Where do i start?
What a train wreck, taking a already boring show and making it a movie then to top it off Lindsey Lohan, who couldent even stop the toot for THIS movie....and stupid
arrogent and talentless Maya Rudolph.
All involved will need a presidential pardon.
I tried to watch this last night. After an hour, I couldn't take anymore. Not only is it boring, it was actually getting on my nerves to the point where my blood pressure was rising.
If you decide to go there and watch it, be forwarned:
The script(if there was one) is horrible
All the people talking over each other made it hard to follow
The songs were stupid and not performed well
Lindsay Lohan was in it
You will want to punch Garrison Keillor in the face after 10 minutes
I agree with you all. I really don't see how people could want to look at this type of movie. Well, I could, if that's your style. But, people just sitting around talking and singing country music is not my thing.
share[deleted]
All the people talking over each other made it hard to followYour first Robert Altman film, was it?
Please consider the possibility that I am not entirely serious before responding.
No, I've pretty much seen all the Altman films and I can safely say - this was no M*A*S*H or Nashville.
I wish he had made another Gosford Park and not another Ready to Wear. Altman had some great films, and this wasn't one of them. I have to partially blame the material, though.
I felt just the opposite, I really enjoyed this movie. You have to go into it informed...it's based on "The Prairie Home Companion" radio show, which itself was an aquired taste. Then it was a Robert Altman film. So you had to be ready for something slow and irreverant. I never liked Robert Altman's films...not one, even M*A*S*H, which is why I didn't watch this one sooner. But I really liked it, in my opinion, Altman's best, which isn't saying much considering how I feel about his work in general. I thought all the performances were good, and the story, about the "death" of this long-running radio show, was well done.
shareGREAT response! From time to time I wonder who it was the angel came for and I don't know. That used to bother me until I grew up and realized not every film had a happy ending or even one which gave me all the answers. I think you'll like something that happened to me a few years ago. I was watching Gosford Park and the DVD from the library froze eight minutes before the end. To this day I don't know who the murderer was!
It's true, my father is buried at La Brea.(Not a line from a film-my father's ashes are there.)
"not another Ready to Wear"
Sort of sums up the Yank dumbing down of movies by great American directors to suit the McDonalds crowd - in Europe it's called "Pret a Porter"
Excuse me, but Pret a porter is french for Ready to Wear. In France, don't they put English titles in French? It's called translation and it isn't dumbing down.
Snob.
Excuse me "lorrigirl", I know that "Pret a Porter" is French for "Ready to Wear" and it was released as such in the UK, no translation needed for Brits. Calling it "Ready to Wear" just dumbs it down for the provincial McDonalds crowd in the good 'ol US of A!
Snotty Cow
[deleted]
"As far as I'm concerned, the next time the Europeans need help in a war, they won't be getting any from America."
Danke vielmal. Aber, ..... do you really believe what you have written?
That Europe should thank America for "help"? My god. In my experience eastern europeans and ruskis are ignorant and often hateful, but they are also critical of what they hear, and say. So, you can have a conversation with a European about new things, or things they don't already know. The defining feature of modern America is not the ignorance, but the stupidity. Americans not only believe whatever the free vee tells them, they spew it back out into the world like a bunch of Iranian priests. You guys are so, so BRAINWASHED.
Nice people, but just as dumb as a bag of hammers, and indoctrinated worse than the Islamic terrorists.
"We won't help Europe again!"
Yeah. And christ was born in Kansas. Sheesh. I cannot believe I stick up for your people. I can't believe we are all "the english speaking people".
[deleted]
"That's cute, but you missed the mark since I've studied history. The fact is that the U.K. would have surrendered if they had not been receiving help from the United States lease/lend program."
You obviously haven't studied it well enough, though from experience American Historians believe in the power of "national myth" rather than history so it may not be your fault.
Though it must be stated that the UK did indeed benefit from American resources in the war and then eventually the US troops that helped bring the war to a close in quicker than if they had not entered the war.
However despite American media claims that the USA won the war (which was a joint effort anyway and no country can claim they won it by themselves, if you can truly win a war in the first place...but that is just going into philosophical debates that would take up to much of this thread), Nazi Germany had been losing (and just fighting for more favourable peace terms) the war possibly since the Battle of Britain (at least in Nazi Germany's war with the UK...whom it had wanted as an ally in the early years of the Nazi regime) and certainly after El Alamein (which had little to do with the US though they had just entered the war at that time...the North African campaign had turned against Rommel's Afrika Korps long before the USA army arrives, partly thanks to the lack of fuel at his disposal due to a successful allied blockade of shipments to North Africa) and then the Battle of Stalingrad (again little to do with the USA).
