, which seemed to be harming the Democratic party overall. And I guess we should also assume that if Hillary is somehow chosen as Barack’s running mate, the team-up will be disastrous for them both. Womanhood - Like her African American counterpart, Mary represents the struggles of her kind throughout the world, throughout history. And whenever they were united, says their back story, they faced harsher discriminations. Of course, it’s a stretch that Mary is an allegorical representation of women’s rights, especially considering Hancock could barely be analyzed as representing civil rights. But there’s something there regarding the strengths of both race and femininity in time of political correctness, affirmative action, etc. And it also ties into the Clinton/Obama allegory since both candidates were so defined, respectively, by gender and race. White Womanhood - Margeaux Watson at Entertainment Weekly might not agree with the generality of #3, so just for her, here’s the specific. Because in the current issue of EW, Watson complains about the casting of Theron as yet another white love interest for a black leading man. Perhaps Watson would be okay with a Nia Long or Gabrielle Union being cast in the (hopefully) inevitable sequel, in which a black woman superhero/god/angel is discovered, and Hancock dates her until he discovers she’s the villain (which is what I had presumed Theron to be when going into Hancock). The Virgin Mary - Don’t you know that anytime a character is named Mary in a movie that she represents the mother of Jesus? Could a sequel reveal that Mary and Hancock have a child out there, one who is more superhuman than superhuman? Perhaps played by Keanu Reeves? I guess since the superduo are said to be 3,000 years old that they were around for at least a millennium before Mary, but Hollywood magic could always suggest that Mary was in fact around for a long time prior to her immaculate conception. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:00:42 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/14/2008 5:00:42 PM It’s been almost two weeks and Hancock has grossed almost $350 million, so it’s time to start the academic discussions — with spoilers, of course (anyone who wants to avoid knowing the “twists” should discontinue reading now). Maybe it’s just the film scholar in me, but I have been desiring a good analysis of the film’s allegorical meaning since viewing the less-than-perfect superhero movie last week. While others may feel that the movie is hardly worth reading into (especially over-reading, as I’ve always felt my M.O. to be) or that it’s too obvious that the first half is really about the role of the U.S. as a superpower, I’m nevertheless eager to figure it out. Basically, I’ve been wracking my brain trying to understand where the allegory goes, or was meant to go, once Charlize Theron’s character is introduced as Hancock’s super-powered wife. Does she somehow fit in with or in response to Hancock’s representation of America (the patriotic name, the eagle emblem on his uniform, etc.)? I’m still at a loss, but I’ve come up with 5 possibilities (some a lot less likely than others) for what screenwriters Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan intended for her character to be. The United Kingdom - So sue me if part of my reasoning is inspired by Theron’s role on Arrested Development, in which she also seemed to be harboring a secret from beau Jason Bateman (if only Hancock had stolen Jeffrey Tambor from Hellboy II, it could have been considered a reunion), but if Hancock represents America, then Mary (Theron) is some other superpower, right? I don’t recall any hints that she signifies the Soviet Union, so she must be a stand-in for the British. Is her desire to be a housewife representative of a desire by the British to no longer be a world-stomping empire? Is Mary’s defending of the French boy a nod to Britain-France relations in contrast to U.S.-France? But then is the movie also saying that the UK and the U.S. are less powerful when united together? History would say otherwise. Hillary Clinton - In at least two separate reviews, I’ve seen Will Smith/Hancock compared to Barack Obama. So, I guess that would mean Charlize Theron/Mary is Hillary Clinton, though of course the domesticated preferences don’t fit. Still, despite the fact that Hancock was mostly filmed before the heat of the Democratic race, I can see where the Hancock vs. Mary battle, after which both characters are weaker, could be a parallel for the Clinton-Obama fight for the nomination, which seemed to be harming the Democratic party overall. And I guess we should also assume that if Hillary is somehow chosen as Barack’s running mate, the team-up will be disastrous for them both. Womanhood - Like her African American counterpart, Mary represents the struggles of her kind throughout the world, throughout history. And whenever they were united, says their back story, they faced harsher discriminations. Of course, it’s a stretch that Mary is an allegorical representation of women’s rights, especially considering Hancock could barely be analyzed as representing civil rights. But there’s something there regarding the strengths of both race and femininity in time of political correctness, affirmative action, etc. And it also ties into the Clinton/Obama allegory since both candidates were so defined, respectively, by gender and race. White Womanhood - Margeaux Watson at Entertainment Weekly might not agree with the generality of #3, so just for her, here’s the specific. Because in the current issue of EW, Watson complains about the casting of Theron as yet another white love interest for a black leading man. Perhaps Watson would be okay with a Nia Long or Gabrielle Union being cast in the (hopefully) inevitable sequel, in which a black woman superhero/god/angel is discovered, and Hancock dates her until he discovers she’s the villain (which is what I had presumed Theron to be when going into Hancock). The Virgin Mary - Don’t you know that anytime a character is named Mary in a movie that she represents the mother of Jesus? Could a sequel reveal that Mary and Hancock have a child out there, one who is more superhuman than superhuman? Perhaps played by Keanu Reeves? I guess since the superduo are said to be 3,000 years old that they were around for at least a millennium before Mary, but Hollywood magic could always suggest that Mary was in fact around for a long time prior to her immaculate conception. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/usesoap/archive/2008/7/3/32102.aspxPost By: usesoap
Post To: usesoap Blog
Post Date: 7/3/2008 10:49:03 PM
