Tue, February 22, 2005
"There are no words..."—1:32 PM
On the one hand, I'm exceedingly proud of Arksie, who's well on his way to making a living as a comedy writer, for his delectable rundown of this year's Oscar nominees.
On the other hand, I'm groin-stabbingly jealous because sometimes I read something that he's written, or Bill Simmons of ESPN.com's Page 2, or even sometimes TWoP, and I say to myself, "Wow, that's excellent. Funny and well said. If I had more time to devote to onebee.com, I'd come up with funny stuff like that and say it that well." But, reading this week's Average Mulder, I had to admit: I could never do that. I don't know if he worked on it for days, or just threw it together in about three hours (although history leads me to suspect the latter), but in either case, he hits on things that would never occur to me and polishes them to a brilliant sheen with some damnfine wordsmithing. I'm not going to spoil for you one of the best laughs I've had all year (and I'll go "last twelve months" with that – this being only February and all), but it involves the phrase "on the plus side." Here's the second funniest part I could quote for you:
I know someone who knows someone who liked to wrap his couch in cellophane, pour some oil on it and slide around naked, but I don't know anyone who knows anyone who's seen Vera Drake. Okay? So Mike Leigh is out.
It's full of gems like that – not to mention the excellent argument in favor of the Five Year rule, an idea so great that the preposterousness of it tells you not only how great it is, but also how fucked up the Oscars are for it to sound preposterous in the first place.
(And I'm not the guy with the sofa, by the way. Arksie knows me, so I wouldn't fit this description. But I have to say now that the idea's been presented, it's intriguing – if I don't do it, it'll only be to preserve the genius of the 'Porter Oscar Picks column.)
Enjoy!
Joe Mulder — Tue, 2/22/05 2:53pm
[H]e hits on things that would never occur to me and polishes them to a brilliant sheen with some damnfine wordsmithing.
You flatter me (blushing). Truly, though, I've thought the same thing after reading some of your pieces (and I also get groin-grabbingly jealous of Bill Simmons and TWoP).
Thanks so much for the compliments.
AC — Tue, 2/22/05 3:26pm
You know, in all that bluster about how bad Aviator was, you didn't really say WHY it was bad. I agree that it was very much below what you'd expect from a so-called "greatest filmmaker ever," but it didn't make me puke, like, say, Mystic River did. Maybe I was blinded by the gorgeous cinematography, or Cate Blanchett, who I can never see too much of. I certainly think it will win BP over Million Dollar Baby. That movie, Shawshank-like as it was, just kept bringing me back to MR, and the two hours I lost watching that. My prediction is that your seething rage will cost you the pool this time. Not that you won it last year, I'll remind you. And not that I have a prayer either.
Joe Mulder — Tue, 2/22/05 4:13pm
You know, in all that bluster about how bad Aviator was, you didn't really say WHY it was bad.
That's because it was a prediction column, not a movie review. I didn't say why Sideways was good, either.
But, since you asked: the film proceeded as if working from a checklist of incidents from Hughes' life, with no discernable narrative flow. It appeared that no relevance to the current age was sought or implied by either Scorsese or the screenwriter (whose name I forget, as should we all), and if a dramatic historical biopic isn't going to show us something about ourselves, what's the point of its existence? Why not just watch a show about the life of Howard Hughes on A&E? What are we to take away from this movie? That Howard Hughes had big ideas and big psychological problems to match? That sometimes government officials get mixed up with big business? Ooooo, timely and interesting! I applaud the scale and ambition, but should I give the movie extra points for that when I judge the end result to be a miserable failure? I don't think so.
Of course, this is all just one man's opinion. Well, one man and his wife's; Karen hated it too. A lot.
My prediction is that your seething rage will cost you the pool this time. Not that you won it last year, I'll remind you.
Dude, I totally won it last year (I pulled away from Tidball about 3/4 of the way through the ceremony and never looked back). You won it two years ago. But, yeah, my seething rage probably will cost me the pool; on that we agree.
AC — Tue, 2/22/05 5:59pm
I see. Well, I don't think I can dispute what you are saying, but I didn't find it revolting because of its flaws. But being someone who often can and does throw shit at movies that try and fail in this same way, I respect your review. Also I think it helped that I knew nothing about the dude before I saw the movie. With the exception of the Simpsons references.
And Sideways? I'm gonna have to side with JBS on that one.
Bee Boy — Tue, 2/22/05 6:38pm
What?! Don't bring me into this!
I never said anything bad about Sideways. I was giddy all the way through it. THC is a genius. Giamatti is a riot. Sandra Oh isn't my cup of tea, but she did a fine job. I thought it was quite enjoyable. I said before that I wouldn't put up too much of a fight if you told me it was the fifth-best movie of 2005.
All I said was "I had more fun watching [The Bourne Supremacy]. (Not lots more. Not 'WAY' more. But more.)" I'll stand by that. Sideways was funny and enjoyable; I still reflect on some entertaining scenes and moments. The Bourne Supremacy was kickass and enjoyable; I simply had more "Yes! I'm having fun!" moments while watching it – probably because it was kickass. Nobody said Big Daddy was a better film than Schindler's List – but it was a hell of a lot more fun to watch.
To begin with, what drew me to the tournament concept was TMN's admitted randomness in the selection and advancement process. That (and some lobbying by Brandon) explains why films like Anchorman were even on the bracket in the first place. Giving the tie to The Bourne Supremacy would just be more of that arbitrary flippancy. I mean: Sideways vs. The Bourne Supremacy? If you just look at which is "better" or "more important" or "filmier," it's Sideways by a mile. But which one made more money? Which one had a better car chase? Hmm.... Nobody said the Movie Tournament (of Movies) is about the classiest, most thoughtful film. It's just "Choose One."
Besides – to paraphrase Nader voters defending their idiotic, future-ruining choice in the 2000 election – if Sideways had won more hearts, there wouldn't be a tie for me to break in the first place.
(Also, this weekend I met three people who really didn't like Sideways – the first I'd heard of such a thing. After listening to their critiques, which were interesting but nonetheless escape me at the present moment, I have to consider that maybe it's not the pinnacle of filmdom. I'm certainly not on the bandwagon of Payne worship or anything. Election was brilliant but About Schmidt I could pretty much take or leave.)
Brandon — Tue, 2/22/05 11:47pm
That (and some lobbying by Brandon) explains why films like Anchorman were even on the bracket in the first place.
And my lobbying wasn't just about Anchorman itself (though I do think it might be the best comedy in the last five years), but rather that Jameson not give into the Academy mentality that comedies are inherently inferior and unworthy of serious recognition. Or in this case, inclusion in a "Choose One" Movie Tournament (of Movies). And god bless him, he listened!
Bee Boy — Wed, 2/23/05 7:47am
I did; and if it beats The Incredibles today, I'll take your thumbs!
Brandon — Wed, 2/23/05 11:19am
My thumbs? Gee, I use those all the time. Couldn't you just bash my head in or something?