The main reason the US joined the war against Germany (other than Nazi Germany declairing war on it due to its alliance with Japan) was the fact they thought the Allies (the UK, Australia, India, Canada... et al) could actually defeat the Axis in the war. And the only reason the USA sold arms to the allies (before it joined the war) was to boost its economy. The USA is a country (well a Federation of States to be exact) and like all countries it is a selfish entity. To my knowledge the UK is still paying off (or was in the 90s at least) its debt to the US for its "aide" in the war; why how generous and humanitarian of good ol' Uncle Sam!
By the time the US troops arrived in Europe the Russians were advancing through Poland and the UK was safe from being invaded.
So yes the US trading arms was one of the main factors but to claim that the UK would have surrendered if the US may be pushing it, and if it had surrendered who is to say the the Nazis would have won the war in the end? Russia was doing well in its fight and the other Commonwealth countries may have still fought on. And if it was the US alone against the Axis it is unlikely they would have won the war all by themselves.
That being said US troops did play their part, and my own American G.I. grandfather died "doing his bit" in the war. And the war with Japan is another matter.
"You Europeans would all be speaking German now."
Actually again that is bad scholarship on your part. This was not a policy of Nazi Germany at least as far as Germanic countries are concerned.
England for example is inhabited by Germanic speakers for the most part (not counting Cornwall which is traditionally Brythonic speaking nor Cumbria of which much of it was Brythonic speaking). The Nazis in fact thought that the Nordic languages were the purist Germanic languages and thus if any language was to be spoken throughout Europe it would probably be a Nordic language. Not that the Nazis had any plans, as contrary to popular culture they were not purely interested in Germanic Europe but also Romance Europe and once they had "purified" it Slavic Europe (hence you could still join the SS if you were from a Slavic country, as hated as they generally were) and even Iranian (Iran means land of the Aryans of course. The Aryans being the ancient Iranians who invaded Indian taking Indo-European culture there and thus the religion that became Hinduism amongst other things) and Northern Indian culture. In short they were far more interested in Pan-Indo-Europeanism than many suspect...hence the hard time condemning the Romany peoples (who were "Aryan" or Indo-European in origin) eventually classifying them as almost "race traitors" who consort with "Undermen" such as Jews.
"Nothings gonna change my world!"
I grew tired of reading all those nested (subthoughts) in the middle of your paragraphs. Please learn to communicate without using parantheses. Also you kept jumping around from one point-to-another. Your thinking was incoherent and random.
So I stand by what I said before.
Prior to Pearl Harbor the U.S. was shipping tons of supplies to Britain, many of them given for free by the US government. Had Britain not received those supplies, it would have literally starved to death in 1940 or 41, run out of war supplies, and therefore the island would be forced to surrender. - As for who "won" the war, I agree credit belongs to Russia.
-----
Because God created it, the human body
can be uncovered and preserve His splendor. -Pope John Paul
'Nice people, but just as dumb as a bag of hammers, and indoctrinated worse than the Islamic terrorists.'
Label people much?
Plotholes are like Bigfoot, people who claim to see them are just trying to stir things up.
I don't want to get all we saved Europe in WWII but we did not enter the war because we thought the Allies were going to win. We entered the war because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and we had more resources in the Pacific as the Japanese were just as nearly as dangerous as the Germans. (Thanks to FDR priming an isolationist country to war.)
Why the Allies won the war? Three main advantages: Russians winters, British intelligence, and American manufacturing. Wasn't British intelligence that got us into WWI?
I suppose we arrogant Europeans just assume that we have enough education to know that common French phrases, such as "Prêt à Porter" don't need to be translated. Aren't Americans taught French, as a matter of course, in high schools?
shareWhy would we bother learning French? Most of the country hates us anyway out of pure envy. If I wanted to learn another language I would start with something useful like Spanish, Mandarin, Arabic or Russian.
share[deleted]
French may be the basis for the term "lingua franca", but it hasn't served as the actual "lingua franca" for quite some time. It's English now. Plus geographically it doesn't make sense for us to need French. France is quite far away and we don't get many immigrants from there. I think it is taught in Canada pretty universally because of Quebec.
American students can choose from a variety of languages, which languages one can choose from depends on the region of the country one is in. I grew up in NJ which had a great many Central and South American immigrants so Spanish was the most popular language, but German, French and Latin were also available. I am now living in Massachusetts where there are a great many Portuguese, Cape Verdean and Brazilian immigrants so Portuguese is the most popular (i.e. useful) language to learn, but again, others are available. In the South West of the country the close proximity of Mexico and the high number of immigrants would make Spanish the most popular language. I'm sure you get the point.
Americans who read a lot of British writing often do understand some common french phrases because they are used so often. But French phrases are not commonly dropped in American Speech or Writing.
It was released as "Ready to Wear" in the US and "Pret a Porter" in Europe. Maybe that's why a "Yank" assumed that was the title. How is language translation a "dumbing down?"
Here's a little "Yank" affectation for you...D'oh!
I rarely agree with the opinions expressed in IMDb's message boards, as I am an Old Fart ( 60 ) and the majority of posters are young whippersnappers with whom it is often difficult to see eye-to-eye. Nonetheless, in this case, I heartily concur with the majority view.
This is an awful movie, even by Altman standards. ( FWIW, my favorite is "Three Women" ). Boring, virtually plotless and populated by cardboard characters, it compounds the felony by presenting the worst of the radio show - bad folk music and silly pseudo commercials - without the vignettes about Lake Woebegone and it's inhabitants. If I wish to hear folk music - and I don't - I'll listen to the real thing, not Streep and Harrelson doing turns as "folkies".
Oh, and as for wanting to "punch Gairison Keillor in the face"; I've had a hankering to do that for soooo long!
This is an awful movie, even by Altman standards. ( FWIW, my favorite is "Three Women" ). Boring, virtually plotless and populated by cardboard characters, it compounds the felony by presenting the worst of the radio show - bad folk music and silly pseudo commercials - without the vignettes about Lake Woebegone and it's inhabitants. If I wish to hear folk music - and I don't - I'll listen to the real thing, not Streep and Harrelson doing turns as "folkies".
Keillor omitted any mention of Lake Woebegone from PHC because he wants to do a seperate film for that.
I tried to watch this last night. After an hour, I couldn't take anymore. Not only is it boring, it was actually getting on my nerves to the point where my blood pressure was rising.
I don't understand why this was made into a film. I loved Prairie Home Companion - on the radio. One medium (radio) does not translate into another medium (film.)
Isn't it odd that a movie like this actually calms my nerves and LOWERS my blood pressure.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I just think it's striking that 2 people can get two such widely different reactions to a simple film like this.
: )
I agree
just short of captivating
i would think anyone who has ever been a fan of radio shows, has ever been in an onstage "live" performance, would have to agree
the only part that kept this from being completely captivating IMO was the dangerous woman and that is because her character was from without and not within the pseudo show that was set before us, breaking the continuity
I've seen GK live in a "Halloween" performance with Philadelphia Harmonic Orchestra. Watching him read, listening to him on the radio, watching him on television, and now in a movie does nothing to change how smooth of an orator he is
yeah. I feel sorry for Mr. Altman, since this was his last work. But Kubrick left us with "eyes wide shut", why shouldn't Mr. Altman.
But this is really horrible, it's like a couple of old men/women mumbling about their boring yet glorious past. All the people are so talkative, not even close to Woody Allen's wit, except for Lindsey who didn't really talk alot. I guess only people old enough or people who actually listen to this trash radio show would enjoy it.
I rarely cut off any movies, but this is just too much.
I loved this movie and can watch it over and over. I can understand why this isn't for everyone as it's not a plot driven movie and too many just can't seperate good/strong plot with a movie being "good".
This movie isn't about the plot as it's about the journey.
You haters may want to grow a heart
shareI'm not sure what "growing a heart" means. I had heard of the radio show, but never listened to it. I had somehow imagined that there must have been something to the radio show since it was supossed to be popular. I VERY VERY VERY rarely stop watching a movie. I am anal retentive and it makes it hard for me to not finish something I started. I had to stop watching this movie because I was just TOOOOO bored. I would hope that the fans of the radio show were entertained and if so, then the movie did what it set out to do. I am not mad that I didn't like the movie. I now know that I obviously would not have like the radio show, so I guess I didn't completely waste my time.
If "growing a heart" means to pretend you liked a movie when you didn't just so you don't hurt someone's feelings, then I can not comply. If the poster is implying that anyone who didn't like this movie doesn't have a heart, I beg to differ. Is liking sappy country music with a little bit of blue suggestive lyrics in it a requirement for having a heart????
Was this the best Robert Altman movie? No, but to call it terrible and boring is unfair also. I'd put in a category with Kansas City or The Company, in that the movie is the Prairie Home Companion show itself. The plot is incidental and just a means to enjoy some of the quirky characters, offbeat sketches, and music of the radio show. Altman always did an interesting job of turning a specific artform into uncinematic stories that convey the feeling of the art moreso than a standard film could do.