Body: It is all too fitting that the lead in “Hancock” is an amnesiac, for the film in which he is featured can't seem to comprehend just what the hell it is. About halfway through, it suffers a cinematic concussion from which it never regains its former personality. Both portions of this picture might have made an interesting feature given the chance to develop more thoroughly. As it stands, “Hancock” plays out like the most recent dark, brooding film incarnation of “Batman,” but starring Adam West in the form-fitting spandex suit from the TV version. In a world where every summer superhero film is accompanied by Wal-Mart-ready action figure tie-ins, it's rather difficult to envision the kiddies clamoring to buy the “Hancock with Scotch-Swigging Action” in which you can push the button and hear one of eight colorful expletives! Yes, Hancock is the most reluctant of heroes, approaching his duties like a list of household chores rather than an inherent responsibility. His attempts at rescue wind up wrecking more real estate than leaving well enough alone and now he faces the scorn of a public fed up with his slovenly approach to fighting crime. That is, until one day he rescues an altruistic PR man (yeah, that's about the funniest thing in the picture) played by Jason Bateman. Bateman's Ray Embry wants to repay the super-pariah by working with him on an image makeover, helping him transform from his hobo-chic aesthetic to Fantastic Four fabulousness. And this is the world in which “Hancock” should have remained. Pointed social commentary on celebrity life under today's TMZ- and You Tube-controlled microscopic conditions, rejecting and denouncing any and all sorts of behavior or past transgression, and promises to reform and adhere to more “model” behavior are all hinted in a too-brief montage sequence. Witnessing Hancock stage a half-hearted press conference, admitting himself to a local prison and undergoing anger management and substance abuse classes are awkwardly amusing commentaries of today's lifestyles of the rich and infamous (not to mention the issue race plays in the whole affair). The only thing missing is his finding Jesus in the process. It's not until Ray brings Hancock home to meet the family-- wife Mary (played by Charlize Theron) and son Aaron (played by Jae Head) – in which the tonal shifts of the film are stitched together like some thematic Frankenstein's monster. It is during this portion in which we get a glimpse into Hancock's dark, mysterious origins which are a marked contrast to the promise of joviality and satire of the first half. Smith seems to run out of steam for this part, too. Gamely playing against his squeaky-clean image, he relishes in ticking off the general public with foul language and laws of physics-defying bodily harm. Yet when things get dark, he barely registers, coasting on tired mannerisms and feigned interest. Theron, who plays Bateman's adoring wife is also left with little. It's easy to see from her first encounter with Hancock that there was some sort of past connection between the two, but when it's revealed just what that is, the actress is swept up in the noisy chaos that marks the film's conclusion. The only actor who leave an impression is Theron's one-time co-star Bateman (the two shared a storyline in the beloved, departed television show “Arrested Development”), whose deft comic abilities elicited some of the only laughs to be heard during my opening-day screening. But even he is hindered by the questionable judgement of director Peter Berg (“The Kingdom,” “Friday Night Lights,” “Very Bad Things”). Berg obviously has potential, but has squandered it time and time again, as he does here with “Hancock.” It's an unwritten blockbuster law that superhero films, even if they dabble in the emotional complexities of its leads, must widen their lens and give the film and expansive, almost global, perspective that shows a city in crises or a world in peril. Not so with Berg. He instead chooses to zoom in on his subjects close enough that you can almost smell the stale scotch on Hancock's breath. When it finally comes to the epic confrontation at the finale, it's edited with such a slapdash manner that there is no sense of jeopardy, or wonderment, or even much of a pulse. Contributing to this menace-free environment is the film's villain, whose comic book bad guy name would be “Dr. Minor Inconvenience” or perhaps “The Irritable Rash,” as little a threat as he poses. And finally, lest you think that you are safely in the hands of audience-friendly Will Smith, not that the director was the same guy who based an entire film of a group of bachelor party participants trying to dispose of a dead hooker. In other words, bring the earmuffs and have hands ready to shield the eyes of the little ones brought into the theater to watch Mr. Man In Black battle baddies. “Hancock” is a film that would have benefited from being either an all-out satire of the genre, or an intimate introspective drama of the isolation accompanying the job title of World Saver. By combining the two, “Hancock” suffers from its own cinematic kryptonite, crippling it just when it should have soared into the stratosphere.
]]>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 02:49:03 GMTusesoapusesoap Blog7/3/2008 10:49:03 PMIt is all too fitting that the lead in &ldquo;Hancock&rdquo; is an amnesiac, for the film in which he is featured can't seem to comprehend just what the hell it is. About halfway through, it suffers a cinematic concussion from which it never regains its former personality. Both portions of this picture might have made an interesting feature given the chance to develop more thoroughly. As it stands, &ldquo;Hancock&rdquo; plays out like the most recent dark, brooding film incarnation of &ldquo;Batman,&rdquo; but starring Adam West in the form-fitting spandex suit from the TV version. In a world where every summer superhero film is accompanied by Wal-Mart-ready action figure tie-ins, it's rather difficult to envision the kiddies clamoring to buy the &ldquo;Hancock with Scotch-Swigging Action&rdquo; in which you can push the button and hear one of eight colorful expletives! Yes, Hancock is the most reluctant of heroes, approaching his duties like a list of household chores rather than an inherent responsibility. His attempts at rescue wind up wrecking more real estate than leaving well enough alone and now he faces the scorn of a public fed up with his slovenly approach to fighting crime. That is, until one day he rescues an altruistic PR man (yeah, that's about the funniest thing in the picture) played by Jason Bateman. Bateman's Ray Embry wants to repay the super-pariah by working with him on an image makeover, helping him transform from his hobo-chic aesthetic to Fantastic Four fabulousness. And this is the world in which &ldquo;Hancock&rdquo; should have remained. Pointed social commentary on celebrity life under today's TMZ- and