criterionforum.org

rs98762001 wrote:It's a ghastly film. Smug, pseudo-profound, in love with its own banal musings. Jonze needs to hook back up with Kaufman, and quick.

What a review! Thanks so much for that Barmy-level insight.

By the way, does anyone know when exactly this is opening in NYC, and more importantly, where it'll be playing? LQ and I are thinking about daytripping from Philadelphia since it's going to take so damn long to expand.

For a film like this, I'm pretty sure the Regal and maybe the AMC near Lincoln Center will have it. Keep checking Fandango or MovieTickets, usually they'll list locations and times within a week, and this is supposed to open on the 18th.

Thanks!

From David Edelstein's top ten list:

This is like no other movie—although it’s clearly a descendant of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

Her is not just the best film in years, it has the best performance of 2013 by a cosmic margin. Perhaps no actor but Phoenix could express emotions that are so painfully unformed.

I saw that too, which makes the film even more frustrating for me.

I can't agree that it's so unique though, this felt like another Spike Jonze movie that (in its best moments) reminded me of a Jean-Luc Godard film, and in this case it was Anticipation. Also, I think Eternal Sunshine was a masterpiece, but I can't say the same about Her.

I think the biggest disagreement I have with Edelstein is his argument that "the satire yields to a sort of transcendental romanticism that leaves you both heartbroken and full of wonder." I almost did a spit-take on that one. Part of it is a matter of taste - again, some of it seemed way too precious (like the nails-on-a-chalkboard song) and I'm sure some people really dig that sort of thing - but for a while the film seemed really critical about the love story at the center of the film and it was interesting to see Phoenix's character become aware of that, especially after revealing it to his ex-wife, who we've only seen in subjective memories up until their lunch together. (Only one scene with dialogue, and Rooney makes a great impression.) But all the questions that had been brought up at that point are essentially ditched and the film basically embraces all the wrong things it had seemingly criticized before, and from that point on, the film just lost me.

Saw this last week and now that I've had time to reflect on it, the thing that keeps coming back to me is Scarlett Johansson's performance. She truly did a remarkable job.

This was really good, though not great like I wish it would've been.

From the trailer, this looked like the love-child of SimOne and Lars and the Real Girl, but this rave from The Atlantic has convinced me to see it, and soon.

This is probably my favorite film of the year, but I'll spare you a lengthy review in favor of two descriptions which I think fit the film pretty well; a much more melancholy version of Spike Jonze's video for Bjork's "Triumph of a Heart" and a much funnier version of the Earthbound scenes in Steven Soderbergh's Solaris remake.

Talking shit? Barely. She's very polite. Not one mention of the movie's insufferable tweeness.

Or that fucking ukulele song…Jesus, it still irritates the hell out of me just to think about that scene.

The only thing interesting about Her is that its least irritating, only honest character is a cartoon that savagely deflates the precious, cloying whimsy that is otherwise present throughout. Makes one wonder if Jonze is more aware than he seems, and is having a epic laugh at the expense of the hipster cognoscenti who think his sentimental, sappy souffle is actually profound.

rs98762001-- If you want to continue to post in the thread for a movie you clearly don't like, you need to adopt a civil tone. I am not, underline, saying you have to like the film or only post in threads for films you like-- I am telling you that this Twitter-length brand of vague hyperbole and laughable conjecture will no longer cut it. Going forward, any more posts in the manner of your last couple stabs will be deleted

Just got back from a 10AM screening, and setting aside expectations, I have to say I really enjoyed the film. I thought perhaps there should have been a "threat" that was more sustained in the narrative. Perhaps if his friend that was designing the Mom video game had insisted that she could re-program Samantha into a more ideal partner by limiting her thirst for more and more enthralling experiences. It might have been the missing element to push the story over the top and help generate more suspense in the audience. The philosopher and the x-wife ratcheted up the concept of a threat from outside the relationship, and I think this was a bit of a relief. Had this type of assault been prolonged over the last third of the film, it might have been a help. Really, it's just a thought. I don't think there's too much to criticize here, it just doesn't put you on the edge of your seat like "Being John Malkovich". I would say it has more in common with meditative films like "Punch Drunk Love" & "Lost In Translation".

I caught this earlier today and liked it very much. I was most impressed by Joaquin Phoenix's truly mesmerizing performance (he portrays an incredible range of emotions throughout the film) and Jonze's vision of the future. Jonze knows very well how to make the world feel futuristic (in regards to the technology, decor, clothing designs, etc.), without it feeling too futuristic to the point that it alienates its viewers. The tone of his direction is also perfectly balanced between the bizarre nature of the story and the touching love story that it eventually becomes.

The narrative does follow a familiar arc, though I can't say that this is a fault, considering that the uniqueness of the story itself makes up for it.

My biggest criticism I suppose comes from the repetition of the story line, which begins to kick in towards the second half of the film. Much time is spent on Theodore and Samantha, and while some of it feels necessary to develop their relationship, some of it also feels redundant, to the point that it does begin to bog down the plot a tad bit.

Spoiler

This also becomes a fault, considering that such little time was spent on Phoenix's and Adams's relationship, which becomes rather significant by the end of the film, when it is presumed that they will begin a relationship of their own.

Still, this is a very good film, though nowhere near the masterpiece that many claim it out to be. I could go on and on indefinitely about the cinematography, the soundtrack, even many of the scenes that stood out to me. I look forward to returning to this one in the future.

criterion10 wrote:

Spoiler

This also becomes a fault, considering that such little time was spent on Phoenix's and Adams's relationship, which becomes rather significant by the end of the film, when it is presumed that they will begin a relationship of their own.

I didn't really get that impression.

Spoiler

I wouldn't say a relationship is off the table for them as far as the ending of the film is concerned, but I don't have the sense we're meant to presume that's where they're headed. It seemed to me like Theodore just wanted to reach out to someone whose physical presence he could really feel, and it also occurred to him that Amy would be going through a similar separation as him. I adored the poignancy of that ending, though, with the two of them just sitting in silence together, her head on his shoulder, communicating something to each other simply by being in the same place—an embrace of their humanity that neither of them could ever have with an OS. Nevertheless, they are looking into the sky together in apparent contemplation of all there is in the universe that they can't directly experience, an infinitely mysterious world that Samantha and Amy's OS (Abbie? was that her name?) are now exploring. It is in many ways a romantic ending, but I like that Jonze allowed it to happen without necessarily forcing the idea that Theodore and Amy are destined for romance together.

Otherwise, my only real reservations about this film largely match up to yours. I really liked it, somewhat against my expectations, since the trailer never looked very appealing and I tend to find Phoenix's performances far "busier" than I can tolerate (not a problem here at all, I thought he was great). I was similarly impressed with how fully realized the world presented in the film was, in everything from architecture to dominant color schemes to fashion, and in the technology being used.

Of course the film touches on many issues about how we interact with information technology, but it's far more about how we process our emotions, how we rationalize or justify them, and whether we really need to, whether our feelings ought to be intellectually legitimated. I didn't see the criticism that hearthesilence speaks of above at all; in fact, I was surprised and impressed by how non-judgmental the film is about Theodore and Samantha's relationship. Jonze really takes the idea at face value and tries to examine what this eventuality would actually entail in terms of interpersonal relationships and social stigma, but the film really only works if you believe in the central relationship, and Jonze knows he can't go too far in satirizing or making fun of it without undermining its emotional effect. For the most part he maintains this balance admirably. Only toward the end of the second act did I really start to feel like the film was losing focus (though he pulls it all together again before the end).

This may not exactly be a spoiler, but

Spoiler

am I correct in thinking that the only book in Theodore's apartment that is ever clearly identifiable in any shot is Nabokov's Pale Fire? It showed up at the right edge of a frame maybe about 1/3rd into the film, and for the rest of the time there was always a handful of brain cells in my head that were trying to establish some connection between that text and Her. I never really found one, but I did think it was interesting that despite Theodore being a writer, and hearing in dialogue late in the film that he likes printed books, his numerous book shelves are nevertheless extremely bare.

EDIT: I also want to say that I think Richard Brody raises some legitimate questions (just barely) about the unexplored consumer involved in Her's world—I know I personally found it hard to believe Theodore's very "plugged-in" daily life was so free from advertising—but on the whole it sounds like he's describing a completely different film and projecting a great deal of technophobia onto it that isn't remotely apparent to me anywhere in the work itself. I'd be curious to hear from anybody else who may have also thought this film was a moralizing "cautionary tale." I can't think of anything further removed from what I got out of it.

