Declare Your Independence From Stupid Movies With These 6 Films - Page 2

It's a good thing I'm already drunk, or my head would really be spinning from all this.

Oh, I get it... A Smallville writer yourself, huh?

OK, enough derailment. Anyone care to fess up what movie he went to see in this 4th of July and why? (Me? None. Enjoying the company of good ole CHUD on a saturday night though)

This piece helped me plot my double feature today: Whatever Works and Away We Go. Worked somewhat well together, as I went in with my doubts about both.

I'm now firmly in the camp that can't believe there are so many detractors for Away We Go. My guess isn't even that you didn't get the film; I think these people saw the ads, thought it was trying to be something it isn't, and went into this film with their minds already made up.

Resign yourself to this.

(Several Pixar films are great, you lost soul, you. Several are awful.)

Saw moon today. I loved it for the look and Rockwell's performance(s), but found it surprisingly predictable, especially considering I went into it entirely blind beyond the poster art.

Yeah, I think it's a mixture of this and people not getting it, to be honest. I know that "not getting it" is almost always a bad assertion to make when it comes to intense dislike/hatred for a movie due to people absolutely flipping out because it's basically implying they're stupid, but people seriously aren't getting it when it comes to Burt and Verona's relationship and goals and just the film overall.

Most of the people I've talked to about it seem to be way too hung up on "NICE THAT THEY CAN JUST AFFORD TO TRAVEL" and so forth. You know, the elements that drive the plot and were explained before we even meet Burt's parents.

Verona explicity stated that she could do her work from anywhere, all she needed was a phone - his job was based on sales and he also explicitly states that he doesn't really need the promotion a couple of times during conversation. Yes, of course it's incredibly convenient. It's a movie.

And I fucking hate that I feel like I have to point that out during general discussion of the film, because it's such a stupid, stupid point of contention for people. I didn't want to sit there and watch a ten-minute montage of Verona doing sketches/medical calls or Burt shilling insurance futures, but at the same time I've got the feeling that such an addition still wouldn't stop people from having the dumbest complaints on the planet.

No, in my case it wasn't. Due to some, um, circumstances, I walked into the movie having only seen the 1-sheet and having read a synopsis months ago, and in the end, even if I *did* like it (and that ranges from "appreciated it as a whole" to "enjoyed some of its parts"), the thing ultimately didn't click on me as something truly special. And it's not about the themes, the tone or the characters. Apart than my stance on Mendes' work, I keep on thinking about flicks that had left me with that feeling previously -from A Mighty Heart to The Reader, for example- but I just can't find the right one to compare with this one in terms of what the movie tells and how satisfied it left me.

In any case, I'll take a look at the script and will definitely catch the flick again to see how it fares once the novelty factor has worn off. Hey, it definitely worked with Michael Clayton, so maybe I had a weird day or something.

Right, but you enjoyed it, even if it didn't work for you as a whole. You're not one of the people who has some bizarre, borderline projecting hate-on for it.

That's how I feel too on it, kind of.

Yeah, but you also initially called it "pretentious", which was wrong.

The worst thing the marketing team did for Away We Go was to give it that cartoon Juno font in the ads. I think that raised the hackles of a lot of folks that had a hate-on for that film (also unwarranted).

The film is only "pretentious" if you find scenes of intelligent conversation scored to an indie rock song "pretentious".

Agreed, but this was ten times better than Juno.

I'm planning on seeing it soon, but I know halofan1 and having read this thread, I'm guessing what he means by "pretentious" has to do with the movie's perceived tonal attitude. The kinds of films that Away We Go seems to be getting lumped in with, like Garden State, Little Miss Sunshine, and the upcoming (500) Days of Summer (regardless of whether or not this is purely the fault of the marketing), all seem to have this element of precious, maybe smug cuteness with the way the humor is presented. That was certainly a problem I had with Little Miss Sunshine; the filmmakers just seemed to think jokes like the dead grandma were really clever despite it having already been a famous gag in a Chevy Chase movie (on some chat I participated in, Edgar Wright called the movie National Lampoon's Arthouse Vacation). It's like the unaltered "real world" isn't interesting enough, so we have to add in larger-than-life characters (that refuse to speak, are compulsive liars) and psuedo-intelligent humor. Devin claimed that "pretentious" was just a buzzword for people who were upset that a movie made them feel stupid, which can be true, but I feel like if it's being used correctly, it points out the opposite: a movie that tries to dress up its observations about life in a way that makes the audience feel like they're seeing something far more witty than they really are.

Again, I have not seen Away We Go -- this is a criticism of other movies, mainly Little Miss Sunshine and Garden State, but that's the impression I'm getting about what halofan1 means when he calls the movie pretentious, and an inflated sense of self-worth about the supposedly clever jokes, in my opinion, would be an accurate definition of the word.

You know that's not a good argument. See, I love, love a lot of things about AWG, but for a movie in which the main theme is "We're going to be parents soon so we have to grow up now" it's too easy that the film preemptively renders them financially secure.

Back on topic: It absolutely belongs on this 'smart summer movie' list.

Okay, but that's not what happens.

Do people not save money before they become parents? I don't get this.

I don't get what that question has to do with the movie.

I think what he's trying to get at is that Burt and Verona were ok cash wise because they had saved up a bunch of money for their child, like most expecting couples do.

If this is really the nit that some want to pick - they seemed to be either staying with friends/family or in cheap hotels wherever they went. This probably wasn't a terrifically expensive series of trips. Plus, Burt was continuing to work as they traveled, and Verona clearly finished up some work right before they left. Getting caught up in the financial logistics of the thing is just kind of silly.

