Revolutionary Road was the best movie of this year. Mickey Rourke should have won. Milk was "pretty good" at best. Gran Torino got shafted. Slumdog is this year's Juno, but better.
Slumdog is a really good movie, I won't deny that. But at it's core, it's just a romance story with a nice, tidy ending. There's nothing really challenging about the characters, as they're all clearly defined. Much like Juno, it's a good bit a fluff that doesn't really ask of anything from the audience, which, much like Juno, stops it from being a great movie, rather than a good one.
Did Springsteen not win best song? That sucks. Who did?
You're right, in order for the characters to fully challenge me, I actually would have preferred the film to have asked ME Who Wants to be a Millionaire questions, and if I got them right, characters would have developed more. The film ended up being just like Juno in every way because it wasn't a Choose Your Own Adventure. The unchallengeable characters didn't challenge me to challenge myself in any challenging ways.
Also, I am completely sure Revolutionary Road was miles better than Slumdog, as well as Wall-E (which was clearly not the year's best film[??]) Milk Burn After Reading In Bruges Iron Man The Dark Knight The Wrestler Doubt or even Let the Right One In Rachel Getting Married
I'll watch it, just to agree with you, Limbong, and to challenge myself in a challenging way.
Revolutionary Road was clearly not the best movie of the year; just go on RottenTomatoes,or our favorite hipster movie-review site MetaCritic. They aren't even close to being the top movie of the year. Secondly, Mickey Rourke did deserve to win for The Wrestler; his character was so raw and flawed and a pleasure to watch and cringe with. Though I can't fault Penn from winning because thirdly, Milk was excellent. I really wanted to dislike the movie, but I was incredibly surprised how well put together it was and how good all the actors were that weren't Diego Luna. Fourth, bullshit on Gran Torino getting shafted. It really reminds me of Rev. Road because you know exactly what is going to happen, except it was funny to watch Eastwood, and it was painfully boring to watch Rev. Road (though some of that is clearly on purpose). Eastwood starts out hating yellow people, then learns to accept them, what a twist. Finally, are you fucking serious? I really liked Juno but they are not in the same damn stratosphere; one is a quirky movie about some preggers chick, while Slumdog is about the trials and tribulations of someone who wants to find the love of his life. There are no fucking hamburger phones in Slumdog. They are not the same fucking movie.
When it comes to Penn and Milk, I think I was least impressed by Penn. Josh Brolin was good. James Franco was good. Emile Hirsch was REALLY FUCKING GOOD. Diego Luna was pretty shit, but I think I just really hated his character. I wasn't quite there with Penn during the handful of heartbreaks that Milk goes through, at least not like I was with Rourke.
I thought Gran Torino was just as good, if not better, than Milk because of how well Eastwood's role fit him. I'm not saying he should've gotten a best actor nod or anything, but the way his character is written, with all his emotional baggage and whatever, perfectly fits the archetype of an Eastwood character.
Slumdog and Juno are to movies what mashed potatoes with cheese is to food. It's all good and filling, but when we're dealing with the "cream of the crop," shouldn't well prepared foie gras take the...uh... cake?
And Garrett, the best movies, music, books, comics, even video games ask something of the audience. That's why the WTF? ending of No Country works so well. It asks the audience to really engage with Tom Bell and his character, and try to retroactively see the goings-on of the movie with his dreams in mind. You get no such request from Slumdog. You're expected to just sit back and watch this romance unfold as it should, and it does. This doesn't make Slumdog a bad movie. I liked it a lot. But the fact that both Rev. Road and The Wrestler beg you to stick with these characters, even though they're so flawed and fucked up, and really think about the forces that made them the way they are elevate those two movies beyond Slumdog.
I think both The Wrestler and Rev. Road were a couple steps above Wall-E. The heavy-handed environmentalist shtick really knocked it down a couple notches in my book.
Also, if we all went by what critics said, we would all hate Hook.