It was only a cautionary tale in that it warned of human interactions becoming more and more complicated and layered with technological impediments - the scene with Theodore and the surrogate for Samantha stands out in my mind. There's also a palpable sense of relief at the end of the film that indicates to me that Jonze's take on his subject matter wasn't all that optimistic.

First and foremost, HER is a very well-conceived science-fiction story as Jonze follows through on the implications of the scenario he establishes in an assured manner. I can see how one might feel that the story takes a backseat to the quirky romance and comedy, but much of the humor has a potent sting upon reflection. It's a "cautionary tale" to be sure, but not just a knee-jerk "anti-technology" one. Jonze's concern is for the value of the authentic...

Spoiler

...as indicated by Theodore's job of composing fictitious "hand-written" letters purporting to express the true emotions of his clients. As he becomes more aware of how inauthentic his relationship is with Samantha, he sees his own work as derivative and false (even as he receives the ultimate accolade of having that work published). In the film's final scene, he finally composes a true letter to his ex-wife (note that this is not hand-written which would have been putting too fine a point on the scene) which is Theodore's minor triumph. I don't see the final shot as suggesting anything more than two friends taking solace in each other, knowing that technology has no special panacea against loneliness.

As to the book "Pale Fire"...

Spoiler

Nabokov's work is about the inauthentic masquerading as authentic since it is a meta-text ostensibly depicting a fictional editor annotating a poem by a fictional poet. This is not unlike what Theodore does at "Beautiful Hand-Written Letters.com".

One of the (many) aspects of Her that impressed me was the seamless special effects. There was hardly ever a moment when I could tell what was an effect and was wasn't. Not near Gravity level greatness or anything, but just a job very well done.

I see this has topped a couple of our lists now and I suspect that number will grow as more folks make their way to the theatre or catch it on Blu-ray. The film is a masterpiece for many reasons, but perhaps the best aspect of Her is how it is so much better, honest, and emotional than expected while being what must be the most bizarre (in terms of its narrative conceit) film ever nominated for Best Picture. Little about the film sounded like anything I'd want to see, but rather than exploiting loneliness and emotional surrogacy for cheap laughs or cynical satire, Jonze engages with the bold premise at face value and treats the romantic experience between a man and a machine within a larger context of what romantic relationships entail. In many ways it reminded me of that other best film of the year, Upstream Color, in how it went about commenting on the very nature of relationships via fantastical mechanations. That it is honest to the complexities of conventional relationships in the guise of its science fictional approach makes all the "twee" accusations even more baffling-- how can anyone who's been in serious relationships not recognize and appreciate all the nearly intangible aspects of interplay and complication between two lovers that Jonze deftly deals with here? You can hate this film, but I'm not sure I'd set you up on a date with one of my friends if you did.

If Scarlett Johansson can't get nominated for this movie, no voice actor will ever be nominated-- her work here is phenomenal, and Amy Adams deserved a nom for her job here more than American Hustle as well. But the lion's share of praise must be given to Joaquin Phoenix, who is on screen nearly every moment of the film and is given an impossible acting task and completely sells it. Between this and the Master, he is our greatest living actor, period. No others need apply.

domino harvey wrote: But the lion's share of praise must be given to Joaquin Phoenix, who is on screen nearly every moment of the film and is given an impossible acting task and completely sells it. Between this and the Master, he is our greatest living actor, period. No others need apply.

Totally agree. I'm super hoping he finally gets his due with PTA's Inherent Vice, I'm fully expecting him to blow Doc Sportello's character out of the water and my personal love for Pynchon will make me happy to see Inherent Vice finally bring the long deserved awards to PTA and Phoenix.

Re: the ending

Spoiler

I think the romantic implications are pretty clear and somewhat predictable, but Jonze does his best to subvert them. I haven't seen anyone mention that the film actually ends with the screen cutting to black and (presumably) Adams letting out a contented but audible gasp for air, the same "human" vocal tic that Phoenix chided Johansson for earlier, which is a better and more understated way of showing the connection