criterionforum.org

Yes. C & B is maybe the funniest film I've seen in a while. Absolutely brilliant all around. I've managed to memorize most of this movie and I quote it all the time with my sister and her boyfriend, who introduced me to it.

I watched this tonight, and being a fan of The Squid & The Whale, and having not yet seen Margot At The Wedding, Kicking & Screaming didn't particularly work for me. My primary problem with the film was the dialogue, which more often than not, seemed to have the characters explaining the significance of their situations rather than letting the viewer find out for themselves. Additionally, I felt that Baumbach didn't have a clear idea whether he wanted to do an ensemble piece or focus on a few key characters, which made the final twenty minutes, in which the Grover and Jane arc is primarily focused on, all the more disjointed.

The film had a fine performances and some nice moments, but didn't really gel as a whole for me.

Antoine Doinel wrote:My primary problem with the film was the dialogue, which more often than not, seemed to have the characters explaining the significance of their situations rather than letting the viewer find out for themselves.

Can you give an example?

domino harvey wrote:

Antoine Doinel wrote:My primary problem with the film was the dialogue, which more often than not, seemed to have the characters explaining the significance of their situations rather than letting the viewer find out for themselves.

Can you give an example?

Well, Grover's little speech to the airline counter girl is probably the biggest example I can give. When he started going on and on about how it was one of those moments he will look back on in his young life as the time he decided to go to Europe really took me out of the film. The moment lost the spontaneity it was striving for the more and more he kept explaining to the airline personnel why he had to go to Prague, and as he spelled out the importance the trip would have in his life as a whole.

The other one that bothered me was a little earlier in the film when the guys are "quizzing" each other in the bar, and then begin to bicker, and one of them (the name is escaping me now) becomes extraordinarily bitter and says "our friendship is ending right now." Again, another moment that could've played out better if Baumbach had kept the growing bitterness and distance between the friends, but chosen to articulate it less explicitly.

But isn't that the supposed charm of the film? The very nature of their self [over]-analysis: not enjoying a trip before they even depart as they've already analysed it's potential faults and failings.

Well, I guess I didn't find it charming. At times, the neurotic behaviour worked and seemed natural, but at its worst, I found it forced and hard to believe. I don't think the film overall is bad, but its very uneven.

It veers wildly. Many of the gags are very much forced and further exacerbated by some stiff performances. I've watched it a few times now (a guilty pleasure) and it has grown on me immensely--but only by forgiving the overwritten script and amateur directing. It's warts take on a charm of their own perhaps. I still think it is a fairly impressive debut by non-gloss filmmaker. And I don't think you really need to believe any of it. All the characters are just slightly over the mark of credibility, and appear--to me at least--to be intentionally so. I get the impression that he's lampooning friends and acquaintances.

Well, I'll agree that the film doesn't have to be "believable" per se, but I found that there were a good handful of really genuine moments that really captured post-collegiate life that countered with the more exagerrated stuff, it made for a bumpy viewing experience.

I greatly enjoyed Elliot Gould's appearance in the film, and by the end of it I found myself thinking that a film about Grover and Jane themselves would've been far more interesting. Olivia d'Abo gave a great performance and I think there is so much in that relationship alone that could've spoken about the difficulty of post-graduate life.

The Grover and Jane arc helps rescue the film from being a mere collection of gags and quirky eccentrics/eccentricities. And it's only with the film effects of Jane (the succession of freeze frames) that we are invited to focus on one single character's internal dilemma and given hope that at least one character will rise above the pervasive post-college ennui and become a real being rather than a caricature. And I think therein lies the trouble on a first viewing: the slipping between Grover/Jane storyline and its serious potential and all the other stockpile of gags and quotable lines that Baumbach was probably collecting in notebooks for years before making the film. I'd suggest you give it another viewing, but then I usual reserve that entreaty for films like 400 Blows and L'Avventura. This is kind of candy; if you don't like it, all the better for your teeth.

To give credit where credit is due, there are at least some decent quotable lines, so sorely lacking in most comedies nowadays as opposed to Meatballs/Stripes/Blues Brothers/ Fast Times et al.

"Gotta go. I have to go sleep with a freshman."

"This guy would already rather be bow hunting."

Call me a heretic, but I actually enjoy Kicking and Screaming and Mr. Jealousy more than Baumbach's recent mature efforts. The newer films are unquestionably better, but I have had no desire to revisit The Squid and the Whale in the same way that this one constantly beckons.

I think skhun's most recent post gets it exactly right, as does Rosenbaum's essay that accompanies the Criterion DVD: this is a great series of one liners and gags held together by a pretty good flashback story arc which shows flashes of the narrative brilliance that Baumbach would develop in later films.

Re: Elliot Gould. His character and performance in this film is all the richer for me in light of Jeff Daniels' performance in The Squid and the Whale and the accompanying light that his character shed on the relationship between Noah and Jonathan Baumbach. The Gould character is a much lighter version of the same guy ("Knicks in trouble"), but still hits all the right notes of pomposity and self-absorbtion. The condoms discussion, for example, is priceless.

This is the worst way to defend any film, but I can't help it: If you went to a liberal arts college, this film is so consistently dead on that it's astonishing. It's strange to me that there's often a very strong reaction against this film and its characters, but I guess not everyone has been around people like this/is a person like this. Which isn't to say it's a flattering portrait: As someone with an excessively vast grasp of inane pop culture, D'abo's line chastising Hamilton for spending so much time on things that don't matter is a brief but unshakable criticism of an entire generation of glib ironists, and is one of many moments in the film where Kicking and Screaming reveals itself to be more than a collection of great lines, it's great lines at the service of brilliant observations on a subsection of the population that is rarely found outside of one-dimensional sitcoms. Cue "But the film is a one-dimensional sitcom," to which I am sure I will respond with a cutting retort, and then discussion will get back on track anyways, so let's just skip that step okay?

Tom Hagen wrote:Call me a heretic, but I actually enjoy Kicking and Screaming and Mr. Jealousy more than Baumbach's recent mature efforts. The newer films are unquestionably better, but I have had no desire to revisit The Squid and the Whale in the same way that this one constantly beckons.

I couldn't agree more. I really identify with a lot of the characters in this film and enjoy watching it time and time again if only for the dynamic between Carlos Jacott and Chris Eigeman. These guys need to do more films together! I could easily watch another film following the misadventures of their characters. It's not necessarily what they say (altho, their dialogue is pretty funny) but how they say it and interact with each other and those around them that I like so much.

I don't remember much about the film, but I'll always think of it fondly just for the two-man book club that dissolves during the first meeting when it turns out one of them didn't read McCarthy's All the Pretty Horses.

essrog wrote:I don't remember much about the film, but I'll always think of it fondly just for the two-man book club that dissolves during the first meeting when it turns out one of them didn't read McCarthy's All the Pretty Horses.

"Thankfully we're both fluent in Spanish"

Cookie Man, pro life?

I wonder if anyone knew anything about this so called "cookie man" and its purpose in the film.

psufootball07 wrote:Cookie Man, pro life?

I wonder if anyone knew anything about this so called "cookie man" and its purpose in the film.

I believe it's just Baumbach's simple statement about being in a college atmosphere knowing there are many causes students sign up for.

psufootball07 wrote:I wonder if anyone knew anything about this so called "cookie man" and its purpose in the film.

If I knew anything more about him, his presence in the film would be less hilarious, and I probably would stop laughing whenever someone mentioned his name (just seeing his name outside of the movie is sending me into a fit).

I really enjoyed the film, and being a student it really hit home how many friends or acquantainces I know on campus who are so similar to these characters. Especially the quotes at the "blockbuster" interview where he is asked his influences, and Otis replies, "Samuel Fuller, and all the good ones." That one really had me on the floor.

I have a very worthless question. I'm about to see this film via Netflix rental, but my schedule's getting pretty tight. Long story short, can anyone tell me the running times of the special features on the disc? None of the reviews I've seen seem to mention it.

What A Disgrace wrote:I have a very worthless question. I'm about to see this film via Netflix rental, but my schedule's getting pretty tight. Long story short, can anyone tell me the running times of the special features on the disc? None of the reviews I've seen seem to mention it.

Conrad and Butler is 30 minutes. And that's easily the best part of the disc... dare I say better than the movie?

I remember the deleted scenes were rather short.

justeleblanc wrote:

What A Disgrace wrote:I have a very worthless question. I'm about to see this film via Netflix rental, but my schedule's getting pretty tight. Long story short, can anyone tell me the running times of the special features on the disc? None of the reviews I've seen seem to mention it.

Conrad and Butler is 30 minutes. And that's easily the best part of the disc... dare I say better than the movie?

I'm actually rather partial to this film so would contest the 'easily' part. That being said, Conrad and Butler is one of the few special features that I've watched more than once, so overall I will say that i'm impressed with the package and deem it a 'really-should-consider-buying-if-your-into-that-sort-of-talky-inconsequential-film-fare.

My second favorite Baumbach film (so far); has a sort of Gen-X "I Vitelloni" feel to it.

I watched this last night with Metropolitan and wanted to register my response. I can't say that I indentified with any of the characters, but I sympathized with their situation and found most of them to be funny. I went into it just wanting to see Chris Eigeman, but I was really impressed with Josh Hamilton, too. Instead of being frustrated at his continued reluctance to let go of his awful girlfriend, I still felt interested in his well-being and future. I was surprised to see Perrey Reeves - and her breasts - in the film, but it was nice as I had a crush on her when I saw her in The X-Files. I still can't stand Parker Posey. I can't say it was a great film, but it was nice to watch. Elliot Gould's cameo was quite nice, too. I thought that the conversation interviews were the best supplement. It was nice to see the actors now as they've moved on. The interview with Baumbach was welcome as I was happy to learn of his reasons for making the film. I was happy to hear the Pixies start the film, but it was kinda down hill from there. At least it wasn't as bad as the other Gen X films I've seen.

souvenir wrote:Did anyone else notice this in the booklet?

Baumbach also chose a new font for the credits and intertitles, which were digitally inserted into Criterion's master

I guess it's not a big deal, but the font used is very boring anyway so I wonder how bad the original could have been. Very nitpicky, but why alter something after a decade?

Look what popped up on Tumblr: