criterionforum.org

Trailer B up at Yahoo movies. Less lyrical and more focused on the action and the dynamic between James and Ford.

The film was... not bad. But lyrical it's not. Those wanting something like Malick will be disappointed. It's actually quite straightforward IMO. The real surprise is Casey Affleck - a very bizarre but IMO effective performance.

Terrence Rafferty in The New York Times: Jesse James, an Outlaw for All Seasons

Grimfarrow wrote:The film was... not bad. But lyrical it's not. Those wanting something like Malick will be disappointed. It's actually quite straightforward IMO. The real surprise is Casey Affleck - a very bizarre but IMO effective performance.

Exactly right. Dominik is no Malick, though his composer's score borrows from Badlands' Orff, and Roger Deakins' shots were nice. Affleck was indeed bizarrely affecting, though, I'd say, pretty "one note" for the whole 160 minutes, but Pitt was horrible - shame on the Venice jury! And not only is the movie long, but it plays the same scene (does JJ know, he knows, no he doesn't, yes he does, does he know) over and over and over and over and over again.

Two negative views. Sigh. Oh well. The comments on that second piece are also worth taking a look at.

John Cope wrote:Two negative views. Sigh. Oh well. The comments on that second piece are also worth taking a look at.

One can at least be partly consoled by the fact that Armond White has no taste and no judgement.

Mr_sausage wrote:

John Cope wrote:Two negative views. Sigh. Oh well. The comments on that second piece are also worth taking a look at.

One can at least be partly consoled by the fact that Armond White has no taste and no judgement.

Ain't that the truth!

Manohla Dargis, however, does, which bodes poorly for this film.

I especially like this quote:

Manohla Dargis wrote:The true story of Jesse James, despite all the dime novels and B movies, remains untold, perhaps because in its savagery it really is as American as apple pie and, as such, unspeakably hard to tell.

... which points to a tendency as American as apple pie (or savagery!) to whitewash history into a postcard. (This is also why I'm indifferent to Days of Heaven; Dargis, incidentally, notes the influence of Malick on this film.) The idea that the West represents completely obscures the historical reality, just as those who tend to romanticize the Western gunslinging cowboy like to ignore the darker aspects of the archetype.

Eh, I'll catch it when it's released on DVD.

And here's the Salon.com review.

Saw the film and I hate to say it but I think it's the best film I've seen this year. I think the main problem is that so many people think that this film is going to be a straight forward western dealing with the life of Jessie James. It's not, in fact, it only deals with the last year of James life. Yes it's set in the western era, but the film is more a meditation on the pitfalls of celebrity, or as Pitt has called it a psychological drama/thriller about a paranoid man whom knows he's at the end of his life. If you want a straight forward western, see 3:10 to Yuma. This is the best work that Pitt has ever done in his life. Casey Affleck also is a surprise and shows that at least one Affleck has some talent in the family. After seeing this, even though Ben directed the film, I'm looking forward to seeing Gone Baby Gone just to see if Casey can pull the film off. And I do understand why people thought that this was going to be like a Malick film, but it isn't. It does look like it, two shots reminded me of Days of Heaven, but overall you can't compare it to a Malick film.

THX1378 wrote: And I do understand why people thought that this was going to be like a Malick film, but it isn't. It does look like it, two shots reminded me of Days of Heaven, but overall you can't compare it to a Malick film.

Yes we can wait till There Will Be Blood to be released to do that

Here's a great interview with Dominik. He talks about the strongly divided (masterpiece/trainwreck) critical reception and his influences for the film (think Barry Lyndon not Days of Heaven).

Read the interview and I think it's great that he compares the film to Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid. The western as a "greek curse" is right on the money about this film. Also liked that he pointed out that it wasn't until recently that the the critics had changed their minds about Lyndon.

Jeff wrote:He talks about ... his influences for the film (think Barry Lyndon not Days of Heaven).

A friend of mine works closely with Jule Daley, the president of RSA (Ridley Scott's production company) and a producer of the film, and with Dominik. She says Dominik never stopped talking about Malick over the course of the three plus years it took to get the film made.

And, just to clarify, Dominik says in the linked interview, fwiw, that Barry Lyndon and Days of Heaven were the two influential movies for him (not "Barry Lyndon not Days of Heaven")

I just saw this and I was completely sucked in, I was thrilled to see the 3 hour cut. I've got to say it... best film I have seen in theatres all year. The description of Jesse James in the V.O. reminded me of most of the book, Raising Holy Hell, by Bruce Olds and it's description of John Brown. Being knee deep in Michael Lesy's, Wisconsin Death Trip, didn't hurt either. Anyone agree?

p.s. Long time lurker, been too scared to post. This one got it out of me. Hello.

I just watched this and I liked it quite a bit... My only complaint is that it seems too rigid. I do wish that it were a little more fluid, like a Malick or Altman film... but that would be criticizing it for something it's not.
I enjoyed the whole look and feel, and the acting from everyone involved was top-notch. I was also glad to see Nick Cave, and was surprised to see his name credited for the music (the score was one of the best things about the film, alongside its cinematography)

I think this one will grow on me. I'll probably grow to love it over the next many years.

Now I cannot wait for "There Will Be Blood"

I was watching some crappy "fall season Oscar films" type preview on a random news show today and the film critic mentioned that Warner is effectively dumping this film and won't be expanding it much further. Does anyone know if this is true?

Antoine Doinel wrote:I was watching some crappy "fall season Oscar films" type preview on a random news show today and the film critic mentoined that Warner is effectively dumping this film and won't be expanding it much further. Does anyone know if this is true?

That sounds about right. Its box office hasn't been that good, even for limited release. Into the Wild came out the same day and has a similarly languid pace, has played in even less theaters, and has made about three times as much money. It's the kind of movie most audiences steer clear of, that's why I said on the first page that it looked like a flop. $30 million is a small budget, but when the film has struggled to make just over $1 million in three weeks of limited release then it has to still be considered disappointing.

With the other prestige pictures starting to pop up soon, I imagine it'll get buried and without a wide release (similar to Little Children last year, which maxed out at 115 theaters).

It expanded a little wider this weekend, adding a few screens in the remaining major markets, and it will supposedly go a little wider next weekend. Warner supposedly didn't set up critics' screenings in many of the cities it expanded to this week, leading to them being unable to review the film in time to meet their deadlines. For whatever reason, they are effectively burying it.

I think that if they had marketed it better, they could have at least recouped their investment. It's much less "arty" than I had anticipated and seems very accessible to mainstream audiences to me. It's a pretty straightforward narrative, augmented by a couple of very strong performances and amazing photography. The montage leading up to the Blue Cut train robbery is absolutely some of the most beautiful cinematography I've ever seen.

The film opened here in Montreal over the weekend. There were reviews in the weeklies and daily newspapers though whether it was from press screenings or merely an expanded review of festival coverage I have no idea.

Went to see the film tonight, and my first reaction is that it is a tragedy that Warner Brothers is burying Dominik's arrival as a major director and easily one of the best films of the year. As Jeff mentioned, the film follows a very straightforward arc, using the narration device to divide the film into serial-like "chapters", much like the very books that inspired Robert Ford. Dominik's quasi-Western concerns itself far less with the exploits of Jesse James and his gang (indeed, the opening train robbery is about all we get) but investigates the myth and deconstruction of celebrity.

The film, both visually and otherwise, is a knockout. Casey Affleck as Robert Ford is astonishgly great here, all raw nerves and wounded pride, as he watches his hero unravel from the legend he has read about. Brad Pitt is refreshingly "off", keeping the flashy acting choices away, instead offering a fascinatingly brooding, paranoid Jesse James. Sam Rockwell, as Ford's brother is great too, and it's great to see back in a film that's worth his chops. And if anyone was worried that Brad Pitt's visit to the editing room may have resulted in more screen they would be dead wrong. This is Affleck's show from start to finish.

This is a film that gets it all right - every single detail. This is an obviously a labor of love from Dominik. There are so many sequences that are both narratively powerful and visually jawdropping (theater sequence, the photography sessions, the slow ride to visit Ed, dinner with the Ford brothers). Dominik's composition is assured, and film is mesmerizing from beginning to end.

If you have to drive to see this on the big screen - do it. A great, great film that is not getting it's due and will no doubt in my mind be hailed a classic in years to come.

Antoine Doinel wrote:If you have to drive to see this on the big screen - do it. A great, great film that is not getting it's due and will no doubt in my mind be hailed a classic in years to come.

Although I might not call it "A great, great film..." I certainly agree that it will be hailed as a classic in the years to come (if not just for Nick Cave).
My own view of it is that it will benefit from repeat viewings over the next several years (as the acting, from pretty much everyone involved, is phenomenal)... give me 2 years with the DVD and I'll probably reconsider my current view and call it a masterpiece. (this is how I wish I could think with a lot of films, particularly The Fountain, but this is the only one I'm strongly certain I will grow to love)

I just saw this yesterday, and I have to say it is a masterpiece. Certainly the best studio film I have seen all year, and possibly my favorite film of the year. There is a lyrical, graceful quality to the film, and while not completely Malick-y, the comparisons to Malick's work are apt. Everything, from the beautiful score, to the supporting performances, to Deakins's cinematography, to Dominik's direction and script, are amazing. Do yourself a favor and see this now. I can't believe how terribly warner is treating this film.

How's the music in this movie? I just heard that my faves Nick Cave and Warren Ellis wrote the score.

Jean-Luc Garbo wrote:How's the music in this movie? I just heard that my faves Nick Cave and Warren Ellis wrote the score.

Huge fan of Nick Cave and Warren Ellis myself, and I loved the score. It reminded me of the score they wrote for The Proposition. Beautiful. I´m not so sure what I thought of Nick Caves cameo in the film though...

Cave had a cameo? What was it? A mortuary attendant?

He walked around in a saloon singing Jesse James. A rather dull version i thought. The audience burst out laughing when he appeared, and I can´t blame them. He was a lot better in Johnny Suede. I liked his moustache though.