...that it takes years for it to be truly appreciated as such. This is the case with "Grand Canyon," a film so self-indulgent, so full of itself, a celebration of the narcississtic, so full of pretentions yet vapidly emtpy, that it will take years for those duped into thinking they've seen something profound to come to terms with the reality of it.
If they ever do.
This would have to entail, unfortunately, growing up.
Pretentious is the word I keep thinking of when I watch this. But I keep watching it over and over. It's like you can't believe they could be so full of themselves, as you say. How could Steve Martin appear in this. I thought he had a sense of humor.
share[deleted]
I agree, thetamer00; this is a movie that is apparently beyond the ability of some people to grasp fully as it was intended, in addition to those who are too young to have reached a point in life to be able to relate to the issues with which it deals.
I can't believe that someone would think that GC is narcissistic, when in fact one of its basic themes is questioning our own self-centered materialistic (Western) existence and the importance we place upon it.
Actually the entire story arc explores human doubt and the questioning of one's own values, boundaries and assumptions about existence, in additon to attempting to determine the appropriate amount of change one must be willing to undergo in order to succeed as a mature and well-rounded (& well-grounded) human being.
That may sound too high-minded to some, but it's really all very down-to-Earth for those of us still willing to open our minds to new ideas once in awhile.
Only the ending of GC attempts to be profound (I guess) but I found that a bit too simple to effectively serve most of the questions raised earlier in the film. It is open-ended, though, just like most of those nagging questons...
In addition, I really like the fuzzy lines drawn about race, too; you had to be very brave to even talk about race openly across racial lines twenty years ago. It basically wasn't done. I know; I was there.
In fact, anyone who was a young adult, especially living in southern CA, in the early 1990s, ought to be able to watch GC and say, "yep, that's pretty much what it was like." Pretention doesn't even enter into it; historical relevance does.
Plus, Steve Martin is nothing short of hilarious in GC; I mean isn't it obvious he's doing a send-up of some of the more notorious film directors of the 1980s?
GC scores on every level until the very last minute (when the visually & aurally stunning ending is completely sabotaged by the credits rolling about sixty seconds too soon.)
Maybe the rest of the world will catch on to GC in another ten years or so.
I wouldn't say race wasn't talked about across racial lines 20 years ago -- I would say it was constantly discussed, just like today. And I was there then too.
shareAw, gee, did I hurt your feelings? Aw... I'm sooooorrrreeeeee!!!
NOT!
It seems to voice a dissenting or contradictory opinion these days is verboten, in this childish culture we've devolved into.
This movie sucks. Martin sucks and is full of himself. He had the gall to remake Bilko when he doesn't have an iota of the comedic ability of Phil Silvers. Of course, it was a disaster.
And who on God's green earth, is more full of himself as an actor than Kevin Kline? Is there a moment on the screen where you do not hear him saying, "Look! I'm ACTING!" Bleech.
Get over it.
And who on God's green earth, is more full of himself as an actor than Kevin Kline? Is there a moment on the screen where you do not hear him saying, "Look! I'm ACTING!"
Steve Martin himself seems a bit pretentious to me. He's good in this role though.
shareso self-indulgent, so full of itself, a celebration of the narcississtic, so full of pretentions yet vapidly emtpy,
They've got a right to their opinion, and to express it -- this is a film discussion board, not a fanboard.
Many critics expressed similar views when it was released -- that it was a pretentious attempt to garner an oscar that fell short.
They've got a right to their opinion, and to express it -- this is a film discussion board, not a fanboard.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Oh, great. Another example of the dumbing of America rears it's head. Because I differ in my opinion of the film, I'm to be ridiculed.
This is what happens when brother marries sister... they produce you. And you can't think.
This is a horrid film. Get over it.
What a clever comment. Worthy of the fourth grade.
share[deleted]
This is indeed a terrible film.
Hukkk,
You summed it up beautifully.
THIS IS INDEED A TERRIBLE FILM.
Perfect.
Thanks.
This movie isn't that bad, it's just that it never really leads to anything all that solid. I loved the opening of the movie. It never reached that bit of entertainment again. There are some interesting other scenes in this movie, but it's like the movie isn't properly developed. Like it doesn't know what to do with all these characters. Maybe it should've been a 6 hour movie.
shareSO BAD ? Hmmmm
Are you sure you aren't talking about the 2004 Paul Haggis re-make called "CRASH" ?
THAT won BEST PICTURE !!
Quote from CRASH:
"It's the sense of touch. In any real city, you walk, you know? You brush past people, people bump into you. In L.A., nobody touches you. We're always behind this metal and glass. I think we miss that touch so much, that we crash into each other, just so we can feel something"
Pure pseudo-intellectual vomit !
Paul Haggis is NO Ingmar Bergman... he is no Lawrence Kasdan either !
I LOVED The Big Chill, and have to say this was a total disappointment. Pretentious and quite dull.
And yes, I do think Haggis stole from this movie. But I think Crash was better than this -- at least more entertaining.
this film tried to be profound...wound up insipid and dull
After all these yrs I finally DVRed it the other night.
Very disappointing.
Man, the vitriol is so thick concerning this film. I never would of thought that this film would arouse such hatred. It's just a movie after all. When I first saw it, I thought it was unremarkable. I've come to see upon subsequent viewings that there are some good actors in this film giving good performances. I thought Danny Glover was great in this as well as Kline and Martin. I think McDonnell is good in everything she dose.
shareYou guys are harsh! I liked it. Sure, it's kind of pretentious, but I think it acknowledges that somewhat. The whole hooking up Mack with Alfre Woodard (I think that's her name) because they're the only two black people he's ever met is verbalized in the movie, between Glover and Kline and Glover and Woodard each (I think). I just liked the sprawling ensemble drama theme, it seemed to give birth to the genre in American film. I've been trying to think of others like it before '91. Anybody? Anyway, just my two cents.
shareLook, everybody's is, of course, entitled to their opinion, and if you enjoy something, hey, God bless you, go, enjoy.
Having said that, I'm am forced, (or I feel compelled) to write:
"Sure, it's kind of pretentious."
This is like saying "The Hindenberg had a kind of incident."
Some of your other comments tell me that you haven't really seen many American films. This film did NOT "give birth" to anything, (with the possible exception of a case of severe gas I had during the viewing of this film) and the things you point out that you like are precisely the things that make this pretentiious, boring, and rather insulting.
I would only take the time to write (as I think would anyone else) on IMBD unless I had really strong feelings about the film. So you're going to have to do much better to defend this glob of Hollywood dreck.
WORST FILM EVER nominee
So you didn't like it - so what. That's great for you.
I don't understand the pretentious comments so much. I think that this movie dealt with some realistic situations and laid them out for us to see.
Was there too much moralising for you, or something? I don't recall being instructed on how to change things or my life in any way.
I can say that I identified with Kline's character in many ways. Maybe that's what makes it more real and interesting to me.
And your criticisms are pretty vague. You started with:
"...that it takes years for it to be truly appreciated as such. This is the case with "Grand Canyon," a film so self-indulgent, so full of itself, a celebration of the narcississtic, so full of pretentions yet vapidly emtpy, that it will take years for those duped into thinking they've seen something profound to come to terms with the reality of it."
That all means nothing really. They sound like film-school generalities. So, specifically, what are your complaints here?
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Sometimes a putz is so dumb....
share[deleted]
Yea, I know, Dee, sucks when a film required brainwaves more than the average Will Ferrell movie. Don't worry, they'll keep making those for you. We need to keep all the morons together in one theater so we can label them for extinction
share