I enjoyed it and am sad he's gone and we won't get anymore like this.
I'm with bbonacci--I love character development type movies and I rarely ever walk away from something I've started, but a little over an hour and I had to turn this off!!!!!!
"Some people without brains do an awful lot of talking!"
Heh, I watched this movie four times in the theater - went with different people each time and they all liked it.
Just finished watching it again on HBO. (Just happend to tune it near the beginning.)
It's just a matter of taste. -Wm
I find it hard to believe fans or critics/buffs/whatever you want to call youself who have seen previous Atlman films like Nashville, Short Cuts, MASH, Gosford Park or whatever else could be surprised by this movie and call it boring.
Some do not enjoy such storytelling which circles on themes and characters and not on plot, story development or resolution. But if you've watched just a few Altman movies before this, you should have seen that coming. This was a fun movie where Altman in his twilight explored everyone's journey through life and the revelation of the end and confronting death. He used Keillor's sly humor and storytelling (which is also as aimless and rambling) to depict it in a "play iwthin a play" background or among the creative losing their outlet. It was Altman's last words on life and death, while keeping his trademark wit.
It was simple and was just about the last night of a show that began and ended relatively without much happening other than a man dying. But it is how it all affects each and every character and the old and the young'....it is the journey to the end. The resolution is an afterthought about death and how it comes for us all but we need only remember rejoicing life and not dwell on death.
This is not everyone's cup of tea. Especially when it is so dry witted and sardonic in the best of Keillor's style. That is fine. Blades of Glory will be on DVD soon. YOu can settle on that.
Ah, so apparently this movie doesn't suck...we just have a director named Altman who can't make a decent movie. Gotcha.
shareVery well put. I get the feeling that those people out there that did not recognize nor enjoy the irony and wit that ran beneath the surface (as well as in your face) really missed out on something special. I for one would consider this film a complete and total success for all involved. I loved it from beginning to end and would watch it again this afternoon if it were on. I actually would put it on par (almost) with "Nashville", one of my all-time favorite movies. But trying to convince those who were bored that they should give this movie another go is not worth the effort. As you said, "Blades Of Glory" is coming. 'Nuff said...
shareThe only thing that turned me off from the movie is Altman's style of slow panning and scanning throughout the film. I believe that started with The Player and progressively got worse in the later films. But this film, although slow, was enjoyable. Especially the Bad Jokes segment by Dusty and Lefty, that was the best part. Bad Jokes, Lord I love em! Bad Jokes, can't get enough of 'em!
shareI expected to hate the movie.
I don't get Robert Altman, even his good movies like M*A*S*H and The Player. I don't know what it is about his work but I just don't like it. I HATE the radio show, I think it's a weird mix of pointless, down-homey arrogance that goes nowhere.
Having said that I didn't hate the movie as much as I thought I would. No real surprises, everybody did and everything I expected them to do. The angel of death thing was pretty clear from the start. Altman could have just as well put a Snidely Whiplash mustache on Tommy Lee Jones' character.
But still the movie was watchable, I'm just glad I didn't pay to see it in the theaters.
Now if you'll excuse me, they're putting me in something called Hero Squad.
I agree with dac... Nicely put. I thought the movie was great... I suppose some will never understand us midwesterners... HBO rarely buys the rights to crap and great actors rarely agree to appear in crap (yes, many are money hungry movie-whores)
shareyou'll enjoy this movie better when you reach the age of about 16. It is for
grownups, mostly. Also buy a dictionary.
Terrible and boring do perfectly describe this movie. Maybe add diappointing to the list. Now to qualify my response, I must say that I am a fan of the Prairie Home Companion rdaio show, and NPR in general. In fact, public radio is about the ony radio I listen to. However, I had to give up on this movie after the first half an hour. Maybe something should just stay in their best medium.
shareI was hoping that The PHC movie would be very similar to the radio show; there were certain aspects of the movie that were good, but there was also quite a bit of vulgarity that is not in the radio show. That was my biggest turn-off. I respect Altman's style, and it could have been really good, but was all that vulgarity necessary?
shareNot being like the radio show is the undoing of this average movie. While there were some mildly interesting storylines, with some occasional tolerable music, the failure of the movie is the name. If he wanted to imitate the original, then he should have used a title that was close so we could get the joke. As it is being presented, with the actual radio name and the actual leading man, we are led to believe it is the live radio show brought to the big screen. What we end up with is a bunch of actors, playing fake roles for useless stories. When we are on stage the most persistent feature was all of the commercials. He completely left out the home spun stories by GK of Lake Wobegon where everyone is above average. There was zero audience participation, which is always a segment on the radio, where they get to play contests. This is a waste of time with a borrowed title.
shareWhen i watched this film i was expecting a really good storyline but to me i didn't understand it at all. and that woman in the long coat was she supposed to be an angel or sumthin.
