CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › Punch Drunk Love discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Punch Drunk Love discussion

post #1 of 133
Thread Starter 
I could've sworn there was a thread for this but I couldn't find it...

Seeing this tomorrow (Tuesday), 10 am. Really pumped. Will chime in with my thoughts afterwards.

Any other Chewers see this yet?
post #2 of 133
Thread Starter 
I was excited about this flick, but I figured the man would have trouble following up Boogie Nights and Magnolia, and while I love early Sandler comedies, the man has done nothing for me lately.

That said, I only have LOVE for this film.

LOVE LOVE LOVE.

I am "geeked out" and just want to see this flick again and again. The downside to this morning's critics screening is that I have to wait 10 more days to get the chance to see it again.

Once I calm down and get out of work, I'll go into deeper details about my love for this flick, but for now, all you PTA freaks should be frothing at the mouth.

This film hasn't been hyped enough.

EASILY the best film of the year thus far.

I'd like to compare to PTA's other efforts but this one is different, very sweet moments, very funny moments...

LOVE. LOVE. LOVE.
post #3 of 133
Wow, that's really great to hear. Sounds damn good.
post #4 of 133
Thread Starter 
Indeed...

See it on opening night, you won't regret it.

And my boss is out today, so that means I get to sit here and tell you Chewers everything I love about this flick, so stay tuned...

And no spoilers, I promise.
post #5 of 133
I think it's a great movie, but then, <a href="http://www.chud.com/reviews/punch.php3" target="_blank">you already knew that.</a>
post #6 of 133
Thread Starter 
Wanted to see the movie fresh, so I never read your review wink

Just did, though, and you touched on a lot of the same things I thought, especially about disguising the sweet romantic flick as a sharp indie.
post #7 of 133
Thread Starter 
Okay, so some highlights (hoping that PTA can generate more discussion than Ratner)...

1. SANDLER -- Prankster hit it dead-on. Sandler controls himself in this picture and PTA creates a role for him which highlights what he is good at. We sympathize with the character's antics, not just roll our eyes because Sandler is doing his "yelling loudly" bit again.

2. PTA -- The film is sharp and sweet, as well as lovingly shot. The film is different for Anderson in that it lacks a huge cast, and also lacks the "coolness" of his other flicks (the entire setting for Boogie, TC in Magnolia), but he pulls it off nevertheless. I can't come out and say this is his best flick because it's too hard to compare, but in my opinion it is just as risky as his previous two and pulled off just as well.

3. EMILY WATSON -- Never really paid attention to her but I have to start. She plays a rather old role of the girl who changes the odd guy, but she plays it well. And that's the best part of PUNCH DRUNK LOVE: it takes an old story and reinvents it, makes it fun, and makes us care.

4. LUIS GUZMAN and PS HOFFMAN -- In the past PTA flicks, Luis is the funny Mexican guy, PS is a low-key character. Role reversal in this one, pulled off beautifully. PS is the high-strung, colorful yelling man, while Luis is much much much more reserved (although he still has some funny bits, especially one part where he's in the background).

5. THE MUSIC -- Love it. Want the soundtrack. And I NEVER buy soundtracks. Not much more to say other than that, I just love the music for this film.

I am really just head over heels for this flick right now, and want to see it again just to see if my enthusiasm holds up, which I think it will.

So I can't wait to hear all of your thoughts once you see this one...
post #8 of 133
I'm not usually a good judge of that kind of thing, but I'd say they work together. I'm thinking of one scene where they say very unromantic things to each other, but they say it in a way that makes it into romantic dialogue. So I'd say that works.

The thing is, most of the movie is about showing how confused and desperate and pathetic Barry is, so you definately believe he'd fall for any girl who showed an interest in him, let alone one who was as cute and likeable as Watson. You don't notice their love, and kind of take it for granted...so I guess that's an indication that yes, it works.
post #9 of 133
Was Adam Sandler really that good? I mean are we talking Oscar here? I swear if he gets nominated then I am going to be pissed! "Oh sure lets nominate Adam Sandler but not Jim Carrey!" Fucking losers!
post #10 of 133
Thread Starter 
There was a day when I gave a shit about Oscars...Basically when I was younger and thought they meant something.

