criterionforum.org

Saw this again tonight and it's even better the second time around, which is a good sign.

Also - interesting observation which might have been a cinematography/direction choice but also a funny little accident - when Juan Antonio first approaches Vicky and Cristina at their table in the restaurant, it is framed so that it appears he comes over to the closest he can get to the camera and observes the audience (looking down). He makes his proposition and seems to be looking at all the people in the theatre, as if Woody is asking them the questions and whatnot... which, in a way, he is considering this entire film questions the audience's values and perceptions about such matters. I just sort of smiled and thought maybe this was a Purple Rose Of Cairo type of experience I was having... just a humorous little thought to keep in mind should anyone see this in a theatre.


Also - Funny Little Accident Observation #2 - to fully complete the Jules et Jim homage, there is even a fly crowding a romantic scene between Bardem and Hall towards the end crawling around on the shoulder of her white shirt. What are the odds?

Also - Funny Little Accident Observation #2 - to fully complete the Jules et Jim homage, there is even a fly crowding a romantic scene between Bardem and Hall towards the end crawling around on the shoulder of her white shirt.

I noticed that too! Loved it.

I'll be seeing this again in the next few days and I can't wait...

I just sort of smiled and thought maybe this was a Purple Rose Of Cairo type of experience I was having... just a humorous little thought to keep in mind should anyone see this in a theatre.

I'll be looking out for this. It's such a rich film that I wouldn't be surprised if I have a plethora of new observations, as well.

I also think Rebecca Hall deserves a nomination for Best Actress, and Bardem for Best Actor (at least, I think those are the categories their roles would fall into). However, obviously, we haven't seen the rest of the field and any potential competition as the year goes on. But these were some very good performances. And sadly, Scarlett is once again outshined by superior performances in a movie she also gives a very good performance in (she still really should have been nominated for Lost in Translation, though).

Still, I think people are so determined to proclaim that "Woody's back!" that they're overrating this movie. Plus, I think he never really left for too long, Anything Else was pretty good, as was Melinda and Melinda, Match Point was excellent, I still think Scoop was tragically underrated, as it was quite funny and enjoyable, and I still haven't seen Cassandra's Dream but I've heard good things from people who's opinion I trust about that one.

People have been squawking about Woody being "back" every time they enjoy one of his films made after the early 90s. He never left.

mfunk9786 wrote:People have been squawking about Woody being "back" every time they enjoy one of his films made after the early 90s. He never left.

I concur, to a degree. I think he stumbled with Small Time Crooks and Curse of the Jade Scorpion, recovered somewhat with Hollywood Ending, then regained his footing with Anything Else.

Count me in too. Woody never left, perhaps unfortunately the same can't be said for his audience. Bar Small Time Crooks, which I saw on a very unenjoyable train ride so I'm not willing to pass total judgement on the picture without a subsequent viewing, all of his latest films are just as strong as his previous films. No doubt once he's gone, box sets entitled "Late Allen" will pop up and critics who are now writing him off will complain that there really just isn't anyone like him anymore.

Tell me I'm wrong. Go on I dare you.

Abulafia wrote:all of his latest films are just as strong as his previous films.

You're wrong.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. But really... I still don't think all of them are as strong as his earlier stuff. Sleeper is still a far better screwball comedy than Scoop, and Annie Hall is still a far better romantic comedy than Anything Else, for example. But he's still very, very good with a few masterpieces thrown in. I'll give you that.

There's a little moment in this movie where Vicky says "what about your ulcer?" to Cristina and she replies, "Oh, a little wine won't be a problem" or something along those lines. And I just love that after writing so many scripts and making so many films, Woody can still make dialogue feel so conversational and natural.

Dylan wrote:Did you see Vicky yet?

Not yet. This is what's holding me back. Ed Gonzalez is one of the very few critics I read and agree with almost completely.

This is the reason why I will be forever convinced that Ed Gonzalez is the film critic equivalent of a shock jock. Just disliking films other people herald and vice versa.

Shock jock? Are you for real? Look at his top tens. He has an excellent taste.

6. Marie Antoinette (Sofia Coppola)
7. Miami Vice (Michael Mann)

#-o

All due respect to each of your opinions, but these should be rules somewhere:

1. You are not allowed to write off everything a critic says just because you disagreed with him/her on one or two movies.

2. You are not allowed to bring up a critic's opinion unless a) you have actually seen the film, and b) you feel the critic's review articulates your feelings on the matter.

Who knows Michael, perhaps you see the film and like it, and then all this arguing for nothing...

And I'm not trying to argue, I'm just bored at work and trashing Ed Gonzalez and his pretentious reviews is a good time killer

Michael wrote:Not yet. This is what's holding me back. Ed Gonzalez is one of the very few critics I read and agree with almost completely.

Pan-Seared Misogyny in Hot-Blooded Balsamic Mediterranean Reduction
Hah!
However, I have seen it and I will delicately note why I disagree with this review. VCB wasn't in my opinion the most insightful film of the past decade, and true- other people have tread the same material more successfully, but that doesn't all-together invalidateVCB.

Gonzalez says that Woody "paints every man in the film as a pillar of conviction" and this is just plain wrong. Juan Antonio is painted as smarmy; he stole his painting style from his ex-wife, and he is just as lost and self-absorbed as the females. And as for the misogyny charges, this is not a sweeping generalization (ahem) but there's a reason that the stereotypes these women embody exist-there are quite a few females who go through the same convoluted contrivances that the main characters do-in much less pretty surroundings. And Allen has every right to take a tongue-in-cheek approach to studying them (which is what the brilliant narration is for- a distancing, almost clinical observation).

"Then there's the ménage à trios between Cristina, Juan and Maria Elena, whose formation could have been an occasion for Allen to offer genuine insight into the paradoxes of sexual commitment, linking emotional effect to artistic collaboration, but Allen is as flippant and vulgar about gay desire as Kate Perry is. (Cristina's insincere longing for Maria Elena is just a phase, and she flaunts it as she would a new dress.)" he says. Well, that's the point. Allen is not being flippant; this is a portrait of a vapid, capricious girl who flaunts every new phase she takes up. She is just as involved with her art as she is with smooching Maria- not profoundly so at all. And linking emotional effect to artistic collaboration would be interesting, yes, but that's not the purpose of this movie.

And Rebecca Hall brings true humanism to the story. Here is a girl that has a true passion for something-Catalan culture-and suddenly is thrust into the realization that there are other passions to be had in life (in love). In that situation, you are lost, unaware of what to do and unsure of yourself. I don't think that she was in love with Juan, really- I think she was in love with the idea of a life shared with someone who had drives in life, who had depth and passions of their own. Yet she is too weak, too scared to pursue this idea. And that is the real human tragedy to be had in the movie, and thats why Rebecca deserves an oscar: she portrays all of this beautifully, heartbreakingly so.

I hope this all makes some kind of sense.

mfunk9786 wrote:And I'm not trying to argue, I'm just bored at work

That's no excuse. We all are. 8-[

My point is just that (and admittedly I'm not very familiar with Gonzalez's work) even though you may disagree on what you feel are a few key movies, or be able to point out a couple films on his top 10s that you find silly, if we took a tally you would probably find you generally agree on more movies than you think. Now, if your issue is that his reviews are pretentious, and that even when you agree with him on a movie, you still don't like his writing style or his snootiness, then that's an entirely different animal, to be argued in a different way than you seem to be going at it so far. It may take a bit more time, but it sounds like you've got plenty of that so dig a little deeper, why don't you?

Thanks for the advice, Dad

swo17 wrote:Who knows Michael, perhaps you see the film and like it, and then all this arguing for nothing...

It's been a long, long, long time since Woody last wowed me. I don't always agree with Gonzalez (The Best of Years as #2 somewhere ) but I think his review of VCB is hilarious.

LQ, thank you very much for arguing with the Gonzalez review. You did it with class. This is helping me to step forward to seeing VCB.

mfunk9786 wrote:Thanks for the advice, Dad

Who's pretentious?

Michael wrote:I don't always agree with Gonzalez (The Best of Years as #2 somewhere

Do you mean The Best of Youth? Heh, and I actually really like that film.

chaddoli wrote:Who's pretentious?

The guy who just told me how to argue my opinions, if I had to guess.

I don't have time to type up a big, honking defense of the film (like the lovely LQ up there) or explanation of why Ed Gonzalez has bugged me for years, so I'm just attempting to keep it short and sweet and not be awash in self-importance on a DVD forum. The end.

Michael wrote:

swo17 wrote:Who knows Michael, perhaps you see the film and like it, and then all this arguing for nothing...

It's been a long, long, long time since Woody last wowed me. I don't always agree with Gonzalez (The Best of Years as #2 somewhere) but I think his review of VCB is hilarious.

LQ, thank you very much for arguing with the Gonzalez review. You did it with class. This is helping me to step forward to seeing VCB.

No probs, hope you like it. And it is pretty damn pretty. That was the first review I read of Gonzalez, and he is funny! Maybe we disagree, but he's a riot.

And don't mind mfunk, he's just feeling scrappy today

swo17 wrote:

Michael wrote:I don't always agree with Gonzalez (The Best of Years as #2 somewhere)

Do you mean The Best of Youth? Heh, and I actually really like that film.

Yes. Sorry. My mind is pretty ransacked today.

mfunk9786 wrote:

chaddoli wrote:Who's pretentious?

The guy who just told me how to argue my opinions, if I had to guess.

I'm not saying you have to argue that way. Just if you want to win the argument. (Come on, how can a guy wearing sunglasses be pretentious?)

Seriously, the only reason I even brought this up is that the whole thing smacked of reviews I'm sick of seeing for The Dark Knight, i.e.

INTELLIGENTLY WRITTEN REVIEW THAT HAPPENS TO BE AGAINST THE FILM

Comments Section:

This guy didn't even like Casino Royale! He must be an idiot.

Maybe I just don't feel overwhelmingly passionate about this one. Michael, you're going to enjoy it if you appreciate a cynical look at the stereotypical "American longing for Europe without any good reason" bohemian lifestyle that Allen has always been great at lampooning. Scarlett's plotline is "What the hell does that mean? What does she mean? What do you mean by that? 'I'm from Philadelphia, we believe in God.' Does this make any sense to you at all?" expanded to feature length. But it's not God's gift to cinema, it's a very good film from a spectacular director.

But I'm sorry if I came off as super-abrasive. I tend to forget that my tongue being planted inside my cheek isn't visible through the internets.

Stephen Holden in his NY Times roundup of the "10 Best Art Films of the Summer":

Woody Allen’s finest movie in many years is a warm-blooded homage to François Truffaut’s “Jules and Jim” set in the happy European city of Barcelona. This film’s smoldering answer to Jeanne Moreau’s Catherine is Penélope Cruz’s Maria Elena, a bohemian spitfire whose tempestuous relationship with her ex-husband and fellow-artist Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem) is a combustible clash of egos and libidos. When two American tourists, the strait-laced Vicki (Rebecca Hall) and the adventurous Cristina (Scarlett Johansson), become entangled with Juan Antonio, the movie gives off heat. The biggest drawback is the pompous male narrator.

And, uh--oh, yes....Armond White hates it.