Every once in a while a movie comes along that you know perhaps 10% of the population is going to like--but that 10% is going to absolutely love it. And you know you're in that 10%. If you've got Starz, and want to see an example of this in the next few days, look for David Mamet's State and Main.
There's no way my parents would like this movie. Not because it's offensive so much as they wouldn't "get it." It's about how a movie company attempts to shoot a film in a small town in Vermont. Starring William H. Macey, Patti Lupone, Charles Durning, Alec Baldwin, Sarah Jessica Parker, and others in a great cast, it's a scream from start to finish. If you've got the right kind of twisted woldview.
It's a subtle but searing sendup of Hollywood, the best I've ever seen. It's also one of those gems of a movie where, when you first see it, you think you like it but you aren't quite sure. But you find yourself remembering lines and scenes. You see it a second time and you laugh all the way through it. You see it a third time and you start to catch stuff you didn't see the first two times.
I'm not going to try to describe it further. I'll just say that if you're looking for something off the beaten path to watch this week that isn't about Christmas, go out of your way to look for this one.
Dean's World Denizens who I know would like this film: Paul Fallon, Ara Rubyan, Rosemary Esmay, Gary Utter, and at least one person I've forgotten. :-)
I'll rent it next chance I get.
BTW, who has seen "LOTR: The Two Towers"? I went with my kids and saw it over the weekend.
Loved it, especially the depiction of Rohan.
But Jackson doesn't end the movie in the same place that the book ends. I was somewhat disappointed by that; I'm also concerned that he won't have enough room to include that missing sequence and still cover everything else that is left to the third book.
Anyone else feel that way?
If you recall, a large part of Volume 3 consisted of all those lovely appendicies. As a work, Volume 3 is much shorter than the other 2, so I figure that Jackson felt he could shift the last few chapters from "The Two Towers" to "The Return Of The King."
I'm not terribly happy with how he handled Gollum/Smeagol and Faramir, but I figure Jackson thinks that the folks who have never read the books could use some help.
Actually this movie has reinforce to me just how brilliant Tolkein was. When you compare the simple, obvious course followed by Jackson (nothing against the man, I don't think anyone could have done a better job of translation) of just those two characters against the book. It's amazing how dense, delicate, and nuanced Tolkein was, and he makes it look so simple.
I saw "State & Main" when it came out for rental. It's good. Kinda predictable and obvious, but still pretty good.
"Predictable and obvious?"
You missed all the subtlety.
But I knew it wasn't a Casey Tompkins movie. :-)
Please!
Can we NOT get into another geekazoid Tolkien string!
BTW: I loved State and Main. If you like Mamet's work or would like a good intro to his cannon, Glengary/Glenross is now out on DVD and video. The entire cast is outstanding and the typical Mamet dialogue is superb.
Can we NOT get into another geekazoid Tolkien string!
Too late, my good friend!
Casey:
In general, books are about depth and movies are about action. That said, Jackson has, overall, succeeded in adding a layer of depth to Tolkien's masterwork that I thought not possible, e.g.:
No, Dean, I just know too many actors and musicians. The portrayals in that movie bordered on stereotype in some ways, though I suppose you could argue for archetype from another point of view. The actress that is against nudity, but does it "if the scene requires it" (what is that, copout #2a?); the actor into young girls (can you say "in like Flynn"?); and so on, and so on. It's been a while since I watched the movie, else I would spend more time chewing it up. Mind you, it isn't bad.
It's just - as I said before - predictable if you know how the Hollywood movie mindset works. I think that given all the time I spent in local theatre as a youngster and studying 2 years of tech theatre production at Miami I am entitled to an informed opinion. And no, theatre isn't exactly the same as cinema, but there are many parallels. And yes, I did catch all those jokes, but I still say they are obvious jokes. To me, anyway.