If Sandler does or doesn't get nominated, I don't give a shit. All I know is that his performance is marvelous and this is a movie I can imagine myself watching 10 and 20 years down the road.

I love it...Must see again...
post #11 of 133
Thanks for the personal touch there, flyers. I admit I have not been keen at all on this one, but you've piqued my interest nonetheless.
post #12 of 133
Can't wait for the 11th.
post #13 of 133
Thread Starter 
There's a few little nuances to this film that really mirrored something in my life, so I think my love may be a bit different from others, but nevertheless it's such a great film and one that I hope all Chewers enjoy...

I haven't been this excited about a flick in a loooong time.
post #14 of 133
Thread Starter 
Very good points, I'm in total agreement. "Romantic comedy" is the genre of the flick, I guess, but it's nothing like romantic comedies before it. It's a very refreshing take on the genre, in my opinion.
post #15 of 133
I justy read 2 reviews for this at AICN that literally brought tears to my eyes. Sounds like such a sweet movie.

I wanna see it NOW, and i'm more excited than ever.
post #16 of 133
Quote:
Tumbles:
(Symbol time: the harmonium represents the romantic heart. Barry patches up the strange instrument and starts learning how to peck out a few tenative notes on it, even as he does the same with his own emotions. Heck, it even works on a pump, sorta like a heart.)
It's a tiny organ that he keeps tucked away and strokes when no one's around.

I'd say it represents an entirely different body part.
post #17 of 133
Film School Pedantic Point of Debate:

Were PS Hoffman and his brothers Mormons?
post #18 of 133
Taken from PTAnderson.com:

Punch-Drunk Love had a fantastic opening in limited release, as it took in $380,000 at just five theaters in New York City, Los Angeles and Toronto, an average of $76,000 a cinema. Distributor Sony chose to roll the film out slowly to build word of mouth, rather than dumping it in thousands of theaters the way most big movies debut. "Punch-Drunk Love" expands gradually to wide release through early November. It will reach about 400 outlets by Oct. 18th.

"This is not an Adam Sandler youth picture. It's a grown-up movie that just needs to breathe a little before you go into wide release," said Tom Sherak, a partner in Revolution Films, which produced "Punch-Drunk Love."
post #19 of 133
I am going to see it this week. I'm looking forward to it.
post #20 of 133
I was really disappointed by this film.

I love Anderson's last two movies, but here I felt that he made a movie that was too weird and quirky for its own good. And I love weird and quirky, don't get me wrong. But the characters are so strange and shrill, that I just couldn't connect to them. And in a "romantic comedy," this connection is important to me.

Don't get me wrong. I found Punch Drunk Love to be fairly funny and entertaining. But it never, not for one second, moved me. And that's a shame.
post #21 of 133
Just to add confusion to the theatre situations, that same Sony Exec is quoted at BoxOfficeGuru.com:

...the romantic drama adds 73 theaters in ten markets this Friday with 400 additional runs igniting on October 25, according to Revolution partner Tom Sherak.
post #22 of 133
Thread Starter 
Just finished my review...I write for The Daily Pennsylvanian (independent paper for Univ. of Penn.)...Lemme know what you guys think:

Why should Penn students care about the new Adam Sandler movie? After all, we are all intellectuals who hunger for each and every First Friday and would never be caught dead at anyplace except our beloved Ritz theatres. For all Ivy League artistic elitists, Adam Sandler – once the pubescent hero of Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore – now represents the lowest common denominator of comedy, a champion of commercial movie theatres and petty comedy. Beginning this Friday, however, Sandler has a steady engagement at the Ritz. And surprisingly, we should be thankful for it. Sandler, star of Paul Thomas Anderson’s fourth feature film, Punch Drunk Love, makes his much anticipated “dramatic turn” as Barry Egan, a decorative plunger salesman and pudding collector. If Mr. Deeds still brings about images of Adam Sandler dancing on Frank Capra’s grave (yes, we know, your friend made you go), Punch Drunk Love makes amends to the movie gods.
Much of the talk surrounding Punch Drunk Love concerns Sandler’s participation in a film with much more legitimacy than his standard comedic fare. After all, Paul Thomas Anderson is the mastermind behind Boogie Nights and Magnolia, while Sandler is, um, The Waterboy. For those of you who find Flubber more entertaining than Dead Poets Society, and who think that Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls trumps The Truman Show, fear not. While such “serious” directors as PTA and Quentin Tarantino have expressed an interest in Sandler’s services, they seem more interested in honing his current skills then developing new ones. You will neither see Sandler falling to his knees and bellowing the name of a lost love, nor will he stroll into West Philadelphia and show a bunch of troublesome youngsters how to love baseball. In Punch Drunk Love, Sandler actually has a character built around his “act.” He still speaks funny, as well as doing his fair share of kicking and screaming. Yet, you will not laugh at Sandler when he kicks and screams in this film. Rather as you chuckle at the situation, you will laugh with Anderson and be drawn into the character that he has created for Sandler. And the character is as much a credit to Anderson’s writing as it is to Sandler’s flawless performance. Yes, that’s right, I used “Adam Sandler” and “flawless performance” in the same sentence. I guess this means Penn dining will be appetizing now too, huh?
Boogie Nights and Magnolia are beloved by PTA fans, but Punch Drunk Love is his best “film.” There is no “cool” gimmick in the film to immediately hook you: the film lacks the 70s setting or “Tame the cunt!” attitude of PTA’s previous films. Punch Drunk Love, however, takes the tired romantic comedy genre (beaten down by the likes of Julia Roberts and Freddie Prinze Jr.) and turns it upside down. There is romance, but there is also phone sex, a harmonium and pudding. And Emily Watson plays Lena, the girl Sandler falls for, and while her looks may not compare to previous Sandler co-stars like Joey Lauren Adams and Drew Barrymore, her performance enhances her physical features, and she might turn you on to British accents. Just like Barry, Lena looks for love for the wrong reasons, yet finds love despite her errors.
The film is small and simple, yet so perfect. I don’t buy into romances all too often, but I could not help but smile as Lena and Egan embraced in a lush Hawaiian hallway, all set to Jon Brion’s quirky, percussion-focused score. Paul Thomas Anderson takes the tired romantic comedy genre, the weary act of Sandler, and the joys of pudding to craft a masterpiece. If that doesn’t sell you, then get back to Flubber.
post #23 of 133
Saw it today. Not a classic by any stretch, but not a failure. More when I get the time.
post #24 of 133
Time to rev this thread up again. It goes without saying, but I'll go ahead...SPOILERS

Sandler was great, but there were certain times when I swear the same exact acting style was used in The Waterboy, and I was instantly taken out of the moment.

I did not perceive Watson's character to be oyt of control as some reviews have said. I think she was just the unwavering love that Barry needed.

Anderson's use of colors seemed more inspired now, as though he has been influenced by another Anderson.

I was surprised at Hoffman's lack of screen time, but what truly saddened me was the wasting of Luis Guzman. Anyone could have had that role, shoot I could have played that role.

And did anyone notice the continuity yellow tie/red tie error when he got on the plne to Hawaii?
post #25 of 133
EDIT

OYT = OUT

PLNE = PLANE
post #26 of 133
Thread Starter 
Hopefully seeing this again tonight, hoping my original impressions hold up, also will look for continuity error (although wouldn't really bug me if it were there...)
post #27 of 133
LOVE.

(may be a few spoilers, but I doubt it...I don't feel like putting a spoiler warning on this)

Loved this to no end, I wasn't like "WOW, OH MY GOD!" but..it was a quiet sort of love. I was just admiring Sandler's performance...his facial expressions, his anger. It was like Devin said, a very controlled performance. I've (we've) never seen him like this before.

It was such a sweet love story and the moral of the story was inspiring....Love makes us stronger. As simple as it sounds, it's something to live by. It's a great message.

This isn't as good as Magnolia by any stretch in my mind, and you can't really compare it to Boogie Nights, but it definitely isn't as in-depth. It's fast-paced and in your face and it knows where it's going. It's a love story and it's really not much deeper than that. But that's what's so great about it.

I don't know if I can say it's the best of the year so far but it's top 3 for sure.
post #28 of 133
Oh and yes, the score was GREAT. I'd definitely pick up the soundtrack.
post #29 of 133
Did I just not notice them, but were there no credits at the beginning of the movie? Maybe I was just way too into the movie, but I don't remember them.
post #30 of 133
PT Anderson's been watching a lot of Jacques Tati, and this makes me *very* happy.
post #31 of 133
great flick. i really liked how it had alot of PTA touches but it was also very different in tone and not like his other stuff.
post #32 of 133
I blew past all of the posts here because I don't want to spoil anything for myself if the conversation has advanced some. I had planned on seeing it today, but realized it wasn't playing anywhere near my house so I had to pass on it. I needed to stick close to home today for reasons I won't go into here.

I am looking forward to this though. I haven't read a bad review yet
post #33 of 133
I really want to see this (and Bowling for Comubine). But none of them are playing ANYWHERE near my house.

Are the releases going to keep spreading or is this it?
post #34 of 133
Thread Starter 
Saw this again tonight, got even more from it this go-round.

This is a great flick that will be in my rotation for YEARS.

Wonderful.
post #35 of 133
I posted this in another thread, but it probably fits in better here:

PDL is in 78 theatres as of 10/18, just under 400 on 10/25, and the largest expansion plan as of now is for 1,000 screens on 11/1.

The film has to warrant, in terms of BO performance, wider release right now according to Sony.
post #36 of 133
Finally seen this film. It wasn't bad but I don't understand some of the praise for the movie or the performance from Sandler. I didn't see that much difference between this character and the other characters Sandler has been playing. I found the whole phone sex harassment part the best part of the movie. The rest was kind of just ok. Emily Watson,PSH, and Guzman were wasted in these roles. Overall I'd give it about a 6.5/10.
post #37 of 133
This is a hard movie to rate.

Like Nick, I started out HATING it, especially the cutesy, irksome score (Jon Brion, how could you? You're better than this!).

Eventually, the score took a vacation and the movie settled for a bit, but even then....ehhhh.

Lots of good ideas, but they're just crammed together and then vomitted with a good bit of pretentiousness to make it more unpalatable than it should've been.

I'd say it was a big disappointment, but I've learned not to expect that much from Anderson. He's forever going to be the guy with potential to be one of the greats, it seems.
post #38 of 133
So here's the thing with Sandler. I loved the guy in Billy Gilmore. After that, I got sick of the routine real quick... So I see PDL tonight. I just don't see that his performance was all that different from his past performances, but in a different setting, it seems better. For example, if you put a blue vase in a blue room for ten years and then put it in a yellow room, the vase looks different, nicer somehow. This is what I think happened with Sandler.

I should preface this by saying that I HATED Magnolia, but I enjoyed Boogie Nights a heck of a lot. I am still convinced that PTA's only genius lies in his casting and his troupe. I will still see anything with Luis Guzman, regardless of director, title, etc..

I don't know if I hated the score like Micah, but I did find it very distracting, which is never a good thing. Anything that takes you out of the story and all that. Overall, I enjoyed it, but I agree that PTA remains someone of extreme potential and little delivery thus far. But I laughed where I was supposed to, recoiled when I was supposed to.

