criterionforum.org

mfunk9786 wrote: Quite frankly, she's deserved supporting Oscar nominations for [...] and the-film-that-shall-not-be-named, Garden State;

This has got to be a sick joke. Her performance in Garden State is one of the worst I've ever seen and isn't even worthy of a Razzie. It's the very definition of unsubtle overacting.

James wrote:

mfunk9786 wrote: Quite frankly, she's deserved supporting Oscar nominations for [...] and the-film-that-shall-not-be-named, Garden State;

This has got to be a sick joke. Her performance in Garden State is one of the worst I've ever seen and isn't even worthy of a Razzie. It's the very definition of unsubtle overacting.

Though you might disagree, I actually meant that sincerely. I found it very natural, and I've known my fair share of people with that level of energy and genuine spontaneous goodwill (see: the bathtub scene). The movie isn't going to go down in history, but her performance (along with an amusing supporting character here and there and some creative direction at times) felt to me like its standout good quality.

mfunk9786 wrote:

James wrote:

mfunk9786 wrote: Quite frankly, she's deserved supporting Oscar nominations for [...] and the-film-that-shall-not-be-named, Garden State;

This has got to be a sick joke. Her performance in Garden State is one of the worst I've ever seen and isn't even worthy of a Razzie. It's the very definition of unsubtle overacting.

Though you might disagree, I actually meant that sincerely. I found it very natural, and I've known my fair share of people with that level of energy and genuine spontaneous goodwill (see: the bathtub scene). The movie isn't going to go down in history, but her performance (along with an amusing supporting character here and there and some creative direction at times) felt to me like its standout good quality.

I've been given the same justifications from other people ("I know people like that") and while it still doesn't make her performance any less superficial or hollow for me (nor does it make her character any less superficial or hollow for me), because others seem to find some worth in her performance, I can let it slide. This time. [-(

I will never understand why Garden State arouses such contempt in people.

Garden State's not a bad film, it's just so earnest and it's fans are so moon-eyed and easy to make fun of that it's hard to resist sometimes. I kind of like it, it's always struck me as a cute collection of unified short stories

And for a first (and perhaps only?) directorial effort, there's a lot of creativity and visual flair there.

You know what did me in on Garden State? The diploma on the ceiling of the Dr.'s office. Honestly.

Hey, spoiler tags!

I agree with domino's assessment - and I have a feeling very few of us watched the movie recently - but it's interesting to me that Braff hasn't directed another film. I know he's had some planned and they have fallen through. He seemed to fully embrace his Scrubs role, directing episodes as well. Garden State, whatever you think about it as an actual film, was very influential, it was one of the first very successful indiewood quirkfests. The film sort of defines that template (keep in mind I'm not calling it original). By the time he makes another film, the style has risen to prominence and will probably be considered contemptuous by more people.

Come on people, John Mayer said it was one of the best films of the decade. It must be true.

It's actually a guilty pleasure of mine. If you can look past all its flaws, its quite enjoyable. Peter Sarsgaard is fantastic in it.

domino harvey wrote:Garden State's not a bad film, it's just so earnest

Please shoot me now. Just noticed how there's a plethora of clips from that same scene on youtube....

Yeah, the film actually is tolerable. It does have a resonance that's more genuine and satisfying than something like Juno. It's kitsch, but at least its competent kitsch. Braff said it took him years and years to accumulate the observations that he put into the film. Maybe its just as well then that other projects have fallen to the wayside.

I think this type of comedy is not something that loses favor over time. Off the top of my head, I think of TV shows like Northern Exposure, Newhart or Picket Fences. Surely one could go back a lot further than that. There's always something out there in that vein. It's been that way for years.

I like how a small little comment in another thread suddenly became its own film thread.

I don't recall a whole lot about Garden State actually. I've seen so many that are just like it, so it doesn't really stand out in my mind. Not exactly an acting vehicle for any particular actor in my opinion.

It was tolerable until the junk-yard scene, and after that it completely fell apart for me.

However, I found Portman's role in this somewhat terrible and clunky. It seemed to me she was delivering her lines as if she was receiving them through an earpiece.

aox wrote:It seemed to me she was delivering her lines as if she was receiving them through an earpiece.

This was a technique used by Rossellini in some of his history films!

Peacock wrote:

aox wrote:It seemed to me she was delivering her lines as if she was receiving them through an earpiece.

This was a technique used by Rossellini in some of his history films!

And by Godard; specifically, in La Chinoise.

I didn't care for Garden State and thought that it, like many "quirkfests" of its type, was rather forgettable. And a lot of that had to do (for me, anyway) with the believability of the characters. I found Portman's character to be particularly terribly written.

In reference to the conversation that began this thread, however, I'll give her credit for trying to say her lines with a straight face (I vaguely recall some conversation in front of a fireplace that had simply horrendous dialogue). But I don't think that this film (or the Star Wars trilogy, for that matter) is a fair example with which to judge her acting chops.

I guess Garden State did pioneer the art of the Indiewood trailer. So it's got that going for it.

Some anonymous sap in a marketing dept probably put that together and didn't even get credit. No credit for the only tolerable thing about that flick.

The trailer reminds me that 2004 : the year "indie" broke. This soundtrack (which oddly didn't include all that much indie in retrospect) and Pitchfork/Arcade Fire blew the doors open on how to market what was once was once the underground.

The only thing cruel about that Vice article is how unreadably unfunny it was.

mfunk9786 wrote:Vice article

unreadably unfunny

Your story checks out

The HuffPo article seems absurdly cruel too, actually. Where were all these people when the film was released?

It was never a favorite, but I don't recall it being that bad. Braff has drawn a lot more ill will over the years for various reasons, which may account for some of the malicious hate against the film - in 2004, I didn't really hear anything about him outside of the critically adored Scrubs.

I haven't seen this in ten years, but at the time I thought it was okay and the cinematography was good. Among the special features on the DVD is a great deleted scene between Braff and Ian Holm (who played Braff's father in the film) that is far better than anything that ended up in the finished film. In it Holm's character remembers the day his wife died, and I recall it being devastating, with Holm giving a great performance.

I seem to remember that Braff's follow up to this was supposed to be his own adaptation of Susanne Bier's Open Hearts, but that never happened.

The only things I remember about this were the three of them screaming in some moment of catharsis and Natalie Portman talking about the Shins. That bit was about as bad as Levitt/Deschanel talking about the Smiths in the lift in 500 Days of Summer and Anna Kendrick talking about David Guetta in Pitch Perfect. As you can imagine, I don't really like people in films talking about music!