Author Topic: 1990s US Bracket: Verdicts  (Read 712371 times)

edgar00

  • 00 Agent
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *
  • Posts: 12131
  • corndogs are better than Die Another Day
    • Between The Seats
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #370 on: May 04, 2008, 10:23:13 PM »
Waiting For Guffman (1996, Christopher Guest) vs. Wild at Heart (1990, David Lynch)


Waiting For Guffman

Christopher Guest directs and stars in a story about a small group of oddly untalented people people from the town of Blaine Missouri who put on a play about the history of Blaine just in time for its anniversary. Ironically enough, Christopher Guest’s character is the director of the play…and also stars in it.
This is a very funny movie. I found myself laughing quite a bit throughout the story. This mostly has to do with the comic abilities of the cast. Waiting For Guffman benefits from a slew of talented and funny actors and actresses. Fred Willard, Eugene Levy, Parker Posey, Chatherine O’Hara and a hysterical cameo from David Cross (Arrested Development will always rule!) are all colourful and enjoyable. There’s really nothing too serious going on here. No lessons are learned, the viewer isn’t spoon fed any morals or viewpoints either. It’s simply a good laugh. Even the actual play itself about the history of Blaine is quite entertaining (mainly because it’s so cheaply done, but yet has some heart).  The characters who are involved really want to put on a good show because, as a character in the film says, Blaine is the heart of Missouri after all. The cast does a swell job of portraying nice, small town folk without making them seem imbecile. A lot of films are tempted to make people from smaller cities seem foolish or an embarrassment to the rest of the world, but Waiting For Guffman avoids this trap. Sure, most of these people have never been outside of Blaine, but they’re still decent. Christopher Guest himself as the ‘married’ (to apparently a women) but yet obviously gay director of the play, hoping to score a return ticket to Broadway, is also very entertaining. I really didn’t have any problems with this film.
Rent the film, slap it on the tele, and have fun for about 90 minutes. It’s worth your time.

Wild At Heart

Some of you are already familiar with my feelings towards David Lynch. Pretentious, intentionally frustrating, time waster, all of these I find are accurate when describing his work (not the man of course, that would indeed be rude).  Wild At Heart tells the convoluted story of two lovers, Lulu and Sailor (what?), who hit the road in order to start a new life and escape Sailor’s dark past. However, Lulu’s devious mother vehemently opposes their love and sends a hitman to have poor Sailor killed.
 Lynch, if I’ve even remotely understood what he likes to do, enjoys starting with a plot clearly based in reality and then put in on acid, or speed, or crack, or whatever is necessary for that reality based plot to really go on a ‘trip’. There’s strangeness and, to a certain extent, some fantasy to his films. Somehow Wild at Heart manages to be the Lynch film that annoyed me the least. There is a bizarre cuteness about the Dern/Cage couple that does ring true, regardless of how pathetic they are as people. Lulu’s mother (Diane Ladd) is offered a layer of complexity after she’s realized that perhaps sending a hitman to do the job may have been a stupid idea. There’s a bizarre (it’s Lynch, everything is bizarre) night scene in which Dern and Cage witness the death of an unfortunate car crash victim that works very well. A bit of human touch as someone dies…how poetically just!
However, there are far too many characters that simply remained unattainable for me. Dafoe’s character, Freeman’s, and other smaller ones that I just couldn’t make myself like. We also get some vintage Lynch visuals that I’m sure mean something for the story but, as usual, struck me as cold and useless (witch on a broom, lighting of a match, house of fire). There are some scenes that were really annoying, such the vomit scene, the sex torture scenes which leads to a character’s death, Lulu’s mother painting her face in lipstick. What the heck is going on?!

This review has been longer than usual and I apologize for going on a rant. Thanks to those who are still reading. It’s official. I’ve seen enough Lynch films to know that I can’t digest this guy’s work. I respect those who disagree (I was on the losing side in that Cronenberg/Lynch poll not long ago) but I just can’t do it.

Waiting for Guffman
is by no mean high class art, but I had fun with it. I didn’t have fun with Wild At Heart.

The past two weekends, the more unique, artsy films won my matchups. The buck stops here. It isn’t out of malice, but Waiting for Guffman goes through, ‘cause I’m sick of waiting for Lynch to make a movie I can stand.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2008, 10:26:03 PM by edgarchaput »
-Le Chiffre: You changed your shirt, Mr Bond. I hope our little game isn't causing you to perspire.

-James Bond: A little. But I won't consider myself to be in trouble until I start weeping blood.

https://twitter.com/Betweentheseats
http://crabkeyheadquarters.wordpress.com/

roujin

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 15508
  • it's all research
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #371 on: May 04, 2008, 10:34:59 PM »
I haven't seen Wild at Heart but I'm pretty sure it's more entertaining than Waiting for Guffman.

pixote

  • Administrator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 34237
  • Up with generosity!
    • yet more inanities!
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #372 on: May 04, 2008, 10:38:04 PM »
Guffman, the 37 seed, was the clear favorite here over Wild at Heart, the 102 seed.  Most of Wild at Heart's in the balloting was of the "leans towards including" variety.

I haven't seen Wild at Heart but I'm pretty sure it's more entertaining than Waiting for Guffman.

That's my instinct, too.  I was pretty let down by Guffman when I finally got around to seeing it.

pixote
Great  |  Near Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Fair  |  Mixed  |  Middling  |  Bad

edgar00

  • 00 Agent
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *
  • Posts: 12131
  • corndogs are better than Die Another Day
    • Between The Seats
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #373 on: May 04, 2008, 11:09:15 PM »
I haven't seen Wild at Heart but I'm pretty sure it's more entertaining than Waiting for Guffman.

It's vintage Lynch. Do you like Lynch? Yes? Then you'll like Wild at Heart. It fits perfectly in his repertoire.

I don't like Lynch, and this movie didn't help. What can I say.
-Le Chiffre: You changed your shirt, Mr Bond. I hope our little game isn't causing you to perspire.

-James Bond: A little. But I won't consider myself to be in trouble until I start weeping blood.

https://twitter.com/Betweentheseats
http://crabkeyheadquarters.wordpress.com/

facedad

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 10983
  • World Phucking Champions.
    • Be my netflix friend
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #374 on: May 04, 2008, 11:59:47 PM »
We're one verdict away from the first round being halfway done. 8)

pixote
I'm really pleased with the speed at which this happened and have high hopes for the summer.

Chasing Amy vs. Black is...Black Ain't

Chasing Amy

Major Flaws: Can I just classify them as the Kevin Smith bag of flaws? The dialogue was grating during portions. Some of the conversation scenes were really crowbarred into the film in places that they didn't make sense and destroyed the pacing. Many of the themes and characters came off as a bit oversimplified considering their aspirations. The one year later epilogue/ending was one of the worst endings on a mediocre or better film I can ever recall, outdoing Vanilla Sky. It was visually boring through most of the film and didn't stay on point despite it's desire to do so.

Major Attributes: I laughed. Not a hell of a lot, but a more than a few times. Also, the themes and "message" of the film were executed well enough that they were clearly communicable. Also, unlike many of Smith's films, none of the performances bothered me, which is a big step up for him. On top of that, there's a handheld shot in the apartment during one of the friends' confrontations that was really pretty well done and almost beautiful. As opposed to above, the "true" ending that takes place before the temporal jump was actually really good and would've elevated the whole film if the epilogue didn't exist.

Black is...Black Ain't

Major Flaws: It has a particular style that has been parodied en masse in the years since, especially by its patron, PBS. With the lone actor in front of the black background making movements meant to be thematically evocative and intercuts or overlays of text that do the same, it really comes of as hokie but to no fault of its own. The pacing rambles a bit in the final third of the film as putting it together becomes a distinctly difficult process.

Major Attributes: Most of the above can be ignored. All the flaws (except the pacing) actually work beautifully in the film and make it clear why it became so heavily co-opted and parodied. It intelligently portrays ideas of blackness, especially in concert with other identities within the black community while becoming an elegy to a filmmaker and his career. It seamlessly covers its points in relation to the main topic while (for the most part) integrating the end of the filmmaker's life and his final contributions into the film in tribute. It probably suffers slightly by going from Riggs to his assistant director after his death. It embodies one of the most interesting uses of meta filmmaking I can recall and is sweetly crushing in so many ways. It borders on expanding the parameters of the documentary as a form. It's not perfect, but it's fantastic in so many ways.

Verdict: Smith's film was better than a lot of his work and interesting in a lot of ways, but it wasn't great on it's own and ran into an unexpected juggernaut in Riggs' accidental requiem. Black is...Black Ain't moves on in a walk.



