2000s List Discussion and Suggestions (Lists Project Vol. 3)

An ongoing project to survey the best films of individual decades, genres, and filmmakers.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
The Pachyderminator
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:24 pm

Re: 2000s List Discussion and Suggestions (Lists Project Vol. 3)

#301 Post by The Pachyderminator » Thu Dec 03, 2020 1:19 pm

therewillbeblus wrote:
Wed Dec 02, 2020 9:34 pm
The question about the source literally posited that people who have seen the film or the film itself had to prove them wrong. I'm glad that you would have forgotten about it, but I know plenty of people who wouldn't, so the discussion still holds merit. For the record, I don't think and never thought knives was committing "grave harm", it just felt too much like the end of a game of "telephone" being put in ink, and prompted opinions to be shared on the nature of responsibility in approaching film criticism, which is what the conversation turned into. Obviously there are going to be competing shades of ethos on that subject, which it totally fair, but you're approaching the conversation without the willingness to entertain another perspective on a discussion board, labeling a conversation on two different views as "demented" which is a "bizarre insinuation of grave harm."
The claim that I'm "approaching the conversation without the willingness to entertain another perspective on a discussion board" makes no sense to me, given that this started with you being apparently one of at least three people who feel that part of the conversation shouldn't even have been started. I understand that it's frustrating for a film to be tarred with such a vague brush without just cause, and even unsupported charges can taint a film by association over time, but I also think this is a cumulative effect, and delegitimizing a question can easily do more harm than answering it could do. I'd like to think this isn't a place where anyone will pre-judge a film based on a secondhand report beyond even the possibility of refutation. (I'm thinking, for example, of other forums where everyone condemns a film like Cuties without even feeling any need to see it. Fortunately that doesn't happen much here.)

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: 2000s List Discussion and Suggestions (Lists Project Vol. 3)

#302 Post by therewillbeblus » Thu Dec 03, 2020 2:24 pm

But surely you can see the difference between a perspective on a subjective issue and eliciting a claim regarding objective content? I, and several others, felt that claim needed to be refuted because it is untrue, whereas knives and I can absolutely have different perspectives regarding the process of engaging in these discussions, which is a theoretical argument we've had countless times on this board, and that is very different than arguing about concrete information. So yes, I think you coming into this conversation and invalidating the notion of challenging the rights, responsibilities, values, and consequences evoked when engaging in film criticism, is approaching it without a willingness to engage in both perspectives. Whether or not you think we even needed to initiate the separate dissection of the process of engagement seems to be what's bothering you, but I don't feel like that was a "piling on" regarding specifics as much as it transformed into an abstract discussion on the ethos of the effects that come from how we phrase ideas. I mean, I stated outright that asking the questions are fair, and also recognized that I was contributing heavily to the conversation stemming from this film being rooted in problematic content ironically, before trying to deviate the conversation away from... this, so I apologize if I didn't make it clear enough that the issue isn't the question, it's that there can be unintended consequences divorced from our responsibility in perpetuating them. Though I'm pretty sure I said that. And it also sounds like you're interested in engaging in discussions on the ethics of engaging with films on this discussion board by the nature of participating in this discussion, so I'm not sure what the problem is.
The Pachyderminator wrote:
Thu Dec 03, 2020 1:19 pm
I'd like to think this isn't a place where anyone will pre-judge a film based on a secondhand report beyond even the possibility of refutation.
I'd like to think so too, but just because you or I may give more rope in this particular instance doesn't mean everyone will. I already mentioned my social context, but to assume that everyone will have the same tolerance levels of judgment or open-mindedness across all issues as you is not realistic. Most of my childhood friends I consider open-minded people who think critically, but the very mention of a possibility of antisemitism is such a sensitive subject with many of them, that I've run into situations like this more times that I can count, where no matter how hard I try to refute a supposition claim, some of them just shut it down as not worth it, like a knee-jerk reaction that is otherwise uncharacteristic. That doesn't mean that they're lesser in any way, or that they don't belong on this forum -which I hope you're not suggesting, but the expectation that associations with triggering charges will be a cumulative effect for everyone is ridiculous. I think it's perfectly reasonable to bring up this reality that some people have sensitivities that cloud their general approach to content. I know I do, and it seemed that knives recalling these accusations from 12 years ago as the standout association about the movie from someone who hadn't seen it, based on secondhand reporting, is further evidence of this. I think it's disingenuous for anyone to assume that everyone is like them, and let's not forget the many members of this site who don't post actively or at all (a few of which I know personally, who may or may not be among those I'm referring to) so assumptions based on active posters are also only scraping the tip of the iceberg of consumers.

