criterionforum.org

Maybe I forgot and didn't check the previous posts. Maybe I'm in a bit of a bad mood today and Beaver's review of Broadcast News reminded me of how shitty a filmmaker Brooks is. Either way it's not your concern. If you don't like my post, ignore it. You're not going to bait me into a pissing match the way you like to do with newbies like James Mills.
However, if I have made your enemies list I'm sure there is an alert out there that will let you know every time I've posted so you can immediately respond with your trademark snarkery.

Can't we all just get along?/Annette Bening

This is seriously the most unexpected and inexplicable blow up of 2011 (so far!)

If you linked your comment with something portrayed on Broadcast news, then it would be justified to make a post here. Posts like; 'Gee, this director sucks' derail the discussion.

How's this? I haven't seen Broadcast News but based on Brooks' other work I have no interest in seeing the film. James L. Brooks' work is a concoction of Stephen Spielberg's pathos and Kevin Smith's bombast at it's absolute worst.

Really, Perk? You wanna go through each CC film thread and start taking out the posts that criticize the director and not the film? Better get on it if you want to be done by the end of this weekend.

You are being irrational now; You are only entitled to criticize the film and the director, only IF you have watched the film.
There are several examples of directors with only one good film and if that is the case it is acceptable to explain your disgust for him in the same thread, because it is likely that it won't have his own thread to begin with.
I agree that they are people here trying to pick up a fight, but i don't think Domino is one of them.

Oldshepherd -- would it _hurt_ you to accommodate people's polite hints (and requests) to take your general comments about the director to the thread dedicated to general discussion of the director? Why are you being so stubborn?

I'm just surprised that 1) somehow one of my posts was invoked in this and 2) we have an entire thread devoted to James L. Brooks.

EDIT: and the coup de grace: oldsheperd already posted the same sentiments in the designated Brooks thread back in August!

He obviously loathes Brooks so much that he wants his thread removed! I propose we start a vote on this

<Heating up the popcorn and waiting for the inevitable thread-split.>

Gosh, it's almost like a scene from As Good as It Gets:

oldsheperd wrote:Domino, how can you acknowledge me as an obsessive-compulsive disorder and then act like I have some choice about overreacting to your criticism?

Granted, I was almost certainly the only person not wearing sweatpants sporting the word "Juicy" to blind-buy the Blu-ray, but now that I've seen the film, the universal reaction to How Do You Know, which was apathy at best (and mostly harsher) is quite perplexing. It is to my delight a very charming and funny romantic comedy in the classical studio style, with the typical Brooksian Greek chorus of supporting roles and professionals facing personal and career crises at the center. I don't pretend to keep up with a lot of what passes for modern romances in mainstream film, but I doubt many do what this film does with as much goofy romanticism tied to good humor, and the refusal to damn any on character gives the whole affair a warm, genial feel. I guess that's passe now? Paul Rudd's dopey nice guy who makes good is especially fun; Reese Witherspoon is basically doing the Holly Hunter thing, but it works (and she gets fleshed out in the deleted scenes); Owen Wilson's character is one note (but so was Ralph Bellamy in the Awful Truth, so who cares) but works best when he resists veering too far into the sitcomy nature of his role; Jack Nicholson is Jack Nicholson circa 2010: all ham, no sandwich. All that said, I doubt anyone else here will ever see this movie. But if you get stuck in front of it at some point in the future, you might be pleasantly surprised. Or not-- the odds aren't in my favor, haha

I'll second everything domino said. I saw this last week and was mortified afterward to see what most critics had to say about it. It's not a complex, artful redefinition of the rom-com like maybe Punch-Drunk Love, but it's one of the best conventional additions to the genre in years. I was grinning most of the way through it, unexpectedly sympathizing for Witherspoon and Rudd's characters. The dramatic decision that drives the last act, and does give it a good deal of tension, was far-fetched, but then so were so many of the films sweeter moments.

