1101 Uncut Gems

[Ribs]

To quote Howard Ratner: I disagree! The 4K of Mulholland is from the 2021 4K restoration, not the previous one, and therefore is not reasonably considered the same release as the extant Blu-ray, to me.

[What A Disgrace]

I have a feeling that Criterion is going to more than make up for their lack of 4K releases in the past couple of years by the end of next spring. At least, compared to the outputs of Kino and Arrow. This announcement makes four 4K discs in one month!

[jegharfangetmigenmyg]

This is a great and obvious choice for UHD. Very heavy grainy look which I remember that I really enjoyed. Won't be buying it, though, as I didn't get the fuss, at all. Extremely predictable story which has been told a million times before and couldn't be carried by its characters alone. I have a feeling that it was so lauded, mainly because it had Sandler in one of his rare dramatic roles. The Safdies have done way better, I think. Good Time was just a great ride and definitely not as predictable and boring as UG.

[yoloswegmaster]

Uncut Svet

[ryannichols7]

Svet should really take a page from Chris and stop reviewing the films themselves. granted, it gives us gems to make fun of on here, but he really seems off base with basically everything he writes in that regard. the technical stuff is marginally better of course, but at least he has a little bit more of a base to work with there

[knives]

Wow, this was stellar though it does answer the question Goodtime posed of how long a person can stand that level of tension. For me it was 100 minutes before I paused it and took a long walk. Even then I nearly puked watching Bogosian watching Sandler.

Something that the movie had me thinking of that I don’t think anyone else has said because it’s a crazed idea, but Sandler really is an American Totò in a lot of ways. A favorite of art house directors and a real genius in a certain respect, but spending most of his time being in terrible comedies he’s seeming masterminded. Now I guess he just needs his Pasolini.

[therewillbeblus]

Wow, this was stellar though it does answer the question Goodtime posed of how long a person can stand that level of tension. For me it was 100 minutes before I paused it and took a long walk. Even then I nearly puked watching Bogosian watching Sandler.

My ex impulsively sprinted out of the theatre at the climax when we saw it on Christmas Eve two years ago, which was so unexpected and jarring for me that it only heightened the chaotic experience. Plus that nausea was present that precipitates the inevitable hostile "why did you make me watch that" conversation, so I was firmly planted in my seat delaying my leave from the theatre, feeling all sorts of uncomfortable stuff. I've been hesitant to watch it again since nothing will ever match that simpatico wavelength of stress (no, not even UHD quality)

[swo17]

Reminds me of when I went with someone to see Punch-Drunk Love and they told me afterward "That's why I don't like movies"

[knives]

Honestly my first reaction is also I never want to repeat that experience again. I mean that as a compliment of course, but man that was my limit on filmic stress.

[jegharfangetmigenmyg]

I'm intrigued by your reactions to this film. I had seen Good Time, and liked it very much, exactly because of its tension and tempo, but especially because of its unpredictability; I never knew what would happen in the next scene. The abduction really took me off guard. Uncut Gems, on the other hand, I found to be extremely contrived and predictable. Very early on, you knew from the very thin, and dare I say boring, characterisation, that Sandler was going down a one way route. So, for me, it was an overlong slog which never had any real tension because one always knew where it all was going. I was especially disappointed because I had followed the Safdies from way back to Daddy Longlegs. Still a very promising bunch of young cinephiles, though this one was definitely a stinker for me. Funny thing, I saw it with my girlfriend too, and she'd never seen Sandler in a "serious" role, so for her, on top of it all, she didn't buy him playing such a role.

[tenia]

I watched it for the 2nd time thanks to the Criterion release, and it still matches my experience of New York as the noisiest city I've ever been to, like if it's a contest for people to make more noise over the urban noise over people's noise, to the point I thought I'd go sick within the course of only 8 days.

Reminds me of when I went with someone to see Punch-Drunk Love and they told me afterward "That's why I don't like movies"

I showed this one to my GF and she ended up telling me "how the hell did you think I would remotely like this ?"

[therewillbeblus]

Uncut Gems, on the other hand, I found to be extremely contrived and predictable. Very early on, you knew from the very thin, and dare I say boring, characterisation, that Sandler was going down a one way route. So, for me, it was an overlong slog which never had any real tension because one always knew where it all was going.

