It is currently Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:50 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:35 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO
Variety says the split personalities of David Gordon Green coalesce pleasingly in Prince Avalanche. The Hollywood Reporter says it's "exquisitely crafted" and an "odd little gem."


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:28 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:49 am
Location: brooklyn
Oh I hope so. I would think at this point Green has a decent nest egg. He should stick to movies that have more meaning for a little while.

Quote:
Green’s poetic observation skills are the key to that seeming contradiction. No less essential is the cinematography of regular collaborator Tim Orr, which comes off as loose and unfussy but then floors you with images of unexpected majesty.


That's the kind of quote I'm looking for.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:07 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
I resent the inference that Green was only making comedies for money. He apparently was really enjoying making them and was doing so voluntarily, regardless of their critical reception.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:26 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:58 pm
In one of the commentary tracks for Eastbound & Down (second season, I think), Green said that the show was precisely the kind of thing he and Jody Hill and Danny McBride wanted to do when they were in film school. It's not a great stretch to assume his recent film work falls in line with that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:31 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT
It is somewhat of a stretch though in that E&D is actually fairly funny and watchable whereas Green's previous two films are irredeemable garbage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:33 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:58 pm
Nah, I'm down with Your Highness.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:34 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
So am I, med - but regardless, it certainly doesn't seem like the type of film you'd make to try and cash in. He likely found financial success with Pineapple Express already before Your Highness ever came along, and Pineapple Express might be his best film, period(?)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:54 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:49 am
Location: brooklyn
mfunk9786 wrote:
I resent the inference that Green was only making comedies for money. He apparently was really enjoying making them and was doing so voluntarily, regardless of their critical reception.

I think Pineapple Express is ok, I didn't laugh at all in Your Highness, the thing with his comedies that's interesting to me is his stated attempts at sort of reaching back into his movie watching past and reclaiming the eighties buddy comedy like 48 hours or something like Krull with Your Highness. It's an interesting thing to attempt. I don't think these movies are as funny as you seem to. Was he just doing it for the money? I don't know. Given the subject matter between the movies and E&D Green might just be a stoner and likes this sort of thing. Still can't help but feel his talents haven't been used for a while because these projects were probably (A) a fun time hanging with friends and (B) easier to make and finance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:56 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT
mfunk9786 wrote:
Pineapple Express might be his best film, period(?)

I much prefer the more understated pleasures of his first two features, though I'll grant you that PE is a film that I would at least consider watching again!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:06 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm
I'll be happy with even an approximate reconciliation of the two disparate halves of his poetic/comic career. Not a fan of Your Highness, but for me Green's worst film by a mile is Snow Angels, which is too bad because the material would have been perfect for him, as it's a novel obsessed with mood and sense of place and the thousand unspoken tragic emotions of everyday small town coming of age. But at the time he shot it, Green seemed bored with everything except the least essential aspects of this particular film -- the plot along with a few big actorly moments of scenery chewing -- and so ended up with an Indie film that many others might have produced instead of one only he could have made.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:09 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Alan Smithee wrote:
mfunk9786 wrote:
I resent the inference that Green was only making comedies for money. He apparently was really enjoying making them and was doing so voluntarily, regardless of their critical reception.


I think Pineapple Express is ok, I didn't laugh at all in Your Highness, the thing with his comedies that's interesting to me is his stated attempts at sort of reaching back into his movie watching past and reclaiming the eighties buddy comedy like 48 hours or something like Krull with Your Highness. It's an interesting thing to attempt. I don't think these movies are as funny as you seem to. Was he just doing it for the money? I don't know. Given the subject matter between the movies and E&D Green might just be a stoner and likes this sort of thing. Still can't help but feel his talents haven't been used for a while because these projects were probably (A) a fun time hanging with friends and (B) easier to make and finance.

