criterionforum.org

Argh! They didn't punch out the erase prevention tab! #-o

The Reeler has two articles on Gondry and the film, here and here.

When I read the idea behind this movie, I felt a tiny glimmer of hope for just one second. And then I remembered what generation I'm in. I fear they will just make a bunch of You tube style amateurish skits and paste them all together with some lame back story, which is certainly what the trailer indicates. Some people might find that kind of thing funny, but not me. Also, I'm not exactly sure what audience this movie is intended for.

I have hope. I really liked The Science of Sleep (though I know many didn't) and Slant seems to think it's really great.

Cde. wrote:I have hope. I really liked The Science of Sleep (though I know many didn't) and Slant seems to think it's really great.

I liked Science of Sleep as well. The visuals were decent, and I think most people were looking forward to the over-the-top set pieces, but under that was a pretty honest story that moved me a bit more than Eternal Sunshine.... especially in that final confrontation between the two.

"Sweded" trailer.

Antoine Doinel wrote:"Sweded" trailer.

I think to really get into the Russian doll spirit someone should remake that trailer!

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Uh-oh.

One thing is certain: Gondry's movie cannot be any worse than that.

You sound surprised, as if you've never watched Nickelodeon in your life The sketches on those shows (including the odious All That) ripped off SNL sketches with impunity. This one is basically an adjusted version of the "Hamburger, Hamburger" sketch that takes it from a restaurant to a video store.

Mr_sausage wrote:

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Uh-oh.

One thing is certain: Gondry's movie cannot be any worse than that.

I think you meant to say: This. Movie. Better.

domino harvey wrote:

Mr_sausage wrote:

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Uh-oh.

One thing is certain: Gondry's movie cannot be any worse than that.

I think you meant to say: This. Movie. Better.

Can you believe that's actually the punchline to a joke?

Nickelodeon: Teaching racial stereotypes at a young age.

sidehacker wrote:Nickelodeon: Teaching racial stereotypes at a young age.

well, to be fair it's not racial... it's cultural (because everyone knows eastern europeans, especially those with poor english skills, are truly funny)

sidehacker wrote:Nickelodeon: Teaching racial stereotypes at a young age.

That's quite the unfair statement to make. You're completely ignoring the parents' role in a child's social education.

Nickelodeon: Reinforcing racial stereotypes at a young age.

There. That's better, isn't it?

This isn't the documentary on Louis Farrakhan I thought I was renting!


This. Race. Better. MUCH BETTER!

This is a perfect example of a thread going off topic for the better.

Frankly, I didn't realize the similarity, but it's not some big ripoff conspiracy. As mentioned before, the Nickelodeon sketch shows were ripoff-ridden. For example, one time (either on All That or The Amanda Show, I think the latter) they had a ripoff of the sketch when Jim Carrey hosted SNL, with the bathtub lifeguard.

And, don't get me started on the pig catch episode of Hey Arnold's shot-for-shot remaking of a scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

NY Times review: The Dreamer as Tapehead

A.O. Scott wrote:And the deep charm of Mr. Gondry’s film is that it allows the audience to experience it with the same kind of casual fondness. It is propelled by neither the psychology of its characters nor the machinery of its plot, but rather by a leisurely desire to pass the time, to see what happens next, to find out what would happen if you tried to re-enact “Ghostbusters” in your neighbor’s kitchen. It’s inviting, undemanding and altogether wonderful. You’ll want to see it again, or at least Swede it yourself.

Eh. I don't need my narratives to be "driven" per se, but if the words "leisurely desire to pass the time" were applied to a Kevin Smith movie or any number of hipster indie filmmakers, it would surely be taken as a negative, yet Gondry gets a free pass?

I'm intrigued enough that I'll eventually watch it--I loved some of the movies this film apparently references, but probably after it's out on dvd.

Leave it to a Frenchman to rip-off The Amanda Show. Isn't his rip-off of their rip-off just simply deconstructive? Maybe Godard could take a shot at it and make it better.

Jean-Luc Garbo wrote:Leave it to a Frenchman to rip-off The Amanda Show. Isn't his rip-off of their rip-off just simply deconstructive? Maybe Godard could take a shot at it and make it better.

No "MUCH BETTER!" at the end of that last sentence? Thanks for your restraint.

This is pretty much the worst movie I've seen since across the universe.

Raoul Duke wrote:This is pretty much the worst movie I've seen since across the universe.

Thanks for your in-depth analysis.

Anyway, I thought it was very well done, and the crowd I saw it with were laughing their heads off through much of the film. Gondry's handcrafted special effects style worked perfectly with the narrative, and the whole thing glowed with a nice communal spirit. It may not be particularly groundbreaking, but it's a lot of fun, and quite inspiring.

Did anyone else find the romantic subplot to be hilariously perfunctory? I guess Gondry wanted to steer well clear of that this time around...

carax09 wrote:Anyway, I thought it was very well done, and the crowd I saw it with were laughing their heads off through much of the film. Gondry's handcrafted special effects style worked perfectly with the narrative, and the whole thing glowed with a nice communal spirit. It may not be particularly groundbreaking, but it's a lot of fun, and quite inspiring.

Did anyone else find the romantic subplot to be hilariously perfunctory? I guess Gondry wanted to steer well clear of that this time around...

I saw this tonight, and I also pretty much liked it, at least as long at is was focused on the actual remade films, which are hilarious (especially HAL as a refrigerator, which cracked me up). You're right that the romantic subplot was perfunctory, but that's because ALL the character stuff was pretty much perfunctory, and thankfully so because it's the weakest part of the film. There are no real characters here, just stock people used to propel the plot enough to give Gondry an excuse to include all these great, affectionately made movie parodies and to celebrate the communal power of the cinema.

But I also thought it was strange that a film that's so ecstatic about the communal potential of movie-going is actually about videotapes rather than film itself?

What I found so inspiring was the film's championing of long discarded people, place, and technology. The great second act starts with Mike picking up, and dusting off, the old giant VHS videocamera and thereby initiating their little cottage industry of "sweded" remakes. Then the scope expands to show the two competing paradigms for the future of Passaic: one using gentrification and embodied by the land developers, and the other being a sweded remake of Passaic, itself.

I would agree that the characterizations are a bit weak, and the best part of the film is the montage of handcrafted remakes of classic film scenes. I just thought that one of the themes of the film is the democratizing effect that discarded, but still functioning, technology can have. "It's not the medium, it's the message".

I hate to break it to fans of the film, but Armond White likes it.

Of course, he has to make a pointless comparison to another movie:

Be Kind Rewind represents exactly the kind of progressive art that Todd Haynes’ I’m Not There denies. Gondry’s inventiveness shakes up the movie-watching habit; he doesn’t congratulate self-consciousness but instead uses audience awareness to increase social engagement, to redefine personal relations and to enhance the purpose of art.