Sideways(2004)

[Stone me]

Dir:Alexander Payne

In spite of knowing some people (including the person who loaned me the DVD)
love this movie, I found it excruciatingly bad, almost unwatchable, due to
the characterisation given by the plot to Miles(Paul Giacometti).

Miles spends 90% of the movie whining about himself.

Where someone like Ebert could see beauty in a short conversation
between Miles and Maya(Virginia Madsden), I found it clumsy and obvious.

The scene where Miles retrieves a wallet for his friend
Jack(Thomas Hayden Church), does not belong in context with
this movie. It's inclusion was one of desperation.

Sandra Oh was very watchable, again.

Stone me.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 27, 2012 9:30:54 PM UTC-4, Stone me wrote:

> Sandra Oh was very watchable, again.
>

She was the only thing in the film that was worth a moment.

[notbob]

On 2012-05-28, Stone me <m...@hollywood.com> wrote:
>
> Sandra Oh was very watchable, again.

Yes. A terrible movie that had the Left Coasters all a-twitter.
Whatta snore.

I jes discovered Grey's Anatomy, an almost painful medical TV series
with a buncha young babe interns attempting to make blatant sluttish
behavior seem somehow humorous. But, Sandra Oh makes it all tolerable
with hilarious looks of incrudulous dumfoundedness she's always
flashing at her clueless friends and cow orkers who are not as cynical
and sharkish as herself. ;)

nb

--
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
<http://www.labelgmos.org/>

[Howard Brazee]

You didn't like the golf ball hit back into players?

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:48:00 PM UTC-4, Howard Brazee wrote:
>
> You didn't like the golf ball hit back into players?
>

I found the whole movie tedious after the first 15 minutes. It had some moments and that just doesn't do it for me. It's not a flick that I would ever consider re-seeing.

[John Doe]

wlahearn gmail.com wrote:

> Howard Brazee wrote:
>>
>> You didn't like the golf ball hit back into players?
>
> I found the whole movie tedious after the first 15 minutes.

But what about the golf ball?

--

[Tom Benton]

On 28 May 2012 02:20:20 GMT, notbob <not...@nothome.com> wrote:

>On 2012-05-28, Stone me <m...@hollywood.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sandra Oh was very watchable, again.
>
>Yes. A terrible movie that had the Left Coasters all a-twitter.
>Whatta snore.
>
>I jes discovered Grey's Anatomy, an almost painful medical TV series
>with a buncha young babe interns attempting to make blatant sluttish
>behavior seem somehow humorous. But, Sandra Oh makes it all tolerable
>with hilarious looks of incrudulous dumfoundedness she's always
>flashing at her clueless friends and cow orkers who are not as cynical
>and sharkish as herself. ;)
>
>nb

I thought it was supposed to light comedy and if so, it was very
light. The entire pretext for the trip turned me off. The "boys acting
badly" genre tends to strike me as juvenile at best and offensive at
worst.


_____________________________________
Procrastinate now! Do not put it off!

Ellen DeGeneres

[trotsky]

On 5/28/12 5:57 AM, Tom Benton wrote:
> On 28 May 2012 02:20:20 GMT, notbob<not...@nothome.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-05-28, Stone me<m...@hollywood.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sandra Oh was very watchable, again.
>>
>> Yes. A terrible movie that had the Left Coasters all a-twitter.
>> Whatta snore.
>>
>> I jes discovered Grey's Anatomy, an almost painful medical TV series
>> with a buncha young babe interns attempting to make blatant sluttish
>> behavior seem somehow humorous. But, Sandra Oh makes it all tolerable
>> with hilarious looks of incrudulous dumfoundedness she's always
>> flashing at her clueless friends and cow orkers who are not as cynical
>> and sharkish as herself. ;)
>>
>> nb
>
> I thought it was supposed to light comedy and if so, it was very
> light. The entire pretext for the trip turned me off. The "boys acting
> badly" genre tends to strike me as juvenile at best and offensive at
> worst.

Now this is indeed strange. According to Rotten Tomatoes--

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sideways/

96% of the critics pooled gave it positive reviews. And yet there are
few people on the internet with extremely tightly clenched keisters
saying it is totally dismissible, and only worth seeing because Sandra
Oh is in it. Whom do we believe? This is a quite a quandary.

[Sol L. Siegel]

poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote in
news:prose9-5BA145....@news.eternal-september.org:

> I thought it was OK, but quite overrated. Seems like a movie such as
> "Sideways" or "Lost in Translation" breaks into the mainstream every
> so often, and filmgoers become ever so pleased with themselves for
> finding a "talky" movie than they enjoy rather than scorn. But for
> people who routinely watch films of that sort...ho hum.

I thought it was more than OK. But you have a point. Some movies
are very difficult for writers to praise in such a way that they
might actually induce viewers to see them, without abusing their
(my?) limited arsenal of adjectives in such a way that the
public sometimes feels cheated when they do see it. "Local Hero"
is another example.

- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA

[Kuskokwim]

On Mon, 28 May 2012 02:30:54 +0100, Stone me wrote:

> Sandra Oh was very watchable, again.