Come on Chester (or anyone else) start the second half!
You're just jealous! Nobody loves you because you're tiny and made of meat!

https://twitter.com/thefaceboy

http://www.thereelists.com

pixote

  • Administrator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 34237
  • Up with generosity!
    • yet more inanities!
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #375 on: May 05, 2008, 12:12:35 AM »
This is a pretty big upset on paper (the 98th seed over the 39th seed), but Black Is...Black Ain't was such a wildcard selection (only three people voted for/against it in the balloting) that the seeding was sort of meaningless.  Fight on, underdogs!

pixote
Great  |  Near Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Fair  |  Mixed  |  Middling  |  Bad

ses

  • Administrator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 14979
    • Sarah's Kitchen Adventures
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #376 on: May 07, 2008, 09:53:02 AM »
Light Sleeper (1992) vs Jesus' Son (1999)

I hadn't even heard of either of these films before this match-up was assigned to me, so it was really refreshing to watch these films for the first time.


Light Sleeper stars Willem Dafoe as a mid-level drug dealer deciding what to do with his life when his boss, played by Susan Sarandon, wants to get out of the drug business to pursue a career in the cosmetics industry.  He also reconnects with a past girlfriend and becomes inadvertently involved with a mysterious death linked to a client.  Paul Schrader was the writer/director of this film.  He also wrote/directed American Gigolo, and there are a lot of parallels between that film and this one; it practically ends the same way even.  Ultimately, I think American Gigolo is a stronger film.  Willem Dafoe is just fine as the lead character, but I found Susan Sarandon pretty amateurish.  I really can't believe that she acted in this film after Bull Durham and Thelma and Louise and gave such a weak performance.  As far as the direction is concerned, I found practically everything about this movie to be overbearing and heavy handed, from the dialog to the lighting, and especially the soundtrack.  Schrader also wrote Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and The Last Temptation of Christ, and I think under the hands of a more capable director this could have been a better film. 


Jesus' Son stars Billy Crudup as an absent-minded, socially awkward drug addict named F*ckhead.  Running throughout the movie is narration by Crudup that chronicles his drug addiction and his relationship with Michelle, played by Samantha Morton.  There are also strong supporting performances by Jack Black and Dennis Hopper playing "Jack Black" and "Dennis Hopper" as well as Denis Leary and Holly Hunter.  I think Billy Crudup was fantastic and convincing as F*ckhead and played a character wildly different from anything else I have ever seen him in, and the narration he provides (which even includes some jumping around in time because he forgot to mention a part of the story) moves the film along nicely.  I enjoyed how this film takes a unconventional look at drug addiction rather than the same wild highs to wild lows to redemption as most addiction films do.  I don't think this film sugarcoats it, but it does take a different approach to it and I found that refreshing.  I found this film funny, sad, sweet, and eccentric all at the same time.


No contest, Jesus' Son moves on.   
« Last Edit: May 07, 2008, 10:16:30 AM by ses593 »
"It's a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart"

http://sarahskitchenadventures.blogspot.com/

edgar00

  • 00 Agent
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *
  • Posts: 12131
  • corndogs are better than Die Another Day
    • Between The Seats
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #377 on: May 07, 2008, 09:57:57 AM »
Well, time for me to watch Jesus' Son.
Thanks
-Le Chiffre: You changed your shirt, Mr Bond. I hope our little game isn't causing you to perspire.

-James Bond: A little. But I won't consider myself to be in trouble until I start weeping blood.

https://twitter.com/Betweentheseats
http://crabkeyheadquarters.wordpress.com/

pixote

  • Administrator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 34237
  • Up with generosity!
    • yet more inanities!
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #378 on: May 07, 2008, 10:04:06 AM »
Well, time for me to watch Jesus' Son.
Thanks

You should, it's great.  Alternatively, you can wait to see if it gets assigned to you in a later round!  ;)

Jesus' Son was a slight favorite, by the way, as the 58th seed.  Light Sleeper was seeded 81st.

pixote
Great  |  Near Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Fair  |  Mixed  |  Middling  |  Bad

¡Keith!

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26774
  • Bitch, I been around since LimeWire.
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #379 on: May 07, 2008, 10:57:10 AM »
Is Light Sleeper the second part of Schrader's Lonley Man trilogy?

 

love