Miscellaneous Movie Musings

[innerSpaceman]

Ok, I've never heard of Contol or Ian Curtis. Huh? and What?


^ and except for LSPoorEeyorick's review above, Lars has been pretty much universally panned. I guess different people disagree about where that ledge is. But as it's starring Ryan Gosling, I will be seeing this film .... eventually.

[flippyshark]

Ian Curtis was the lead singer for Joy Division, an influential post-punk artist prone to epileptic seizures, and a suicide at age 23. Newcomer actor Sam Riley looks to be a dead ringer, and the film should be intriguing for folks interested in the era. Obviously, it isn't going to be a feel-good pic.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

What reviews are you reading?

Originally Posted by Los Angeles Times

The creators of this film were fiercely determined not to go so much as a millimeter over the line into sentiment, tawdriness or mockery. It's the rare film that is the best possible version of itself, but "Lars" fits that bill.

Originally Posted by Wall Street Journal

It's nothing less than a miracle that the director, Craig Gillespie, and the writer, Nancy Oliver, have been able to make such an endearing, intelligent and tender comedy from a premise that, in other hands, might sustain a five-minute sketch on TV.

Originally Posted by Premiere

Lars's attraction to Bianca is like an audience's to an actor onscreen -- the object is fake, an approximation, but for some that's better than flesh and blood. Bianca is a work of art. And so is Lars and the Real Girl.

Originally Posted by USA Today

At a time when romantic comedies seem to have exhausted unique ideas, along comes Lars, an original, amusing and heartfelt tale sharply written by Nancy Oliver (Six Feet Under).

Nine of the fifteen reviews listed on MetaCritic skew strongly positive. 77% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes.

Manola Dargis and Lisa Schwartzbaum and a few others panned it - those with qualms were those who, IMO, simply didn't allow for the fairy-tale aspect or the suspension of disbelief.

[Alex]

I'm interested in Lars but am put off a bit by the fact that several of the critics I tend to skew with all have issues with it. And I must admit that when I watch the trailer I get a very strong whiff of Kapra which generally isn't a good thing.

On the other hand, an article in today's Chronicle referenced Harvey which is a very good point in its favor.

So, I'll wait and see it and find out. But you can say of any movie "it is good if you just go along with it." Any nonsense or setup can fly, in my opinion, but the responsibility isn't necessarily on me to just relax and open myself up to it but on the film to make me want to.

In other movie reviews, Michael Clayton is very solid. Not great and a little too long. But it really brings home two emerging truths:

1. George Clooney, somehow, has become the person that simply doesn't make bad movies. They're not all great, but it has been a long time since he was in an outright bad one. The only other name of someone similar (who works regularly unlike say Daniel Day-Lewis who works every few years) is Russell Crow.

2. Not since Cary Grant has god put on this earth a man so perfectly designed for wearing suits on the big screen.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by LSPoorEeyorick

What reviews are you reading?

Reviewers in Variety and the L.A. Weekly panned it. Those are the film reviews I read in passing, in the periodicals I actually see on a daily and weekly basis.

If I care all that much, I'll check Rotten Tomotoes for something, but I'm usually only interested in those opinions after I've seen a film.


Going in, I only register the opinions I didn't go looking for.


Friends' opinions matter most, so LSPoorEyorick's trumps anything I've read. A film featuring Ryan Gosling needs no prodding from anyone, though. I even saw his last piece of trash, Fractured, and it sucked ... but he was still good.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Alex

But you can say of any movie "it is good if you just go along with it." Any nonsense or setup can fly, in my opinion, but the responsibility isn't necessarily on me to just relax and open myself up to it but on the film to make me want to.

While I am in nearly full agreement with LSPE's review (not surprisingly, as I am quoted in it), I would change one statement. I didn't think that the film required you to open up to it. I thought the film did everything one could ask to bring the viewer in, and in my view was spectacularly successful. I would account bad reviews not to failing to open oneself up to the movie, but to deliberately closing oneself off from it. The pans I read, after seeing the film, seemed very offended that the film isn't darker and meaner than it is.

[Gemini Cricket]

It has been a long, long time since I have been to the movies.
I think "Hairspray" was the last thing I saw...

But I did buy "Zodiac", "The Lives of Others", "Host" and "Flags of our Fathers". Used. 4 for $20 at Hollywood Video. I have yet to watch them...

[innerSpaceman]

The Lives of Others was seriously overrated, imo. Zodiac only mildly entertaining (but it's got, mmmmm, Jake), and I liked Fags of our, er, excuse me, Flags of Our Fathers way better than the better-received Letters from Iwo Jima.


Never heard of Host. Huh?

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

But I did buy "Zodiac", "The Lives of Others", "Host" and "Flags of our Fathers". Used. 4 for $20 at Hollywood Video. I have yet to watch them...

I liked The Host quite a lot. There have been several comparisons to Jaws, including a quote on the DVD cover, but, really, it's almost nothing like Jaws at all. I did find it engaging, though.

"Flags of our Fathers" was also compelling, though I liked its companion, "Letters from Iwo Jima", much more.

[Gemini Cricket]

Jake Jake Jake...

I liked Letters from Iwo Jima a great deal, too.

I bought The Lives of Others just because I like the director's name a lot: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck.
It makes me laugh everytime I say it.