Declare Your Independence From Stupid Movies With These 6 Films

Seeing UP today finally! Can't wait to get to the rest of them.

And your little teases regarding Harry Potter have me salivating.

Great write up. Especially happy to hear you caught The Hurt Locker.

This is the first I've heard of AWAY WE GO being any good. All of the other reviews I've read say it's a piece of navel-gazing crap, which is exactly what it looks like.

I think the main review I'm thinking of was written by Scott Foundas, so you could be right on that one.

Have you written a review? I haven't noticed anything on the main page.

I've only seen Up, but Brothers Bloom and Moon are playing in Atlanta so I'm going to get to them early next week, hopefully. Away We Go is playing there as well but, like Sebastian said, this is the first positive thing I've heard about it.

I haven't truly enjoyed a Mendes movie and I heard this one described as nearly plot less and schmaltzy, like a grown up Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist (which I didn't see, just repeating).

Mendes is a director I really want to like but his films end up leaving me cold in the end. I can't really put my finger on why. Haven't seen REVOLUTIONARY ROAD yet but despite the mixed WOM I really do want to see it.

I don't hate movies, and didn't care for it. It's too pretentious for it's own good but it does have some good, if not great stuff at the end.

However, you couldn't have been more right on The Hurt Locker.

Or it just means the film sniffed it's ass a little too much.

Heh.

It's either going to be Away We Go or Moon for me. Might just flip a coin.

That doesn't say much substantial about it, either.

It has this whole "I'm indie, you should like me" vibe going with it. The parts with Melanie Lynskey and Chris Messina were excellent, as was the section with Burt's brother.

It's not a terrible movie, but it just didn't work for me.

A.O. Scott's review of Away We Go painted it as navel-gazing drivel. His review kept me from seeing it, even though the trailers looked charming enough--especially given the presence of Allison Janney.

This, to me, was a huge red flag:

I'm hoping to catch The Hurt Locker and Moon this weekend at the Arclight. I really can't wait to see both of them.

Not to harp on this, but what does this even mean? It's not like Krasinski and Rudolph spend the film mugging at the camera or showing pictures of sad puppies. It's a road trip movie about a couple, and they encounter various types of families (all of which are at least somewhat believable, if occasionally exaggerated for comic effect) along the way.

Ebert's rebuttal gets it more right.

Touche, Ebert. I hadn't read his review. Maybe I'll give it a shot now.

Okay, I don't post anymore but this is about movies and I'm trying to be a good community member by being a quiet community member and respecting this place for what it is, not what I want it to be and...

Yeah.

Consider yourself a pretty insect that I've caught in my mason jar. I don't want to fight and I don't want to prod, but I do want to know what you mean when you say "pretentious." Specifically. I want examples. Lots of them. Because I've seen this reaction all over the place and I have no idea what to make of it. I've seen this film twice now (once at the lovely Arclight in Hollywood and once at my local Landmark theater) and I love it. The suggestions that it is pretentious, "quirky," or arrogant boggle my mind. It's a beautiful, honest, simple film.

I do think there might be something to Devin's (and, as it turns out, Roger Ebert's) belief that the accusations of pretentiousness are borne of defensiveness or a fundamental misunderstanding of the characters. But, surely, there must be more than that happening there. So tell me all about it, halofan. No cotton balls dipped in formaldehyde. I'm so over that. I promise.

edit to add - Jinx on the Ebert review, Dave. You owe me a Coke.

It wasn't a matter of Krasinski or Rudolph (who was terrific in this) but what Sam Mendes did with it. Scenes would overstay their welcome (namely Daniels and O'Hara as well as Gyllenhaal's scene) and it had scattershot pacing.

That's not pretentious, though, nor does it suggest to me that the movie was trying to get me to like it. Of course we spent substantial time with Burt's parents - they're his parents. In a film about family, that's important. It's also the scene that establishes the movement of the movie - they're the only thing holding Burt and Verona in place. Also, the scenes in Madison with LN and Rod go on and on, I think, so we're just as pissed off as Burt and Verona when Burt finally loses his shit. It's hilarious and cathartic.

p.s. - While they didn't film in Madison itself, that "felt" exactly like Madison to me. Well done there.

I understand they're his parents, but does it really need to drag on for ten minutes without the characters doing anything? The stuff with Allison Janney was ok because they developed her character better than they did with Daniels and O'Hara (the bit where she leaves her kid behind was great.) With Burt's parents, it's like "ok, they're unsupportive and selfish, we get it."

LN was a different matter where her arc just needed a little bit of trimming here and there.

You guys can all do what you want, but before continuing, I think you should do something. Take 30 seconds, sit back, and think about the fact that you are debating the meaning of "pretentious" with a guy who, with the nigh-infinite combinations of letters, words, and syllables of the English language laid out before him, chose the moniker "halofan1" to identify himself to strangers.

Hahahaha.

I'm gonna sit back, and let David Caruso reply for me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwSYBMLTbWY

Is there a handy YouTube video to help you out with defending your opinion of the film?

Thanks for the list, Devin. Glad to see you liked Away We Go. I've been planning on seeing that for some time; hopefully it's still playing this weekend.

What sort of insults have you got for those of us who don't like sitting through Pixar films?

Let me guess.

1. We're stupid.
2. We hate movies.
3. We don't understand movies.
4. We just don't like Pixar films.

:: pause ::

:: sigh... ::

In ten minutes, we gain remarkable insight into Burt's character, watch Burt and Verona deal with conflict as a couple, have a few laughs, marvel at the excellent casting of O'Hara and Daniels as Krasinski's parents, and establish the forward motion of the entire film. That's a lot for ten minutes. A lot.

Allison Janney found new levels of uncomfortable in her scenes. She's probably in a lab somewhere being studied right now.

