I think Joe Carnahan saw Frozen and got a really really baaaad idea for a movie, and he sure succeeded in making it. Stilted CGI wolves, saccharine flashbacks, the usual argy bargy around the campfire (there’s always one asshole), tinny philosophising, maudlin reminiscing, entreaties to god, Uncle Boonmee inspired eyes in the dark and more absurdities than you could poke a burning stick at, and all on a sliver of barbecued wolf. Yeah, well done Joe you’re the reason I resent paying $17 to go to the movies.
last non review post
imdb scores mean less in terms of mainstream then box office or cinescores (The American got an F cineascore for example).
Beatty was suprised and devestated when Bulworth failed at the box office ( they should have rereleased it in 2008 in a certain sense it predicted Obama, tho Obama turned out to be more of the same). I was shocked myself as it is the best American political film I have seen. He did not take into account that people do not like shock political films the same way they did when he was on top.
Clooney says in interviews I would be suprised if this makes money (Solaris, The American). When you feel that way about your own product and you are a movie star, you are making films in bad faith. Sandler and Statham and Seagal have more respect for the people that made them stars. They do not try to challenge like a Redford, Beatty, Nicholson or Eastwood but they try to make things people who like them want to see.
I imagine that Clooney is being at least a little disingenuous when he says he doesn’t believe those movies will make money. He knows, as most everyone else knows, that eventually (through video, cable rights, etc.) that the movies will turn at least a small profit. Given his penchant for self-deprecation, I don’t think he’s making these movies in bad faith at all. He seems to have a genuine interest in certain subject matter (politics, which seems legitimate given his father was a politician) and he’s willing to put himself out there for it. If he were making movies like The American in bad faith, he would charge his full asking price to be in them. I see it as a mark of integrity that he seems to be making whatever movies interest him, regardless. Sometimes those movies make a lot of money, sometimes they don’t.
He also appears to simply enjoy working with certain people – Coen Bros, Soderbergh, etc. Sometimes, for an actor, the prospect of working with people you enjoy is enough.
Woody Allen’s Another Woman
All this talk about Woody got me hungry so I seeked out a small movie of his. Surprisingly effective, incredibly acted, and deeply saddening by the end. Biggest problem is that we can see where the film is going 30 minutes in.
THE DEEP BLUE SEA – 4.5/5
A fine and moving little film, I got a lot out of it. The story is almost laughably simple, and gains a good deal from the use of flashbacks that aren’t always immediately identified as such. The quality of the filmmaking and performances make it rise above mere melodrama cliche. I don’t want to go into too much detail about the story, as I think a good deal of the interest is in letting it unfold on the film’s own terms.
@santino: (ahem) Reds.
The thing about Clooney is, he would genuinely rather make serious films than ones that could turn a profit, but he also really wants everybody to know he wants to.
And, he wants to be considered a serious actor, but also wants to be known as light hearted and willing to joke about himself. He tries to accomplish by talking about Batman every time he receives praise, which is about as believable as Mitt Romney campaigning as a working man.
So yeah, Clooney does have artistic integrity. And he really wants you to think so.
Maybe the self-deprecation is his way of coping with celebrity status? Maybe trying to position himself as an artist is his way of playing the game?
“Clooney says in interviews I would be suprised if this makes money (Solaris, The American). When you feel that way about your own product and you are a movie star, you are making films in bad faith. "
I agree with Jirin quite a bit. I think The Descendants is everything he has wanted to do as an actor in a leading role. The Ides of March showed he could also play a good supporting role and be a huge bastard as well. And yet, he still does goofy television skits, but he never goes down in my book because of that. I think he is a damn good entertainer.
He did The Descendants because he wanted to work with Payne. I believe he agreed to do the movie before he even read the script.
If you just look at Clooney’s directorial choices, you see someone whose ambitions are beyond movie star. They may not all be brilliant (although Ides of March is one of my favorite films from last year and the most accurate depiction of campaign life I’ve seen), but they’re subjects Clooney seems passionate about and not necessarily box office friendly. In other words Den is kind of right about Clooney, but views it as a negative because he puts far more value on being a “movie star” than I would.
I thought he was woefully miscast in The Descendants, never looking anything other than George Clooney in a hibiscus print shirt, I did not find him in the least bit convincing for even a second as the clueless cuckolded husband.
It’s funny how Clooney is one of the most endlessly debated actors in Mubiland.
Oh… Still, I thought he was fantastic in both Descendants and Ides of March
I guess that’s the definition of an artist – feeding yourself over feeding the masses. Not sure how that’s a negative though.
It just doesn’t make any sense. George Clooney initially made crappy Hollywood films and was labeled a pretty boy movie star who made stupid films like Batman & Robin and The Peacemaker. Then he gets some clout, finds some success (working with auteurs like Soderbergh and the Coens), and is able to make more serious films that interest him and he becomes regarded with more respect. I’m not sure how that’s a bad thing. Is he supposed to go back to making movies like One Fine Day? What for? Better to do what you want to do and please a select few (aka ME!) then be unhappy making schlock so that you can make bank (aka A Perfect Storm).
yep, nothing wrong with Clooney’s journey to success. He had to be in the shitters to get where he is now, we can’t all be Francis Ford Coppola.
We all have to pay our dues. Look at how long Nicholson was working in B-movies w/Corman before Easy Rider.
Went to LACMA last night. Yay for getting out to see something I wanted to see (i.e. my choice alone) in a movie theater, it’s been a VERY long time:
My favorites outside of Asparagus, in glorious 35 mm print (Suzan Pitt’s own print; she was there, though she didn’t show herself in the audience when her name was announced):
Mound (Allison Schulnik)
Immer Zu (Janie Geiser)
Followed by The Fourth Watch (Janie Geiser) and the insane
Babobilicons (Daina Krumins).
Wonderfully inspiring, and tons of respect for the huge amount of work that went into making
On a scale of 1-5:
Asparagus – 5
Mound – 5
Immer Zu – 5
The Fourth Watch – 4
Babobilicons – 4
Baxter, Vera Baxter 1977
Marguerite Duras on love and money
Haha yeah. Call me crazy, but in terms of sheer fun I think Little Shop of Horrors is one of Nicholson’s finest moments.
oops, double posted…
There’s nothing wrong with his journey to success. He was first big on ER.
The annoying thing is that carefully sculpted attitude of his where he’s like “Can you believe it, somebody who played Batman is winning awards now! How ever so ironic!”
I would be acting the same way to be honest. Imagine how he must have felt when he was doing those movies. He must have felt at one point he would be doing that shit all his life and would never be within Oscar territory. Gotta be a dream come true.
Is that ironic?
He’s won the same amount of Oscars as Christian Bale, who is also Batman.
I think the attitude that people label as smug is really just him laughing at how ridiculous his whole stardom is. I find that refreshing, the fact that he doesn’t take himself so seriously (the anti-David O. Russell). And I also appreciate how respectful and appreciative he is to the people he works with (also the anti-David O. Russell-haha).
“guess that’s the definition of an artist – feeding yourself over feeding the masses”
I dont view him as an artist (to do so would be a bigger leap of faith than Kierkegaard) I view him as a star cannot pick material that can entertain or enlighten.
Bernie- 2 1/2 / 4
Simple and quite affectionate, but it has a confusing and infuriating structure that brings down the movie for its confusion as to what story there is to tell.
^ Dude, I know right? It’s kick-ass noir.