"both Rev. Road and The Wrestler beg you to stick with these characters"
I haven't seen either of these but you pretty much just said that the movie begs you to like it. If the movie is begging then I think there might be something wrong. I'll try to watch them this week and form a real opinion.
Also, I asked that you explain your Juno/Slumdog comment. Your mashed potato analogy didn't quite do
Your judgment seems clouded by your obsession with depressing themes. From what I've heard of Rev. Road, its much like The Wrestler in its depressing focus on the shitty lives of dismal people. You seem biased towards stories of characters with uninspiring, mistake-ridden lives which end with dismal disappointment. How this theme automatically provides some challenge to the audience confuses me. You are suggesting that having a relatable character while also maintaining a focus on their flawed nature and shitty decisions.
So, is Curb challenging? Does it ask something of the audience, too? The Ram's self-driven path to destruction is not an exactly complicated challenge for me. I disagree with the notion that a dark theme with a flawed character automatically provides a superior story. Not every movie with a happy ending asks nothing of the audience, and not ever movie that is depressing does.
Sure, Slumdog's characters are somewhat simplified caricatures and have only a single real motive throughout their entire lives. But with the diversity and range of the cast and their interaction with each other, the story fills up a space which would have otherwise been convoluted. I enjoyed the diversity of emotion that Slumdog provided, including its romantic fairy tale ending.
I think what you are trying to get across is that Slumdog was the "feel good movie of the year," was predictable, and had nothing unique in its fluffiness. This provided your comparison to Juno and the whole... mashed potato thing. All I can say is that I think you're absolutely wrong. I'm sorry that there is no asshole to relate to, but there is plenty there to provided your required questions for me.
And really, detracting Wall-E because of its environmentalism? Was that really the point of the movie, or are you exaggerating it because you want to hate New Paltz that much more?
Fuck critics, I could give a rat's ass what they say. They hated Burn After Reading, too.
Hey Limbong, have you ever heard of Gutbucket? They're a jazz-jazz fusion band from your neck-of-the-woods, Brooklyn; I know you have an appreciation for jazz fusion like I do, so you should check em out. I'm reviewing their newest album, that's why I actually know who they are.
“Your judgment seems clouded by your obsession with depressing themes. From what I've heard of Rev. Road, its much like The Wrestler in its depressing focus on the shitty lives of dismal people. You seem biased towards stories of characters with uninspiring, mistake-ridden lives which end with dismal disappointment. How this theme automatically provides some challenge to the audience confuses me. You are suggesting that having a relatable character while also maintaining a focus on their flawed nature and shitty decisions.”
How do interesting, complex characters make for a better movie than simple ones? I DON'T KNOW. The most human characters are inherently flawed, because we, as humans, are flawed. It's a simple path of logic to follow. Now, flawed characters can achieve happy endings and still make for a good movie (Shawshank, anyone?), but it's the process, the growth of character that makes it a really good fucking movie. Jamal's one-track mind in Slumdog makes for a fun movie, but it doesn't make for a great one. Yeah, there is some character growth there, since he grows from an arrogant child to a more humble adult, but other than that there's really nothing that can be examined from his motives. He wants girl. He gets girl. The end.
“So, is Curb challenging? Does it ask something of the audience, too? The Ram's self-driven path to destruction is not an exactly complicated challenge for me. I disagree with the notion that a dark theme with a flawed character automatically provides a superior story. Not every movie with a happy ending asks nothing of the audience, and not ever movie that is depressing does.”
Of course Curb is challenging. That's what puts it over the top of shit like According to Jim. Larry's a dick. Jeff's a dick. Richard Lewis is a dick. Ted Danson's a dick. Everyone showcased in this high-class Californian life-style are all not the best people. Even beyond that, Curb constantly asks the audience to examine why we do the things we do, why certain things are common courtesy, and other things aren't. I never said every happy movie asks nothing, or vice-versa. What I said was good movies ask something from the audience.
“Sure, Slumdog's characters are somewhat simplified caricatures and have only a single real motive throughout their entire lives. But with the diversity and range of the cast and their interaction with each other, the story fills up a space which would have otherwise been convoluted. I enjoyed the diversity of emotion that Slumdog provided, including its romantic fairy tale ending.”
Yeah, you did because it was a good movie. When did I ever say otherwise? Simplified caricatures and single-motive characters don't hold up under examination, though. They come off as a bit thin, which is why it's kind of pointless to do it to a movie like Slumdog, but worthwhile for Rev. Road. You watch Slumdog once (or twice, in my case) and you leave the theater going “aw, what a sweet and fun movie!” But that's about it. You could easily just sit and think, or discuss Rev. Road for hours.
“I think what you are trying to get across is that Slumdog was the "feel good movie of the year," was predictable, and had nothing unique in its fluffiness. This provided your comparison to Juno and the whole... mashed potato thing. All I can say is that I think you're absolutely wrong. I'm sorry that there is no asshole to relate to, but there is plenty there to provided your required questions for me.”
See? Was my point really hard to get?
“And really, detracting Wall-E because of its environmentalism? Was that really the point of the movie, or are you exaggerating it because you want to hate New Paltz that much more?”
That was the point of the movie. Was it a really good movie? Yeah. But it was also just going along with this fad of environmentalism. Kind of preachy.
I had to do this shit in OpenOffice, which is why I wanted to continue IRL. Also, I'm tired of talking about movies.
Gran Torino did get shafted, so did Bruce Springsteen. I didn't see Milk or The Wrestler.
ReplyDeleteAnd you're going to have to explain the Juno thing.
Slumdog is a really good movie, I won't deny that. But at it's core, it's just a romance story with a nice, tidy ending. There's nothing really challenging about the characters, as they're all clearly defined. Much like Juno, it's a good bit a fluff that doesn't really ask of anything from the audience, which, much like Juno, stops it from being a great movie, rather than a good one.
ReplyDeleteDid Springsteen not win best song? That sucks. Who did?
You're right, in order for the characters to fully challenge me, I actually would have preferred the film to have asked ME Who Wants to be a Millionaire questions, and if I got them right, characters would have developed more. The film ended up being just like Juno in every way because it wasn't a Choose Your Own Adventure. The unchallengeable characters didn't challenge me to challenge myself in any challenging ways.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I am completely sure Revolutionary Road was miles better than Slumdog, as well as
Wall-E (which was clearly not the year's best film[??])
Milk
Burn After Reading
In Bruges
Iron Man
The Dark Knight
The Wrestler
Doubt
or even
Let the Right One In
Rachel Getting Married
I'll watch it, just to agree with you, Limbong, and to challenge myself in a challenging way.
Springsteen didn't even get nominated. AR Rahman won best song for Slumdog.
ReplyDeleteRevolutionary Road was clearly not the best movie of the year; just go on RottenTomatoes,or our favorite hipster movie-review site MetaCritic. They aren't even close to being the top movie of the year. Secondly, Mickey Rourke did deserve to win for The Wrestler; his character was so raw and flawed and a pleasure to watch and cringe with. Though I can't fault Penn from winning because thirdly, Milk was excellent. I really wanted to dislike the movie, but I was incredibly surprised how well put together it was and how good all the actors were that weren't Diego Luna. Fourth, bullshit on Gran Torino getting shafted. It really reminds me of Rev. Road because you know exactly what is going to happen, except it was funny to watch Eastwood, and it was painfully boring to watch Rev. Road (though some of that is clearly on purpose). Eastwood starts out hating yellow people, then learns to accept them, what a twist. Finally, are you fucking serious? I really liked Juno but they are not in the same damn stratosphere; one is a quirky movie about some preggers chick, while Slumdog is about the trials and tribulations of someone who wants to find the love of his life. There are no fucking hamburger phones in Slumdog. They are not the same fucking movie.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to Penn and Milk, I think I was least impressed by Penn. Josh Brolin was good. James Franco was good. Emile Hirsch was REALLY FUCKING GOOD. Diego Luna was pretty shit, but I think I just really hated his character. I wasn't quite there with Penn during the handful of heartbreaks that Milk goes through, at least not like I was with Rourke.
