criterionforum.org

Actually many New York buildings were designed in the style of the Chicago School. Your pizza on the other hand has thankfully not been as influential.

Or do we need to throw in what Moses did for minority neighborhoods in the Bronx?

If I'm remembering correctly, wasn't it Moses who decided to run the Cross Bronx Expressway through the South Bronx, effectively decimating what was a largely Jewish area?

Parted the sea?

Interesting discussion.
I think just in the context of the times -- Depression through early Post-war -- the idea that whites would benefit and minorities be less considered (ie usually screwed or ignored) was just a given.
Maybe some urban planners were concerned about blacks, but if so I'd be interested to hear about it.

Elderly Harlem residents driven into homelessness due to the production of this film

Edward Norton sez he had to call in so many favors to make this film that he will be starring in work that is "beneath him" for a decade to repay said favors

I can't wait for Chris's review of Collateral Beauty 2.

The irony is so rich that anything could be beneath someone who put their heart and soul into making this piece of shit

Which performance, unseen, is more atrocious, sleepwalking Bruce Willis or SNL parody Alec Baldwin?


Not as if I'm going to give my spare time watching this dreck.

Bruce Willis' performance is barely there. He totally phones it in. Leslie Mann, who plays his wife, gives maybe the worst performance in the whole film. Baldwin is doing his usual shtick, but he's 100% committed.

Jack Kubrick wrote: Mon Oct 28, 2019 1:47 am Which performance, unseen, is more atrocious, sleepwalking Bruce Willis or SNL parody Alec Baldwin?


Not as if I'm going to give my spare time watching this dreck.

I think a lot of people will tell you Baldwin, but that's only because his parody of a parody of a parody casts so much of a shadow that you forget Willis is even in this movie.

mfunk9786 wrote: Mon Oct 28, 2019 1:43 amThe irony is so rich that anything could be beneath someone who put their heart and soul into making this piece of shit

As much as I want to say hey this is a rough comment to make, people worked incredibly hard to make this, the self importance Norton's projected throughout his press tour makes it hard to generate much sympathy.

mfunk9786 wrote: Mon Oct 28, 2019 12:10 am Elderly Harlem residents driven into homelessness due to the production of this film

Edward Norton sez he had to call in so many favors to make this film that he will be starring in work that is "beneath him" for a decade to repay said favors

I like to imagine this is karma over said displacement and the set fire.

It's fun reading these comments dumping on what looks like a massive ego-trip disaster to join the likes of
Anthony Newley's Can Heironymus Merkin Ever Forget Mercy Humppe and Find True Happiness?, and
I look forward to using this film as an insomnia aid/mood stabilizer once the Taron Egerton/Jamie Foxx Robin Hood goes
off of HBO rotation

Jack Kubrick wrote: Mon Oct 28, 2019 1:47 am ... sleepwalking Bruce Willis

When was the last time anyone left a theater saying "Boy, Willis was great in that!" Moonrise Kingdom was seven years ago and before that, off the top of my head...Pulp Fiction? He's not a box office draw anymore, at least not in this kind of role, and is known to be difficult on set. Why anyone would cast the guy at this point is beyond me.

Ed Norton likes to bond over actors who are known to be professionally "difficult" I guess? I'm just perpetuated at the amount of DTV dreck on Willis recent resume, as he's usually in the film set for about a week or two and gives the most non-commitment performances this side of Harrison Ford. John Travolta and Nic Cage at least command the screen in their Redbox junk, Willis has no excuse to even be appearing in this realm.

I was planning to avoid seeing this in the theater given the above denunciations but after reading this surprisingly thoughful interview Norton gave the Smithsonian I've changed my mind.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-cul ... 180973429/

I know nothing about urban renewal but have heard that Moses played a significant role in the destruction of Penn Station, a magnificent structure I vividly recall from my childhood. Penn Station now is probably the most depressing experience any traveler could endure, especially as it is the hemisphere's busiest transit hub. Everytime I enter or exit the station I feel like what Senator Moynihan is quoted in the article. "You entered New York like a titan, and now you crawl in like a rat."

Whereas Baltimore's Inner Harbor is a glorious urban space.

This is something that the film directly comments on as well - there is a critical scene set in the old Penn Station (recreated using visual effects) that is almost an elegy for the building.

Which is very funny, because the building looks pretty lousy in the scene, and most of the time is spent with Norton standing by some lockers

Yeah, I wish Norton hadn't relied on the CG as much for that scene, though I understand the thematic significance of doing so

Never Cursed wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:57 pm This is something that the film directly comments on as well - there is a critical scene set in the old Penn Station (recreated using visual effects) that is almost an elegy for the building.

Considering the budget they had to work with all this stuff was well done.

mfunk9786 wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:12 pm Which is very funny, because the building looks pretty lousy in the scene, and most of the time is spent with Norton standing by some lockers

What's funny is the old Penn Station didn't have lockers like that.

It would have if James Rouse had redesigned it

It's a shame this one person peanut gallery of yours displays a lack of effort as I do enjoy clever pieces of humor, especially when directed at myself. Then again it's perhaps more an issue of capability than effort. Keep practicing tho, I appreciate the attention.

There's a "salty" joke in there but far be it from me to do the math to extricate it

Conversation overheard as I was leaving the auditorium after watching this:

PERSON 1: I guess it was OK, but why did the story have to be so complicated?
PERSON 2 (in a tone that indicated sympathy for this question if not outright agreement): Eh, well, they were telling a story.
PERSON 1: Yeah but I could have just read the book!

I can't say this critique really parses for me in a literal way, but I kinda know what they meant. This is a movie that's really in love with its plotting, at the expense of actually making a movie out of it. I haven't read the book, but I suspect that Norton faced a problem here similar to The Goldfinch adaptation, where it was structurally challenging to leave anything out but impossible to leave everything in. So the tradeoff is to hit as many beats as possible without having time for most of them to have much impact. Leslie Mann's character, for example, seems like someone who obviously had more of a role in the book.

I didn't think this was terrible, really, and unlike a lot of movies that I do think are terrible, I thought it was pretty easy to see the appeal of the material and why the filmmakers would want to make it. If nothing else, it's made with a degree of conviction and enthusiasm that at least makes it watchable.

But, I would agree that it's still not very good.

Wow, this is pretty bad in a way that makes it weirdly compelling. I was getting major Sacha Guitry vibes from Norton and they really should have cut out a huge chunk of the movie.

Yeah I was all set to give it some rope as an interesting mess for a bit but by 1/3 of the way through it couldn’t even form into that, with any eccentric amusement being bogged down by clunky narrative