Slant Magazine
advertisement
Search Site

Poll
Newsletter

Juno, Redacted, The Savages, Beowulf, & More

By: Ed Gonzalez On: 12/01/2007 18:02:42 In: Short Cuts Comments: 48

The Savages

Theatrical releases seen this year: 282 and counting, with only a handful of major ones left to catch up with (among them Sweeney Todd, Charlie Wilson's War, and A Band's Visit), all this week, before we publish our year-end lists. Below are short takes on a few, some older than others, that I've recently caught up with but have been reviewed by others on the site.

Juno (Jason Reitman). Almost as tough to swallow as Hard Candy, that faux-feminist bile that set a precedent for the precociousness Ellen Page belligerently spews here, though less sketchy than Little Miss Sunshine, last year's pageant of Indiewood quirkitude. I get why Comic Book Guys dig Page—she can outwit them, but she would also let them bone her (at least she tells them she would)—but I would rather be trapped in a room with a hungry, face-munching rat than watch the egomaniacal Juno weave one of her ungodly snark quilts. Also, by the time that song about the dog wanting to be the cat and the cat wanting to be the mouse came on the soundtrack, my survival instinct kicked in and I was ready to chew my arm off, but I settled for making Arrested Development cracks until the last act, which was lovely, yes, because of the moral clarity and consistency Juno shows, but also because the film had finally run out of seasons to animate on the screen.

Gone Baby Gone (Ben Affleck). Ben Affeck's directorial debut plays like Mystic River for Lifetime, from its bland bid for moral engagement from its audience to a look at working-class life in Boston that never transcends kitsch. Given the film's pedigree, it seemed wrong that I was able to call the preposterous ending a mile away, but there it was—every bit as absurd as the last film Ashley Judd and Morgan Freeman or Bruce Beresford made together. The casting of Trudi Goodman as a coke-snorting pedophile felt particularly inhumane, though not as mind-boggling as the beeline Michelle Monaghan made for the exit at the end of the film (those who've read the book tell me her character has been considerably dumbed down), leaving Casey Affleck sitting on a couch wondering if kindergarten-cop duty is just punishment for the ethical exactitude he showed earlier.

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (Sydney Lumet). Run Lola Run for the Lincoln Plaza sect, but with less pop and significance. Mostly an overactor's showcase, this nihilistic cheapie allows the one and only Philip Seymour Hoffman to make frequent and dubious use of the word faggot. The script is obviously responsible for the architectural design of the thing, but Lumet, who revealed during the film's NYFF press conference that he didn't know whether Kelly Masterson is a man or a woman, has gotten all the credit.

Starting Out in the Evening (Andrew Wagner). Treks familiar ground—call it NYC lit porn, with half the incisiveness of Husbands and Wives, but also none of its misanthropy—though you wouldn't know it from Frank Langella's conviction. Like Benicio del Toro in How Our Pupils Dilated When the Things in Our Garage Caught Fire, he trusts, inhabits, and redefines a stock type—here a has-been author sheltered from the world and struggling to push out a new creation—making an ordinary film seem less so.

Redacted (Brian De Palma). Ugly. Naïve. Shrill. Hateful. What's more tragic: That this marks the lowpoint of De Palma's career or that Bill O'Reilly, the worst person in the world, more or less nailed it without even seeing it?

Beowulf (Robert Zemeckis). More so than George Lucas, Robert Zemeckis hides behind technology to cheat us of human experience and feeling. Like 300, Beowulf is at once luridly sexed up and homo-wary, a Shrek film for Playboy subscribers, but put me in the chorus that's praising the epic dragon showdown in the second half. Also, until I saw There Will Be Blood last week, the year's best score belonged to Alan Silvestri, if only for the sinister crescendo that signals all of Angelina Jolie's comings and goings.

The Savages (Tamara Jenkins). When Laura Linney finally wins an Oscar, will it be for having made a career out of playing the same character over and over again with the staunch, actorly conviction that she wasn't? Because Tamara Jenkins contrives lame, shopworn scenarios to force two estranged siblings to give a little heart and soul, I imagine the story's snooty lit-circle aura is accountable for the film's histrionic plaudits. We like what we know, and the Sideways Fan Club is naturally fawning over this one, but you'd think more people would be shooing Jenkins's Solondzian self-referentiality. "You didn't think it was some middle-class whining?" Umm, yeah. "You didn't think it's self-important and bourgeois?" Completely. Been there, never want to again. One caveat: Philip Seymour Hoffman may be a more arrogant performer than Linney, but you wouldn't know it from the way he deflects, almost humanely, the Wendy character's cruel and presumptuous behavior.

Michael Clayton (Tony Gilroy). Scarcely nuanced moral quandaries, a typically hammy performance from Tom Wilkinson, preposterously symbolic use of fillies, and a middlebrow aesthetic no doubt intended as a gesture of good will toward producers Steven Soderbergh, Anthony Minghella, and Syndney Pollock, the film has the energy of a particularly weak AM transmission and is capped with a shot more vainglorious than the whole of 300.

3:10 to Yuma (James Mangold). After all the annoying postmodern dithering of The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, it was a relief to see a western uninterested in condescending to the genre. I've stepped in deeper puddles of water, but the filmmaking is agreeably old-fashioned and the performances—except for Ben Foster, who appears to have already reached his expiration date—are equally sturdy, with Russell Crowe redeeming himself, retroactively in my case, after the abomination that is Ridley Scott's witless American Gangster.

Comments

 
By: Jess On: 12/02/2007 18:17:25
So, why exactly do you even watch and review movies anymore? Everything is racist, sexist, and masturbatory, so why bother anymore?
 
By: Ed Gonzalez On: 12/02/2007 23:12:03
Jess, you've asked these questions before on our forum, but since it was probably under a different pseudonym (fionalive? jenglisbe?), you probably think you're being pioneering. Ironically, the intro to this post was much longer at one point before my editor suggested I cut it, but your comment proves that I should have kept it intact. Anyway, the gist of it was twofold: when you see as many movies as I do, perspective becomes a major part of the critical process; and how there are way too many twits out there who think I don't like movies just because I don't bend over for ever shitty Hollywood product. I know you're not right in the head—not once did I bring up racism, sexism, or masturbation in any of these short cuts—but are you blind too? Fact: Out of the 285 theatrical releases I've seen this year, 92 of those got the proverbial thumbs up, and I have the Excel sheet to prove it. I realize this post was top-heavy with negative assessments (sorry, but I had no time to squeeze in positive write-ups of Youth Without Youth and Into the Wild—both of which were panned by Nick Schager in the review section), but I give positive notices all the time—two of those, Billy the Kid and The Other Side of the Mirror appear in the current section this week—so all I can suggest is: look closer. If that doesn't work, then go fuck yourself.
 
By: TJ On: 12/02/2007 23:27:21
No need to be a complete jerk Ed. We get it. You've seen a lot of movies and you have a "critical" perspective on what constitutes a good movie.
 
By: Ed Gonzalez On: 12/02/2007 23:56:51
TJ, I think Jess's flippant comment merits the jerky response it got, and if you knew him like we do, you'd think I was being tame. I appreciate that you "get it," but the problem here is that not enough people share your clarity. As one of the webmasters for this site, our stats report takes me to a lot of message boards I normally wouldn't go to, scouring for potential copyright violations, and I am constantly taken aback by how many people seem to think I don't like movies, or that I hate everything, as if those hundreds of ecstatic reviews that bear my copyright every year on this site were written by some other person or phantom. I realize that my writing may seem harsh to those who only read Peter Travers, but what an insulting thing to say to someone who has given their life to the movies. Shit, I may loathe filmmakers like Marc Forster, but I would never accuse him of not enjoying what he does.
 
By: Dominic On: 12/03/2007 00:00:22
Ed you're too smart to reply to a comment like that. I don't agree with you a lot of the time, but I know you like movies and I appreciate the perspective you bring to your reviews. There are too few critics out there writing about how the movies they watch ring sexist, racist and homophobic alarms. But when you're used to getting your reviews from James Berardinelli, the writers on Slant and Reverse Shot and Film Freak probably sound like lunatics. Accept that, man.
 
By: Matt On: 12/03/2007 01:38:10
Ed, I'd love to hear your comments on Into The Wild...
 
By: Greg Ferguson On: 12/03/2007 06:00:23
Ed, I enjoy following the reviews on your site and while I also tend to notice a fairly steady stream of negative reviews, I also happen to notice - handily enough - very impassioned and articulate explanations accompanying the majority of them (I mean, gee, what ARE all those words underneath the star ratings anyway?). That's why I keep returning to the site no matter how many of my favourite movies are panned. The negative reviews make me stop and think.

That said, I do wish there were more opportunities for the writers at Slant to write about movies they have indeed enjoyed. I treasured the 100 Essential Films feature for that very reason, and I credit it with having expanded my interests in cinema. There are those who I can understand might regard the abundance of negative reviews as a turn-off (their loss, their loss), so perhaps if room could be made to more regularly sing the praises of beloved movies (such as in your short cuts blog posting maybe?) then more people might stand to benefit.

(If, by the way, a second 100 Essential Films column were to be started, I'd be simply elated!)
 
By: TJ On: 12/03/2007 09:47:28
Point well taken Greg. I often disagree with Ed's reviews on many films. However, I think its incorrect to think that Slant Magazine overall has negative reviews. Its just that they have seen a lot more movies than the regular mainstream cinema-going-schmuck. To people who actually enjoy film and are willing to explore different artistic territories, I think Slant has a lot to offer. Even with that in mind, two of my favorite films this year, Zodiac and No Country for Old Men, both received very positive reviews on this site. Keep up the good work (even though I may totally disagree with some of the written output on this site).
 
By: Ed Gonzalez On: 12/03/2007 11:44:13
Thanks Dominic, Greg, and TJ for the comments. One day I'll learn to completely ignore nutty, shape-shifting medusas like Jess and toss them, like scraps of meat, outside Alexa's cave. It was a long time before I was able to deal with and take some measure of pride in the scarily racist, homophobic, and supremacist mail my reviews still receive. Less successful have been my attempts to cope with people like Jess, who just as violently resent the prism through which I review movies, even though you'd think their "outsider" selves would understand, if not necessarily appreciate, my need to "represent."

Also, these are not reviews, but a collection of "short cuts" tossed off in a matter of minutes. I feel the need to point this out because I've already read a few misinformed responses to this post elsewhere on the Web suggesting that people think this column is my only outlet. There was lots of positive energy in this post: Standing Out in the Evening and 3:10 to Yuma are both worth seeing, and there would have been more had I jotted down my thoughts on Youth Without Youth and Into the Wild, but I also spared everyone what I thought about Grace Is Gone, a Teddy Ruxpin version of In the Valley of the Elah that condescends to red state America and pro-war hangers-on.

As for Into the Wild, Matt, Sean Penn's directorial touches are a little overreaching, but the film's speculative tendencies are fraught with emotion—a heartbreaking need to understand the unfathomable. I think it's a struggle most of us can relate too, even if we all haven't taken a break from our lives and families and hiked through the wilderness of America for years. (I was reminded of all the friends I made in college who never said goodbye before returning to their homes, leaving me to wonder what our friendships meant and what ever happened to them.) Also, Hal Holbrook's performance is something out of this world. I love how Penn shot the kitchen scene where Ron reveals to Christopher how he lost his wife and child from afar. As Christopher begins to mean more and more to the old man, the camera move closer, until the intimacy of Ron's teary-eyed farewell becomes blinding. That scene inside the jeep is the classiest "Oscar scene" I've ever seen.

 
By: C. Paddington On: 12/03/2007 13:59:53
Jenglisbe not being right in the head is an understatement. He takes hiding behind the anonymity of the internet and gives it a freaky Sybil-like twist. Just go to any film-related message board on the web like Gold Derby to see his different personalities in action. Sometimes they even talk to each other. Sad.
 
By: Fadston On: 12/03/2007 15:31:13
I want to know about There Will Be Blood!
 
By: Chadd On: 12/03/2007 20:54:13
Ed,

Counter-points well taken, but I must admit I was struck by a particular anger in this post that has been present in some of your reviews this year. In fact, (and I'm sure you have numbers to either prove me wrong or right), but it seems like you've been writing fewer reviews in general. Also, I believe you have yet to give a film 4 stars (I thought I'm Not There was a lock, but I guess not). I think this is part of the reason people are saying you "don't like movies anymore." I know that to be untrue, but when you use your powerful writing to destroy a film, several films that is, in one short blog post, it can seem that way. Keep up the good work and I hope you continue the site, freelance contributions aside.

Also, please tell us what you thought of "There Will Be Blood."
 
By: Ed Gonzalez On: 12/03/2007 22:09:32
Hey, Chad. You're right, I did write fewer reviews this year. Between writing for other outlets and marathon training, I found myself assigning more and more films to others. (I also have more people writing for me now than ever before.) And, yes, I haven't given a four-star review to a single 2007 theatrical release (unless you count Killer of Sheep, though that review was written a few years ago), which has really bummed me out. Unless Sweeney Todd turns out to be a masterpiece—which is very possible given its pedigree—the year will end without an Inland Empire or New World for me. I thought There Will Be Blood would be that film but that didn't quite turn out as I expected.
 
By: Chris On: 12/03/2007 23:20:21
Ed, did you happen to see 'Into Great Silence'? I'd love to know what you thought about it.
 
By: Kevin On: 12/04/2007 02:21:05
Ed, I think a lot about how there are just too damn many brilliant films in existence for me to ever see them all unless I were to win the lottery or something such that I could devote my waking hours to that end. Thing is, once I came across this site and your style of critique in particular, it was so valuable. Your obvious erudition equips you with an incredibly refined eye for the broader (and less personally evocative) elements of a film, like overall theme, politics, and historical accuracy/significance, but also are able to firmly grasp more delicate verse like the way an actors eyes betray a sadness that is at once heartbreaking (for being so fucking real), and elating (for the appreciation of how tiny moments with a steady camera can somehow make a film greater than you imagined it could be.):

(I was reminded of all the friends I made in college who never said goodbye before returning to their homes, leaving me to wonder what our friendships meant and what ever happened to them.)

I like that. I think that’s a beautiful thought. When you provide those sorts of insights, to me, it’s like you have found a way to squeeze a handful of sand without letting it trickle through the spaces between your fingers. (I don’t know-- that’s just the first thing that came to mind.) The point being, your column makes it that much easier to approach the vast world of great films without feeling like I will run out of air before reaching the tip of the iceberg. Professional film critique is saturated with reviewers who dole out 4-star ratings like they mean nothing. They are whores, basically. Dirty whores. The four star review should be a meaningful thing, shouldn’t it? So much for a standardized system. Um…I’m losing my train of thought.

A few closing questions, to which responses are optional (as if they would otherwise be mandatory):

- Will you be the one to post a review for “There Will Be Blood?”
- What is your opinion of PTA’s “Magnolia.”?
- How shitty is it that Deadwood was taken off the air? Do you think the so-called Deadwood movies will ever see the light of day?
- Do you like the show Freaks and Geeks? (RIP)

Thanks! Ciao.
 
By: Kevin On: 12/04/2007 02:31:38
Also, why was Inland Empire so hermetically received? It didn't strike me as being that much more "out there" than Mulholland Dr and was equally intoxicating and brilliant. What gives?
 
By: john On: 12/04/2007 08:17:00
Ed, I disagree many times with your reviews, both the positive and the negative ones, but i really enjoy reading them. Thank you.
 
By: Ed Gonzalez On: 12/04/2007 08:18:41
Chris: Into Great Silence is amazing. I saw that at New Directors/New Films earlier this year. It's pretty much the documentary of the year, no contest.

Kevin: Thanks for the nice words, you humble me. To answer your questions real quick, since I'm out the door soon: yes, I'll be writing on There Will Be Blood; Magnolia is awesome, though it's been quite some time since I've seen it; yes, it sucks that Deadwood is off the air, and one of the reasons why There Will Be Blood didn't resonate with me beyond an elaborate exercise in style is because it doesn't have that powerful, compassionate human interest that Deadwood or any of PTA's other films have (I doubt we'll ever see more Deadwood ever again); and, no, I never saw Freaks and Geeks.
 
By: matt On: 12/04/2007 13:59:41
Ed, I have the utmost respect for you. Agree or disagree, I always find your reviews interesting.

I've got to say I couldn't disagree more about your assessment of Redacted. It certainly is ugly, naïve, shrill, and hateful, but I saw these as good things. De Palma is the one filmmaker who's not scared to stoop to their level, so to speak. When you have the right lying shamelessly, bewitching the public with sophistry, spewing rhetoric about supporting the troops and critics of the war "just helping the terrorists", etc. etc. for years on end, sometimes I just want to see someone set aside intelligence, balance, subtlety, etc. and just unleash some ugly, nasty vitrol right back at them. You know perfectly well that De Palma knew exactly what he was doing. He knew that every Bill O'Reilly out there would react saying "these are just bald-faced lies and exaggerations! manipulation! what an absurd depiction of the troops! evil, evil film!"

But that's exactly the way I feel when I listen to someone like O'Reilly defend the war. Just this once, it's nice to see someone give it right back to them.
 
By: Ryland Walker Knight On: 12/04/2007 15:24:17
I think the lack of humanism is the real turning point for PTA. How could a horror movie like this work if it played like Magnolia?

Also, word up on the short cuts back-n-forth. If I felt it necessary to see everything I'd get soured quicker. It's part of why I don't try to see everything. But sometimes I get the urge on a Monday afternoon to walk over and see The Mist because my friend told me Andre Braugher is in it. The movie wasn't all that great but it wasn't all that bad, either. It was a fun little missive of a piece of writing, like a short cut, as best as I can manage now. Meh. I look forward to your essay on the PTA picture. Best.
 
By: zik On: 12/04/2007 18:52:40
Geez who shot Ed's puppy this week?
 
By: Clayton On: 12/04/2007 19:59:01
Ed,

You are the best film critic writing today. Your intellectual depth and obvious love for the cinema are nearly unrivaled by other critics. Who the fuck can honestly say Ed doesn't like movies? I just spent today reading nearly every single one of his reviews for Luis Bunuel movies, and I was enthralled. He has the film background and understanding of what makes a film great, that I fear most of his colleagues are sorely lacking. Take a look at his Top 10 lists, from 1910-Present. It is the single most informative and useful film guide I have ever come across.

Just because this has been a year without a single masterpiece (I would argue for NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN) doesn’t mean that a film critic should lower his standards to accommodate it. I would be disappointed if Ed flung a 4-star review at a movie if he didn’t think it deserved it. Head over to Roger Ebert’s website, and you’ll see over 30 4-star reviews, ranging from RENDITION to MICHAEL CLAYTON to AMERICAN GANGSTER. Ebert is a fine writer, but he’s lost his ability to decode the difference between mediocrity and greatness. Ed still possesses this quality, and as long as he does, I will read every single review he writes. You haters can get the fuck out.

Clayton
 
By: Ed Gonzalez On: 12/04/2007 20:09:20
Hey, Matt. The stoop-to-their-level defense of Redacted doesn't hold water with me. I'm on Brian De Palma's side, and I think Dubya & Co. should be hung from the nearest tree outside the White House, but I don't see how the vitriol of this film is particularly useful to the discussion about what our country is doing in Iraq—or makes the liberal agenda look good. There are ways of sticking it to the Bush administration with rage, but tempered with, I don't know, some measure of sanity? I realize it's only a documentary film, but the box office success of No End in Sight is proof of that.
 
By: Al1 On: 12/04/2007 23:02:42
Well, at least this blog entry allowed me a hearty chuckle of this excerpt of Ed's review of Mystic River:

"The performances are phenomenal across the board: Robbins never contrives schmaltz from his character's arrested development; a haunted Marcia Gay Harden, as Dave's perpetually frazzled wife, brings to mind a soul lost in limbo; and Penn's hurt is sure to bring Academy voters to tears."
 
By: Eric On: 12/05/2007 00:04:54
I most definitely prefer Gone Baby Gone to Mystic River and don't think the moral questions it examines are particularly on the same level of a Judith Light saga, but still I don't necessarily think it's laughable that someone could think the inverse.

As far as Redacted, I really hate to agree with Armond on this one but...he's right enough that I'll forgive the baiting parentheticals about how liberals hate to consider soldiers are capable of doing the right thing in Iraq.
 
By: Ed Gonzalez On: 12/05/2007 08:15:51
Shucks, Al1. A snippet from a review written five years ago, during the midst of the New York Film Festival, which I covered by myself? You're being way too kind. If you want to really embarrass me, try cutting and pasting something from one of my 2001 reviews.
 
By: Lee On: 12/05/2007 12:52:57
Ed, you're spot on about Redacted. End of story.

Also, as Greg pointed out....is there still plans for a second entry of the 100 essential films?
 
By: Alex Jackson On: 12/05/2007 12:59:04
Also, why was Inland Empire so hermetically received? It didn't strike me as being that much more "out there" than Mulholland Dr and was equally intoxicating and brilliant. What gives?

Well, I loved Mulholland Drive and most of Lynch's work, but I absolutely despised Inland Empire. I hope I can help explain why.

The short smartass answer is that Inland Empire was shot in digital video instead of film, but there are stronger implications to this than the mere aesthetic. Ever since Twin Peaks Lynch has gradually become more an L.A. filmmaker than a middle-American one. Los Angeles has replaced "Missoula, Montana" as the principal source of all his creative energy. Things came to a head with Inland Empire.

I got the impression watching the film that if you were to cut David Lynch open now, you'ld find nothing but gears and wires. There are no guts anymore. He's ceased to be a biological creature.

Mulholland Drive was about The Movies, but Inland Empire is about film and filmmaking. He seems to have lost all connection with the ephemeral and left behind this unwatchably ugly post-modern stew of signs and signifiers. The Persona homage has to be one of the saddest and most horrifying things I've ever seen in a David Lynch film. The question is no longer "Is this a dream?" (as it usually is in Lynch), it's "Is this a film?"

Maybe the reason I hate the film is because I have a fundamental fear of film theory. I'm afraid that it eats away your soul. That if you get too much of it and learn to see things that way, you'll no longer see art (meaning some kind of social or moral position) you'll just see elemental compositions.
 
By: Ed Gonzalez On: 12/05/2007 13:10:49
Lee: There are no plans for a sequel to 100 Essential Films at this point. The frist edition was something of a pain to push out, even though I was pleased with the final product, so I'm not in a hurry to repeat the process.

Alex: I diagree with you on Inland Empire but I dig your take on it...as well as share your fears of film theory.
 
By: Justin On: 12/05/2007 15:27:52
Before the Devil Knows Your Dead should be Before the Devil Knows You're Dead.
 
By: Umberto D. On: 12/05/2007 15:58:24
I don't know if anyone has killed Ed's puppy or not, but I wanted to say: there are puppy dog critics (Scott, Ebert, Berardinelli, Travers) and there are wolves (D'Angelo, Atkinson, Gonzalez, White). Some are better than others from both packs, but I prefer the wolves because they are more adventurous and their writing leaves more of an impression, even when they're phoning it in and showing weakness.
 
By: Al1 On: 12/05/2007 17:22:43
Ed, my excerpt of the Mystic River review was my stupid way of wondering why Gone Baby Gone is Mystic River for Lifetime, when the histronics in Mystic River would make Mystic River seem like Gone Baby Gone for Lifetime. Maybe you've become more jaded? But, you've refuted that already. Though, I do agree that the ending of Gone Baby Gone was ridiculous (though, Kevin Bacon acknowledging that Penn killed Robbins and doing nothing about it is similarly ridiculous).
 
By: Dennis On: 12/05/2007 17:34:41
I'd love to read some extended reasoning for your response to Redacted, Ed.
 
By: Ed Gonzalez On: 12/05/2007 18:24:44
Al1: I haven't seen Mystic River since it came out, but I remember knottier morals. (Who knows what I would think of it today, now that I'm a little more suspicious of Eastwood's work; maybe I have become more jaded.) I guess the Lifetime jab was directed more at B. Affleck's point-and-shoot (non-)direction. Mind you, I was actually with the film for quite a bit: I appreciated the story's incredible briskness and performances (I especially liked Ed Harris), but I gave up on it as soon as I figured out where it was all going—and knowing full well that if B. Affleck wasn't going to sell me on it, C. Affleck would need to. By film's end, it all just warped into some ugly, disdainful evening-news broadcast.
 
