MovieChat Forums > Barney's Version (2011) Discussion > REALLLLLY??? (spoilers... not that they ...

REALLLLLY??? (spoilers... not that they matter)

posted 13 years ago by lucas9648
15 replies | jump to latest

Paul was very good in this movie. There, the good is out of the way. 1. Paul vs his 3 beautiful BEAUTIFUL wives. Yeah ok. 2. WTF with the "consistant with skydiving injuries" b.s.? Made no sense, and was never explained. 3. Dude was a TOTAL PRICK, oh wait he really did the photo thing for the washed up actress... yeah that makes up for everything- the CONSTANT drinking, the cheating- ok once but still- the total lack of GIVING A *beep* for anything but his 3rd wife, father, and to some extent his children and heroin McGee, 4. i mean jesus christ, i know Alzheimer's is awful, but REALLY, you're gonna go with the... i can't remember how to use a fork to eat the cake? And oh, i'm gonna helplessly clutch a bannana while remembering OH YEAH, 30 years ago i suddenly don't think i shot him AFTER I PUT NO THOUGHT OR REMORSE INTO WHAT HAPPENED TO MY BEST FRIEND BECAUSE I'M SO BLINDED WITH LOVE THAT I FEEL FOR A WOMAN THAT I MET BECAUSE SHE IS HOT AND LEFT ME A NOTE WITH A HOCKEY SCORE AT MY WEDDING TO MY 2ND RICH BEAUTIFUL WIFE THAT I TREATED LIKE GARBAGE- oh but that was ok because he father looked down upon MY father... Jesus christ- GIVE ME A BREAK. AWFUL movie, made awful, awful story, awful character- good job by Paul though. Not nearly enough to save a huge mess of a jumble of a movie about a scotch soaked *beep* who's love for SOME of the people in his life dosen't make up for all the garbage thrown in..... ICK. Redbox i want my dollar back. Although i did get a HUGE laugh when i saw him clutching the bananna, like RIIIGHT, that's where you're going with this.... Dude directed nothing but T.V. and a Jim Belushi K-9 straight to video sequel for a reason...

[–] Derek237 13 years ago

K-9 was so much better than Turner & Hootch and Top Dog combined.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Blondie707 13 years ago

I agree. This movie was awful. It was all over the place. Also, were we supposed to feel bad for him in the end? Its really hard to sympathize with a character who was made out to be a narcissistic jerk for the first two hours.

[–] lucas9648 13 years ago

Yeah, and it didn't make us care enough before going BOOM full blown what's this yellow thing in my hands Alzheimer's. They were GOING for moving, and the sad reality of Alzheimer's- but failed SPECTACULARLY in my opinion. Know Paul won the golden globe, and the movie previews made it look good, but disappointment would be an understatement. I mean, the description at redbox says... As Barney tells his version of his long, colorful life, we see that he is capable of acts of gallantry, generosity, and goodness, and is a true romantic and an unlikely hero. Wait, WHAAAAAAAAT???? You mean he shows what a big scotch addicted prick he is, then he get alzheimer's and we're supposed to be sad??? Really bordrline comical. I get what they were GOING for with the story and character and this and that, but failed over and over.

[–] lucas9648 13 years ago

Ok, so no one else thought the movie was awful...

[–] lonnie_beale-1 13 years ago

2. WTF with the "consistant with skydiving injuries" b.s.? Made no sense, and was never explained.

--Yes, it was explained if you would pay attention to the film. The aircraft used for extinguishing forest fires accidentally "picked up" drunken Boogie while retrieving water and dropped him into the forest. The detective had said it was a crazy day due to the fire and missing person.

It was an interesting, but flawed movie. Good performances...but I think spending a little more time on the missing person/murder investigation would have created more tension than the constant marriage problems.

[–] noveltylibrary 13 years ago

wait, how did you get that? the plane picked up boogie and dropped him into a nearby forest fire? wish i'd gotten that. not that it mattered, the guy who played boogie sucked.

btw enjoyed the OP lol

[–] lucas9648 13 years ago

Very happy to see i'm not alone. Paul won a friggin Golden Globe for this, good for him, but the movie was just awful. 7.4??? more like 3.4. Making a movie about an EXTREMELY flawed character who dosen't really do THAT good a job of redeeming himself is a BAD idea. AWFUL writing and/or script and/or directing as well.

[–] dxben99 12 years ago

OMG, how can you NOT have gotten that???

They made it almost too obvious by showing the ball being sucked up by the plane at the end. IMO even without that, it would have been obvious.

To the OP and everybody bashing this movie because of the character Paul Giamatti plays, you obviously need a script and characters that are only in black and white, good and bad. This character had a lot of flaws (many of them due to his alcoholism), but he wasn't an overall bad guy. The flaws made the movie all the more realistic (alcoholism is a serious problem in our society) and interesting by the way.