To put it plainly, I don't believe anybody was objectively "wrong" in their actions. Content was "wrong" and that initiated a subjective exploration of consequences in positing certain information, separated from objective accountability. It seems that you are re-igniting this dead conversation based on your subjective perspective on consequences of- not positing information- but of engaging in subjective theoretical discussions about how people subjectively process information, on a discussion board. If I'm correct, at best that seems to be a paradoxical behavior-belief loop contradicting the issue at hand, or at worst it's applying a discrediting rationale to debating individualized perspectives on a forum. If I'm incorrect, then the conversation will naturally end here.

User avatar
The Pachyderminator
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:24 pm

Re: 2000s List Discussion and Suggestions (Lists Project Vol. 3)

#303 Post by The Pachyderminator » Thu Dec 03, 2020 8:18 pm

therewillbeblus wrote:
Thu Dec 03, 2020 2:24 pm
To put it plainly, I don't believe anybody was objectively "wrong" in their actions. Content was "wrong" and that initiated a subjective exploration of consequences in positing certain information, separated from objective accountability. It seems that you are re-igniting this dead conversation based on your subjective perspective on consequences of- not positing information- but of engaging in subjective theoretical discussions about how people subjectively process information, on a discussion board. If I'm correct, that seems to be a paradoxical behavior-belief loop to the issue at hand at best, or at worst, applying a discrediting rationale to debating individualized perspectives on a forum. If I'm incorrect, then the conversation will naturally end here.
You might be right about this, and to be honest your other points are all reasonable, so I'm willing to leave it here. FWIW I appreciate your indulging me in these responses in a thread you might have been hoping to have already dropped.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: 2000s List Discussion and Suggestions (Lists Project Vol. 3)

#304 Post by therewillbeblus » Thu Dec 03, 2020 10:10 pm

It's worth a lot, The Pachyderminator, and for what it's worth back, I appreciate your good-faith participation as well. I actually think it was more of a misinterpretation of what I was really trying to do earlier in the thread, which I get because I could have been clearer about those intentions, and so we were probably speaking the same language on what's worth dissecting- even if from a different angle, and even if in disagreement. I think most of these kinds of arguments are healthy and inspire critical thinking development, and I could find myself arguing an iteration of your point tomorrow based on the context, so it's all productive and worthwhile on my end.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: 2000s List Discussion and Suggestions (Lists Project Vol. 3)

#305 Post by therewillbeblus » Fri Feb 26, 2021 5:47 pm

Au large de Bad Ragaz (François-Christophe Marzal, 2004): I've been slowly digging into the blind spots of Mathieu Amalric's career, and came across this strange romantic adventure, which postures at noir briefly (complete with monotonous voiceover transcribing Amalric's mental assessments, but he's such a vapid human being that he can't even formulate his own thoughts without assistance) before resigning that tone altogether in service of an on-the-run treasure hunt race of sorts, filled with crime world figures and relationship formations that somehow cease any development despite their prominence in the narrative. There's a moment early on where Julia Batinova begins to explain the plot that drives her enigmatic character, only for the voiceover to cut her off and dryly state her words verbatim for us. It's a bizarre edit in a film that's slightly offbeat within familiar terrain, and irritatingly unclear how much of this is intentional eccentricity and how much is just sloppy disorganization, though the latter is quite obviously the answer here even if the former is somehow intended. Amalric plays a shaggy, meek follower to Batinova’s seeker, but this isn’t a refurbished Something Wild with involving characters and engaging hijinks- it’s as monotonous as the initial voiceover. Is Batinova playing the femme fatale trope or the MPDG helping Amalric let loose? She's occasionally unstable but also primarily stable in a dull character glancing at both I guess, and Amalric barely emerges into anybody of interest so, regardless, it's all for naught. Apparently nobody on Letterboxd has seen this film, but unfortunately it’s not an overlooked classic. I’m holding out hope that at least one of Amalric’s lesser-seen films is though.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: 2000s List Discussion and Suggestions (Lists Project Vol. 3)

#306 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Mar 23, 2021 10:58 pm

So I'm finally committing to my long-standing plan to fill in the gaps preventing me from becoming an Amy Adams completist, which entails watching the Snyder DC films, but while I am prepared for that endurance test, I was not prepared for Pennies, a sitcom's-worth of time I can never get back that might just be the worst short film I've ever seen. There's one slightly dumb-funny moment of a father explaining sex to his son with condiments, but it's not actually funny outside of the vacuum that is this painful 20-minute beat-the-clock diner "thriller." The acting of the colorful characters is horrendous, yet it pales in comparison to the arbitrary slo-mo shots that surround no pointed action, and the blind camera operator shooting random angles serving to capture details that must be outside the margins, because certainly nothing is there in the frame. It's the 'reveal' at the end of this life-and-death nail-biter that makes me want to scream though. Adams has engaged in stress-induced immoral behavior like thievery and lying, and emoted erratic, irresponsible projections at her boss and customers, not to pay off criminals holding her daughter hostage as we are led to believe but
SpoilerShow
to pay some nice extracurricular singing coach/stage director in the 'nick of time' so that her latency-age daughter "can sing." In this production, or with this teacher, right now.

I suppose this summarizes the delusional psychology of coddling-committed parents.. but it takes itself at face value in a "there's nothing this mom won't do for her little girl!" punchline of sincerity.
Mom of the fucking year.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: 2000s List Discussion and Suggestions (Lists Project Vol. 3)

#307 Post by domino harvey » Tue Mar 23, 2021 11:03 pm

Wait til you get to Moonlight Serenade. Or that bachelorette movie with James Van Der Beek!

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: 2000s List Discussion and Suggestions (Lists Project Vol. 3)

#308 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Mar 23, 2021 11:23 pm

I can't imagine anything being worse than Pennies, but I believe I'm in for a long road. I also think I watched Cruel Intentions 2 with my high school girlfriend but can't be certain, so I guess I'll be revisiting that one as well..

I'll try to record my misery here if I have anything to say (Adams' other short, The Chromium Hook, is pretty terrible but has at least a couple of inspired gags + Adams being adorable to escape the bottom of the barrel)

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: 2000s List Discussion and Suggestions (Lists Project Vol. 3)

#309 Post by therewillbeblus » Mon Mar 29, 2021 11:48 pm

Amy Adams in the 2000s: The Missing Pieces
[Warning: For the purpose of community service, I will not be spoilertagging any of the following posts so that nobody else needs to suffer through these films as I have; unless of course there is a single reason beyond Adams to justify sitting through one of these movies, in which case I will spoilertag any critical content of said writeup]

After a histrionic perf in Drop Dead Gorgeous, Adams displays an even more ridiculous one in the unfunny 80s slasher parody Psycho Beach Party, starring Six Feet Under’s Lauren Ambrose as a square uncool chick (in the film’s one semi-funny moment, she’s issued a verbal burn from the Nice Handicapped Girl archetype) who pretends to be cool amongst a surfer bro gang. Think a bad version of Gidget against the backdrop of a slasher plot. Oh and Ambrose also starts exhibiting the behavior of multiple personalities for some inexplicable reason. There is a scene where Ambrose is having a tempered fight with her mother, suddenly becomes possessed by her confident spirit, side, or whatever, and begins to talk in jive, embodying racist stereotypical behavior of African-American women, in specificity of speech and body movements, and then impulsively bitchslaps her mom. This actually happens several times in the movie, and the personality is named Tylene. There’s also a late-act Marnie-inspired reveal about Ambrose’s childhood resulting in a self-consciously cartoonish murder (before more reveals culminating in the use of everyone’s favorite), following a horribly choreographed surfer-rock boogie musical montage, shot like a cheap 90s music video, with Adams front and center.

Cruel Intentions 2 has cruel intentions of its own for the audience watching, gifting us the prequel to the 90s cult film that nobody asked for, with the cardinal sin of being incompetently unable to fulfill the bare minimum requirement of the narrative in demonstrating how these sociopathic stepsiblings could forge a believable union. Right from the beginning we have enough information on both roles’ characterizations to do this, but instead the male lead tries to have a heart and Adams (channeling her That 70s Show guest-starring queen bitch) manipulates him -along with school admins using her sexuality as a real-life siren, somehow without being sexy- without us even knowing it.

It’s such a stupid twist because she’s been manipulating people this entire film (this is literally what she does for fun), and the punchline comes out of left field when the innocent girl Sebastian has been chasing asks him if he loves her in a bittersweet moment only to say ‘Well I don’t’ (Sike!) as Adams emerges from the closet (after we just left her standing in her own home where Sebastian sped off from to get there- can she teleport?) to relay that these two girls have been teaming up to break his heart all along. Oh, and then they start making out and ask him to join, and Sebastian says, “well if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” and transitions from a heartbreak to nonchalantly shedding his emotions and engaging in a threesome (yes, this plays exactly like a cheap 90s porno, without the good parts). Why have a prequel at all when you fail to use the first 80 minutes and wait until the last two minutes to abruptly show this change in character? He literally could have arrived at Adams’ doorstep after his evil antics at his past school we are aware of from the very first scene of the prologue, sized each other up, and just started toying with people right then and there. I knew this would be trash, but at least sell the trash as necessary! [Note: I know I saw this film in high school and revisited it out of good faith since I knew Adams would figure prominently, but I will not be revisiting Serving Sara, which I saw in theatres in ‘02 and will just leave it at that.]

The Slaughter Rule is an unexpectedly idiosyncratic coming-of-age story, starring a young Gosling playing football off the grid in rural Montana for an eccentric Morse as the most misfit coach ever. Adams is hardly more than an extra- the girlfriend of, or the girl with, some dude who Gosling fights in a restaurant. This got some decent reviews and I wanted to like it more- because the film really is taking some strange routes around the predictable signposts- but I came away shrugging at every element that wasn’t Morse. For his part, Morse is electrifying, portraying a very lived-in character the movies just don’t write, and while the personality definitely comes as a collaborative process, another actor would have failed to bring the authenticity this role demands.

This is particularly apparent in an excessively long scene halfway through the film, that manages to escape full cringe-inducing panic with mesmerizing raw yearnings for connection without the tools to express them appropriately. Morse’s intentions aren’t clear, but we are afraid, skeptical, repelled, drawn to, and sympathetic at once. People like this exist, and it’s cool to see a film brave enough to flaunt that truth. Unfortunately, everything else is lame, and the narrative runs the risk of devolving into homophobia (even.. justifying homophobia..) as an explanatory diagnosis for the messy characterizations and relationships we’ve just witnessed; all for naught.

Pumpkin is an insolent dark comedy about a sorority girl who has an odd romance with a handicapped boy, after an anti-PC declaration of medieval Moral Model attitude towards these “different” populations as cockroaches. Amy Adams shows up as one of the sorority sister in the rival greek chapter, but she doesn’t do anything. Mileage will vary on this one, and while it didn't hit its intended marks with the leveled skill this material deserves, it's undeniably impressive just how far left the filmmaker's bend their satire. This movie was made at the exact right time, getting away with stuff a film couldn't today- even as a commentary on these PC college flicks; I just wish it was made by the right people. The milieu we get is a surreal world reminiscent of our own.. but descends into sci-fi-level territory of abnormality. Melissa McCarthy shows up in an early role too, for all the wannabee Melissa McCarthy completists on the forum.

The Last Run is an obliviously misogynistic movie that isn’t sad or amusing at tackling its subject. Adams is, unsurprisingly (well, perhaps surprisingly considering her early flat perfs), the film’s only bright spot- as the rich girlfriend of Savage’s best friend (who SUCKS) and she plays the part with earnestness and sympathy in her few brief scenes. She feels like a complicated character deflecting from her caricature out of a different, better movie.

Amy Adams then plays brides-to-be in back-to-back films. The Wedding Date is so dull there is hardly anything worth commenting on, aside from Adams playing a bimbo the script tries to give a heart with inauthentic drama (oh, and the the couple is so superficial that the reason they decide to get back together for eternity is “the makeup sex will be great”). Standing Still is your classic ‘friends with shared history getting together years later, exposing said history’ tale, and would be significantly more sufferable if James Van Der Beek had a more substantial part, but alas he does not, and everyone comes off almost as gross as Colin Hanks’ weasel of a character.

Adams’ arc is ridiculous (the Big Speech her fiancee gives on their wedding day amplifies what would be an already-tragic tale into ludicrousy.. I mean your mom already bleeding out from the head because of an accident of yours is bad enough, but then flipping the car? This feels like a looney tunes gag where a character gets maimed five different ways, except this story is played totally straight), but her lesbian romance bringing up obviously sincere feelings and then suppressing them as the Right Thing To Do comes off as problematic on so many levels. Their love scene together could have been approached differently and this would have worked, but because of how the information is presented, we’re left assuming that Adams’ self-actualization is sourced in burying her sexuality. Awesome.

The Ex is a star-studded Weinstein comedy that fails to make the best of everyone’s talents, but isn’t as terrible as the reviews indicate. A line like “You don’t hit a guy with a porkchop” has the potential to be funny (see: Segal’s great line absurdly specifying another edible item against an otherwise sensible outcry in California Split) but is not delivered in a funny way. However, Braff’s ridiculous workplace environment coupled with Peet’s immature adult shtick that bridges her friendship with neighborhood boy Wesley yield several laughs (as do the irreverent jokes about the handicapped guy’s sexual prowess and other physical abilities emasculating the able-bodied Braff). Grodin proves that he still has the ability to flaunt original comic chops after a great career of exercising these skills, coming back after a long 12-year hiatus. The film manages to actually subvert the final act of these ‘cunning-ex-tries-to-steal-wife-while-appearing-innocent’ flicks by deflating any predicament for Peet, and the way she delivers her Are You Kidding Me? punchline is a welcome moment of clarity that makes us aware of how stupid any film that does take this premise seriously is, and what they're actually saying about the stability of the deceptively-”strong” relationship in question. Adams steps up in a bit part as a local condescending bohemian, and her hippie baby practices thrust on Peet kinda work at criticizing a subculture I know too well. I’m sure it’s because I watched this in between so many terrible movies, but it wasn’t as terrible, which means in the confines of this project it was pretty good.

Adams’ voice role in Underdog is as forgettable as the movie, although there’s one moment where she upsets expectations for a reenactment of The Lady and the Tramp’s famous Italian food sharing scene with a halting “I’m on a diet.” Ha. Sunshine Cleaning I’ve been holding off on since an ex recommended it at least ten years ago, and turns out I wasn’t missing as much as she convinced me I was. There is a promising premise here with two endearing actresses, and yet the tone isn’t nearly as diverse or ambitious as the material demands. I didn’t buy the sisterly relationship, nor the expressive unveiling of the trauma on Blunt’s part, which was overcooked and exploitative in a pretty cheap way, nor Adams’ desperate need to attend the baby shower against so many priorities she was sound enough to make logical arrangements for, nor her final speech about what she’s “good at.” I did like Alan Arkin’s interactions with the kid, as well as Adams’ early exchanges with Clifton Collins Jr., though even those lost steam and quickly transformed into more provocative irritation, which we didn’t need here.

Adams plays a cute Amelia Earhart in Night of the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian, but doesn’t lend a whole lot to the film outside of some spitfire dated jargon (unlike some of the other players, especially Jonah Hill as the security guard Brundan, whose scene is absolutely hysterical). And then there's Moonlight Serenade, the bottom of the barrel, which has lines like, “Is that what your soul is made up of, financial advice? Well, then I’m sure you’re very good at what you do” [cue dramatic score]. This is an incompetently constructed film from how interior scenes are shot to, well, everything. It doesn’t help that Adams’ scene partner/second lead is abysmal. There is a musical montage of jazz playing over Adams tending to her partner kicking heroin, in what may be the most misjudged number ever. This is the worst musical I’ve ever seen, and down there with the worst movies I’ve seen, period.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: 2000s List Discussion and Suggestions (Lists Project Vol. 3)

#310 Post by zedz » Tue Mar 30, 2021 12:00 am

therewillbeblus wrote:
Mon Mar 29, 2021 11:48 pm
The Slaughter Rule is an unexpectedly idiosyncratic coming-of-age story, starring a young Gosling playing football off the grid in rural Montana for an eccentric Morse as the most misfit coach ever. Adams is hardly more than an extra- the girlfriend of, or the girl with, some dude who Gosling fights in a restaurant. This got some decent reviews and I wanted to like it more- because the film really is taking some strange routes around the predictable signposts- but I came away shrugging at every element that wasn’t Morse. For his part, Morse is electrifying, portraying a very lived-in character the movies just don’t write, and while the personality definitely comes as a collaborative process, another actor would have failed to bring the authenticity this role demands.

This is particularly apparent in an excessively long scene halfway through the film, that manages to escape full cringe-inducing panic with mesmerizing raw yearnings for connection without the tools to express them appropriately. Morse’s intentions aren’t clear, but we are afraid, skeptical, repelled, drawn to, and sympathetic at once. People like this exist, and it’s cool to see a film brave enough to flaunt that truth. Unfortunately, everything else is lame, and the narrative runs the risk of devolving into homophobia (even.. justifying homophobia..) as an explanatory diagnosis for the messy characterizations and relationships we’ve just witnessed; all for naught.
I had no idea Amy Adams was in this. It's worth seeing for Morse alone, and his character is what makes the film bold and memorable.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: 2000s List Discussion and Suggestions (Lists Project Vol. 3)

#311 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Mar 30, 2021 12:12 am

She might not even have a speaking line, but we catch her briefly "try" to stop her boyfriend from engaging in the fight in such a blasé manner you could blink and miss her completely. And yeah, as angry as I am at the film's failure to support his strong character, it's the best I've ever seen Morse.

User avatar
bdsweeney
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:09 pm

Re: 2000s List Discussion and Suggestions (Lists Project Vol. 3)

#312 Post by bdsweeney » Tue Aug 17, 2021 4:18 am

Lake Mungo (Joel Anderson, 2008)
There are low-key films which you hear promising word about over the years which accumulate in you finally sitting down for a viewing. Sometimes this pays off, sometimes not. Lake Mungo very much paid off and I found it to be terribly affecting. I knew very little about it other than I knew it was a horror or ghost story and its reputation has been growing over the past decade or so. I'm glad I went into it so cold and kind of wish other potential viewers will too ... but I also want to spread the word about this small, carefully structured, well crafted, atmospheric, genuinely scary and finally terribly, terribly sad film about grief, trauma, confusion, teenage experience and self-shame. If that's enough of a recommendation for you to watch the film without reading on, please go watch now.

When it starts with fake news footage of a teenage girl's drowning at a (I think) farm dam, you soon think you have a handle on it and can guess where it's heading. (It's a fictitious documentary, some of it in the style of found footage.) But the verisimilitude of the fake documentary (the performances of the leads, style and framing of the footage, and the fact that it never for a second acknowledges its falseness) starts to win you over. More so, from the start, the film never plays false with the emotions of the situation. None of the drowned girl's remaining family's grief is dealt with simplistically nor in rote fashion. Rather, the family members and friends express individual, non-linear and well-developed expressions of loss and sadness that correspond with your own real-life experiences. And it's from this (rather than the film being highly plotted) that you're drawn in. In retrospect, the lighting, sound design and careful use of score also work well too.

The film contains some element of that 'what is it exactly that I'm watching?' style you get with grainy found-footage films. But it rarely uses that for its own sake and makes that solely what the horror element of the film is. Rather, you share in the experience of what the footage means for the small country community in which the film is set ... especially for the grief-stricken family where the grainy footage offers some hope that their daughter has not died (or lives on in some fashion) after all.

When and where plot points build and mystery-building do occur, again they're not for their own sake and come from realistic human actions. (Though I will say, they're also carefully plotted and arrive just when you may think you've got a handle on where the film's heading.)

It's one of these plot points where (for me) the real emotional stakes took hold.
SpoilerShow
It becomes apparent that in the years leading up to her death, the daughter was dealing with ongoing events of exploitation (statutory rape ... not clear if consensual or not) which may (and would likely) have resulted in ongoing trauma. As such, the circumstances of her death become (at least in my reading) more complicated. What's more, the film's most dramatic moment of found-footage horror works as a fine visual metaphor for the confusion of dealing with experiences and emotions you're not able to deal with and the resulting trauma and suicidal ideation (and eventual act of suicide) which result from it. The result is an overwhelming sense of sadness over the loss of a young daughter's life and its aftermath. And still, none of this is dealt with heavy-handedly. It doesn't have a specific moment designed to be tear-jerking ... rather it's a blanket of loss over the entire film.
What can I say? It's a found-footage ghost story that doesn't rely on jump scares, knows exactly how long it should be (less than 90 minutes in length), has an enveloping sense of dread but doesn't kick you in the stomach with it and, eventually, looks at the sadness of the teenage daughter's situation and unexpected loss of a sibling plainly in the eye.

With exceptions, I too often don't acknowledge (or even view) the films of great quality which come from Australia (where I come from and live). It's only once a film starts getting an international reputation that I'll sometimes give a home-grown film a go. That's to my shame. Quite easily, Lake Mungo could have remained another of those unviewed Aussie films. Rather, I'm lucky to have given Lake Mungo a viewing as it should be recognised as one of the great ghost stories and one of the great Aussie films of the 21st century. A terrific film.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: 2000s List Discussion and Suggestions (Lists Project Vol. 3)

#313 Post by therewillbeblus » Thu Aug 19, 2021 12:43 am

Revisited Elizabethtown again, and then stumbled upon Ebert's interesting reading, which I had admittedly never entertained but noticed a few points (none of which he makes in his defense!) that 100% fit -and not sure how they'd be explained in any other way:
SpoilerShow
-When Bloom explains his "failure" to Dunst, her feedback mentions his boss by name ("Phil's mad at me, wah wah wah" mocking him), when not enough information has been given to secure that default response (he didn't mention Phil by name, just vaguely stating that he cost "a major company" a lot of money), indicating omniscience

-During the perfectly-mapped out road trip, the eerie ability for Dunst to have a somber classical piece and note along with it to accompany the exact moment where Bloom finds the magazine (not yet even written, let alone produced, by the time of her writing this agenda)

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: 2000s List Discussion and Suggestions (Lists Project Vol. 3)

#314 Post by domino harvey » Thu Aug 19, 2021 1:48 am

I'm pretty sure that entire column is a reprint of an email Ebert received

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: 2000s List Discussion and Suggestions (Lists Project Vol. 3)

#315 Post by therewillbeblus » Thu Aug 19, 2021 7:53 am

Makes sense since at that point in his life Ebert certainly didn’t defensively assert atheism, and was more transparent about his relationship with God/a higher power of his understanding


User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: 2000s List Discussion and Suggestions (Lists Project Vol. 3)

#317 Post by domino harvey » Wed Dec 01, 2021 1:48 am

Holy hell that site is unreadable on mobile, it keeps moving up and down to before or after whatever I’m trying to read.

And I see zero throughline of Tom Green to I Think You Should Leave, which is a scripted sketch comedy show where, based on the episodes I graciously sat through, every single skit is pitched to the same level of absurd over-response, with virtually no actual novelty. I’m dumbfounded it has any kind of following. Something like early Neil Hamburger is way more of a piece with Freddy Got Fingered, but I guess that ruins this shaky thesis since it predates Green

User avatar
Never Cursed
Such is life on board the Redoutable
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 12:22 am

Re: 2000s List Discussion and Suggestions (Lists Project Vol. 3)

#318 Post by Never Cursed » Wed Dec 01, 2021 2:04 am

Oh goodness, I coulda told you that that show's the exact type of Adult Swim-ish nonsense that you so despise (see also: anything with actual Adult Swim alum Sam Hyde). I think they're both funny in bursts, but the idea of actually sitting down and watching an episode of either a Robinson or Hyde show is pretty unappealing to me.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: 2000s List Discussion and Suggestions (Lists Project Vol. 3)

#319 Post by therewillbeblus » Wed Dec 01, 2021 2:05 am

I thought the theory that Green was self-aware and weaponized his white privilege, placed against the grain of modern gen-z zeitgeist comedy, was interesting but wasn't delved into with depth- perhaps because there really is no grounded thesis posturing as one. I unapologetically love Freddy Got Fingered (it holds a place with Hot Rod in being stupid comedies with some very intelligently-constructed jokes hidden within the inanity- though that's kinda the opposite of what this article is trying to argue for in big picture Meaning). The writer is also connecting this to I Think You Should Leave with broad strokes (how each character invades complacency like irritating Gods to aggressively provoke comedy, which isn't even true when Tim Robinson plays the straight-man or a meek character half the time). I've come around to that show a bit- though it's wildly inconsistent, and the majority of sketches make me want to leave whatever room I'm in. The Horse Ranch commercial from S1 is funny, but S2 had more solid gags, with this being my favorite.

However, this brief clip might be Tim Robinson's best contribution to comedy

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: 2000s List Discussion and Suggestions (Lists Project Vol. 3)

#320 Post by therewillbeblus » Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:08 am

Nikos Nikolaidis' final two films maintain his consistent commitment to raw eccentricity while functioning as evolved, arguably more 'mature' reproductions of past works. The Loser Takes It All is basically an updated version of The Wretches Are Still Singing, in terms of the age of the five characters struggling to find purpose and emerge from the trappings of their eroding existences, only with the detailed personalities of Sweet Bunch. So, perhaps it would be more appropriate to call it a replica of that film's youth all grown up - only The Loser Takes It All is pitched as a more lucid disclosure of Nikolaidis' deteriorating patience for the world to mold to his self-actualization, and yet the ambiance reflects an acceptance of the confusion and ill-fitting environment alongside the responsibility on the agent to actualize their destiny. It's a strikingly honest depiction of five people lonely and scared and searching to desperately reclaim what’s lost and what may never have been there at all in reality, but that’s always been there in their minds; an atmospheric tone poem of the rare key of harmony between existential rot and vitality of unapologetic spirit. I was with this film for most of its crooked narrative structure, but I'm not so sure it sticks the landing. For such postured-misanthropic people who never truly connect in any meaningful way during its two hour runtime, there's an unearned emotional resonance in the final act that I don't buy. Aside from that, it's a fun ride of twisted stimulation propelling a unique strategy of forward momentum and curiously-drawn characterization that's simultaneously naked and guarded.

The Zero Years fares better, and is a suitable conclusion to the director's filmography as it compiles pieces of all of his work into one final product. Like the aforementioned three films above, it's a study of four (okay, not five, unless you count the gimp) outcasts trying to stay mentally and physically afloat. It's set in seemingly the same post-apocalyptic wasteland as Morning Patrol, functions as a chamber piece resembling purgatory like See You in Hell, My Darling, and with the same degree of heightened and unprompted psychosexual and sadomasochistic dynamics as found in Singapore Sling, only with rawer and less guarded characterization, and in a more aesthetically decayed milieu. The quartet of prostitutes at the center resemble a Rivette troupe of girls, only substituting coquettes with the drugged-out mother screaming "1-1-9" in Twin Peaks: The Return. The film is surprisingly touching, and a somewhat somber reveal -as one woman looking for an out returns in the end- can be read as a heartening ode to acceptance of life on life's terms. This is a recurring theme for Nikolaidis, documenting the existential barrier that must be traversed to lean into one's supports available to them in the peripheries of their myopically self-seeking, often fruitless aims. It's also a nice bookend with his first feature, Euridice BA 2037, a kind of perverse spin on the narrative and tonal signifiers of Waiting for Godot. A great swan song, which seems to be widely disliked. I wonder how many of those critics missed the connective tissue between this and the rest of Nikolaidis' oeuvre.

Post Reply