ReplyDeleteI thought Gran Torino was just as good, if not better, than Milk because of how well Eastwood's role fit him. I'm not saying he should've gotten a best actor nod or anything, but the way his character is written, with all his emotional baggage and whatever, perfectly fits the archetype of an Eastwood character.
Slumdog and Juno are to movies what mashed potatoes with cheese is to food. It's all good and filling, but when we're dealing with the "cream of the crop," shouldn't well prepared foie gras take the...uh... cake?
And Garrett, the best movies, music, books, comics, even video games ask something of the audience. That's why the WTF? ending of No Country works so well. It asks the audience to really engage with Tom Bell and his character, and try to retroactively see the goings-on of the movie with his dreams in mind. You get no such request from Slumdog. You're expected to just sit back and watch this romance unfold as it should, and it does. This doesn't make Slumdog a bad movie. I liked it a lot. But the fact that both Rev. Road and The Wrestler beg you to stick with these characters, even though they're so flawed and fucked up, and really think about the forces that made them the way they are elevate those two movies beyond Slumdog.
I think both The Wrestler and Rev. Road were a couple steps above Wall-E. The heavy-handed environmentalist shtick really knocked it down a couple notches in my book.
Also, if we all went by what critics said, we would all hate Hook.
"both Rev. Road and The Wrestler beg you to stick with these characters"
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen either of these but you pretty much just said that the movie begs you to like it. If the movie is begging then I think there might be something wrong. I'll try to watch them this week and form a real opinion.
Also, I asked that you explain your Juno/Slumdog comment. Your mashed potato analogy didn't quite do
Your judgment seems clouded by your obsession with depressing themes. From what I've heard of Rev. Road, its much like The Wrestler in its depressing focus on the shitty lives of dismal people. You seem biased towards stories of characters with uninspiring, mistake-ridden lives which end with dismal disappointment. How this theme automatically provides some challenge to the audience confuses me. You are suggesting that having a relatable character while also maintaining a focus on their flawed nature and shitty decisions.
ReplyDeleteSo, is Curb challenging? Does it ask something of the audience, too? The Ram's self-driven path to destruction is not an exactly complicated challenge for me. I disagree with the notion that a dark theme with a flawed character automatically provides a superior story. Not every movie with a happy ending asks nothing of the audience, and not ever movie that is depressing does.
Sure, Slumdog's characters are somewhat simplified caricatures and have only a single real motive throughout their entire lives. But with the diversity and range of the cast and their interaction with each other, the story fills up a space which would have otherwise been convoluted. I enjoyed the diversity of emotion that Slumdog provided, including its romantic fairy tale ending.
I think what you are trying to get across is that Slumdog was the "feel good movie of the year," was predictable, and had nothing unique in its fluffiness. This provided your comparison to Juno and the whole... mashed potato thing. All I can say is that I think you're absolutely wrong. I'm sorry that there is no asshole to relate to, but there is plenty there to provided your required questions for me.
And really, detracting Wall-E because of its environmentalism? Was that really the point of the movie, or are you exaggerating it because you want to hate New Paltz that much more?
Fuck critics, I could give a rat's ass what they say. They hated Burn After Reading, too.
Hey Limbong, have you ever heard of Gutbucket? They're a jazz-jazz fusion band from your neck-of-the-woods, Brooklyn; I know you have an appreciation for jazz fusion like I do, so you should check em out. I'm reviewing their newest album, that's why I actually know who they are.
ReplyDeleteHey Boriotti, have you ever made a new thread?
ReplyDeleteYou should try it. :|
A "new thread"? This isn't a forum. If it were, I'd have a much easier time quoting and arguing point-by-point. But alas...
