Cinecast Episode 71 – You Won’t Sh*t Right for a Week


this episode:
Margot at the Wedding, Top 5 dark Christmas movies, DVD picks and tangents.

Unwrap the complete Show Notes by clicking on this link…

cinecast_promo.jpg

Show notes for Cinecast Episode #71

  • Intro music: :00 – 3:28
  • Opening discussion: :12 – 11:09
  • Margot at the Wedding: 11:10 – 41:29
  • Top 5 “not” Christmas Movies: 41:30 – 1:15:00
  • DVD picks: 1:15:01 – 1:34:13
  • – – tangent on watching TV shows starts at 1:24:14
  • Closing remarks: 1:34:14 – 1:36:18
  • Outro music: 1:35:16 – 1:37:21
  • ???: 1:37:21 – 1:38:01

Bumper Music by “Hockey Night” and “TV on the Radio”


Row Three Podcasts:

RSS Feeds:

Subscribe to ALL the RowThree Podcasts on one feed
Subscribe to all posts and discussions


Subscribe with iTunes:


Movie Club Podcast:


Kurt and I join up with our own Marina Antunes and the guys from FilmJunk.com for a monthly deep discussion on two different films. You can stream or download both episodes #1 and #2 RIGHT HERE.

In November we discussed:
Gimme Shelter
and
Duck You Sucker.

Be prepared! THIS WEEK we dig into:
Escape from New York
and
Last Man on Earth

You can download Last Man on Earth for free IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
OR
for iTunes users, check out this podcast: Cult of UHF. The latest show just happens to be Last Man on Earth.

Quick love for John Carpenter (IMDb profile).


Margot at the Wedding:

Andrew’s review



Mike Nichols (Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolfe? and Closer) IMDb profile


Top 5 Subverted Christmas Movies:

KURT:

ANDREW:


DVD Picks of the Week:

ANDREW – Lost Season 3:

KURT – Two Lane Blacktop:

For the Holidays:


Homework:

List some “subverted” or dark Christmas films we might’ve forgotten.


Comments or questions?
Leave your thoughts in the comment section below, or email us:
feedback@rowthree.com (general)
andrew@rowthree.com
kurt@rowthree.com
– – Kurt’s BLOG

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Marina Antunes
Guest

AHAHAHAHA! I haven't listened to the show yet but I *love* the title!

Henrik
Guest

Lost: Best 1hour drama show ever made? I won't even mention the fact that it's not done yet, I will only say I recommend you check out Scener ur ett äktenskap, then come talk to me about unprecedented character depth.

rot
Guest

have not listened yet, but I hope Andrew was not suggesting there is character depth in LOST. Boy there is a lot of hate on for Lost on this site… I think it is great for what it is, a cliffhanger serial… people who occassionally come in and out are not going to appreciate the originality of the show.

Rusty James
Guest

Haven't listened to the show yet but I would say there's character depth in LOST; I don't know about "unprecedented" character depth whatever that is.

Locke in particular is a well written character and well acted. His arc in season 2 frustrated me but in retrospect it makes a lot of sense. Also the Ben flashback added another layer to the great Ben / Locke dynamic.

As for the episode title. Negative points for a reference to a film by T*rr* Zw*g*ff.

Rusty James
Guest

And Kurt excellent work on your DVD pick. I realized after the 5 best directors bout that I left off the great Monte Hellman.

rot
Guest

Locke and Ben are the stand-outs for sure… but given several seasons of 'getting to know' any characters of course there is going to be some degree of depth by very exposure… but the show does not make it a mission to accentuate character over and above the neccessities of the plot. Something like The Sopranos is all about character depth, I would argue that Tony Soprano is the most fully developed character ever conceived on television. The show is often a bunch of vignettes that have no narrative direction. Lost is engineered towards a particular narrative end… the characters are largely archetypes… enjoyable archetypes, but archetypes nonetheless… I mean you have the Luke, Hans, Leia triangle reproduced in this new environment.

rot
Guest

All this talk of Lost is getting me very eager to see the next season… is it going to be affected by the strike?

Henrik
Guest

"I would argue that Tony Soprano is the most fully developed character ever conceived on television."