You Tube-controlled microscopic conditions, rejecting and denouncing any and all sorts of behavior or past transgression, and promises to reform and adhere to more &ldquo;model&rdquo; behavior are all hinted in a too-brief montage sequence. Witnessing Hancock stage a half-hearted press conference, admitting himself to a local prison and undergoing anger management and substance abuse classes are awkwardly amusing commentaries of today's lifestyles of the rich and infamous (not to mention the issue race plays in the whole affair). The only thing missing is his finding Jesus in the process. It's not until Ray brings Hancock home to meet the family-- wife Mary (played by Charlize Theron) and son Aaron (played by Jae Head) &ndash; in which the tonal shifts of the film are stitched together like some thematic Frankenstein's monster. It is during this portion in which we get a glimpse into Hancock's dark, mysterious origins which are a marked contrast to the promise of joviality and satire of the first half. Smith seems to run out of steam for this part, too. Gamely playing against his squeaky-clean image, he relishes in ticking off the general public with foul language and laws of physics-defying bodily harm. Yet when things get dark, he barely registers, coasting on tired mannerisms and feigned interest. Theron, who plays Bateman's adoring wife is also left with little. It's easy to see from her first encounter with Hancock that there was some sort of past connection between the two, but when it's revealed just what that is, the actress is swept up in the noisy chaos that marks the film's conclusion. The only actor who leave an impression is Theron's one-time co-star Bateman (the two shared a storyline in the beloved, departed television show &ldquo;Arrested Development&rdquo;), whose deft comic abilities elicited some of the only laughs to be heard during my opening-day screening. But even he is hindered by the questionable judgement of director Peter Berg (&ldquo;The Kingdom,&rdquo; &ldquo;Friday Night Lights,&rdquo; &ldquo;Very Bad Things&rdquo;). Berg obviously has potential, but has squandered it time and time again, as he does here with &ldquo;Hancock.&rdquo; It's an unwritten blockbuster law that superhero films, even if they dabble in the emotional complexities of its leads, must widen their lens and give the film and expansive, almost global, perspective that shows a city in crises or a world in peril. Not so with Berg. He instead chooses to zoom in on his subjects close enough that you can almost smell the stale scotch on Hancock's breath. When it finally comes to the epic confrontation at the finale, it's edited with such a slapdash manner that there is no sense of jeopardy, or wonderment, or even much of a pulse. Contributing to this menace-free environment is the film's villain, whose comic book bad guy name would be &ldquo;Dr. Minor Inconvenience&rdquo; or perhaps &ldquo;The Irritable Rash,&rdquo; as little a threat as he poses. And finally, lest you think that you are safely in the hands of audience-friendly Will Smith, not that the director was the same guy who based an entire film of a group of bachelor party participants trying to dispose of a dead hooker. In other words, bring the earmuffs and have hands ready to shield the eyes of the little ones brought into the theater to watch Mr. Man In Black battle baddies. &ldquo;Hancock&rdquo; is a film that would have benefited from being either an all-out satire of the genre, or an intimate introspective drama of the isolation accompanying the job title of World Saver. By combining the two, &ldquo;Hancock&rdquo; suffers from its own cinematic kryptonite, crippling it just when it should have soared into the stratosphere. http://www.spout.com/blogs/bigjefflebowski/archive/2008/4/7/27063.aspxPost By: BigJeffLebowski
Post To: BigJeffLebowski Blog
Post Date: 4/7/2008 9:37:54 PM
Body: If Smiley Face were directed by Spike Jonze, it would have been a masterpiece. Its script, by Dylan Haggerty, is consistently entertaining, frequently hysterical, and occasionally quite inventive in how it depicts a day in the life of its stoner protagonist. Perhaps even more importantly, it understands the episodic, tangential logic of the pothead. The specious associations, the noncommittal detours of thought and action, the staunch belief in the nobility of your quest, the disparity between what you mean to say and what actually comes out of your mouth; all are rendered with a knowing clarity that will be commended by the herbal enthusiast and will, hopefully, prove enlightening to those members of the square community who wouldn't know from personal experience. But just as brilliance borne of bong hits tends to collapse upon itself in sober language, so too does Haggerty's script in the hands of director Gregg Araki. The tones of the script and the direction are strangely at odds with one another. Haggerty, it seems, envisions Smiley Face as a Kaufman-esque romp a la Being John Malkovich. Araki, on the other hand, appears to be aiming for Half Baked. It's actually quite the anomaly. There are many great scripts which have been diluted by pedestrian direction, but it's rare to see premise and presentation duke it out so heatedly. Bickford Shmeckler's Cool Ideas, for instance, boasts one of the greatest independent screenplays of the decade; its direction, unfortunately, is not of the same caliber. But where the sublime Bickford's occasionally weak presentation can be attributed to budgetary restraints and writer-director Scott Lew's inexperience behind the camera, Smiley Face is wrong by design. With another script, the certainty with which Araki creates his vision would be commendable. Here, however, his steadfast commitment to his vision is to the detriment of the overall film. I am more inclined to forgive a director who can't quite get it perfectly right than one who gets it purposefully wrong. (I'm looking at you, too, Paul Haggis.) This is not to say that Araki doesn't do anything right. The irony -- and what is ultimately most frustrating about the film -- is that the cast and crew pretty much nail what Araki asks of them. But his allegiance is to his vision of the screenplay, not to the screenplay itself. Rather than make a film about silly things, Araki has simply made a silly film. Being John Malkovich, as an example, works because the characters are not in on the joke. In Smiley Face, however, everyone is painted with too broad a brush. Everyone, that is, except Jane. Anna Farris, to whom I am usually indifferent, proves herself a comedienne of immeasurable skill and intelligence. If Lucille Ball got high, it would look something like this. Everything she does -- the drawn out pauses, the abrupt shifts, the incongruity between tone and content -- rings both funny and true. It is a bold, boisterous performance that demands attention. Unfortunately, it also demands a straight man to play off of, something the film does not provide. John Cho is the kind of dry, deadpan foil Farris needs, but he is onscreen for a scant two scenes. Under a more confident director the love-struck Brevin Ericson could have filled this quota. But Araki, seemingly afraid to let so much as a single shot go by without a gag, directs John Krasinski to play Brevin as a Napoleon Dynamite when the film really needs a Michael Bluth. On "Arrested Development," Jason Bateman played Michael Bluth as the audience surrogate, assuring us that, yes, it's all nonsense and these people you're watching are not normal; without him we would feel lost, as though we were missing part of the joke, which is pretty much how you feel through much of Smiley Face. Which is a shame, because the jokes are phenomenal, even when they aren't executed to their fullest. (Jane's logic behind framing a portrait of President Garfield as a short-hand way of saying she likes to eat lasagna is particularly inspired.) Having seen the film several times, I can assure you that it does reward repeat viewings; granted, this may be because it takes that long to fight your way through Araki's direction, but Haggerty's script and Farris's performance yield enough moments of inspired stoner glory to justify the effort. And please give a raise/promotion/Oscar to whoever is responsible for the unlikely yet inspired casting of Adam Brody as Jane's dealer. That was totally awesome, man.
]]>Tue, 08 Apr 2008 01:37:54 GMTBigJeffLebowskiBigJeffLebowski Blog4/7/2008 9:37:54 PMIf Smiley Face were directed by Spike Jonze, it would have been a masterpiece. Its script, by Dylan Haggerty, is consistently entertaining, frequently hysterical, and occasionally quite inventive in how it depicts a day in the life of its stoner protagonist. Perhaps even more importantly, it understands the episodic, tangential logic of the pothead. The specious associations, the noncommittal detours of thought and action, the staunch belief in the nobility of your quest, the disparity between what you mean to say and what actually comes out of your mouth; all are rendered with a knowing clarity that will be commended by the herbal enthusiast and will, hopefully, prove enlightening to those members of the square community who wouldn&#39;t know from personal experience. But just as brilliance borne of bong hits tends to collapse upon itself in sober language, so too does Haggerty&#39;s script in the hands of director Gregg Araki. The tones of the script and the direction are strangely at odds with one another. Haggerty, it seems, envisions Smiley Face as a Kaufman-esque romp a la Being John Malkovich. Araki, on the other hand, appears to be aiming for Half Baked. It&#39;s actually quite the anomaly. There are many great scripts which have been diluted by pedestrian direction, but it&#39;s rare to see premise and presentation duke it out so heatedly. Bickford Shmeckler&#39;s Cool Ideas, for instance, boasts one of the greatest independent screenplays of the decade; its direction, unfortunately, is not of the same caliber. But where the sublime Bickford&#39;s occasionally weak presentation can be attributed to budgetary restraints and writer-director Scott Lew&#39;s inexperience behind the camera, Smiley Face is wrong by design. With another script, the certainty with which Araki creates his vision would be commendable. Here, however, his steadfast commitment to his vision is to the detriment of the overall film. I am more inclined to forgive a director who can&#39;t quite get it perfectly right than one who gets it purposefully wrong. (I&#39;m looking at you, too, Paul Haggis.) This is not to say that Araki doesn&#39;t do anything right. The irony -- and what is ultimately most frustrating about the film -- is that the cast and crew pretty much nail what Araki asks of them. But his allegiance is to his vision of the screenplay, not to the screenplay itself. Rather than make a film about silly things, Araki has simply made a silly film. Being John Malkovich, as an example, works because the characters are not in on the joke. In Smiley Face, however, everyone is painted with too broad a brush. Everyone, that is, except Jane. Anna Farris, to whom I am usually indifferent, proves herself a comedienne of immeasurable skill and intelligence. If Lucille Ball got high, it would look something like this. Everything she does -- the drawn out pauses, the abrupt shifts, the incongruity between tone and content -- rings both funny and true. It is a bold, boisterous performance that demands attention. Unfortunately, it also demands a straight man to play off of, something the film does not provide. John Cho is the kind of dry, deadpan foil Farris needs, but he is onscreen for a scant two scenes. Under a more confident director the love-struck Brevin Ericson could have filled this quota. But Araki, seemingly afraid to let so much as a single shot go by without a gag, directs John Krasinski to play Brevin as a Napoleon Dynamite when the film really needs a Michael Bluth. On &quot;Arrested Development,&quot; Jason Bateman played Michael Bluth as the audience surrogate, assuring us that, yes, it&#39;s all nonsense and these people you&#39;re watching are not normal; without him we would feel lost, as though we were missing part of the joke, which is pretty much how you feel through much of Smiley Face. Which is a shame, because the jokes are phenomenal, even when they aren&#39;t executed to their fullest. (Jane&#39;s logic behind framing a portrait of President Garfield as a short-hand way of saying she likes to eat lasagna is particularly inspired.) Having seen the film several times, I can assure you that it does reward repeat viewings; granted, this may be because it takes that long to fight your way through Araki&#39;s direction, but Haggerty&#39;s script and Farris&#39;s performance yield enough moments of inspired stoner glory to justify the effort. And please give a raise/promotion/Oscar to whoever is responsible for the unlikely yet inspired casting of Adam Brody as Jane&#39;s dealer. That was totally awesome, man. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/3/4/25855.aspxPost By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/4/2008 3:00:48 PM
Body: Another bit of exciting news from Jason Bateman [again via MTV Movies Blog] regarding the Arrested Development movie: “the ball has started rolling down the hill again.” Okay, so it’s not too exciting, nor is it revelatory in the least, but at least he says all the creatives are on board. Meanwhile, the actor also commented on his role in the American movie adaptation of the British TV mini-series State of Play, which, combined with MTV’s other post about the American TV series remake/adaptation of the British TV series Spaced, has me putting a little thought into the subject of theatrical spin-offs versus movie adaptations. Certainly those of us who are fans of a series would rather see it continued with all original talent on board (even if we are cynically fearing the result) than see it adapted into a movie version many years down the line, whether the approach be faithful or parody or an attempt at both. Try to imagine another cast playing the Arrested Development and Sex and the City characters. Imagine the pointlessness a future X-Files remake/adaptation compared with the immediate cinematic extension we received. Or live-action versions of The Simpsons or South Park somewhere down the line rather than the big-screen supplements. (more…) Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 04 Mar 2008 20:00:48 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/4/2008 3:00:48 PM Another bit of exciting news from Jason Bateman [again via MTV Movies Blog] regarding the Arrested Development movie: “the ball has started rolling down the hill again.” Okay, so it’s not too exciting, nor is it revelatory in the least, but at least he says all the creatives are on board. Meanwhile, the actor also commented on his role in the American movie adaptation of the British TV mini-series State of Play, which, combined with MTV’s other post about the American TV series remake/adaptation of the British TV series Spaced, has me putting a little thought into the subject of theatrical spin-offs versus movie adaptations. Certainly those of us who are fans of a series would rather see it continued with all original talent on board (even if we are cynically fearing the result) than see it adapted into a movie version many years down the line, whether the approach be faithful or parody or an attempt at both. Try to imagine another cast playing the Arrested Development and Sex and the City characters. Imagine the pointlessness a future X-Files remake/adaptation compared with the immediate cinematic extension we received. Or live-action versions of The Simpsons or South Park somewhere down the line rather than the big-screen supplements. (more…) Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/usesoap/archive/2008/2/15/25185.aspxPost By: usesoap
Post To: usesoap Blog
Post Date: 2/15/2008 1:36:39 PM
Body: It's not that 'The Amateurs' was bad -- how could it be? Just look at that list of names above: Bridges, Danson, Fichtner, Nelson, include Joey 'Pants' Pantoliano and personal crush Judy Greer ('Arrested Development's Kitty). But, man. With two years on the shelf (it was completed in 2005), you would think someone might have been able to, pardon the expression, bring this to a much more satisfying climax.There are bright moments in this tale of a sleepy, no-name town that decides to bond together over making a porno (yes, apparently Yard Sales are so yesterday). It all sounds much crazier than anything on screen, which really feels like a neutered attempt at one of those bawdy-but-sweet British film like The Full Monty or Calendar Girls.It's shy when it should have flirted. It's toothless when it should have a shit-eating grin from ear to ear. And, perhaps most deadly, when it should, ahem, rise to the occasion...it's rather flaccid.
]]>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:36:39 GMTusesoapusesoap Blog2/15/2008 1:36:39 PMIt&#39;s not that &#39;The Amateurs&#39; was bad -- how could it be? Just look at that list of names above: Bridges, Danson, Fichtner, Nelson, include Joey &#39;Pants&#39; Pantoliano and personal crush Judy Greer (&#39;Arrested Development&#39;s Kitty). But, man. With two years on the shelf (it was completed in 2005), you would think someone might have been able to, pardon the expression, bring this to a much more satisfying climax.There are bright moments in this tale of a sleepy, no-name town that decides to bond together over making a porno (yes, apparently Yard Sales are so yesterday). It all sounds much crazier than anything on screen, which really feels like a neutered attempt at one of those bawdy-but-sweet British film like The Full Monty or Calendar Girls.It&#39;s shy when it should have flirted. It&#39;s toothless when it should have a shit-eating grin from ear to ear. And, perhaps most deadly, when it should, ahem, rise to the occasion...it&#39;s rather flaccid. http://www.spout.com/blogs/bigjefflebowski/archive/2008/1/1/23398.aspxPost By: BigJeffLebowski
Post To: BigJeffLebowski Blog
Post Date: 1/1/2008 11:02:37 AM
Body: There are so many wonderful things I would like to say about Juno. That its cast is impeccable, that its soundtrack conveys the perfect emotions, that its details ring both true and hilarious. But most of all, I want to say how good -- no, how GREAT -- watching it made me feel.Ellen Page plays the eponymous sixteen year old heroine with a startingly endearing blend of precociousness, arrogance, cynicism, feigned independence, and aloof self-determination that is so right in so many ways, I cannot help but declare -- after having seen her only in this, Hard Candy, and X-Men: The Last Stand (in my reviews for all of which I've swooned for this girl) -- that Page is going to be among the greatest actresses of her generation. It would have been so easy for a film like this to degrade into silliness or ugliness, and yet somehow, Diablo Cody, Jason Reitman, and Page have colluded to create one of the greatest cinematic outcasts and one of the most unique, interesting, beguilling, and utterly irresistable coming of age films I've ever seen. It's a winner, and it's a classic.Juno (both the film and the character) has an interesting sneak attack, a way of skittering into your heart through the back door and falling asleep on the couch before you're even aware of its/her presence. And it's aware of this. There's an effortless charm, an intrinsic inveiglement that stems from being so awkward and so ill at ease that there is no alternative (excluding self destruction, a masturbatory martyrdom that this film is miles above) other than to fully embrace that which is uniquely you. Page nails it. Cody nails it. And Michael Cera has built an entire career upon it. Anyone who doesn't like Cera has deep seated issues which they need to resolve on their own terms. From Arrested Development to Superbad to Juno, Cera has shown an interesting arc as an actor. Every line of dialogue and every action is utterly believable; Cera may play variations upon the same character, but he invests that character with everything he's got and plays it like his life depends upon it.And that's the charm of Juno: these characters know who they are and where their boundaries lie. They are not ones to be bogged down by relativism or