I don't think that unsupportive and selfish is supposed to be the takeaway from the scene with his parents. They're chasing their bliss and, as grown adults with no dependent children, they have every right to do that. I mean, the timing sucks, but they're under no obligation to Burt, Verona, and the baby. In fact, I assumed that Burt's complaint in the car that his parents were being selfish was tinged with more than a hint of irony. Continuing to make demands of your parents when you yourself are well above 30 is pretty selfish, too.

Again, I fail to see how any of this speaks to pretension. It seems you have valid (depending on your perspective) criticisms of the film's structure and pacing, but you have yet to show where the film falls back on pretense. And I'm not just messing with you for the sake of it here - I am seriously, honestly, completely curious as to where these complaints are coming from as I simply do not see it. Moreover, I'd really rather not fall back on the increasingly likely Ebert/Faraci Theory. Unless I have to.

Thanks for the list Dev, Brothers Bloom, Moon and Up have already been on my radar for a while but I now have a few more films to look for and check their aussie release dates.

...and Miss Zooey I don't know if something specific happened Im not aware of to stop you posting regularly around here, but your presence has been missed, I'd love to see you back again.

I think nature has already insulted you enough.

We miss you Miss Zooey!

Also, for Andrew C: is it because Pixar makes "cartoons?" Are they beneath you? Offer concrete reasons for your dislike, don't just put up your shields & refuse to explain.

Interesting debate on Away We Go. My most trusted critic gave it a glowing review, and I've been very curious about it--as well as Moon. Sadly, out here in the desert, I may have to wait for Netflix to bring me both those films.

This is pretty much the list I would have made. I've seen (and enjoyed) all but The Hurt Locker and I can't wait to catch that one.

Sadly, I've only seen two of the six (Up and Whatever Works) and I only liked one of them (Up), but the next time I have some spending cash I'm going to rectify this as soon as possible. I'm pretty sure all four that I'm missing are playing in my area (just not sure about The Hurt Locker).

I've been around here long enough to know that any intelligent response, no matter how many eloquent posts it takes to explain, will never be accepted if it goes against popular Chud opinion. I will just be eventually labeled an idiot.

There is a difference between not liking animated films and one thinking they are beneath them. I like Fulci movies and The Karate Kid III, nothing is beneath me. But it's true - animated movies (especially ugly, soft, current pixar-style animated films) bore me to tears.

It's not a statement about the film's quality, obviously - it's about my personal preference, and according to Traditional Chud Writer's Wisdom -- I must like it or I have terrible taste.

Then why bother posting here? It seems like you only show up to offer an "acerbic take" on reviews or articles. You're like a boring and unfunny Slater.

Quirky might have been a better term for me to use. I don't know, there was just some vibe Mendes put in it that didn't sit right with me. Part of it was that for a seasoned vet like him, I would have expected much better. If this was his first film then I could get behind it more than I am right now. Since this is his fifth I'm ok with it being smaller, but the way he directed the material (especially the scenes I had problems with) was something I'd expect out of a first timer.

It's not a terrible movie, and unlike some I'm not going to hate on anyone who did like it (in fact, a friend and I had a discussion about it last night and he loved it.) There was just some things in there I thought the movie could have done better.

Mixed WOM? I thought the reactions to it were pretty unanimous. How interesting it is that his next movie was supposedly established as a 180º turn on that one (in many senses) and got this great response.

That said, I'm with you in that Mendes' films leave me in the cold. I still see Road to Perdition as his greatest work, but even then, among the top-notch performances and the technical wizardry on display and the ever-so-subtle direction, I was left expecting the fireworks that never came. It's not that I'm a fan of, say, a less subtle approach (a Ron Howardesque approach, if you must), but everytime I watch it, I keep waiting for the movie to grow on me. The same thing I suspect will happen with Away We Go, a movie I enjoyed on all levels mentioned above, but sadly never caught on me the way, say, "quirky indie disfunctional couple/ family" movies like Two for the Road or Into the Wild or The Rundown did. Promise I'll try again though, god knows that, even if...

And yeah, Miss Zooey, you're missed. Why the pretentious (mwehehehehe) snuffin'?

REVOLUTIONARY ROAD got a 69% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. That's fairly mixed, considering it was Oscar bait. Also, the people I know who saw it didn't seem to like it much.

Oh, 69% fresh, really? Consider me schooled then. Apart from the performances, I thought it had been unanimously HATED. Just like I did BTW. Even the worst ep of Mad Men runs fucking Saturn rings around it.

Away We Go is definitely a step up, but considering the bar was so low. And now without further ado, back to our regular programming...

Into The Wild was a quirky indie movie? The Rundown? Am I just going insane here?

No. No. You already were.

Yeah, I'm thinking about taking the rest of the day off and just going to bed.

My apologies, as I should've used italics or commas in Quirky. What I tried to was express how your average casual moviegoer considers them "independent movies": from the "quirky" Full Monty to the "quirky" The Girlfriend Experience. In this case, Into the Wild -obviously not quirky, at least for me- presents not one but numerous cases of dysfunctional couple/ family dynamics akin to Away We Go in Alex's journey through Americana, so that's why it sprung to mind and subsequently got in there (another that did was Margot at the Wedding, but since a) I didn't particularly like it, and b) didn't make exactly my point, got discarded).

The Rundown mention was a joke. A SPECTACULARLY HILARIOUS FUCKING JOKE, which sadly you didn't get, but that's OK cause I make a living earning $35.000 a month writing Two Men and a Half episodes and I don't need the goddamn human race to tell me whether I suck... or not, which is obviously not the case. No, not the case. Not. The. Case.

*smacks own head, takes a pill*

Clear enough, fellas?