As to the problem everybody has with the beautiful wives: Well, he still is a TV producer, which will cause most women to at least be more open towards him, give him a chance, get to know him better and why shouldn't this lead to a serious relationship or even a marriage in some cases? I didn't find that too unrealistic. And even if most women would not fall for him, we are talking about three women here, not all women in town!! By the way, his first wife was pretty much a nutcase. ;)
Maybe he has been turned down several times by other women, but the movie focuses on his marriages and not about times when he was turned down (after all, it is "Barney's Version").

And about Miriam: Everybody's outraged at the fact that she falls for him when he shows up in NY drunk. Who says she's falling for him then? She is actually already starting to fall for him when they first meet. Her main reason to turn him down all the times is because he is married. So you can basically say, she has mostly a moral issue with the whole situation. When he reveals that he is divorced and is coming to NY her first reaction is "no, don't" but to me that was more due to the fact that she was totally surprised and caught off guard at that moment. I think she was fairly impressed with him and his persistency and when she saw he came for her, she finally saw that he actually meant all the things he said to her. Again, I don't see how that's that unrealistic.

I think this was an awesome movie. I watched it two days ago and could already watch it again.

[–] thatsNOTreal 12 years ago

That was straight out of the one of the first scenes in Magnolia, except he was killed hanging from a tree when found.

[–] Louisamike 13 years ago

I didn't like this movie; I wouldn't say awful but really flawed...

For me it comes from the writing and from what is shown: It's difficult to emphatize with an almost always passive "hero":
Almost everything happens in spite of him -his job at unnecessary production, his 2 first marriages, the killing of his best friend, the cheating, etc...- nothing is really wanted, nothing is really his fault, he is passive...
The only moments he has to fight for something is
-for his 3rd wife -but unfortunately, he isn't shown as really fighting for her: it's too easy, we are let not understanding why she would fall for him... it's as if she didn't have a life on her own... her character is really under-developed.
-against Alzheimer and that's how they get us because we can all relate to this primal fear of sufferance and dying... And that is the only moment we see him fighting for real against a real opponent who is stronger... This part is the only one that responds to a good writing structure...

Not enough to my taste...
it is absolutely possible to have passive heroes or losers on screen (Sean Penn in the Assassination of Nixon, for example) but we, the audience should be able to see what's under all that, what is the intestine fight that the hero should have to overcome.
Here he has no real opponent but himself which never leads to good story.

It's a pity because these actors are all fine crafted actors.
I read lots of complaint about Barney not being good looking enough, I think this is *beep* as you can fall in love with a personnality (with a "person").
But it is true that we don't actually see what would be charismatic, or simply "likable" about Barney... When he is indeed surrounded by almost only charismatic characters, but why...? Why would these people be attracted by him... Some argue because of his money but apart for his affair, we are not given elements that say so. His friends, his wives, even his father are all more "charismatic" in very various or weird ways than he is, and as we have no possibility to read the mind of these people, we have no clue about why they would be genuinely attracted to him; they all have other "options" and don't appear desperate enough to cope with someone who's just bland...
When Paul Giamatti, the actor, is absolutely charismatic, gifted and therefore likable... but his character is not portrayed nor shown as such (and discovering what he did for the slavic actress is not enough and it's too late), we should be able to see under his obvious flaws... And to me, it is not Paul Giamatti's fault, as he is absolutely capable of showing more than that, it's up to the director's will to show us other dimensions of his characters.

A solid cast of good crafted actors aren't enough if the story teller didn't make his work strong and if the director doesn't show us more off the character than what he is aware of...

Disappointing...
The ingredients were there but it turned out for me as another unnecessary production...

[–] Lackamoola 13 years ago

Who are you people?????

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kaneforgov 12 years ago

I love the way people call actors by their first names, as if they actually know them. You may feel like you have a personal relationship with them because you watch them on screen, but in reality you don't.

A lot of people like Hollywood movies that tell you exactly how to feel about characters and make it very clear who is sympathetic and who it not. Hollywood is great at creating agreeable characters and juxtaposing them with villains, making it very clear who you should root for. This is not one of those films. The characters in this film are presented with complicated and flawed personalities who possess a mix of decency and incivility, much like people in real life. Complicated characters such as this cannot be redeemed by a single act of kindness or understanding because, to the credit of the filmmaker, they are not that shallow. You are supposed to feel conflicted about this character, and recognize both his virtues and his flaws. Some viewers can’t handle this.

Good luck getting your .99 cents back. Maybe if you write to “Paul” he’ll send you a check. You two sound close.

[–] Posh_babe 9 years ago

While the character Barney could be generous and kind, sometimes, he certainly wasn't likeable.

How did he get a woman like Miriam, whatever about his first 2 wives?

While his first had problems that certainly wasn't his fault, he was so rude and dismissive to the second. Didn't he spend any time with her before he married her to get to know her? What possessed him to marry her in the first place if she was so dreadful?
It's completely unrealistic.

Miriam shouldn't have had anything to do with him if he was so quick to ditch and cheat on his current (second) wife. Honestly she was beautiful, kind, loyal, clever and a great catch. What did she see in Barney?

_______________________________________
I'm not posh, I just like VB's clothes.