morbidity. Instead, they celebrate their quirks, their limitations and their passions, without regard for what others may think. The film's greatest moment, which unabashedly put a lump in my throat and a misty coat over my vision, is when Juno tells Paulie Bleeker (Cera) that he's the coolest person she's ever met without even trying to be, and he confides "I try really hard, actually." It's a moment of honesty that few films -- hell, few people -- would dare. These are people who understand they are not mass-marketable. They will appeal to their small coterie of friends, and they will cherish them for all their flaws and failings as much as for their virtues. But if they're going to be disliked by the world at large, they're going to be disliked on their own terms.Characters like these could travel one of three roads: they could try to fit in with the so called popular kids and feel the sting of rejection, they could actively alienate people to prove a point, or they could become irrepressibly themselves in spite of the social acceptance they may forfeit. To many, the last two options may seem like the same thing in different words, but anyone who appreciates this film with their heart in addition to their brain will know that one will leave you empty whereas one will leave you edified. And those are the people who will champion these characters and smile uncontrollably during the film's indefectible finale.
]]>Tue, 01 Jan 2008 16:02:37 GMTBigJeffLebowskiBigJeffLebowski Blog1/1/2008 11:02:37 AMThere are so many wonderful things I would like to say about Juno. That its cast is impeccable, that its soundtrack conveys the perfect emotions, that its details ring both true and hilarious. But most of all, I want to say how good -- no, how GREAT -- watching it made me feel.Ellen Page plays the eponymous sixteen year old heroine with a startingly endearing blend of precociousness, arrogance, cynicism, feigned independence, and aloof self-determination that is so right in so many ways, I cannot help but declare -- after having seen her only in this, Hard Candy, and X-Men: The Last Stand (in my reviews for all of which I&#39;ve swooned for this girl) -- that Page is going to be among the greatest actresses of her generation. It would have been so easy for a film like this to degrade into silliness or ugliness, and yet somehow, Diablo Cody, Jason Reitman, and Page have colluded to create one of the greatest cinematic outcasts and one of the most unique, interesting, beguilling, and utterly irresistable coming of age films I&#39;ve ever seen. It&#39;s a winner, and it&#39;s a classic.Juno (both the film and the character) has an interesting sneak attack, a way of skittering into your heart through the back door and falling asleep on the couch before you&#39;re even aware of its/her presence. And it&#39;s aware of this. There&#39;s an effortless charm, an intrinsic inveiglement that stems from being so awkward and so ill at ease that there is no alternative (excluding self destruction, a masturbatory martyrdom that this film is miles above) other than to fully embrace that which is uniquely you. Page nails it. Cody nails it. And Michael Cera has built an entire career upon it. Anyone who doesn&#39;t like Cera has deep seated issues which they need to resolve on their own terms. From Arrested Development to Superbad to Juno, Cera has shown an interesting arc as an actor. Every line of dialogue and every action is utterly believable; Cera may play variations upon the same character, but he invests that character with everything he&#39;s got and plays it like his life depends upon it.And that&#39;s the charm of Juno: these characters know who they are and where their boundaries lie. They are not ones to be bogged down by relativism or morbidity. Instead, they celebrate their quirks, their limitations and their passions, without regard for what others may think. The film&#39;s greatest moment, which unabashedly put a lump in my throat and a misty coat over my vision, is when Juno tells Paulie Bleeker (Cera) that he&#39;s the coolest person she&#39;s ever met without even trying to be, and he confides &quot;I try really hard, actually.&quot; It&#39;s a moment of honesty that few films -- hell, few people -- would dare. These are people who understand they are not mass-marketable. They will appeal to their small coterie of friends, and they will cherish them for all their flaws and failings as much as for their virtues. But if they&#39;re going to be disliked by the world at large, they&#39;re going to be disliked on their own terms.Characters like these could travel one of three roads: they could try to fit in with the so called popular kids and feel the sting of rejection, they could actively alienate people to prove a point, or they could become irrepressibly themselves in spite of the social acceptance they may forfeit. To many, the last two options may seem like the same thing in different words, but anyone who appreciates this film with their heart in addition to their brain will know that one will leave you empty whereas one will leave you edified. And those are the people who will champion these characters and smile uncontrollably during the film&#39;s indefectible finale. http://www.spout.com/groups/Totally_Over_rated/Re_Am_I_off/170/10070/1/ShowPost.aspxPost By: Risselada
Post To: Totally Over-rated
Post Date: 6/3/2007 11:20:04 PM
Body: [quote user="Jymkata"] I thought I'd add to this thread because it fits even though it doesn't continue the Christmas Story discussion. I officially give up on two french phenomenons loved by the critics : Godard and Tati. Godard must a matter of preference because I have seen plenty of his work and I remain underwhelmed. I bring Tati up because I just watched Traffic, which has been fawned over by the likes of Ebert and Vincent Canby, and I found it neither funny nor clever. This is the third Tati feature I've seen ( Mon Oncle & Mr. Hulot's Holiday) and I just don't get it. Now, I've come to realize that comedy is a matter of personal taste ( I no longer get upset when people say that Arrested Development or the BBC's The Office is not funny because of this realization), but Canby's claim that this film is hilarious and Tati has taken his place with Keaton and Chaplin is wildly off base to me. Keaton and Chaplin did much more than dress up in a trench coat and smoke a pipe while walking in to trouble. I should say that in all other ways I am a film francophile - I love Clouzot, Chabrol, Renoir, Melville, Bresson, Ophuls, Polanski, etc., but these two filmmakers have appeared on way too many "best of" lists for my taste. [/quote]Jason, I identify with you, although maybe with not as much good reason, as I've only seen one film by each of those two directors. But in the case of Godard it