This is what happens far too often when stage is translated to screen. Too talky, and in an annoying pretentious manner.
I dig the actors as actors but not here. Man this is stink times ten, and with a rotten corpse for good measure.
Thanks.
------------------------------------
>>>Go die.>>>
[deleted]
Both you guys are completely wrong.
I saw this movie a few years after it came out and loved it. I just watched it again this morning (thanks HBO) and I still like it. You guys just didn't get it. Either you fall for the concept and go with it, or you don't. But it is well acted. And as for talky- wake up. It's a story about two people who meet every year at the same hotel. Whadya expect, a car chase in the middle?
[deleted]
I'm sorry, but part of "getting" this movie is to realize that these 2 people love each other- and their spouses. They agree to meet once a year and have an affair. Once you buy the situation, you agree to the fact that at no point during the 28-30 years do they consider leaving their spouses for each other. UNTIL one of them has a spouse die on them- then it's more of a possibility. Therefore Ellyn Burstyn saying that at the end is not phony, but true to the situation. But, as I said, if you "get" it.
share[deleted]
Working backwards-
"Say if I don't like "Catwoman" either is it because I don't "get" it as well?"
I would say no, as "Catwoman" is apparently terrible.
"Even the music is corny."
Sorry, I like that too.
"I guess I really don't buy it, or maybe I just don't "get" it as you put it."
Well, that's what I'm saying. If you can't start with buying the premise of the movie, if it's going to be too distracting for you that they're having a once-a-year affair all through this, if that keeps you from relating to the characters from minute one, then yeah, you "don't get it" and everything else from that point on won't work either. But I, for one, have always "gotten" it.
"the movie draws them (well, tries to) as perfectly lovable and flawless human-beings."
HARDLY. There's always something wrong with them, some neurosis, until the final scene.
"It's the whole movie that is phony and/or contrived: her pregnancy and hippie conversion (at like, 50?), the death of one of Alda's character's children, so on... "
Well, this is the "movie" part of the movie. In "real life" there's no way two real people would swing all over the sociological and cultural map the way these two do. It's a contrivance that allows the movie to shift gears besides simply hairstyles and clothes every 5 years. The characters are mirroring American society more than they are any actual person. Again, if you're with the movie, you go with it.
[deleted]
Heh...there's nothing to "get" with this celluloid cesspool. This is dreadfully banal, insulting, and pretentious- quite a combo rarely viewed outside of a Tarantino soliloquy.
Talk is just talk unless it's a conversation, and if it is a conversation of such tedious stupidity, it is simply garbage.
My Dinner With Andre is two hours of conversation in a single setting, and it is compelling. This film is simply trash that some people love for whatever reason, like fans of Wes Anderson or Garrison Kielor. Go ahead and love it, but don't claim it's something those of us who see it as the trash it is, as being unable to "get it".
We "get" it and we hate it.
"This is dreadfully banal, insulting, and pretentious- quite a combo rarely viewed outside of a Tarantino soliloquy. "
No, it's not banal. It's stilted in the way Neil Simon is- "real people" don't keep bouncing one-liners off each other, which is kind of the reason people PAY to see something more entertaining and funnier than "real life." That's the set up, and you may or may not find it funny, but if you have an issue with that you might as well watch a bunch of mimes.
And Tarantino is one of the best screenwriters working today, but it would take another thread to argue that one.
"Talk is just talk unless it's a conversation, "
?? What the hell does THAT mean?
"My Dinner With Andre is two hours of conversation in a single setting, and it is compelling."
I like "My Dinner With Andre" even though Andre himself is almost- ALMOST- insufferable.
"This film is simply trash that some people love for whatever reason,"
We like it because it is GOOD, as your take on it is merely your opinion.
"Go ahead and love it, but don't claim it's something those of us who see it as the trash it is, as being unable to "get it"."