7.8 / 10
post #39 of 133
Billy Gilmore?
post #40 of 133
Billy Gilmore: A quicker way to type both Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore. (Of course, I've nullified the abbreviation by typing this)

wink
post #41 of 133
I see.

That is pretty cool. I might use that...
post #42 of 133
Happy Madison is also an accepted alternative. Of course, Big Nicky or Little Daddy have the alternate connotation, should the occasion call for it...
post #43 of 133
Quote:
mikah912:
This is a hard movie to rate.

Like Nick, I started out HATING it, especially the cutesy, irksome score (Jon Brion, how could you? You're better than this!).

Eventually, the score took a vacation and the movie settled for a bit, but even then....ehhhh.

Lots of good ideas, but they're just crammed together and then vomitted with a good bit of pretentiousness to make it more unpalatable than it should've been.

I'd say it was a big disappointment, but I've learned not to expect that much from Anderson. He's forever going to be the guy with potential to be one of the greats, it seems.
Mikah, with due respect to your opinion, I always seem to disagree with you on nearly every film. This one is no different. Anderson is excellent, and while this is not his best (Boogie Nights), this one is excellent. I also found it to be the completely "unpretentious", as his other films could easily be interpreted. This film is better termed as "pleasantly quirky". The world created in this movie was one where continuity and causality no longer mattered, in favor of sheer creativity. And I loved the score.

But keep on disagreeing. Such discussions are a big part of the reason I come here.
post #44 of 133
Pretentious...pleasantly quirky

TomAto...tomAHto. Take your pick.

The score dug at my eardums with a rusty spoon for most of the time. The love theme music was nice as was "She Needs Me," tho it was WAY overused.

The percussive crap in the first 25 minutes or so and whenever something happened with Phillip Seymour Hoffman?

BAKED SHITCAKES.
post #45 of 133
Thread Starter 
I loooooved the score...Just did something for me, I guess.
post #46 of 133
Quote:
punch drunk flyers:
I loooooved the score...Just did something for me, I guess.
Ah yes. Join me in the vocal minority. Stay strong in your convictions, my son.
post #47 of 133
Thread Starter 
I could not imagine the film being scored in any other way...REALLY surprised that it's getting negative reactions...
post #48 of 133
I had a chance to go to an early screening, but begged out feeling PTA's batting 0/3. Sounds like Mikah's confirmed my suspcisions as it sounds like we feel the same way about Anderson. Thanks for saving me the 95 minutes, sir.
post #49 of 133
This may have been the most random film I have seen all year, but it was also one of my favorites. It won me over with its overt quirkiness.

This is one of Adam Sandler's best performances and although Emily Watson has that childlike face, her body was scrumptious in this film. I could take or leave her performance.

P.T. Anderson favorites Luis Guzman and Phillip Seymour Hoffman also show up in hilarious supporting roles that still have me laughing.

The only character in this film that I did not like was the sister (the one that looked nothing like the other sisters) that was trying to set Sandler's character up with Watson's character. But, she gets what's coming to her.

The plot of this film was SO out there, yet in the end, all this film is really about is the unpredictability of love.

And for those of you who might not know, the song that played over and over was sung by Shelly Duvall.

I give this film a 8.5 out of 10 for exceeding my initial expectations. As you can see from the comments above, this is CERTAINLY not a film for everyone.

"That's that."
post #50 of 133
Guzman was a rare and welcome bright spot. The thing he did with his eyes when Emily Watson asked Sandler out for the first time....comic genius. That guy has timing like a mofo.

Nonetheless, he just made the rest of the movie around him look that much dumber. The movie didn't deserve him.

Oh, and Andrew....I too noticed that Watson dame has got a shape and a half on her. Never really did it for me before, but she was English-accented, curvy goodness in this film.

Besides, if the face is a problem (which it really isn't), there's always the light switch...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › Punch Drunk Love discussion