was enough to keep me from looking into any more of his films since then. I thnk I saw Breathless about five years ago, and was highly disappointed. I've been actually trying to figure out which movie of his I'll see next when I finally do, but I'm really not sure still. Alphaville seems to be maybe the best candidate from what I've seen. Obviously you aren't the one to ask though.As for Tati, I have seen Mr. Hulot's Holiday, and while I thought it was good, I definitely was confused like you how he could compared with Keaten or Chaplin. Well, I think if you are looking to compare then you will be disappointed. But when I looked at the movie as more of a chance to just relax and go for a short little vacation of you own, it seemed to settle better. There's nothing fast paced or even what you would call side-splitting (maybe to some people). I had a few laugh out loud moments though, but I think overall it was just sort of a chuckle and then soaking in the experience. I do have Mon Oncle on my list, and I hope I'll be in the right frame of mind when I see it.To add to your francophilic list, have you seen much from Bertrand Tavernier? I just saw my first film of his this weekend, Clean Slate. It was notable.
]]>Mon, 04 Jun 2007 03:20:04 GMTRisseladaTotally Over-rated6/3/2007 11:20:04 PM[quote user="Jymkata"] I thought I&#39;d add to this thread because it fits even though it doesn&#39;t continue the Christmas Story discussion. I officially give up on two french phenomenons loved by the critics : Godard and Tati. Godard must a matter of preference because I have seen plenty of his work and I remain underwhelmed. I bring Tati up because I just watched Traffic, which has been fawned over by the likes of Ebert and Vincent Canby, and I found it neither funny nor clever. This is the third Tati feature I&#39;ve seen ( Mon Oncle &amp; Mr. Hulot&#39;s Holiday) and I just don&#39;t get it. Now, I&#39;ve come to realize that comedy is a matter of personal taste ( I no longer get upset when people say that Arrested Development or the BBC&#39;s The Office is not funny because of this realization), but Canby&#39;s claim that this film is hilarious and Tati has taken his place with Keaton and Chaplin is wildly off base to me. Keaton and Chaplin did much more than dress up in a trench coat and smoke a pipe while walking in to trouble. I should say that in all other ways I am a film francophile - I love Clouzot, Chabrol, Renoir, Melville, Bresson, Ophuls, Polanski, etc., but these two filmmakers have appeared on way too many "best of" lists for my taste. [/quote]Jason, I identify with you, although maybe with not as much good reason, as I&#39;ve only seen one film by each of those two directors. But in the case of Godard it was enough to keep me from looking into any more of his films since then. I thnk I saw Breathless about five years ago, and was highly disappointed. I&#39;ve been actually trying to figure out which movie of his I&#39;ll see next when I finally do, but I&#39;m really not sure still. Alphaville seems to be maybe the best candidate from what I&#39;ve seen. Obviously you aren&#39;t the one to ask though.As for Tati, I have seen Mr. Hulot&#39;s Holiday, and while I thought it was good, I definitely was confused like you how he could compared with Keaten or Chaplin. Well, I think if you are looking to compare then you will be disappointed. But when I looked at the movie as more of a chance to just relax and go for a short little vacation of you own, it seemed to settle better. There&#39;s nothing fast paced or even what you would call side-splitting (maybe to some people). I had a few laugh out loud moments though, but I think overall it was just sort of a chuckle and then soaking in the experience. I do have Mon Oncle on my list, and I hope I&#39;ll be in the right frame of mind when I see it.To add to your francophilic list, have you seen much from Bertrand Tavernier? I just saw my first film of his this weekend, Clean Slate. It was notable. http://www.spout.com/groups/Totally_Over_rated/Re_Am_I_off/170/9930/1/ShowPost.aspxPost By: Jymkata
Post To: Totally Over-rated
Post Date: 6/1/2007 5:46:34 PM
Body: I thought I'd add to this thread because it fits even though it doesn't continue the Christmas Story discussion.I officially give up on two french phenomenons loved by the critics : Godard and Tati. Godard must a matter of preference because I have seen plenty of his work and I remain underwhelmed. I bring Tati up because I just watched Traffic, which has been fawned over by the likes of Ebert and Vincent Canby, and I found it neither funny nor clever. This is the third Tati feature I've seen ( Mon Oncle & Mr. Hulot's Holiday) and I just don't get it. Now, I've come to realize that comedy is a matter of personal taste ( I no longer get upset when people say that Arrested Development or the BBC's The Office is not funny because of this realization), but Canby's claim that this film is hilarious and Tati has taken his place with Keaton and Chaplin is wildly off base to me. Keaton and Chaplin did much more than dress up in a trench coat and smoke a pipe while walking in to trouble. I should say that in all other ways I am a film francophile - I love Clouzot, Chabrol, Renoir, Melville, Bresson, Ophuls, Polanski, etc., but these two filmmakers have appeared on way too many "best of" lists for my taste.
]]>Fri, 01 Jun 2007 21:46:34 GMTJymkataTotally Over-rated6/1/2007 5:46:34 PMI thought I&#39;d add to this thread because it fits even though it doesn&#39;t continue the Christmas Story discussion.I officially give up on two french phenomenons loved by the critics : Godard and Tati. Godard must a matter of preference because I have seen plenty of his work and I remain underwhelmed. I bring Tati up because I just watched Traffic, which has been fawned over by the likes of Ebert and Vincent Canby, and I found it neither funny nor clever. This is the third Tati feature I&#39;ve seen ( Mon Oncle &amp; Mr. Hulot&#39;s Holiday) and I just don&#39;t get it. Now, I&#39;ve come to realize that comedy is a matter of personal taste ( I no longer get upset when people say that Arrested Development or the BBC&#39;s The Office is not funny because of this realization), but Canby&#39;s claim that this film is hilarious and Tati has taken his place with Keaton and Chaplin is wildly off base to me. Keaton and Chaplin did much more than dress up in a trench coat and smoke a pipe while walking in to trouble. I should say that in all other ways I am a film francophile - I love Clouzot, Chabrol, Renoir, Melville, Bresson, Ophuls, Polanski, etc., but these two filmmakers have appeared on way too many "best of" lists for my taste. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/comedy/MemberTagFilms.aspxcomedy
Number of films tagged: 1087

