|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 342 responses total. |
mary
|
|
response 246 of 342:
| 
Feb 18 22:22 UTC 2006 |
You didn't love that scene where he melts down and pours the
wine spit down this face?
Of course, I should warn you, I'm one of those adults who would
love to be able to melt down like a two year old and get over it.
|
tod
|
|
response 247 of 342:
|
Feb 18 22:58 UTC 2006 |
I do that kind of thing about once a week.
|
richard
|
|
response 248 of 342:
|
Feb 19 05:11 UTC 2006 |
I didn't find Sideways boring at all, it was a character study, about
the interactions between people. why is it some people think that
something big has to happen storywise, some great earthshaking moment,
for a movie to be not boring. What did you want out of it Other, a
murder, a death, somebody going to jail, great catastrophies or other
things? Sideways was a very tender movie about real people in real
situations.
I liked the scene where they are out in the vineyards, and his friend
tells him his ex- just got re-married, and he cracks up, grabs a bottle
of wine, rips the cork out with his mouth, and runs maniacally out into
the fields screaming and chugging the bottle while the friend chases
him. hilarious.
|
richard
|
|
response 249 of 342:
|
Feb 19 05:16 UTC 2006 |
re #248 if Other didn't like Sideways, he would probably hate reading
Proust. Over a thousand pages and nothing much happens. Some things
aren't about the beginning and the ending, they are about the middle,
about process as opposed to a dramatic starting and stopping point.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 250 of 342:
|
Feb 19 05:17 UTC 2006 |
I found it an effective movie; it presents complex characters struggling
with realistic situations and, most of the time, with themselves. This
is a harder thing to do well; a bad action movie can still be enjoyable
as meaningless fluff, while bad drama just leaves you with the feeling
that two hours (or, unforgivably, more) of you life has been sucked away
by the big bad pretension monster.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 251 of 342:
|
Feb 19 07:07 UTC 2006 |
re #248: I can't speak for Eric but the reason *I* found it boring
was that I found the characters to be uninteresting, unsympathetic,
and unoriginal. I'm sure this isn't what actually happened, but
from the time the movie started until the point where I turned it
off without watching the end I found it hard to get this scenario
out of my head:
"Hey! Let's do a movie where a tormented writer character and
a narcissistic actor type go out on the road together, and in a
clever twist their trip turns into a voyage of self-discovery!"
"OK, but we need an angle.."
"Hmmm.. You're right. Pour me another glass of cab while I try
to come up with something.."
I thought the dialog was uninspired. I despised most (all?) of the main
characters (which is the only sure way to kill my interest in a movie:
populate it with characters that I can neither identify nor sympathize
with..) And the wine angle, really the only novel element, was pretty
much a paper-thin facade slapped onto an ordinary road movie -- in my
opinion you could have written out the wine angle and substituted it
with a dozen other things without noticably affecting the movie's
vestigial plot or predictable character development..
|
mary
|
|
response 252 of 342:
|
Feb 19 12:13 UTC 2006 |
I understand. Not all movies click with me either, even though they
are wildly popular in general.
I'm not nearly as crazy about Brokeback Mountain as most seem to be. Yeah,
it was tragic - really tragic that homosexuality was (is) treated with
such prejudice and hostility. But this particular relationship seemed to
spin around sex, not love. Both were unfaithful to each other and each
other's needs (outside of sex) didn't seem all that important or at least
get much attention. Homosexuality doesn't give someone license to use
others, like they used their wives. That was tragic too.
The movie would have been stronger had they held the homosexual
relationship to the same standards to which we hold heterosexual
relationships, despite society's prejudices. You know, moral
homosexuals. That would have been a statement.
I saw the characters as tragic, for sure, but not as posterboys for
loving and respectful behavior in homosexual relationships.
|
bru
|
|
response 253 of 342:
|
Feb 19 12:48 UTC 2006 |
I am surprised at the number of cartoons that are coming out this year.
Ant Bully
Barnyard
Cars
Doogal
Ice Age 2: The MEltdown
Over the Hedge
Hoodwinked
curious george
|
richard
|
|
response 254 of 342:
|
Feb 19 23:49 UTC 2006 |
re #252 but they weren't INTENDED to be "poster boys for loving and
respectful behaviour in a homosexual relationship", or any relationship
for that matter. That was the whole point, that tragically some people
can be in love and yet be in no way capable of returning that love or
in some cases, like with the Heath Ledger character, not even be
capable of being in the relationship for the most part.
Heath Ledger's character feels love, both for his wife and for the Jake
Gyllenhal character, but in neither case is he capable of confronting
it, or accepting that he has any ability to accept and give love as
strongly as he feels the love. "Brokeback Mountain" is a classic
Shakespearean tragedy.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 255 of 342:
|
Feb 19 23:56 UTC 2006 |
"... classic Shakespearean tragedy"
Have you ever *read* Romeo and Juliet?
|
scott
|
|
response 256 of 342:
|
Feb 19 23:58 UTC 2006 |
Well, *I* thought Sideways was pretty funny - though to be honest I watched
it in between flights at a friend's wine-tasting.