ReplyDeleteI last.fm'd them, and there are two Gutbuckets. Which album did you review?
I'll continue the movie debate next time I see you guys IRL. It's much easier that way.
Did you see Benjamin Button?
ReplyDeleteWe're using it like a damned forum.
ReplyDeleteWe should just get a damned forum.
Damn.
Oh by the way, "We will talk about it IRL" roughly translates to "Garrett just owned me, better shut up."
ReplyDeleteUH-OH! Fine, then. Prepare to get schooled:
ReplyDelete“Your judgment seems clouded by your obsession with depressing themes. From what I've heard of Rev. Road, its much like The Wrestler in its depressing focus on the shitty lives of dismal people. You seem biased towards stories of characters with uninspiring, mistake-ridden lives which end with dismal disappointment. How this theme automatically provides some challenge to the audience confuses me. You are suggesting that having a relatable character while also maintaining a focus on their flawed nature and shitty decisions.”
How do interesting, complex characters make for a better movie than simple ones? I DON'T KNOW. The most human characters are inherently flawed, because we, as humans, are flawed. It's a simple path of logic to follow. Now, flawed characters can achieve happy endings and still make for a good movie (Shawshank, anyone?), but it's the process, the growth of character that makes it a really good fucking movie. Jamal's one-track mind in Slumdog makes for a fun movie, but it doesn't make for a great one. Yeah, there is some character growth there, since he grows from an arrogant child to a more humble adult, but other than that there's really nothing that can be examined from his motives. He wants girl. He gets girl. The end.
“So, is Curb challenging? Does it ask something of the audience, too? The Ram's self-driven path to destruction is not an exactly complicated challenge for me. I disagree with the notion that a dark theme with a flawed character automatically provides a superior story. Not every movie with a happy ending asks nothing of the audience, and not ever movie that is depressing does.”
Of course Curb is challenging. That's what puts it over the top of shit like According to Jim. Larry's a dick. Jeff's a dick. Richard Lewis is a dick. Ted Danson's a dick. Everyone showcased in this high-class Californian life-style are all not the best people. Even beyond that, Curb constantly asks the audience to examine why we do the things we do, why certain things are common courtesy, and other things aren't. I never said every happy movie asks nothing, or vice-versa. What I said was good movies ask something from the audience.
“Sure, Slumdog's characters are somewhat simplified caricatures and have only a single real motive throughout their entire lives. But with the diversity and range of the cast and their interaction with each other, the story fills up a space which would have otherwise been convoluted. I enjoyed the diversity of emotion that Slumdog provided, including its romantic fairy tale ending.”
Yeah, you did because it was a good movie. When did I ever say otherwise? Simplified caricatures and single-motive characters don't hold up under examination, though. They come off as a bit thin, which is why it's kind of pointless to do it to a movie like Slumdog, but worthwhile for Rev. Road. You watch Slumdog once (or twice, in my case) and you leave the theater going “aw, what a sweet and fun movie!” But that's about it. You could easily just sit and think, or discuss Rev. Road for hours.
Man, who knew there was a text limit?:
ReplyDelete“I think what you are trying to get across is that Slumdog was the "feel good movie of the year," was predictable, and had nothing unique in its fluffiness. This provided your comparison to Juno and the whole... mashed potato thing. All I can say is that I think you're absolutely wrong. I'm sorry that there is no asshole to relate to, but there is plenty there to provided your required questions for me.”
See? Was my point really hard to get?
“And really, detracting Wall-E because of its environmentalism? Was that really the point of the movie, or are you exaggerating it because you want to hate New Paltz that much more?”
That was the point of the movie. Was it a really good movie? Yeah. But it was also just going along with this fad of environmentalism. Kind of preachy.
I had to do this shit in OpenOffice, which is why I wanted to continue IRL. Also, I'm tired of talking about movies.
This Gutbucket http://www.myspace.com/gutbucket
ReplyDelete