I tend to prefer Good Time as well for a variety of reasons, but my counterpoint to this criticism is that on top of the broad suspense the film crafts, there's a very idiosyncratic tension that emulates gambling addiction's specific adrenaline rush for mass audiences. As I mentioned upthread, I've dabbled in basketball betting in the past (grateful to call it one of the few addictions I've evaded drastic consequences from, despite definitely feeling the pull), and this film is so excruciatingly realistic to the high anxiety of betting on that sport in particular with the erratic ups-and-downs. Also, as a fan roulette, the bet on the tip, and the buildup of that moment, nearly broke me. I'd be very interested to read an op-ed by a gambling addict in recovery on this film's authenticity, but what makes this film successful for me beyond a Good Time: Take II is the pivot from narcissistic self-protection to narcissistic self-destruction. Despite the similar tone of an adrenaline-high, it's an entirely different movie shifting from survivalism into the rush of dancing on the edge, distinct to addiction's powerlessness that defies logic. Even without a gambling background, it's a great depiction of the "chaos" many addicts in recovery talk about having compulsively sought in the past, and incredibly relatable for anyone who's experienced that. For those who haven't, you're granted a front-row seat into that agonizing lifestyle for two hours, and yes, it is predictable and fatalistic, but that's because everyone but the addict can see this- and even the addict knows it deep-down, coating this awareness in delusional fronts for psychological survivalism.

[FrauBlucher]

I watched it for the 2nd time thanks to the Criterion release, and it still matches my experience of New York as the noisiest city I've ever been to, like if it's a contest for people to make more noise over the urban noise over people's noise, to the point I thought I'd go sick within the course of only 8 days.

As a born and bread NYer that lives in Manhattan I can't agree more. And I think I'm still not used to the cacophony. A car honking is still the bane of my NY existence.

Reminds me of when I went with someone to see Punch-Drunk Love and they told me afterward "That's why I don't like movies"

I showed this one to my GF and she ended up telling me "how the hell did you think I would remotely like this ?"

Haha. Not sure who I feel more sorry for, you (the guilt) or her (the disdain)

This is perfect timing. This is currently next up on my Netflix view.

[jegharfangetmigenmyg]

Uncut Gems, on the other hand, I found to be extremely contrived and predictable. Very early on, you knew from the very thin, and dare I say boring, characterisation, that Sandler was going down a one way route. So, for me, it was an overlong slog which never had any real tension because one always knew where it all was going.

I tend to prefer Good Time as well for a variety of reasons, but my counterpoint to this criticism is that on top of the broad suspense the film crafts, there's a very idiosyncratic tension that emulates gambling addiction's specific adrenaline rush for mass audiences. As I mentioned upthread, I've dabbled in basketball betting in the past (grateful to call it one of the few addictions I've evaded drastic consequences from, despite definitely feeling the pull), and this film is so excruciatingly realistic to the high anxiety of betting on that sport in particular with the erratic ups-and-downs. Also, as a fan roulette, the bet on the tip, and the buildup of that moment, nearly broke me. I'd be very interested to read an op-ed by a gambling addict in recovery on this film's authenticity, but what makes this film successful for me beyond a Good Time: Take II is the pivot from narcissistic self-protection to narcissistic self-destruction. Despite the similar tone of an adrenaline-high, it's an entirely different movie shifting from survivalism into the rush of dancing on the edge, distinct to addiction's powerlessness that defies logic. Even without a gambling background, it's a great depiction of the "chaos" many addicts in recovery talk about having compulsively sought in the past, and incredibly relatable for anyone who's experienced that. For those who haven't, you're granted a front-row seat into that agonizing lifestyle for two hours, and yes, it is predictable and fatalistic, but that's because everyone but the addict can see this- and even the addict knows it deep-down, coating this awareness in delusional fronts for psychological survivalism.

Thank you for this! It definitely got me to see the film from a different perspective. I guess I was just expecting something more original from the Safdies than the good ol' fatalistic male on his road to destruction-type of film, even without a twist. I just thought that there had to be more to it for Sandler to carry such a role, or at least to do something really unexpected with it. Also, it may have to do with the fact that basketball betting is very foreign to a European viewer. I mostly remember the jeweler business from the film, I must admit, and even that, including the Ethiopian intro (which I also found a bit lazy, storytelling-wise), didn't turn me on. Again, I was really surprised by my dislike for this film because I view the Safdies as some of the brightest hopes in contemporary American cinema. More power to them, and I'm sure they'll come back shining in a couple of years.