|
richard
|
|
response 257 of 342:
|
Feb 20 00:00 UTC 2006 |
re #255, yeah why? you think Romeo and Juliet is more tragic than
Brokeback Mountain? Society would not accept the relationship of Romeo
and Juliet, just as society in the rural west wouldn't accept the
relationship of the Ledger and Gyllenhall characters. There is no
place in society for one couple because they are too young, there is no
place for the other couple because they are gay. Doomed lovers from
the outset, similar stories.
|
tod
|
|
response 258 of 342:
|
Feb 20 02:24 UTC 2006 |
re #257
I didn't think age had anything to do with it.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 259 of 342:
|
Feb 20 02:29 UTC 2006 |
Re #255: The relationship between Romeo and Juliet had if anything *too much*
demonstrated love, which is exactly the opposite of what you described ("in
neither case is he capable ... of accepting that he has any ability to to
accept and give love ...").
|
other
|
|
response 260 of 342:
|
Feb 20 06:06 UTC 2006 |
I also found the characters in SIDEWAYS remarkably unsympathetic. In a
character study, if you cannot relate to the characters or at least find
something absorbingly interesting about them, what motivation would you
have for staying with it? Mine was the hope that something would
happen, and the desire to understand what it was about this film that
made it so popular.
I'm bereft on both counts.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 261 of 342:
|
Feb 20 06:42 UTC 2006 |
One might say, the movie doesn't care what you think. It is a story of
somewhat believable characters. They say things and do things, in fact many
of which are not what you ordinarily encounter. It is perhaps remarkable that
the acting is quite good - they aren't a bunch of unbelievable hams. So, your
job is to sit back and enjoy it or not.
I found the characters to be mostly a bunch of jerks. Even jerks can be
entertaining to observe - which is all we are asked to do.
|
tod
|
|
response 262 of 342:
|
Feb 20 06:50 UTC 2006 |
I own a mirror. Why should I pay?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 263 of 342:
|
Feb 20 07:13 UTC 2006 |
You got me there - though no one is *making* you pay, so don't.
|
edina
|
|
response 264 of 342:
|
Feb 20 15:20 UTC 2006 |
"Sideways" is a movie I saw once and will most likely only see again if
someone asks to watch it.
My favorite scene remains, hands down, when Miles (Giamatti) is retrieving
Jack's (Haden Church) wallet. It was a sequence of events that still makes
me laugh.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 265 of 342:
|
Feb 20 18:01 UTC 2006 |
that was fun.
|
naftee
|
|
response 266 of 342:
|
Feb 20 18:34 UTC 2006 |
hi happyboy !
|
remmers
|
|
response 267 of 342:
|
Feb 20 18:35 UTC 2006 |
For the record: I *loved* "Sideways". (And I wish Virginia Madsen had
won the Oscar that she was nominated for.)
|
edina
|
|
response 268 of 342:
|
Feb 20 18:45 UTC 2006 |
I'm just glad to see her finally getting some great work. She was really
great in that role.
|
tod
|
|
response 269 of 342:
|
Feb 20 18:46 UTC 2006 |
I like when they drive the car into the tree. I can relate to such extreme
measures for an alibi.
|
richard
|
|
response 270 of 342:
|
Feb 20 19:10 UTC 2006 |
re #260 I thought the two main characters in Sideways were both
sympathetic and likeable. These are two guys who are swallowed up in
their own neuroses (one guy has an inferiority complex, the other is a
narcissist) and because of that may always ultimately fail at every
relationship they have. By the end of the movie, you know Haden
Church's impending marriage is never going to last because his
narcissism will never allow him to be faithful. Giamatti's character's
relationship with the Virginia Madsen character probably won't last
either, because he-- like his friend-- is too self obsessed, albeit in
a different way.
But there is one relationship which will not fail, which has not
failed, and that is the one they have with each other. When we first
see Haden Church's character, he is in a roomful of his soon-to-be
inlaws and he lights up when he sees Giammati's character. You can
sense immediately that he's closer to this guy than he is to his
fiancee or to anybody else in that room. There is a great deal of
tenderness in their relationship, you can see they really care for each
other, and if that doesn't make those characters sympathetic, what
will? No matter what happens in their lives, even if they get
swallowed up in their neuroses, they will always have each other.
There is an allegory in the wine storyline, because wine changes with
age, gets better. The Giammati character relates to wine, because
while he has his inferiority complex and failed at his first marriage,
he hopes that he-- like wine-- can and will get better with age.
There's a scene where he describes why Pinot Noires are his favorite,
because pinot noir grapes have a difficult early life and require a
great deal of caring, and if they survive, end up making great wine.
Pinot Noir grapes, he also points out, have a limited timespan where
they are of great quality, before they go downhill. Again an allegory
for a man in a middle age crisis wondering if he'll ever get in another
relationship before his time passes and he's aged too much and goes
downhill.
There's a sad scene where the Haden Church character, having had the
crap kicked out of him by one girl, picks up a waitress in a restaurant
almost immediately, and he tells Giamatti that he isn't going to hang
out with him, that he's going to wait for her to get off work. There's
a sadness in Giamatti's eyes as Haden Church's character says, "I have
to do what I have to do" His character is trapped in his neuroses and
will never escape from it.
The movie ends on a hopeful note because we see Giamatti's character
going back to Madsen's apartment and knocking on the door. A poignant
moment because it signals that maybe, just maybe, he will escape his
neuroses and be able to commit to another person again. Maybe, like a
good pinot noir grape, his time has come.
|