Yeah 'Tony Soprano' is not a stereotype. Whatever. I don't hate The Sopranos or Lost (I do hate Battlestar Galactica though, but I'm a pacifist) but have some sense of perspective of what the shows are, please.

rot
Guest

Tony Soprano absorbs his stereotype and plays it out and wrestles with it, and contradicts it. The occassional viewer of the show may not actually be able to pick on his complexity, but within the context of the entire span of the show, Tony Soprano is the most sincere portrayal of a psychopathic personality I have ever seen. So what if he is a mobster and adopts the outward symbols of the stereotype (I suppose that never occurs in reality), the significance lies in the manner in which he wants (or perhaps merely plays out – this is confronted in the final ep) a kind of normalacy. Hell I would say there is more character depth in the first two episodes on the final season of the Sopranos than in most if not all other shows. Depth for me is when the character seems unique, that they do not adhere to some prescribed way of responding to events, and Tony is definately that…

Henrik
Guest

It's still a show based around guns, swearing and people with italian accents doing crime – made to sell products in the blocks between the content.

rot
Guest

Yeah because guns, swearing and criminal activity can in no way exist in tandem with character development (?) You seem to be neglecting the fact that the whole crux of the show is that it is a mixing of two families, home life and the criminal one… this is just as much a family drama as it is a show about crime, actually more so.

Henrik
Guest

I don't agree. I think so much of the show focuses on the exploitative elements that it takes away from any actual content it could possibly provide. The fact that it becomes popular and runs for hundreds of episodes enables some miniscule aspects of actual character, but never taking prevalence over the pandering to the lowest common denominator.

Rusty James
Guest

@henrik – It’s still a show based around guns, swearing and people with italian accents doing crime – made to sell products in the blocks between the content.

this is seriously the most asinine comment ever to grace these boards.

Colleeny
Guest

Its onlt been a couple of weeks… I am sure to make even more asinine comments soon!

Rusty James
Guest

Mike, about your take on Lost. I agree with everything you're saying about Sopranos but Sopranos isn't character driven at the expense of Lost. It's not like it's a zero sum game. Or it's not like a story can't be plot driven (which lost definitly is) and also have character depth. The two things can get in the way of each other but they're not exclusive.

re: but given several seasons of ‘getting to know’ any characters of course there is going to be some degree of depth by very exposure

I think if you go back at some of great cliffhangers of the show you'll find that a surprising number are character driven.

SPOILER…

SPOILER…

SPOILER…

SPOILER…

Locke's dad showing up in season 3, perfect case in point.

I think the writers strike is almost certaintly going to interfere with Season 4.

Matt Gamble
Guest

Dammit, you bastards stole my article idea I have been working on since October on non-Christmas movies.

I am so hating both of you right now.

John Allison
Editor

@Matt – Make sure to write it up still and we'll link to it here so everyone can read it.

Andrew James
Guest

BE CAREFUL WITH SPOILERS HERE GUYS. ESPECIALLY LOST SPOILERS. IF THEY AREN"T PROPERLY MARKED, I'LL HAVE TO ALTER THEM TO BE MARKED AS SUCH.

Andrew James
Guest

LOST – I never said "unprecedented" character depth. If I did, I meant character development – not necessarily depth. But still, rot, you've got to be kidding me if you don't think there's character deveopment in Lost. EVERY episode bases its premise on a different character's backstory and how they intersect and overlap with other characters. Jack, Locke, Sawyer and "the others" are particularly deep – along with the whole Penny situation.

Jesus I can't wait for season 4.

Andrew James
Guest

@rot

Becasue of the strike (as I understand it) is that the first 6 (maybe it was 8 – can't remember) episodes of Lost are complete and we'll get to see them – the remaining 10 are up in the air.

mike rot
Guest

so we are clear, because I do want to refine my definition of 'character depth'…

character depth is the appearance of autonomy of the character, that the mandates of the story and arcs are not interfering with the character's ability to act a certain way, to deliver a line a certain way, that there is some deviations and it is in the deviations that character depth is formed.

now, returning to the Sopranos, there are two norms to deviate from, there is the superficial mob boss persona but more importantly there is – what I originally suspected the show would turn into – the redemptive everything-turning-out-ok-in-the-end sort of 'family man'. If Tony Soprano had for any length of time settled into either of these norms, or even worse, had a explicit trajectory out of one and into the other then I would say there is nothing more then contrived storytelling… but Tony is a true anomaly… and anyone who has taken the time to see him develop would recognize that. Often he takes one step forward and two steps back, he responds differently to same situations in different circumstances (he is punched in the final season, and had this been season 2 Tony the person doing the punching would not have had long to live), and most importantly his 'development' goes against expectations, against thresholds even. I cannot count the times watching the show I would get frustrated with Tony's choices, that he would seem to be reconciling his issues, getting somewhere and then make a really stupid decision and go from there. One wants Tony to repent his sins, but it would seem no matter what he may or may not want, he is incapable of doing so… and that is quite a deviation, quite a honest portrayal of human behaviour, but more directly, the behaviour of a psyhcopath.

I know a lot of people were frustrated with how the show ends (no spoilers here)… but it was in keeping with the entire span of the show… how do you reconcile your life, how well are you able to keep on the straight and narrow… their is a genuineness to Tony Soprano that is truly lightyears above any other television character I have seen. I would love to hear about others though.

So to return to Lost, by my definition, I don't really see much character depth, everything is the almighty writer speaking through characters to get the job done. There appears to be little accidental in the show. However the pleasures of performance make Locke and Ben unique and interesting.

Kurt
Guest

I love characters like McNulty in the Wire and the various trials and decisions he takes over the course of 4 season of the show. Likewise on Al Swareingin and Seth Bullock in Deadwood. The feel like real people who make awkward and opaque decisions based on personal issues and basic human confusion/impulse, not whims of the screenwriter.

Rusty James
Guest

Mike, I love reading your comments but I really think you're digging yourself into a whole.

Andrew, sorry about the spoiler. You'll notice I made an effort to be as vague as possible; so and so "shows up" leaves out enough specifics. Still, I will use appropriate spoiler warnings next time.

The Wire's good, I'd like to see more of it. But have any of you ever watched The Corner, an HBO miniseries that covers similiar territory. It's quite possibly the best thing HBO's ever done.

Kurt
Guest

"It’s quite possibly the best thing HBO’s ever done."

Bold Words my friend. Bold Words. HBO is still the defacto leader in quality TV. (Although this is coming from a person who hasn't had CableTV since 1994, so take that as you will)

Rusty James
Guest

Bold words for a bold show.

rot
Guest

Rusty – I welcome debate.

I suppose it would be clearer for me to say: what I look for is the perceived autonomy of character…

this has to occur not just in deviation from the norm, but more importantly in our post-modern induced world, deviation from the standard deviation.

As for Jack in Lost, he is the hero archetype to a tee… and then… without giving anything a way there are attempts to tarnish this image… but these attempts are in keeping with conventions themselves, and so he is never really becoming an autonomous character, at least not to me… but I still do enjoy watching him.

Matt Gamble
Guest

Getting back to Margot –

Baumbach does write fairly autobiographical material. Squid is about his life as he was growing up. His father was a highly respected author in the 70's and his career kind of went in the toilet during the 80's, while his mother became a world famous critic for The Village Voice at that time.

The one thing you two seem to be missing is that Margot represents Baumbach in the film. He's the one who steals from his family life to write his work, he's the one who trashes his family to both make him look better and lead him to fame and fortune. And Margot's foil thru the entire film is Jennifer Jason Leigh, who by no small coincidance is married to Baumbach.

Margot @ the Wedding is essentially a giant mea culpa by Baumbach, and incredibly revealing to how Baumbach views himself. Yeah his family is fucked up and so is he, but he still loves them in spite of their flaws. It's a brutally honest and unguarded film, and I can't laud it enough for how emotionally naked it is.

Kurt Halfyard
Admin

Damn Matt. I spent a lot of this in discussion with the fellow I went to see the film with. I don't know how the whole Baumbach railing against (via the Jennifer J. Leigh character against the Kidman Character in the motel sequence) the very thing that Baumbach himself was doing with this film was a massive oversight on this cincast, and I can't believe I forgot to bring it up with Andrew!

Woody Allen has his own brand of this, he really lets it hang out in Deconstructing Harry with the fine Judy Davis performance…

Kurt Halfyard
Admin

"It’s a brutally honest and unguarded film, and I can’t laud it enough for how emotionally naked it is." ditto on this, it's just how darn negative this thing is that is its brilliance. Cheers.

Rusty James
Guest

But do you agree that Lock and Ben show depth and development?

rot
Guest

Rusty – development yes, depth not so much. Its all relative, so relative to Kate, yeah sure. I think the aspects of Locke and Ben that I am particularly drawn into is 1) performance 2) their parts in the overall mythology… my intrigue is with regards to the plot not the characters… if Locke was taken out of the storyline and set apart in his own show would he still hold up, be just as fascinating… probably not, what is important about him, his significance is inextricably bound to his plot-positioning. Tony Soprano could be a butcher and be equally mesmerizing to me (in fact my favorite episodes were when he was the furthest removed from the mob life, his time in the hospital).

that said I love Locke for what he is in Lost, he is a fine character suited to the story format he is in.

Also things could change, we are going into season 4, there could be some significant shifts in the upcoming seasons… and those in the know, know what I mean.

Rusty James
Guest

@rot – seems like you're drawing a distinction between who a character is and what he does. How do you split that difference? One of the things that makes Locke so tragic is that until now he's been defined by his sad mediocre life. Locke's position within the story is a function of who he is and the life he's led.

Tony as a butcher reminds me of that one episode with Kevin Finerty. I like that episode too and I think it illustrates the point that Tony is defined by the life he's led. Finerty is Tony in another life but still haunted by the demons of his old life. That is an underrated episode.

I think a character's depth is his ability to live off the page. Sometimes I wonder what Tony's doing right now or what Tony would do in situation x or y. Or I ask why Tony behaved the way he did in some scenario. I think depth is a character's ability to surprise us.

I take issue with your specialized definition of character depth because it's just conjecture about the writers and what they're thinking in regards to the character. You're speculating that the writers are more concerned with story demands than with character development but there's way to know.

You know now that I think about it, I think a character's autonomy from the story line is a bad thing. Good characters wear the scars of their experiences. That's true of John Locke and that's especially true of Tony Soprano. That's why the show spent so much time documenting the elaborate lineage of the New Jersy Mob families, all of that stuff is important to who these characters have become.

My favorite episode is Cold Cuts from season five where Tony, Tony and Christopher go back to this old farmstead where they spent a lot of time when they were kids. It's mostly just about the dynamics between the three but there's so much history that gets referenced. The episode is punctuated with one of Tony's violent out bursts and to understand what he does and why you've got to have paid close to the character's arc from the very first episode. Also, the episode is directed by Mike Figgis.

Hey Rot, I wrote up my thoughts on the sopranos finale which you might like to read: this!

Rusty James
Guest

whoops, sorry about that long url.

mike rot
Guest

Rusty – yeah the Kevin Finety eps was what I was refering to prior, those are the first couple episode of the final season of Sopranos.

with regards to my views on depth=autonomy… I do make a distinction between character and story, it is something important to consider afterwards, to try and figure what was so special about something you saw, or read, or heard…. the film is a construct which, depending on your theoretical leanings, can be thought of as auteur or, for me, treating the film as a thinking-being. What is the film thinking about? The Sopranos is thinking about the characters as important-in-themselves, I know this because of the way it lingers on small incidental throwaway observations (Tony on the scale, gradually taking clothes off to see how much he weighs). Lost is thinking about the puzzle that is the story, music soars when key pieces are revealed, flashbacks are always pertaining to some crossover narrative piece… the crossovers are rarely if ever inconsequential to the plot, they are components of the plot. I cannot think of a single scene where the gaze lingers on a character in a way which has nothing to do with the impetus of plot. The show is telling you to focus on the story, to keep attentive to what things mean in relation to the puzzle, the breathing room for anything else is really limited. IF I enjoy the characters in Lost, and I do, who could not love Sawyer's witticisms, it is not because of their basis in any reality, but because of their bigger-than-life roles, their archetypal significance, the situational events they are a part of, and as I said before, the allure of performance itself. If someone else played Locke would you still feel the same way?

Within the frames of reference (which you call conjecture about what I think the writers are thinking – but which I see as conventions one grasps through exposure) I enjoy Lost for what it is, but characterization is qualitatively different in The Sopranos… it has a different frame of reference, The Sopranos is attemping mimesis, and therefore requires a different kind of evaluation… the manner in which character deviates from formula the better it is at mimesis.

As for Cold Cuts, I didn't know Mike Figgis did that, that was awesome. and I will totally read your thoughts on the finale… I know I read someone's who was so insanely thorough and it explained every detail of the final scene, even the background art as significant… and then the creator just recently denied that there was any higher meaning to it. I refuse to believe that however, but whatever.

mike rot
Guest

This is the most exhaustive blow-by-blow analysis of the ending of the Sopranos I have encountered and a lot of what Bob Harris notices convinces me that Chase's soundbyte was a red herring.

http://www.bobharris.com/content/view/1406/1/

obviously do not go to this unless you want the end spoiled

Goon
Guest

I actually think overall Lost season 3 is the best season. Rewatching 1 & 2, I found that 1 was a lot slower than a remembered, and that the second season was underrated. The third to me only seemed slow to people at the start because of that huge break over the winter – i think people expected too much – and over the course of the season it just grew and grew more than the other 2 did to a head, and the finale was the best payoff to date, maybe one of the best cliffhanger endings to anything I've seen ever.

For the record, I'm also addicted to the Wire. Havent picked up the latest season yet, but i find with that show the first episodes are my least favorite – not of their own fault but each season is to some degree a refresh where you have to reacquaint yourself and let it grow. it isnt until episode 5 of each Wire series that i start salivating.

I also think BSG season 3 is underrated, but yes – it is less perfect overall – and in that case its the middle third of the series with too much inside the Cylon ship, where they are directionless. I wonder if watching it again i'll feel the same, knowing what happens.

as for christmas movies: I have never seen It's A Wonderful Life either. I just don't care. The story has been put in every sitcom and a bunch of other movies to the extent i dont feel like i need to see it.

I've also never seen A Christmas Story, don't have an excuse, just never bothered.

I'm also really big on the Ref, but not really for Leary, who's entire schtick was pretty much stolen from other (better) comics like Bill Hicks. Its just flat out watchable. I do on the other hand, HATE Bad Santa – I'm not a prude at all, i have a retarded sense of humor, I don't really find much shocking. When I laugh at 'shock' humor or jokes, its more out of finding them surprising than the audacity of it itself. Bad Santa to me was just two hours of swearing, and I hated it – it operated to me on the idea that swearing alone was funny. I know people who think the same thing of Big Lebowski and criticize it that way, but I disagree there. There's real character and cleverness in Lebowski, in Bad Santa I don't think theres ANYTHING behind whats at face value.

Jonathan
Admin

Bad Santa isn't supposed to be "shock" humor. It's just supposed to be laugh-out-loud funny. And it is. In a great, great way. The movie relies solely on the interaction between Billy Bob's character and the kid, and it just makes for some priceless, gut-bustingly funny moments. You get someone less talented than Billy Bob, someone that doesn't have his delivery and knack for facial expressions, it'd probably be nothing special, but with him and the perfectly cast kid (not to mention a great small role by the late John Ritter) and it's definitely one of my favorite "anti-Christmas" movies.

<center>

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YKNrYb0s3xc&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YKNrYb0s3xc&rel=1&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object></center>

Matt Gamble
Guest

You sit their and play like the dead lice are falling off of ya, and then suddenly, you're like fucking Seabiscuit all over the goddamn place.

Their are just so many great lines in that movie. I could quote it all day.

rot
Guest

ok listened to the podcast… and while it is somewhat futile I will add my voice to the choir: Kurt watch the first couple episodes of Lost. I am predisposed to dislike this sort of show, but it really has something going for it. Genuine suspense, and originality that ranks it with the greats of the genre.

Stephen King is a fan, and actually plays a part in the show.

rot
Guest

Also I really need to catch up… seeing Juno free tonight which is great, but within the week with see Margot and determined to see Control

murph
Guest

"I've always had a thing for Santa Claus. In case you didn't notice. It's like some deep-seeded childhood thing."

"So is my thing for tits."

Kurt Halfyard
Admin

Enjoy Juno mike. It's not perfect by a long shot, but it's pretty darned entertaining. It certainly gives you the urge to go back and watch the (slightly superior) GHOSTWORLD (not that I ever need an excuse, I love that darned film – ooo tie-in with Bad Santa, both directed by Terry Zwigoff).

I've missed both of the Toronto Free Screenings of Juno at this point, but I caught it at TIFF, and I want my wife to watch it with me when we can get out of the house and its playing in the 'Burbs over Christmas…

Rusty James
Guest

Bad Santa would have to first learn an instrument in order to qualify as one note.

Kurt – are you at all a fan of Dan Clowes' Ghost World graphic novel? If so did you read it before or after seeing the movie abortation?

Goon
Guest

"The movie relies solely on the interaction between Billy Bob’s character and the kid, and it just makes for some priceless, gut-bustingly funny moment"

well it certainly isnt in the clip you provided – same sort of kid vs adult explanation you could get from any writer, with swearing.