Only if you like watching ugly.

[Stone me]

"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
news:dqednbSQnuXG_17S...@mchsi.com...

Well never mind Rotten Tomatoes. You have touched on a point worth
consideration. Is it possible to like or dislike a film for reasons given
yet differ from the herd, without being described in dismissive terms?

Surely the best talking shops like ramp-f require just this to generate
sensible discussion?

Stone me.

[trotsky]

Well, your perspective is different than mine. The internet gives a
vast glimpse at the lowest common denominator--constantly. People
generally think they are "cool" or "discerning" by spewing bile about
something. I'm weird, because I wait for people to do this, and then
call them assholes for doing so. sir william ahearn is certainly the
best example of this. Personally, I think "Sideways" isn't nearly as
good as "About Schmidt" which it apes to a great degree, but it was
still very engaging, and worth watching for Paul Giamatti alone. I
don't even recall what Sandra Oh did in the movie.

[moviePig]

On May 28, 11:03 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> On 5/28/12 9:47 AM, Stone me wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > "trotsky" <gmsi...@email.com> wrote in message

Sandra Oh was good, Paul Giamatti was good, and SIDEWAYS and Alexander
Payne were good. And SIDEWAYS apes (i.e., resembles) THE DESCENDANTS
more than it does SCHMIDT. SCHMIDT, btw, I've found to be a
polarizing -- maybe even a litmus-test -- movie. Meanwhile, we're
offended by criticism of movies we like because 1) we "adopt" them,
and 2) criticism's often needlessly condescending. (All imho.)

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[gtr]

On 2012-05-28 11:32:42 +0000, trotsky said:

> Now this is indeed strange. According to Rotten Tomatoes--
>
> http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sideways/
>
> 96% of the critics pooled gave it positive reviews. And yet there are
> few people on the internet with extremely tightly clenched keisters
> saying it is totally dismissible, and only worth seeing because Sandra
> Oh is in it. Whom do we believe? This is a quite a quandary.

Believe only your only viewpoint. If you've found a reviewer, or a
clenched-keister to be frequently in line with your own conclusions you
might give extra consideration to these. But I occasionally disagree
with people that I frequently agree with.

Like this time. I haven't seen Sideways since it came out, but I like
Giamatti on screen and found him an amusing schlub that I could
identify. I do remember thinking his sidekick was an idiot. But that
was indeed what the charater was supposed to be.

Light entertainment, a few good moments a frew cringe-worthy: Average.

[trotsky]

On 5/28/12 10:30 AM, moviePig wrote:

> Sandra Oh was good, Paul Giamatti was good, and SIDEWAYS and Alexander
> Payne were good. And SIDEWAYS apes (i.e., resembles)

No. "Apes" is a euphemism for mimics, which it can't do with "The
Descendants" because it hadn't been made yet. "Sideways" used the same
formula as AS where they tried to depict an emotional payoff in the end,
but for my money it was much better executed in AS.

THE DESCENDANTS
> more than it does SCHMIDT. SCHMIDT, btw, I've found to be a
> polarizing -- maybe even a litmus-test -- movie. Meanwhile, we're
> offended by criticism of movies we like because 1) we "adopt" them,
> and 2) criticism's often needlessly condescending. (All imho.)

You're funny, mpig. Usually it's you who's defending the critics raison
d'etre. Your flip=flopping makes me wonder if you're a Romney
supporter. I wonder if you'll even have a comment on my reply to Stone
me about the lowest common denominator.

[trotsky]

On 5/28/12 11:05 AM, gtr wrote:

> Light entertainment, a few good moments a frew cringe-worthy: Average.

Negative opinion expressed on the internet--like a Pavlov's dog.

[gtr]

On 2012-05-28 04:00:55 +0000, poisoned rose said:

> I thought it was OK, but quite overrated. Seems like a movie such as
> "Sideways" or "Lost in Translation" breaks into the mainstream every so
> often, and filmgoers become ever so pleased with themselves for finding
> a "talky" movie than they enjoy rather than scorn.

If they enjoy it, for whatever reason, I don't understand the "pleased
with themselves" remark. I enjoyed both movies. They are two of the few
in the past 20 years that I was compelled to see in the theater. Or
maybe the wife wfas. But neither did anything for my self image.

> But for people who routinely watch films of that sort...ho hum.

The "talky" sort? I thought that "Lost in Translation" wasn't really
that talky at all. In fact I remember it now as dialogue shy. I
usually like movies that cut back on the dialogue. Even more so if
they cut WAY back on the dialogue.

I remember too movies that slightly "broke into the mainstream" that
were talky and that people seemed to like in a unique way, perhaps
"pleased with themselves" that they could tolerate something didn't
have car-crashes and aliens in them. One was a Ned Beatty movie,
"Spring Forward", the other was "My Dinner With Andre". Now those were
talky. I liked the former, but got nothing valuable from the latter.

[gtr]

You only like watching pretty? That would certainl limits the range of
selection.

[Tom Benton]

I didn't mean to be dissmissive. Obviously, some people liked it. I
just don't think movies about guys acting like that are amusing. I
also hate "Mr. Mom" type movies. That is just me.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 28, 2012 7:32:42 AM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:

> Now this is indeed strange. According to Rotten Tomatoes--
>
> http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sideways/
>
> 96% of the critics pooled gave it positive reviews. And yet there are
> few people on the internet with extremely tightly clenched keisters
> saying it is totally dismissible, and only worth seeing because Sandra
> Oh is in it. Whom do we believe? This is a quite a quandary.

Your posts in this thread have been quite revealing about how your brain works. Essentially you're saying that to disagree with critics about a popular film is to have knots in your ass and behave like the "lowest common denominator" by being "negative." The best example is the "Whom do we believe?" part where you state quite plainly that you have no clue how to make up your mind as to whether you like a film or not. What a bundle of untreated neuroses, you are, trotsky. It's also quite apparent why you never discuss a film based on its relative merits when all you respond to is what you think is "negative" and how usenet and the internet makes this possible as if "negative" reviews were the product of errant code or broken links.

Plus, your logic is faulty in that because 99% of "critics" gave it positive reviews, ergo, it must be good when (a) the sampling isn't reflective of anything; and, (b) how many critics worth a shit are still working? What it always comes down to is what the viewer thinks and feels about a film and in that regard you've shown yourself to be a coward who is incapable of making any kind of statement -- positive or negative -- about a film. Why bother with all of that when you can just attack people who have views different from the herd. Your "quandary" is that you can point out grammatical mistakes, point to a bindle full of critics, respond with "cite" and other usenet trollery but when the chips are down you haven't a clue what makes a film "good" even for yourself. Your posts used to piss me off. Now, I just see you as a sad, lost and angry clown standing on the railroad tracks and wondering about how long the trains been gone.

[Kuskokwim]

I get my fill of ugly watching Debbie Wasserman Schultz interviews on CNN.
(Why doesn't she do the interviews after she visits the dog groomer instead
of before?)

[notbob]

On 2012-05-28, Stone me <m...@hollywood.com> wrote:
>
> "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message

>> http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sideways/
>>
>> 96% of the critics pooled gave it positive reviews. And yet there are few

> Well never mind Rotten Tomatoes.

No, it's rather revealing. Likewise the movie Drive, probably the
worst movie I've viewed in decades. A movie soooo bad that if I
hadn't looked it up on RT and seen critics lying about how the rising
violence made it all worthwhile, I would've turned it off in the first
10 mins. Said violence never materialized and the movie finally
sucked beyond all describable logic.

> consideration. Is it possible to like or dislike a film for reasons given
> yet differ from the herd, without being described in dismissive terms?

Perhaps, if one earns a living generating discussion about movies
that generally aren't worth even acknowledging.

[trotsky]

Which I believe to be true.

Obviously, some people liked it.

That's dismissive. 94% of the professional critics that are paid to be
critical of movies liked it. That's not the same thing.

I
> just don't think movies about guys acting like that are amusing. I
> also hate "Mr. Mom" type movies. That is just me.

A movie that's about a guy that was completely self-absorbed? Did you
think "Citizen Kane" was lame too?

[trotsky]

On 5/28/12 12:05 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 28, 2012 7:32:42 AM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
>
>> Now this is indeed strange. According to Rotten Tomatoes--
>>
>> http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sideways/
>>
>> 96% of the critics pooled gave it positive reviews. And yet there are
>> few people on the internet with extremely tightly clenched keisters
>> saying it is totally dismissible, and only worth seeing because Sandra
>> Oh is in it. Whom do we believe? This is a quite a quandary.
>
> Your posts in this thread have been quite revealing about how your brain works. Essentially you're saying that to disagree with critics about a popular film is to have knots in your ass

No, that's not true. You did react in the Pavlovian manner that I
expected, so thanks for that.

and behave like the "lowest common denominator" by being "negative."

Hey, you got the quotes right!

The best example is the "Whom do we believe?" part

Which part is that? I didn't say anything about my opinion of the movie
until a subsequent post. Here's where we differ, billy--I wait until I
feel I have something to add to the discussion and then I say something.
You stick your neck out and say, "I'm being an ass, please chop my
head off." You and calvin are exactly the same in that regard.

where you state quite plainly that you have no clue how to make up
your mind

Sadly, you're trying to make nail soup out of my post.

as to whether you like a film or not. What a bundle of untreated
neuroses, you are, trotsky.

Was the extra comma a tribute to "RichA"?

It's also quite apparent why you never discuss a film based on its
relative merits when all you respond to is what you think is "negative"
and how usenet and the internet makes this possible as if "negative"
reviews were the product of errant code or broken links.

As I said earlier, you are one of the worst examples, so again, thanks
for the Pavlovian response.

> Plus, your logic is faulty in that because 99% of "critics" gave it positive reviews, ergo, it must be good when (a) the sampling isn't reflective of anything; and, (b) how many critics worth a shit are still working? What it always comes down to is what the viewer thinks and feels about a film and in that regard you've shown yourself to be a coward who is incapable of making any kind of statement -- positive or negative -- about a film. Why bother with all of that when you can just attack people who have views different from the herd. Your "quandary" is that you can point out grammatical mistakes, point to a bindle full of critics, respond with "cite" and other usenet trollery but when the chips are down you haven't a clue what makes a film "good" even for yourself. Your posts used to piss me off. Now, I just see you as a sad, lost and angry clown standing on the railroad tracks and wondering about how long the trains been gone.