I was under the impression there was at least a few critics who liked it (Mike D'Angelo, some other folks I read on Twitter). Maybe this is something many films do now (I don't really keep up with the contemporary rom-com either) but the way cell phones and other mass communications technology continually disrupted any attempt by the characters to communicate or otherwise share genuine/reflective moments was interesting. Likewise the seeming inability of anyone to finish (or even start) a sentence without stammering and collapsing into a neurotic heap (it's as if everyone has become the Téa Leoni character from Spanglish, minus the grating privileged obliviousness). As Mike D'Angelo noted in his review, the Tony Shalhoub scene is kind of bonkers in that it comes from out of nowhere and leads nowhere, but in a satisfyingly nutty way. It was also amusing to see the actor who plays Hank on Breaking Bad basically doing the same character as the coach here (and for that matter Herc from The Wire as the teammate who uses a condom with girls on the side).

There's actually an article on the AVClub today addressing How Do You Know and the critical reaction to it (and a couple of other movies.) It's a worthwhile read.

Didn't know this, but before Columbia held the disastrous test screenings of I'll Do Anything that convinced them to cut all of the musical numbers, they apparently got a jump on promoting the film as it was originally intended, resulting in this trailer appearing on select VHS releases around that time.

Thank you for this!

I’ve been thinking about the Prince/Sony deal.

Prince’s songs that were written for the original cut have been unavailable since the film was re-edited to delete all of its musical numbers. With Prince’s catalog with Sony, and the film being a Sony/Columbia property, is there a possibility that his demos and/or the original cut of the film (which has been bootlegged) can be released?

Granted, with the songs included, the film is still a total shit show. There is one scene where Albert Brooks tortures the audience by singing among a parade of limousines that I can’t scrub from my mind. It's a fundamentally poor film that no amount of editing could ever artistically improve.

I'm not 100% sure if these were the actual demos, but three of the Prince songs were released on his contractual obligation album/compilation The Vault... Old Friends 4 Sale.

I don't know if Sony will put out the cut. Unless there's a strong, visible interest, it's unlikely. The cost alone of restoring and scanning the old cut to make it look presentable would be substantial, and some materials may be lost - Hans Zimmer reportedly said he couldn't find any of the recordings he made of the music cut from the musical version.

A copy of the musical version of I'll Do Anything allegedly streamed via a Twitch user tonight... WTF? And by that, I mean WTF didn't anyone on here give the rest of us a heads-up

Another site was supposed to stream it Friday, but it was pulled after they were served a cease and desist.

Hopefully one of these streamers ups their copy on tHe DaRk WeB somewhere so it can be seen regardless

If you want to hear Prince's original soundtrack (including his own demos and the on-set playback recordings), all of those have been bootlegged and someone on another forum posted a link here. (Link expires in 3 days.)

Karina Longworth's podcast recently generated a whole new stream of interest in this. (The story about Prince showing up on the set the day Julie Kavner sang a number was hilarious.) I missed the stream too. I really cannot imagine it being as good as some (incl. Jonathan Rosenbaum) have said but I'm of course extremely curious.

If you're in Southern California, L.A.'s Cinefile Video has the musical cut on DVD-R. They might sell you
a burned copy as well, but I can't make any promises. They stock a lot of titles that you can rent for free after paying for another film; stuff
that isn't officially out on home video.

Would be lovely if someone in that area could take one for the team and then put it up on the backchannels. Just a passing thought...

beamish14 wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 3:33 am If you're in Southern California, L.A.'s Cinefile Video has the musical cut on DVD-R. They might sell you
a burned copy as well, but I can't make any promises. They stock a lot of titles that you can rent for free after paying for another film; stuff
that isn't officially out on home video.

I'm surprised no one's simply copied the DVD-R and put it up on the web somewhere (assuming it hasn't been if it's this hard to find).

There are other reviews on this from blogging film enthusiasts out there, and some of them are pretty negative which isn't that surprising - if the preview audience's cards really were that bad, it's reasonable that it would remain polarizing. Brooks is often too sentimental for my tastes, and if the changes are mainly limited to the reinstatement of the musical numbers, I can't imagine the musical version being the revelation that I would like it to be. But having heard the Prince bootleg and having seen at least a glimpse of those numbers in the trailer, I don't doubt that it's possibly and even likely a better film - even though it's Prince's music, something about the tone and the way it's arranged with the characters reminds me of the musical episodes from the classic The Simpsons era, which were all quite enjoyable.