By: Stefan V On: 12/05/2007 23:05:11
Compared to you, Ed, I am the worst reviewer in the universe. My reviews are a bore to read, even when I do it. Not to mention the numerous grammatical errors. So reading Slant Magazine, especially your posts, has been like a learning experience for me. I have bumped heads with you on certain titles in the past, but my respect for your writing has not been affected negatively at all. In fact, our disagreements have taught me a better way to express my opinion without disrespecting the opinions of others. Thanks again and I hope you write more next year (no offense Nick).
 
By: JD On: 12/06/2007 02:03:29
Ed, Will you review "Youth Without Youth"? I know Nick has written a review, but will you at least write up a blurb? Thanks.
 
By: OMW On: 12/06/2007 20:01:13
Hey Ed, very enjoyable read and glad to see that the fun continued well into the comments section. In regard to your sadness at seemingly not having had a transcendent experience at the movies this year, I ask whether you've seen SILENT LIGHT? If so, what are your thoughts?
 
By: Andres Zambrano On: 12/06/2007 20:41:17
And No Country for Old Men, Ed? I'd certainly love to see a blurb of that as well.
 
By: Umberto D. On: 12/06/2007 20:43:06
Is this a request hotline?
 
By: Ed Gonzalez On: 12/06/2007 21:32:13
Actually, I don't mind saying what I think about these films, most of which I haven't reviewed and have no intention of, but I also don't want to spoil any surprise that may be attached to the unveiling of our Top 10s next week.

OMV: I reviewed Silent Light during the NYFF. I didn't care for it, but I did find In the City of Sylvia pretty transcendent.
 
By: Simon H On: 12/08/2007 18:22:34
Take a look at his Top 10 lists, from 1910-Present. It is the single most informative and useful film guide I have ever come across.
Great to know I'm not the only one who takes advantage of this incredible catalogue. Might I say it's also quite satisfying that I recognize the majority of the banner screens, though the latest one has me scratching my head.

Ed, I was readily suspicious that you'd mention three year-end westerns but left out No Country. I will assume now that the Coens' latest is either one of the year's best films or one of the year's worst. Oh I do love surprises.
 
By: BR On: 12/10/2007 13:02:23
THANK YOU for calling the gushers out on both of those sorry overhyped C. Affleck vehicles. Fucking poorly artificial wastes of time, enough to convince me that unlike his bro he'll never be part of anything as genuinely realized and awesome for it as Dazed and Confused or Chasing Amy (no, really). On-target jab at Linney in general, btw. One of the less graceful and more irritating/inconsequential actresses working, I've tolerated her *at best* in low-key trifles like You Can Count on Me and nothing more.
 
By: rich On: 12/10/2007 13:50:19
I also wanted to join the chorus praising Ed's top tens -- I constantly refer to these lists when choosing what to record and watch off TCM. So thanks, Ed!
 
By: DR On: 12/18/2007 20:01:37
Are Ed's top tens still available on the site? I haven't been able to find them since the redeign.
 
By: Ed Gonzalez On: 12/18/2007 20:17:20
http://www.slantmagazine.com/ed/top10s.asp
 
By: j On: 12/19/2007 22:10:37
Ed, have you seen Miyazaki's Porco Rosso? It tends to slip through the cracks, but given the extensiveness of your listology I sure as hell wouldn't want to bet you hadn't seen if in fact the opposite was true. If not though, another worthy candidate for 91/92's Blind Spots.
 
By: Ed Gonzalez On: 12/19/2007 23:17:36
Yes, j, I've seen it. Good flick, just not one of my favorite Miyazakis.

Leave a comment

Please complete the form below to submit a comment on this article. A valid email address is required to submit a comment though it will not be displayed on the site.

HTML has been disabled but if you wish to add any hyperlinks or text formatting you can use any of the following codes: [B]bold text[/B], [I]italic text[/I], [U]underlined text[/U], [S]strike through text[/S], [URL]http://www.yourlink.com[/URL], [URL=http://www.yourlink.com]your text[/URL]

Search Blog

RSS






Advertisement
Advertisement

Staff    Slant on Facebook    Slant on Twitter    Contact    Media Kit    Privacy Policy    Terms of Service    RSS

Copyright © 2001 - 2009 Slant Magazine