But just because we don't agree on how funny those two films are, it doesn't mean they were or weren't a cash grab - the success of the films on an artistic and box office level don't have anything to do with whether or not Green actually wanted to make them, or how much effort he put into them. I think we're just not on the same page about accusing him of slumming it on purpose. I don't see why he's not given the benefit of the doubt re: trying to make those films as funny as he could.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:13 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Location: sd, ca
I think Mfunk is absolutely right. Whether the movies are crap or not (I'm with Swo) even before he made them they came across as an inevitability given his love for a certain strand of cinema. I remember that a number of interviews from the time of George Washington he mentioned The Bad News Bears as arguably his favorite film and one he considered the best. It would only follow that he would try to make a film in that mold even if he wasn't up to the challenge.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:22 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
warren oates wrote:
Not a fan of Your Highness, but for me Green's worst film by a mile is Snow Angels

I've seen both Snow Angels and Your Highness and both are rotten movies. Your Highness purports to be a comedy, but it is startlingly, jarringly unfunny, with everyone on screen either making up lame ad-libs (McBride, Theroux) or looking embarrassed (Portman). But weirdly enough, if you look past the allegedly comic elements, it's not a half-bad fantasy film and functions okay within those perimeters. Snow Angels doesn't function on any level, except as bad Sundance Channel fodder that shows a real boredom of the indie dramatics that got DDG on the map. I love George Washington, and it's entirely possible he'll never reach those heights again. But I'd rather he approach a bad idea with gusto than a bad idea without it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:25 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:49 am
Location: brooklyn
mfunk9786 wrote:
Alan Smithee wrote:
mfunk9786 wrote:
I resent the inference that Green was only making comedies for money. He apparently was really enjoying making them and was doing so voluntarily, regardless of their critical reception.

Was he just doing it for the money? I don't know.


But just because we don't agree on how funny those two films are, it doesn't mean they were or weren't a cash grab - the success of the films on an artistic and box office level don't have anything to do with whether or not Green actually wanted to make them, or how much effort he put into them. I think we're just not on the same page about accusing him of slumming it on purpose. I don't see why he's not given the benefit of the doubt re: trying to make those films as funny as he could.


Yeah, you're right about the cash grab thing. As I said above. I don't know. Also like I said, it's interesting the way he's using films that have influenced him over time that are vastly different from one another. He's a little like PTA in that he takes films he likes as a jumping off point rather than doing a lot of referencing ala Tarantino. It just so happens his jumping off point was 48 hours, Lethal Weapon or the bad guy plot from 3 Ninjas/ Weekend at Bernies 2 this time instead of say Badlands, Blue Collar or Medium Cool which he has said influenced his earlier films.

I agree that Snow Angels wasn't great but Undertow was still pretty good.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:55 pm 
Not PETA approved
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada
In an interview, David Gordon Green said that the reason he was making Pineapple Express and his recent comedies is because he wanted to finally make movies with a chance of having real box office success.

So, presence of other motives or not, he is courting populism in order to advance his career (and perhaps make some more money/gain some more artistic freedom).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:40 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO
Magnolia has picked up the rights and will release the film this summer.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2016 12:11 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Location: sd, ca
It's not terribly surprising there's no actual discussion of the film here. While this is good with Paul Rudd giving an amazing performance there's not much to say. The Hirsch character is often annoying and the first attempt at pathos half way through just doesn't work instead playing out like a sad Joe Swanberg character intruding onto a far better film. He works better as a comment on Rudd than as an independent person. The film fortunately gives a lot of opportunities away from that dynamic with a lot of scenes almost functioning as a parody of the Malick indie thing due to the purely comic take on those tropes (there's a quotation of The Thin Red Line that had me giggling hard). There's also a fair number of scenes where they just talk with some stranger or other which bring out the best in the film like a more competent Into the Wild or comedic Wendy and Lucy. These surface pleasures are pretty high though it doesn't offer anything beyond them. It stands out a fair bit more than DGG's other film from the year Joe with its bright colours and greater emphasis on dialogue though that film ultimately strikes me as the better of the two.

Also, has anyone seen the film this is based on?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection