I just got to see this movie for free at the local theater and was I glad I didn't spend money on it! Wow... it was bad and formuliac. Clearly, the cure for chronic depression is sleeping with Sarah Jessica Parker! I thought Thomas Hayden Church and Ellen Page were excellent, yes she's being typecast as Juno (even though this film was made first) but she's adorable and talented to me. But the story... ugh. Don't waste your time.
shareHow is she typecast when this was made first..that clearly makes no sense. Plus she's done a lot of different roles.
Anyway, I quite enjoyed it. It's not meant to be a masterpiece.
Hayden Church was pretty good (in a very standard sort of way) but I agree with the O.P. Poor scripting, very formulaic, the same kind of humour as 'The Squid and the Whale' but nowhere near as effective. Worst for me though is when you are watching a film that seems to think it's cleverer than it is. That really annoys me...
shareI would disagree that the film thinks it's cleverer than it is.
I think the main character thinks this, but the film doesn't. Granted the 'Lotus' scene was a bit pretentious and unnecessary, but other than that I felt it was similar to The Squid and the Whale with a slightly more positive tone. Although it doesn't fall into the 'excellent' class I would ascribe to TSATW.
It wasn't the most outstanding film ever; it was disjointed in places and Parker's character is not a great deal more than just her SATC persona. But, I think it was MUCH better than Juno (which I do think believes itself to be cleverer than it actually is - and the comparison is difficult to avoid, given that Page is in both). Put Juno's massive marketing drive behind Smart People and viewers would probably be fighting over themselves to praise it, perhaps unjustly as was the praise for Juno.
For a directorial debut, this film was funny and engaging, if not especially poignant. I wouldn't like to agree that it's formulaic. And it certainly isn't poorly scripted, in my opinion. I thought the characters were believable and I found it easy to relate to them, which perhaps lends towards tendencies of a formula. But, I'd rather that that the creation of wacky characters that bear little resemblance to anything or anyone merely to be original for the sake of it.
I think that was the cause of my problems with it, I didn't think the charcters had enough depth (for want of a better word) to find them believable, I just found it all rather unremarkable, really. I kept thinking to myself how many scripts like this there must be out there, and wondering why this one, in particular, ended up getting made.
shareI haven't seen it, so I'm only going by what I've heard. It seems the only reason this got a theatrical release is because they thought it could piggyback off the success of Juno. I worked at the hotel the production stayed it, and interacted daily with everyone involved. Most everyone working on it said the movie was a disaster and would go straight to DVD. The director was a douchebag to everyone that worked for him. I dealt with an assistant to him that he nearly had in tears one day. All the actors were super nice and did not pull any type of Hollywood attitude. The only person who acted all self-important was the director, who was a nobody. He had never even done a movie before. I'll see it eventually, but I wasn't going to waste my money on it in the theater.
share[deleted]
I saw this movie just coz' Ellen Page was in it.....& it was a total waste of 2hrs of my time. Bull Crap directing...the music was louder than the dialogues at soo many places, I was like "WTF! Did they even see the movie themselves after making it??"
*Sigh*
>> http://RapidshareFilms.com <<
The sound is perfect it was just the bad copy you downloaded from veoh. ;)
shareActually, the copy on Veoh right now is pretty much perfect.
Dick.
I doubt that. Dick. Since there is no copy available from Veoh with good sound and you accidentally made your post just hours after the movie was posted in some movie forums and at Veoh. So you dl it from there, watched it and made you post here. The theater version and the DVD are perfectly normal so who are you trying to kid here? Dick. You just try to get away with that stupid comment you made. How dumb can you be to judge the sound of a movie by a downloaded copy and actually think this was the version the filmmakers made for the theater. Dick.
shareA movie that didn't match it's talent nor it's potential. There was a lot there, the dynamics between the family was interesting, Quaid, Page and Church were all quite good in their roles...but ultimately the movie was chopped to hell. Clearly they had no faith in the scenes or dialogue or they wouldn't have had a montage set to whiny guitar music every thirty seconds.
All I had to look up to verify what you said is that he's a jew. The end, they are the most rotten and deceptive creatures on this planet.
--------------------------------------------
I Take that Back
I'm only a few minutes into watching the movie for the first time and I find it to be a win lose. They have the talent for this to be a great movie. But the acting seems so forced from Parker and Quaid that its just to hard to wattch.
You kissed me into ruins,
Sin on Sin.
Now I've gotta love your love letters written on my skin.
[deleted]
True. Thomas Hayden Church did his usual bit to carry the movie too, but I fail at imagining how the movie would've been without Page. She kinda force you to pay attention to the dialogue & narrative, more so than other star actors.
shareI watched this last night, after debating weather to watch it in the face of very mixed reviews.
My opinion of the movie is not good, 5/10. In fact I forgot I had watched this film before, unfortunately, this revealation came at the end credits. So the film didn't have a good impact the first time...I must have been drunk to forget so much of the film.
Anyway, the script was not great, or the directing. I think the main problem is that you don't really feel warmth towards any of the characters, apart from possibly THC's role. Quaid's character is simply unlikeable, a snobby, conceited individual. The character is not funny either, and you wonder why SJP's character would be interested in him, especially since he seems like such a bad catch.
The film just doesn't work, Quid and SJP don't convince, not sure if it is their acting, or just poorly scripted roles, and no chemistry.
THC and Elen Page are the best things in this film, and the only time I enjoyed watching the film was when these two were interacting with each other on screen.
Agreed. Just about all of the elements (script, cinematography, etc) & actors were mediocre, though THC and Page managed to rise above that, making their lines work. They saved the film, imo.
Quaid & SJP's romance was just incomprehensible, as you described.