Sorry to all the people who enjoyed this film but I really didn't enjoy it.
:P Spider Pig, Spider Pig...- Simpsons movie rocks:P
"Where do i start?"
So... when is it you're going to start--I mean, unless you simply consider calling some people you don't know a bunch of names is somehow "starting" any logical reason for not liking it...
I remember someone in an English class years back, when the teacher asked them why they didn't like a book they said "it's stupid."
The teacher said the most brilliant and honest thing I ever heard a teacher say that afternoon:
"You're stupid. Anyone that says they don't like something because "it's stupid," and can't list one reason other than that, has no room to criticize anything. It's a story. It CAN'T be stupid. You're a human, and you ARE stupid."
I might add, the "stupid" book they were discussing was Crime and Punishment. Yeah, there's a stupid story for you.
To cut to the chase, anyone who says they don't like something "Because it's stupid," is a dumbass.
Sounds to me like the Op's have the attention span of a 5 year old.
And I can verify, I worked with them during the summer...
This movie was amazing. Amazing cast! Great cinemotgraphy, good story, cool songs. It was a warm movie but with a sad undertone. Loved it.
VICTIM:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0479204/
Babysitter Wanted:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0819755/
Stupid people don't like this movie.
shareA lot of arrognace here, as if liking a movie somewhat means you're smarter. Keep telling yourself that.
shareRegaridng Tambourine's post (01:47:43)
I believe that the problem with a lot of these posts (I've read all the replies to the message) is that people can't differentiate between fact and opinion. For instance just because you didn't like a movie or even "hated" a movie, doen't mean the movie is bad. By the same token, just because you like a movie, doesn't mean it's great. It's about how you felt about the movie not the movie itself. People need to lighten up and stop putting other people down because they have different opinions. And, frankly it seems that the people who didn't like the film were doing more personal attacks and showed more arrogance than the people who liked the film. As for me, I mostly liked the film and I though the performances were tremendous, in particular, L.Q. Jones who unfortunately had only a supporting role.
[deleted]
I don't have the time nor desire to read all the posts, so this is just my comment to the original posting.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but yours and mine are completely different here. This is one of my favorite movies. It is the only Robert Altman film I have seen, so I am in no way a die-hard fan if that's what you mean. I also have never listened to the show, not even after I saw the movie.
It is one of my favorite movies. The direction is done in a surprisingly real way, making the film more moving than most. The actors all did fantastic jobs. If there was an Academy Award for Best Ensemble this film should have won. I don't see how it didn't receive the nomination from the SAG.
It's certainly not a very conventional film. Just from what I've read of the responses, it seems that the people who didn't like it were already against it before they ever watched it (someone made a comment about how they can't understand why someone would waste their time w/ it when they could listen to XM radio or something?). And, once again, this film is an example of how all the people who love to think of themselves as 'serious movie critics' and 'moviebuffs' just can't let themselves like a film that is just a happy film. If there's not some kind of dark human drama, it just can't be good can it? This is a film about normal people dealing w/ death and ending and how to approach such events. Most normal everyday people don't have dark human dramas going on in their lives. Neither do these normal everyday people characters. Instead, they're like most people we meet on the street- they make us laugh, and they make us care for them.
It's hard to say exactly what it is that makes the film powerful, but this is film that makes me want to stand up and applaud at the end every time I see it. I think it has to do w/ simpleness and honesty of the story. It's something I would think most people could relate to- but apparently most of you couldn't. Yes, I think this is yet another wonderfully simple, funny, and heartfelt films that people love to hate because there's just no darkness to it.
Oh yeah, in case you're wondering, I'm 17. I'm not some old geezer huffing about the realness of death. I'm just a high school kid who happens to love great filmmaking. This movie speaks to me.
And yes, Lindsay Lohan did wonderfully in this. Those of you who are putting her down obviously didn't even give her a chance or you have no idea what good acting looks like.
"For the last time honey, there are no pirahannas in- MY BUTT!"- Tarzan
[deleted]
Ive listened to the show for years and years....
Perhaps thats the reason I thought this SUCKED so bad!
This was PAINFUL to watch......
It reminded me of the law of ENTROPY....
I think movies should be the opposite of that.
It's like this was one long collection of deleted scenes!
I'm not sure it could've been any worse....... :(
This shouldve stayed just an idea....
IMHO