Thank you (and halofan too, to be fair). I don't know where people are living or what wages they're making that suddenly makes a car rental, a plane ticket, possibly a grand total of a week in a hotel, and a train ticket such a vastly exorbitant expense that clearly this couple is a pair of privileged douchebags to be able to afford such a handful of things.

Like I said earlier, I hate that I feel like I have to explain that, but it's an irritatingly dumb fucking technicality that people seem to be fixating upon rather than...you know, the whole overarching narrative about a loving couple traveling for an arguably short time and learning lessons from friends and family.

I know that's what he's getting at, but it's not in the film. "Most" parents do all sorts of things. As reflected in the film.

And I don't think it's silly or abnormal to find the financial angle distracting-- maybe it's just my age group or where I live, but the last couple of folks I described the film to (by way of recommendation) immediately said "Huh. Where do they get the money?"

I'd think that'd be subjective.

I wasn't aware how much they spent had anything to do with the overall plot of this film. THAT'S bitching for the sake of bitching.

It still assumes a sort of intellectual inferiority or insecurity. You think the filmmakers are trying to put one over on you and feel insulted because you think they think you're dumb.

The problem is that there's no evidence for such a bizarrely complicated ruse here. There's nothing in the movie to give the impression that Eggers, Vida, and Mendes are trying to "dress up" their observations. The movie wears its observations on its sleeve, for lack of a better phrase, and the humor comes naturally from the characters, not from smug observations about humanity's foibles.

As much as I laudate your intention and the general article, reality renders it meaningless for me:

- Away we go: 17th October
- Brothers Bloom: 27th August
- Hurt Locker: 13th August
- Moon: No release date yet.
- Whatever Works: No release date yet.
- Up: 17th September

For fucks sake, I guess even Taliban get the movies released faster than over here in good ol´Germany. Renders a lot of threads forbidden territory for me.

I've got 28th August for Hurt Locker. Moon should be out here in the next few weeks though. Man i'm buzzed for those two.

Everything else is a nice bonus.

We still don't have a definitive date for Brothers Bloom over here, which makes me sad. I hope the release synchs up with the German release 'cos I could see it on my Birthday then.

Um, I did admit that pretentious wasn't the best word to use. I was unaware how overused it was so that's my fault. But still, there was some vibe it gave me that put me off. Maybe I went in with the wrong mind set.

"Precocious" makes less sense than "pretentious".

I think many people are so used to seeing films where expectant parents are fucked up before they have kids, and the movie basically becomes the journey into not being fucked up. The fact that this couple pretty much has their shit together and that their idea of having to grow up is much more subtle than say, the one presented in Knocked Up, it's a little bit of a mind-blower for some people. Responsible expectant parents are a rarity on the screen I guess.

I enjoyed this film slightly more than Revolutionary Road. RR was a great movie, but I couldn't stand the reaction many of my childless peers had to it. So much so that I lost a little bit of my enjoyment for the film. Too much of this whole "YEAH! WE DIDN'T HAVE KIDS SO NOW WE CAN FOLLOW OUR DREAMS AND NOT END UP LIKE THAT COUPLE!!" false liberation b.s. You know damned well their idea of "living their dream" mostly revolves around going on vacations, shopping and partying on the weekend, but please, go ahead and make it seem like your absolute terror at having to grow up makes you more enlightened or capable of making a difference. Jackasses.

This is a great list Devin. Two of the films you mentioned (Whatever Works and Brothers Bloom) I haven't heard of. One of which (Moon) I have been waiting feverishly to premiere here in Winnipeg but it hasn't shown up yet In a year filled with quite a few stinkers (Terminator and Transformers, I am looking at you) there is still lots of good to be found.

Great article, thanks for continuing to cheer lead for the good stuff, etc.

Every time I see this thread pop up in "New Posts", this gets stuck in my head for hours.

I hope Devin does an advocate on why people label things they don't like "pretentious" all the time. Would be a fun read, I think.

Well, again, I was referring to the examples I used in my post, not Away We Go, because I haven't seen it. I was just trying to help halofan1 define what he might have meant by "pretentious", because while he wasn't explaining it well, I do think you could make the argument that some of these movies are pretentious, given that you back the argument up with more than just the word itself.

Also, while some of these movies do seem more interested in validating the audience's dysfunction and insecurity as quirky and comedic from a safe distance, I don't think it represents the filmmakers thinking the audience is dumb or that it's necessarily insulting, but it does seem like an easy way to go, like an emotional shortcut of sorts. Oops, I meant to say "precious", not "precocious". My mistake.

I can see that. The problem is that using "pretentious" as a stand-alone word is too vague to be of any use. If you call something pretentious, you should be able to specify what the pretense is. It's sort of how my wife once (rightfully) called me out on using the word "evocative" without my having a clear idea of what was being evoked. They're words that don't mean anything without a degree of specificity.

So you're saying that a filmmaker's use of eccentricity on film can sometimes be a means to validate a certain type of audience member's own eccentricities, affirming their individuality? Maybe, but I'd think most intelligent filmgoers* would be smart enough to see the central fallacy there - if some random filmmaker is able to portray this sort of eccentricity and other filmgoers relate to it as much as you do, you're probably not the special a snowflake.

* Which means that there are plenty of filmgoers who still might buy into this; it's just that there are some pretty savvy folks on this board who liked Juno, Little Miss Sunshine, and even Garden State. I don't think they've been taken in by this sort of eccentricity validation.

I think it's the opposite; I think people worried that their eccentricities are too out there are relaxed by the idea that what they think is terrible is portrayed in a movie as being all right, underneath it all, since none of the examples that I've seen have particularly unhappy endings.

And in and of itself, I don't think that's terrible, I just think that some of these films sort of hype it up in a way that makes it seem special when plenty of movies do this very same thing.

Wouldn't pretentious be someone describing a movie they didn't understand using a word they don't understand?