[Mr Sausage]

I’m surprised to see this one called out for its predictability, since that’s rather the point. I can’t think of many movies so like a Thomas Hardy novel in its commitment to character as fate. The white knuckle experience is not wondering what’ll happen next, good or bad, but stewing in a hell of anticipation over what bad thing’ll happen next and how awful the consequences will be. The movie’s remarkable for how deeply it brings you inside this experience, leaving you baffled at how someone could live like this for longer than a day when one can barely stand the second-hand experience for two hours.

This is a very different story from Good Time anchored by a very different character.

[knives]

It is honestly incredible this character has managed to live and seemingly thrive for this long. The film openly admits things are over even before this money stuff, but he’s so constantly wheeling and dealing it really does seem like better’s luck he managed life this far.

[swo17]

In any case, I found this very rewarding (and much less stressful) to watch a second time along with the commentary

[denti alligator]

Can I watch this with my 13-year old? Language is no issue. A little violence and sexuality is fine.

[therewillbeblus]

It is honestly incredible this character has managed to live and seemingly thrive for this long. The film openly admits things are over even before this money stuff, but he’s so constantly wheeling and dealing it really does seem like better’s luck he managed life this far.

This is another apt observation that speaks to addicts- it's something we think (and talk in meetings) about a lot: The bafflement at how it was possible to endure and survive even for one day, let alone years, that way... people are adaptable, even at the expense of themselves or others, and luck certainly plays a huge part too. But yeah, it's fucking crazy, and the film's brief timeline encapsulating so much mayhem can be extrapolated to years and years of this man's life. The Safdies are courteous enough to take their time to convey that this is not an isolated incident of amplification- just the final act of the longest, most exhausting play ever, where Howard Ratner believes he's the central actor when he's merely a player on the stage.

[knives]

SpoilerShow

That last sentiment I think also really highlights how beautiful they work his relationship with Bogosian. The revelation of familiar connection puts a lot in place while also ensuring this is as tragic an end as possible. Something I was thinking about is how the film is like The Killing of a Chinese Bookie told from the bookie’s POV.

[swo17]

Can I watch this with my 13-year old? Language is no issue. A little violence and sexuality is fine.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5727208/pa ... _ql_stry_5

[therewillbeblus]

SpoilerShow

That last sentiment I think also really highlights how beautiful they work his relationship with Bogosian. The revelation of familiar connection puts a lot in place while also ensuring this is as tragic an end as possible. Something I was thinking about is how the film is like The Killing of a Chinese Bookie told from the bookie’s POV.

SpoilerShow

I agree- and although it's never been a subjective alignment (which is why that distance is so crucial throughout to observe the chaos with objectivity from the delusion) it's still been a rollercoaster of surrogate experience with us in the passenger seat. That final scene removes us from the suffocation of Ratner's solo party by including Bogosian, and watching him watch Ratner gives us a different vessel to have that surrogate experience, not as an impartial observer but as a hostage that the addict takes and inflicts harm upon with their illogical chaos. It's a neat trick in sobering us to these other 'supporting players' with attentive empathy, and in that moment becomes the astutely reframed comparison you make to the Cassavetes. Quite the devastating punchline of residual consequences to the journey of 'self' that's preceded it.

[flyonthewall2983]

Kobe Bryant in the Garnett role would have been something in hindsight of his death two years ago today.

[yoloswegmaster]

Don't know how many Torontonians are on here but the TIFF Lightbox theatre will be hosting a Safdies retrospective in August. They will be screening 35mm prints of Daddy Longlegs, Heaven Knows What, The Pleasure of Being Robbed, Uncut Gems, and Good Time.

[Matt]

This is now “leaving soon” on Netflix. I suppose they only had a limited (4-year?) exclusive license for streaming and it will be moving to [HBO] Max, where A24 now has an exclusive streaming deal. The Criterion release was licensed from Lionsgate, which appears still to be A24’s physical media distributor of choice.