Maybe it's obvious to me in the same way the humor of a small passage in "Armageddon" is obvious to real Blues-Rock types: where Owen Wilson't character complains "You know what really bugs me? When people think that Jethro Tull is a member of the band!" And the headshrinker asks "Who is Jethro Tull?" If you know about Tull, it's obvious (and funny). The rest of the world will scratch their collective head and ask "Hunh?"
Paul, this may shock you, but it is possible to discuss Tolkein and/or the LOTR movies without being a geek, especially considering that Tolkein is arguably one of the best English language authors of the 20th Century, and Jackson has done a truly superb job of translating a densely-written, compact yet broadly-focused work to the screen. That is to say, we can discuss methods of literature and high cinematic art. Or do you think that is "geeky?" [grin]
Ara, I'll also call those things things obvious. [grin] But in this case (as I tried to point out in my earlier post) it is arguable those scenes are necessary for that part of the audience that hasn't read LOTR, much less "The Silmarillon", nor "Unfinished Tales".
I found the Jethro Tull joke in Armageddon painfully stupid and obvious, and very predictable. But then again, I grew up around people who love stuff like Jethro Tull, so I guess I know what I'm talking about.
Then again again, I also found much of Armageddon itself painfully predictable, stupid, and obvious. Although I also found it very funny.
The purpose of a movie like State & Main is the witty dialog and interplay between characters. The story is a carboard prop for that. The plot of State & Main is singularly uninteresting in that regard, as is the almost required romance. That's not the point. You're there to enjoy the dialog, and the satire. If some of it is obvious, well--so is much of Shakespeare.
Ah, I see your point, now. Good one. It's been a while since I've watched it, so I can't recall too many specifics in terms of dialogue.
I'm just wondering when "The Critics" (or perhaps I should target producers) will finally acknowlege that Bill Macy is a darn good actor. I think his work in "Pleasantville" was brilliant.
Dean, it occurs to me that perhaps I was a tad defensive in my first reply.
However. After I had expressed my opinion, you said
"'Predictable and obvious?'
You missed all the subtlety.
But I knew it wasn't a Casey Tompkins movie. :-)"
So in other words I was too stupid to understand the 'subtlety', and that 'Casey' was not equipped to appreciate the movie... Ahem...
I see you as more of an action movie guy, Casey. ;-)
More seriously, like I said, this movie is a 10%'er. A certain percentage is going to absolutely love it. It's going to leave a lot of other people cold.
Some movies are just like that.
My reaction wasn't cold. It just wasn't "love it!", either.:) I would rate it as "pretty decent, worth a rental, wouldn't go to a theatre to see it" movie. Then again, my theatre attendence maxes out at maybe two movies/year on a good year. It's just too darn expensive.
I like some action, yes. Can't stand Segal (except for Under Seige cuz it had Tommy Lee Jones as the bad guy).
Looking at my collection, it's weighted more to comedy and romance/romantic comedy with a slug of science fiction mixed in, with some action.
Does Richard III count as a "real" movie or an action movie? :)
I also like odd-ball stuff that most folks (except probably you, Rosemary, and Ara have never heard of) like Amazon Women on the Moon, I'm Gonna Git You, Sucka!, Zack and Reba, and some good Brit stuff like Cosi, Brassed Off!, The Commitments, or The Full Monty.
Can you blame a movie fan for liking Zorro (the newest, with Hopkins and Banderas [an actual Hispanic as Zorro, yikes!]), Independance Day, or anything with Sean Connery in it? :)
I was underwhelmed by the Sean Connery/Antonio Banderas version of Zorro. Which is too bad, because I really, really wanted to watch it.
I did very much like Brassed Off, although the lecturing got tiresome. By the end of the movie I was 100% convinced that they needed to shut down that coal mine. %-)
I've always wanted to see Amazon Women on the Moon. I did see I'm Gonna Get You Sucka! but I'm afraid it was too slapstick for me. Then again, I've got this weird thing for certain kinds of comedy. Keenan Ivory Wayans, for example, has this weird effect on me: I don't think he's funny. I know, I know, it's weird. I never even liked In Living Color.
Except for the Fly Girls. :-)