I like this Rusty James guy just for going after TMB over the bullshit that is Transformers (within a post that says Spiderman 3 is worse than Bratz – had your hyperbole pill for the day? head to that article).

Not on board with you over Ghost World though – I've read the book and its very good, but I dont see anything wrong with the adaptation whatsoever. I read your article on it and enjoyed it for its angstiness (a la maddox.xmission.com) but i dont see any good argument against the film other than that theres a lot of stuff not in the book, and a lot of stuff from the book not in it. big whoop.

Rusty James
Guest

@goon – yeah, my view on Ghost World is pretty notorious. I'm out in the weeds on this one, and everyone seems to agree that I'm just bitter about the movie changing stuff.

I don't see it that way, for reasons that go way beyond the scope of this thread. Though I don't deny my viewing of the film is colored by my feelings for the book.

Thanks for the props Goon. I'm glad my often ill advised posts at TMB amuse someone.

Kurt Halfyard
Admin

I've not read Clowes' graphic novel, although on several occasions I was meaning to. So any changes from source material are somewhat less relevant to me (ignorance and all that…) Still, I love so much of what is on display in that film, everyone is great, the tone is fantastic and often quite savage. Furthermore, any time Steve Buscemi is cast in the leading male romantic role, well that is a huge plus in my book. Furthermore, Thora Birch, Bob Balaban, Teri Garr, Illena Douglas and so many more great performances just make almost every moment of that movie a pleasure. Certainly, for me personally how good GW was, dilutes what the current JUNO is trying to be and not quite getting there. I know the vast majority are going to love JUNO to death, but to me it will always be Ghost World light.

rot
Guest

Totally agree with you Kurt… it is high on laughs and keeping a smile on your face But Juno is not that perfect storm of comedy and pathos that something like 'About a Boy' or 'Ghost World' is. Allison Janney is classic… it kept reminding me of another underrated comedy, Drop Dead Gorgeous which she was also in.

Thundercats Go!!!!!

Kurt Halfyard
Admin

I know rot that we will be eventually dumped in with the inevitable 'backlash' associated with a film as successful and loved as JUNO is destined to be, but I also know that we both had this reaction on initial viewing (myself 100% free of hype and such, as I caught in back in September).

Yes, the film is funny as hell, and has some nice cutsy velvet underground songs and such, but you are right on the Pathos thing.

Here is how the characters sort of map between JUNO and GW for those interested

Allison Janey (love her!) even looks like Illeana Douglas

Jason Bateman is sort of Steve Buscemi as a bit of pushover "dork-chic"

J.K. Simmons in the Bob Balaban Role

Michael Cera is analogous to Brad Renfro's equally good perf

Olivia Thirlby looks and acts a bit like Scarlet Johannsson

The Robert Crumb stuff, vintage Artwork (Coon's Chicken Poster) and classic Jazz of the 30s and 40s of Ghost World are in JUNO as Herschell Gordon Lewis/Dario Argento debates, Stooges/Sonic Youth listening, and yes, ThunderCats references.

The mouthy rude guy in the Convenience store ("That's one doodle that can't be undone, Home Skillet") is the loose analogue to the reverse-wife-beater-tanned nunchuck guy in Ghost World.

Maybe I'm obsessing on the whole JUNO and GHOST WORLD connection, but that's was was continually striking me while watching. Juno really wants to be loved, where as GHOST WORLD is more acidic and stand-offish (which is my preferred style I guess).

As for Drop Dead Gorgeous, I remember enjoying the film a lot when watching it, but I also found it to be a bit too blunt and obvious at the time.

rot
Guest

Juno is pretty broad itself, but yeah I know what you are saying about Drop Dead Gorgeous. Still Ellen Burysten and Allison Janney in it, the off-the-cuff remarks from them they reminded me of some of the lines in Juno.

The one thing I am hesistant about Juno is that its comedy is so pop cultural… and veered occassionaly into the toxic Gilmore Girls level of trying to be clever. That said, I do enjoy the play on language that is employed in Juno… Diablo is a better writer then anything that has been spawned from GG.

Kurt Halfyard
Admin

Again. ELLEN PAGE (and director Jason Reitman) goes a heck of a long way to making the screenplay work as a film.

rot
Guest

Ellen Page has to get a nomination… but the win needs to go to Angelina Jolie

Kurt Halfyard
Admin

I ♥ Winterbottom

wpDiscuz