Number of people who tagged: 253

Number of times used: 1342

]]>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:38:30 GMT10872531342Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/family/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamily
Number of films tagged: 6289

Number of people who tagged: 227

Number of times used: 1140

]]>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:51:34 GMT62892271140Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/overrated/MemberTagFilms.aspxoverrated
Number of films tagged: 152

Number of people who tagged: 106

Number of times used: 240

]]>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 23:37:37 GMT152106240Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/crime/MemberTagFilms.aspxcrime
Number of films tagged: 401

Number of people who tagged: 70

Number of times used: 303

]]>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:51:32 GMT40170303Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/prison/MemberTagFilms.aspxprison
Number of films tagged: 2437

Number of people who tagged: 62

Number of times used: 167

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:02:27 GMT243762167Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/son/MemberTagFilms.aspxson
Number of films tagged: 2321

Number of people who tagged: 40

Number of times used: 111

]]>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:48:06 GMT232140111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/business/MemberTagFilms.aspxbusiness
Number of films tagged: 1747

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 70

]]>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:05:14 GMT17472770Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/familybusiness/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamilybusiness
Number of films tagged: 146

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 5

]]>Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:08:44 GMT14655Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/bankruptcy/MemberTagFilms.aspxbankruptcy
Number of films tagged: 194

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 5

]]>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:04:22 GMT19445Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/embezzlement/MemberTagFilms.aspxembezzlement
Number of films tagged: 181

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 3

]]>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:01:06 GMT18133Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/bluth/MemberTagFilms.aspxbluth
Number of films tagged: 2

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 2

]]>Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:48:27 GMT222Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/offbeat-humor/MemberTagFilms.aspxoffbeat-humor
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Thu, 10 Aug 2006 03:13:31 GMT111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/businesscorruption/MemberTagFilms.aspxbusinesscorruption
Number of films tagged: 20

Number of people who tagged: 0

Number of times used: 0

]]>Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:53:40 GMT2000Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/development/MemberTagFilms.aspxdevelopment
Number of films tagged: 155

Number of people who tagged: 0

Number of times used: 0

]]>Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:02:12 GMT15500Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/familyembarrassment/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamilyembarrassment
Number of films tagged: 19

Number of people who tagged: 0

Number of times used: 0

]]>Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:07:28 GMT1900Tag