To quote Chad Ochocinco, "child, please." Some people like this movie and some don't, just like every other movie made. Liking it or not liking it is not entirely the issue. In order to ACCEPT the movie, let alone LIKE it, you have to "get" the situation to BEGIN with. Which the person starting this thread did NOT. If you can not understand the whole setup of the movie to begin with, if it will not compute in your psyche that two people could do this- even in "just a movie"- then you'll never be able to embrace the strengths of the movie, which are there. Just like if you can not ever buy into the idea of a superhero wearing a costume, you're never going to "get" into a Superman movie. And if that's the case, then to you every Superman movie sucks, even though for those of us that do "get" Superman there are 2 good ones.
"Ok, so why does the "getting it" argument work for this one but not for Catwoman or any other movie that's universally considered bad?"
Because....there are a bunch of people who actually like this movie (myself included, obviously). One thing that seperates us from YOU is that we ACCEPT the premise and you seem not to, which is keeping the entire movie at arm's length for you to begin with, it seems.
On the other hand, I have yet to hear someone say the same thing about "Catwoman"- i.e. "I don't get the idea of her wearing a costume". What I have heard is "the script sucks", "the movie looks like crap", "the acting is terrible"- stuff like that. Everyone "gets" the idea of "Catwoman" - the movie is terribly made. Get it?
"I don't have to buy all these sucessive plot contrivances here so that the movie can convince me of its lame and corny story."
Look, if you went to a James Bond movie and couldn't believe that with all those guys shooting at him he never got hit, and couldn't believe that he always could hit the bad guys, and couldn't believe he always escaped and triumphed....there wouldn't be much point to seeing it, would there? Everyone who sees a James Bond movie KNOWS he is going to be there at the end, with the girl, after killing the bad guy. You buy into that if you like those movies.
In the same way, you have to buy into the concept of this movie. If you're sitting there from the first 5 minutes, repulsed by their behavior, there's not much point in debating what the movie does from that point on to mix it up.
"But say, does the movie ever call them liars or cheaters?"
First of all, how is a movie supposed to do that? Have a third character march in the room and call them out?
Secondly, the movie LIKES these two, and to watch the movie you have to as well. Not at every moment, but with very few exceptions, there aren't many movies made of people we're supposed to NOT like.
And lastly, there is the scene where Alan Alda is on the phone with Burstyn's husband, and tries to convince THEM to stay together. If they were truly selfish and horrible people, then we would not have gotten that.
"Brokeback Mountain" is entirely different movie- comparing the two is apples and oranges. I like "Brokeback"'s music AND the music to "Same Time", as sachrine as it may be.
[deleted]
"I guess what you're saying is that if someone doesn't like a movie that isn't unpopular or generally hated it is because they don't get it. I can't possibly agree with that."
No....there are a bunch of movies that are disliked because the "consensus" is that they suck. Sometimes they are called "Catwoman." Then there are movies that a fair number of people like and others don't. All of your complaints have generally been with the behavior of the main characters, and frankly that you don't like them or feel about them the way those of us who like the movie do. Which is different than saying "the acting sucked" or "the lighting was bad". Based upon your feelings you could never like this movie. You did not "get it" from the get-go.
"Either way, liking or disliking characters has little or nothing to do with the quality of the movie itself."
Actually, the proper term is "relate", something I'm loath to use. But the point is most movies require that you share the POV of the protagonists. That is, that you find the situation understandable and sympathize with them. If you don't from that first scene, you're not going to care much about their problems later.
"However, I never called them "horrible people", I said liars and cheaters...What I hate so much about the ending is that it doesn't acknowledge their behavior for what it was. It's as if it didn't want to allow the viewer to question for once these people's actions, as if the only choice was to either admire her or feel sorry for him."
First off, without the "lying" and "cheating" there's no movie. They are cheating, but there is no 2 hour movie if we're going to admonish them for it.
I know the dead horse has been beaten to dog food by now, but there is no way you're getting what you're complaining about from any movie like this. They aren't "horrible" people, but the film will not and can not condemn them for their actions. They are in love with their spouses AND each other. They will stay married AND see each other once a year for this affair. However unlikely this is, I completely get this premise and accept the character's actions. The film requires you to accept this notion. You haven't been able to get past it, so the entire film is effectively shut off to you.