I guess the only thing to say here is will you *ever* have the balls to
show any self awareness?

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 28, 2012 2:20:55 PM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
>
> I guess the only thing to say here is will you *ever* have the balls to
> show any self awareness?

Ha ha ha. Swerve and deflect. Good bye, trotsky.

[moviePig]

(No flipflop -- pro critics are motivated differently from Usenet
posters.) You said that the LCD is "people generally think[ing] they
are 'cool' or 'discerning' by spewing bile about something." Sure,
that's as frequent as it is misguided. But it feeds on an even
LowerCD: people hoping to seem cool and discerning with uncritical,
perspective-less, me-too enthusiasm. Really, of course, the best
thing one viewer can do for another is introduce him to a way of
*liking* some movie. And that's hard.

[moviePig]

TomB has acknowledged an "allergy" to (I assume) Paul Giamatti's
character ...the same as your (and sometimes my) allergy to certain
kinds of violence. Heck, Giamatti makes his living being annoying.
You and I happen to enjoy it, but others, though still sentient, might
not.

[gtr]

That was a negative opinion? I enjoyed it!

[gtr]

Oh--gotcha. Republican-think.

Carry on...

[gtr]

On 2012-05-28 18:13:09 +0000, trotsky said:

> That's dismissive. 94% of the professional critics that are paid to be
> critical of movies liked it. That's not the same thing.

And 100% of them have 0% effect on my evaluation. How much of an
effect do such statistics have on the way you evaluate film?

[trotsky]

Sounds like a resounding "no". What new?

[trotsky]

You're not saying anything. I would like, if possible, for you to
address the dichotomy of the critical acclaim this movie has
received--you know, the critical acclaim you yourself say has merit--and
the thorough trashing several posters here have piled on with. Going
further, the imdb user rating for this movie is 7.7, which is pretty
good, and another metric that you say that you follow. But what the
hell, if you want to be the Switzerland of Usenet and stay perennially
neutral, so be it.

[trotsky]

I like Switzerland, mp, honestly I do, but it doesn't further the
discussion one bit. TomB didn't say "Giamatti", he said "guys acting
like that" which I read as a reference to the character, not the actor
himself, which makes my question about "Citzen Kane" still apt.

[trotsky]

Interesting--I'm looking for above average movies, and the ones I enjoy
I rarely describe as "light entertainment." In fact, since this was yet
another Alexander Payne movie about a guy having a crisis of conscience,
I dare say your description means it came off as a failure to you.

[trotsky]

That's not the discussion here. The discussion is why people are more
inclined to say derogatory things about a movie or whatever else on
public forums on the internet. Critics are paid to be overly critical,
but that is clearly trumped by those looking to trash something on an
internet public forum. Agree or disagree?

[moviePig]

You want me to tell people who didn't like SIDEWAYS that really they
did? Of course, I'm happy to suggest that anyone does a likely
disservice by not recommending it to others, and I'll offer those
numbers in support. But first I'd have to be asked. (I couldn't live
in Switzerland. Too many mountaintops...)

[moviePig]

Well, I can hardly imagine not looking forward a movie that 94% of
responsible critics liked. Of course, I'd like to claim that my high
expectation had no effect on my subsequent opinion, but I think that'd
make me other than human...

[Howard Brazee]

On Mon, 28 May 2012 10:03:46 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:

> Personally, I think "Sideways" isn't nearly as
>good as "About Schmidt" which it apes to a great degree, but it was
>still very engaging, and worth watching for Paul Giamatti alone. I
>don't even recall what Sandra Oh did in the movie.

I thought "About Schmidt" was better, but don't see that it was aped,
unless car trips qualify.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[Michael OConnor]

On May 28, 12:00 am, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:
> "Stone me" <m...@hollywood.com> wrote:
> > Dir:Alexander Payne
>
> > In spite of knowing some people (including the person who loaned me the DVD)
> > love this movie, I found it excruciatingly bad, almost unwatchable, due to
> > the characterisation given by the plot to Miles(Paul Giacometti).

>
> I thought it was OK, but quite overrated. Seems like a movie such as
> "Sideways" or "Lost in Translation" breaks into the mainstream every so
> often, and filmgoers become ever so pleased with themselves for finding

> a "talky" movie than they enjoy rather than scorn. But for people who

> routinely watch films of that sort...ho hum.
>

I didn't care a whole lot for Sideways, and I'm a huge Paul Giamatti
fan. In a lot of ways it seemed like Giamatti was playing Woody Allen
in one of those talky Woody Allen dramadies. Giamatti's stock in
trade is playing that angry, neurotic guy, and it just didn't work for
me in this movie. That being said, Virginia Madsen was outstanding
and deserved the Best Supporting Actress Oscar; why she didn't become
one of the big female movie stars of the past 20 years, and why she
pretty much fell off the show business radar after making this movie,
is beyond me.

[Tom Benton]

Interesting point, and one I hadn't thought about. Kane played on a
bigger stage. Maybe that made him more interesting than someone trying
to get laid close to his wedding day and another obsessing about the
perfect pinot. I have know people like that and they simply annoy me.
I have never known a Kane type.

[Tom Benton]

Actually, it was the Church character I found most annoying, but he
was written that way. Apparently, many people, including critics fwiw,
found him interesting. I didn't. Maybe you could tell me what is so
interesting about a guy cheating on his fiancé and another covering
for him and obsessing about wine trivia?

[trotsky]

On 5/28/12 5:28 PM, Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2012 10:03:46 -0500, trotsky<gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> Personally, I think "Sideways" isn't nearly as
>> good as "About Schmidt" which it apes to a great degree, but it was
>> still very engaging, and worth watching for Paul Giamatti alone. I
>> don't even recall what Sandra Oh did in the movie.
>
> I thought "About Schmidt" was better, but don't see that it was aped,
> unless car trips qualify.

Both movies followed the exact same formula where a morally ambivalent
guy goes through a crisis of conscience only to see an emotional payoff
at the end. Agree or disagree?

[trotsky]

Kane was a grating personality, but on a much larger scale, so that I
agree with. Giamatti's character is rather whiny, so it isn't hard to
be unsympathetic towards him. I've always thought it was a fine line
between having a character that you dislike in certain ways but can
still root for, and one you just couldn't care less about. Again, I
liked "Sideways" because I was somewhat sympathetic towards him, in the
same way I was sympathetic towards Nicholson's character in "About Schmidt".

[gtr]

No, it wasn't a failure for me. I enjoyed it. But I do like "light
entertainment" a lot, if it's not a stupid premise for stupid people.
Of course that wouldn't be "entertainment" for me either.

Regarding "average", I suppose we all have our own definition of
"average" and "failure". I hope. Now as I begin parsing and
dismantling yet another single word for it's full and complete meaning
and the degree to which it means universal things to other folk I'd
have to admit for me the movie is NOT average after all. As an American
movie I would actually consider it above average. The average American
movie, perhaps even from a statistical perspective for this time period
is almost always unpleasant for me.

But this is MY viewpoint. My own viewpoint. I speak for no others.

[gtr]

On 2012-05-28 22:06:09 +0000, trotsky said:

>>> That's dismissive. 94% of the professional critics that are paid to be
>>> critical of movies liked it. That's not the same thing.
>>
>> And 100% of them have 0% effect on my evaluation. How much of an effect
>> do such statistics have on the way you evaluate film?
>
> That's not the discussion here. The discussion is why people are more
> inclined to say derogatory things about a movie or whatever else on
> public forums on the internet. Critics are paid to be overly

> critical,...

That's the theory, yes.

> …but that is clearly trumped by those looking to trash something on an

> internet public forum. Agree or disagree?

Agreed. And freebie blogging in general. As this discussion has rolled
out, wholly unrelated, I watched a streamed version of "Heckler". I
found it really though provoking particularly as it stretched into the
motivations/attitudes/intent of film-bloggers and the hatchet jobs they
call "reviews".

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 28, 2012 7:45:11 PM UTC-4, Tom Benton wrote:

> Actually, it was the Church character I found most annoying, but he
> was written that way. Apparently, many people, including critics fwiw,
> found him interesting. I didn't. Maybe you could tell me what is so
> interesting about a guy cheating on his fiancé and another covering
> for him and obsessing about wine trivia?
>

It's all in how it's done. Ernst Lubitsch would have you rolling in the aisles if he did it. The difference is that "Sideways" as much as it may not want to, actually endorses these kinds of characters. That's not exactly what I mean, but close.

[gtr]

On 2012-05-28 22:16:36 +0000, moviePig said:

> On May 28, 4:16 pm, gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>> On 2012-05-28 18:13:09 +0000, trotsky said:
>>
>>> That's dismissive.  94% of the professional critics that are paid to be
>>> critical of movies liked it.  That's not the same thing.
>>
>> And 100% of them have 0% effect on my evaluation.  How much of an
>> effect do such statistics have on the way you evaluate film?
>
> Well, I can hardly imagine not looking forward a movie that 94% of
> responsible critics liked. Of course, I'd like to claim that my high
> expectation had no effect on my subsequent opinion, but I think that'd
> make me other than human...

Sure, if you consult these lists they will send you to some good movies
I imagine. Particularly if your tastes generally align with theirs. I
watched "Requiem for a Dream", critics 78%, audience 93%. Despised it.
And Pi was 86%/85%. Also disliked it.

Most of the boring and obscure foreign movies I gravitate too, I find
critics find boring and obscure. At least one of the tasks of such
critics (it is rumored) is their intent to give their readership (as
they perceive it) advice on which moves to see and reject.

During a film discussion on the above movies and another movie by
Aronofsky, after I presented my viewpoints on WHAT and WHY I disliked
the movies, structure, characters, credibility, film technique (not
just an all purpose snipe-fest), I was challenged by--a rottentomatoes
rating. "Well the critics said…" followed by a challenging look. Like
I'd been busted! Like somehow I was gonna back down--Oh, well I guess I
*did* like them. Strange. Some people consider critics the definitive
viewpoint.

[gtr]

Can't most movies be culled down to simple narrative constructs like this?

[gtr]

On 2012-05-29 00:34:24 +0000, trotsky said:

>> Interesting point, and one I hadn't thought about. Kane played on a
>> bigger stage. Maybe that made him more interesting than someone trying
>> to get laid close to his wedding day and another obsessing about the
>> perfect pinot. I have know people like that and they simply annoy me.
>> I have never known a Kane type.
>
> Kane was a grating personality, but on a much larger scale, so that I
> agree with. Giamatti's character is rather whiny, so it isn't hard to
> be unsympathetic towards him. I've always thought it was a fine line
> between having a character that you dislike in certain ways but can
> still root for, and one you just couldn't care less about. Again, I
> liked "Sideways" because I was somewhat sympathetic towards him, in the
> same way I was sympathetic towards Nicholson's character in "About
> Schmidt".

I'm always sympathetic to Giamatti character's it seems. I think they
thing about the wine-compulsive is that you certainly get the idea that
this fellow is filling a whole in his lonely life, and it could be wine
or muscle-cars or antique china.

[gtr]

On 2012-05-28 22:35:46 +0000, Michael OConnor said:

> I didn't care a whole lot for Sideways, and I'm a huge Paul Giamatti
> fan. In a lot of ways it seemed like Giamatti was playing Woody Allen
> in one of those talky Woody Allen dramadies. Giamatti's stock in
> trade is playing that angry, neurotic guy, and it just didn't work for
> me in this movie.

I like his shtick. I like that guy up on the screen. Who can say why?

> That being said, Virginia Madsen was outstanding
> and deserved the Best Supporting Actress Oscar; why she didn't become
> one of the big female movie stars of the past 20 years, and why she
> pretty much fell off the show business radar after making this movie,
> is beyond me.

IMDB'ing her, it seems she got some steady TV paydays, maybe she was
making babies and that made things convenient, or another family
consideration. That said, she seems to have six movies in
pre-production.

By the way, casting can become progressively more difficult,
particularly for lovely women, when they get a name and when they get
to be in their late 40's or 50's.

[gtr]

On 2012-05-28 23:45:11 +0000, Tom Benton said:

> Actually, it was the Church character I found most annoying, but he
> was written that way. Apparently, many people, including critics fwiw,
> found him interesting. I didn't. Maybe you could tell me what is so
> interesting about a guy cheating on his fiancé and another covering
> for him and obsessing about wine trivia?

Nothing inherently.

Pieces like this tend to work through of the dynamics of all the
characters. Church causes *problems* for Giamatti, and Giamatti's
character deals with those problems.

[trotsky]

On 5/28/12 8:00 PM, gtr wrote:
> On 2012-05-28 22:04:05 +0000, trotsky said:
>
>> On 5/28/12 3:13 PM, gtr wrote:
>>> On 2012-05-28 16:14:03 +0000, trotsky said:
>>>
>>>> On 5/28/12 11:05 AM, gtr wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Light entertainment, a few good moments a frew cringe-worthy: Average.
>>>>
>>>> Negative opinion expressed on the internet--like a Pavlov's dog.
>>>
>>> That was a negative opinion? I enjoyed it!
>>
>> Interesting--I'm looking for above average movies, and the ones I
>> enjoy I rarely describe as "light entertainment." In fact, since this
>> was yet another Alexander Payne movie about a guy having a crisis of
>> conscience, I dare say your description means it came off as a failure
>> to you.
>
> No, it wasn't a failure for me.

You seem to have misunderstood what I said. I will restate it:
Alexander Payne was yet again attempting to show a man having a crisis
of conscience, which those of familiar with the English language would
not describe as "light entertainment". Therefore, if the director was
attempting serious and it came off as light entertainment, it was a
failure *TO* you.

Notice my emphasis of the word "to" which has a different meaning in
context than the word "for" which you used. I'm assuming you're already
lost, though, and you have no idea what the fuck I'm talking about.

[Howard Brazee]

Endorsing the cheating actor? I don't think so.

[trotsky]

On 5/28/12 8:02 PM, gtr wrote:
> On 2012-05-28 22:06:09 +0000, trotsky said:
>
>>>> That's dismissive. 94% of the professional critics that are paid to be
>>>> critical of movies liked it. That's not the same thing.
>>>
>>> And 100% of them have 0% effect on my evaluation. How much of an effect
>>> do such statistics have on the way you evaluate film?
>>
>> That's not the discussion here. The discussion is why people are more
>> inclined to say derogatory things about a movie or whatever else on
>> public forums on the internet. Critics are paid to be overly critical,...
>
> That's the theory, yes.

Is English your first language? If that's the "theory", what happens in
practice?

>> …but that is clearly trumped by those looking to trash something on an
>> internet public forum. Agree or disagree?
>
> Agreed. And freebie blogging in general. As this discussion has rolled
> out, wholly unrelated, I watched a streamed version of "Heckler". I
> found it really though provoking particularly as it stretched into the
> motivations/attitudes/intent of film-bloggers and the hatchet jobs they
> call "reviews".

Well, hell, if you're going to agree with me I'm not going to have
anything to get pissed about. Although I'm still pissed about your
previous post...

[trotsky]

I have no idea what that means. Can most movies be culled down to
narrative constructs that show that the same director follows the same
formula in two different movies? Are you on crack?

[trotsky]

On 5/28/12 8:21 PM, gtr wrote:
> On 2012-05-29 00:34:24 +0000, trotsky said:
>
>>> Interesting point, and one I hadn't thought about. Kane played on a
>>> bigger stage. Maybe that made him more interesting than someone trying
>>> to get laid close to his wedding day and another obsessing about the
>>> perfect pinot. I have know people like that and they simply annoy me.
>>> I have never known a Kane type.
>>
>> Kane was a grating personality, but on a much larger scale, so that I
>> agree with. Giamatti's character is rather whiny, so it isn't hard to
>> be unsympathetic towards him. I've always thought it was a fine line
>> between having a character that you dislike in certain ways but can
>> still root for, and one you just couldn't care less about. Again, I
>> liked "Sideways" because I was somewhat sympathetic towards him, in
>> the same way I was sympathetic towards Nicholson's character in "About
>> Schmidt".
>
> I'm always sympathetic to Giamatti character's it seems.

According to IMDB,

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101272/

John Franklin played Cousin It.

[moviePig]

Well, cheating is usually considered more fascinating than fidelity,
and obsession than indifference. But, no, I can't tell you what's
interesting about these guys any more than why Laurel and Hardy are
funny, (And, of course, not everyone agrees that they are.)

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 28, 2012 10:05:31 PM UTC-4, Howard Brazee wrote:
>
> Endorsing the cheating actor? I don't think so.
>

Maybe not then -- and I say maybe because I'm about to go on a Lubitsch German comedy binge and who knows what's there -- but if he weren't working within the Hays Code, maybe he would. It's a hard call to make.

[Tom Benton]

Exactly. I think this is a personal taste issue that went astray at
some point. Those (including the 94% of all critics, I assume) related
to the characters in some way. I simply felt "I avoid jerks like this"
and couldn't get much further.

[Stone me]

"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:7mb8s7hd2odnm2id8...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 28 May 2012 16:51:53 -0700 (PDT), wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Actually, it was the Church character I found most annoying, but he
>>> was written that way. Apparently, many people, including critics fwiw,
>>> found him interesting. I didn't. Maybe you could tell me what is so
>>> interesting about a guy cheating on his fiancé and another covering
>>> for him and obsessing about wine trivia?
>>>
>>It's all in how it's done. Ernst Lubitsch would have you rolling in the
>>aisles
if he did it. The difference is that "Sideways" as much as it may not want
to,
actually endorses these kinds of characters. That's not exactly what I mean,
but close.
>
>
> Endorsing the cheating actor? I don't think so.
>

> - James Madison

Endorsement has to make sense.
I feel that's what stood in my way. I couldn't allow myself to identify with
this character, not just because of the way he treats his mother, but his
wine-snob
silliness, and his awful whining about his personal life, as if no-one else
listening
had not encountered problems themselves. I found the plot twist where Madsen
begins to listen and like then love, quite hard to believe in.

Stone me.

[gtr]

On 2012-05-29 02:09:38 +0000, trotsky said:

> Alexander Payne was yet again attempting to show a man having a crisis
> of conscience, which those of familiar with the English language would
> not describe as "light entertainment". Therefore, if the director was
> attempting serious and it came off as light entertainment, it was a
> failure *TO* you.

I think you're trying to say it was a failure FOR him. It was
certainly not a failure TO me. He has his intent, I have mine. We
apparently have our mutually exclusive conclusions.

I remember a Cassavettes story about the first time they screened
"Opening Night". A producer or someone stood at the back of the
theatre as the movie ended when the crowd applauded vigorously.
Cassavettes said, "Shit, I'll have to re-edit." "Why? They loved
it?!" the producer asked. "Yeah, but for the wrong reasons."

And he did recut it. So I don't know if you believe a "crisis of
conscience" can be contained only in a vessel considered "tragedy" or
how you work that or related categorization out. I don't know what
Payne thinks either. My thinking is I liked the movie, I found it light
entertainment, and not a failure.

Your thinking on my thinking or conclusions on my conclusions… I can't
do anything about that.

[gtr]

On 2012-05-29 02:11:47 +0000, trotsky said:

>>> That's not the discussion here. The discussion is why people are more
>>> inclined to say derogatory things about a movie or whatever else on
>>> public forums on the internet. Critics are paid to be overly critical,...
>>
>> That's the theory, yes.
>

> If that's the "theory", what happens in practice?

Sometimes they aren't paid. Sometimes they aren't overly critical.

> Well, hell, if you're going to agree with me I'm not going to have
> anything to get pissed about.

There's always tomorrow.

[gtr]

On 2012-05-29 13:08:26 +0000, Stone me said:

> Endorsement has to make sense.
> I feel that's what stood in my way. I couldn't allow myself to identify with
> this character, not just because of the way he treats his mother, but
> his wine-snob
> silliness, and his awful whining about his personal life, as if no-one
> else listening
> had not encountered problems themselves.

If you don't sympathize with the character, well you don't. Certainly
everyone has loved and lost and still we're interested in watching it
happen to others and we get invested. If there's nobody I give a shit
about in a movie it just becomes dead weight.

> I found the plot twist where Madsen begins to listen and like then
> love, quite hard to believe in.

Credibility is critical; for me it worked. I think it's that these
actors (both Madsen and Giamatti) just click with me. As a result
their actors come onto the screen full and real practically from the
outset. Even better actors have to work me into a belief, where these
do not, I think. Perhaps it's what folks frequently say about Henry
Fonda, James Stewart or Spencer Tracy.

[gtr]

On 2012-05-29 02:14:03 +0000, trotsky said:

>>> Both movies followed the exact same formula where a morally ambivalent
>>> guy goes through a crisis of conscience only to see an emotional
>>> payoff at the end. Agree or disagree?
>>
>> Can't most movies be culled down to simple narrative constructs like this?
>
> I have no idea what that means.

The basic narrative of many westerns and genre films use the same
general set-ups. Many movies use more or less the same plot mechanism
and dress them up with slightly different character-types, settings,
and nuance. But the structure remains the same.

> Can most movies be culled down to narrative constructs that show that
> the same director follows the same formula in two different movies?

Yes they probably can, particularly older movies which were more
formulaic. i think the formulaes are more diverse not but it's
frequently easy to guess what's going to happen in many movies from the
outset. At least is for me.

Of course there are also many movies that work hard to avoid the
formulas but they usually get called high-concept, "weird" or "non
mainstream".

[trotsky]

On 5/29/12 9:51 AM, gtr wrote:
> On 2012-05-29 02:09:38 +0000, trotsky said:
>
>> Alexander Payne was yet again attempting to show a man having a crisis
>> of conscience, which those of familiar with the English language would
>> not describe as "light entertainment". Therefore, if the director was
>> attempting serious and it came off as light entertainment, it was a
>> failure *TO* you.
>
> I think you're trying to say it was a failure FOR him.

94% of critics say you're way off base--want to try a third time?

[trotsky]

Wow, that's incredibly vague. I suppose you can provide lists of movie
that follow the "construct" of "Sideways". Except for Alexander Payne
movies I can't.

[gtr]

No, I'll stand pat; I guessed your intent, I missed the mark.

I don't model my views of those of the critics.

[gtr]

On 2012-05-29 17:31:34 +0000, trotsky said:

> Wow, that's incredibly vague.

You're clearly an intelligent person; If your stance is that there are
no formulas for film narrative, telling you so won't convince you.

> I suppose you can provide lists of movie that follow the "construct" of
> "Sideways". Except for Alexander Payne movies I can't.

I can't off the top of my head, nor without payment for my labor. But
then I made no assertion that such lists could be generated for this
particular construct. Additionally I pointed out that many movies also
work to avoid formula.

Your characterization that "both movies follow the exact same formula"
implies you too agree that formulas exist. I simply point out that
most movies can be reduced to such simple formulas as "a morally

ambivalent guy goes through a crisis of conscience only to see an

emotional payoff".

You might be trying to say only these two movies are matched in this
way. Or that only these two movies use formula. With both cases I
disagree.

[moviePig]

Let's acknowledge the reason for those staple, lowest-common-
denominator formulas: they work. And not just because they're
familiar.

[Michael OConnor]

> By the way, casting can become progressively more difficult,
> particularly for lovely women, when they get a name and when they get
> to be in their late 40's or 50's.

Some actresses can overcome this, Katherine Hepburn (not a classic
beauty by any means) and Meryl Streep are the exceptions, that they
can continue their success once they hit their 40's, on their sheer
talent. Faye Dunaway was red hot in the mid late 70's and her career
dried up after she hit 40. Jodie Foster is another actress who I
thought would overcome this barrier when she hit 40, but she did not,
and she had to reinvent herself into more of a dramatic action actress.

[gtr]

On 2012-05-29 20:24:47 +0000, moviePig said:

>> Of course there are also many movies that work hard to avoid the
>> formulas but they usually get called high-concept, "weird" or "non
>> mainstream".
>
> Let's acknowledge the reason for those staple, lowest-common-
> denominator formulas: they work. And not just because they're
> familiar.

Acknowledged. Sometimes they work on me. But much of the time, due to
overexposure, they do not. After many years and many movies some
formulas have just been worn out..

[gtr]

The better the actress and the greater her capacity to do varied roles,
the better for her. Michelle Pfeiffer, Annette Benning, Sharon Stone,
and even Virginia Madsejn--I wish them well, because they are all such
lovely women. But I don't know if they can make the transition--or
whether they'll be allowed.

Seemingly not a problem for Frances McDormand, for instance, or Kathy Bates.

I thought Sissy Spacek would have a more active career. I can't say it
wasn't her choice though--I don't really know.