criterionforum.org

David O Russell's next film, written by one of the Bridesmaids scripters, will star Jennifer Lawrence as the creator of the Miracle Mop and will open Christmas Day of next year.

I thought she could do no wrong!

As far as I know, Weinstein has no official involvement with the production, so I'd kick him out, too. And I'm sure Jennifer Lawrence can hold her own against Russell at this point. But if there is any correlation between "trouble on the set" and the quality of Russell's movies, I'm sure this one will be great.

Scored by Martin Scorsese

The camerawork may be better this time around, there seems to be a wealth of carefully composed shots - the same DP from his last film, but I was getting tired of the same Steadicam aesthetic each time out.

I was sold until the quick cut part of the trailer. Got some bad flashbacks to American Hustle's constant showboat acting and camerwork

It looks okay, but I'm really not digging this recent trend of remixing old classic rock songs for dramatic effect.

This was largely very messy, particularly the first act, but I couldn't help but be charmed by the "that's that, mattress man" finale. It's no great movie, that's for sure, and feels like something that Russell should've known better than to write, stage and shoot the way he did in many moments (some of the family is so miscast and scenes involving them are often sub-hammy, sort of like watching zombies who realize that they're involved in a project that isn't working). Jennifer Lawrence's performance is strong despite a disappearing accent. But I can't really recommend a film that's such a slurry of tone and quality, no matter how high its highs manage to be.

The trailer makes me feel like this is a film made by someone who does not know much about the type of people the film is about. I'm wondering why he would even want to make it.

Trees wrote:this is a film made by someone who does not know much about the type of people the film is about.

That's been all his movies since The Fighter. He's delusional, no doubt.

Yeah, it feels like a definitive split in his work post-Huckabees. I could not be less interested in seeing the films he's making now, but at one point he was among my favorites in contemporary American cinema. To see him showered with awards and praise for this new, bafflingly crappy period is really something.

While Huckabees is easily his worst film, Joy is nearly as bad. It's characterization is a softball mess, and though the performances are often good enough to cover the weak writing, the film never gels to overcome all the inconsistencies. I'd say it's several months of editing short of completion, and I think it needs some breathing room and length added to not feel so looney tunes paced with 90 mph explanations of clunky exposition every other scene.

The central section with the first scene with Bradley cooper is perfect and very nearly saves the movie.

Joy is most definitely a flawed film, but as someone who really hasn't been taken away with Russell's recent works (or even his early works, for that matter), I was actually quite surprised by it, and I'd even say that it's my favorite of his works. My biggest criticism is simply that it isn't fleshed out enough: the entire first act, pre-"Miracle Mop" is simply too long and takes away a large chunk of time from the much more interesting second act, beginning with Bradley Cooper's character. From here on out, minus the incredibly rushed ending, which also fails to address the deeper themes of hustling and the American Dream that Russell even explored in his last, sub-par effort, Joy is surprisingly great.

Though I wouldn't say the beginning is all a loss; Russell indulges in his usual, screwball antics, though it feels much less annoying here than in something like Silver Linings Playbook. It felt more genuine and real, less like Russell was merely going for cheap laughs or clichéd comedic/narrative beats. And it helps that the film looks gorgeous, perfectly capturing the era, the wintertime atmosphere, and as hearthesilence hinted at, "carefully composed shots."

I'm only familiar with his recent, "prestige" work (The Fighter-present) but I've actively detested each of his films as well-made but ultimately devoid of any greater aspirations or motivation apparent other than just making a movie. I felt dirty upon realizing that I actually was enjoying this film, in part as it seems to finally be the one to bring the critics out of the woodwork who are voicing their distaste for his work.

It's absolutely flawed as said above but basically everything from the moment Bradley Cooper appears on works great; there's a downright confusing focus upon soap operas in the first act that I do not see the relevance of at all and demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of why soap operas are amazing. I thought at first this would tie into the theme of the power of television and while it kind of does it doesn't really ever go anywhere to suggest it was intended that way; utterly bewildering to start the film with an extended sequence of this, though.

I swear I didn't make this up and a google suggests it may not be true but I could have sworn I read that they were CGIing Jennifer Lawrence's face onto a ten-year old girl for the child scenes and certainly during the movie that's what I assumed was happening but I may be a crazy person.

carmilla mircalla wrote:

Trees wrote:this is a film made by someone who does not know much about the type of people the film is about.

That's been all his movies since The Fighter. He's delusional, no doubt.

His abusive on-set behavior certainly doesn't help matters either.

The abusive behavior may be blown out of proportion. Rather than throwing a fit, Lilly Tomlin should have been kissing his feet for letting her be in a decent movie (I like Huckabees, it's underrated). But yes, there's something seriously wrong with Joy. Maybe he's taken the family focused thread that he's been doing since The Fighter as far as it can go for him. But more likely, he just chose a bad project. The story seems kind of dead on arrival. And unlike a couple of the posts above, I preferred the 1st half rather than the 2nd half of Joy. Watching a 15 minute segment on how QVC (the home shopping network) operates is not what i would call interesting.

I had this in mind, not the Tomlin incident so much.

All these stories started with Clooney after Three Kings. After that Dustin Hoffman, De Niro (3x), Isabelle Huppert, and Melissa Leo have worked with him, and these are not people who are in it for fame or money. They want to work with a good director. I find it hard to believe that De Niro would come back 2 more times to watch his co-stars being abused by a nut job director. Yes, he's a hot head, but I'm sure that he's not the first one. And the result of his efforts is usually a great film. I'd compare it to Kubrick's endless takes, not because of the mental anguish that the actors claim, but because they're just not giving the director what he wants (and per Kubrick, in his case, the actors often don't know their lines).

copen wrote:All these stories started with Clooney after Three Kings. After that Dustin Hoffman, De Niro (3x), Isabelle Huppert, and Melissa Leo have worked with him, and these are not people who are in it for fame or money. They want to work with a good director. I find it hard to believe that De Niro would come back 2 more times to watch his co-stars being abused by a nut job director. Yes, he's a hot head, but I'm sure that he's not the first one. And the result of his efforts is usually a great film. I'd compare it to Kubrick's endless takes, not because of the mental anguish that the actors claim, but because they're just not giving the director what he wants (and per Kubrick, in his case, the actors often don't know their lines).

With the Kubrick example, your listed reasons are actually working together. Kubrick (and Bresson, and many other filmmakers) would use repetition to break an actor down ("mental anguish") specifically to achieve a performance that wouldn't be gained otherwise ("giving the director what he wants").

Also, with Russell specifically, I would be a bit more cynical and suspect that he picks vulnerable targets on his set as a way of bullying. So someone like De Niro may be too aggressive to be bullied.

Soothsayer wrote: Also, with Russell specifically, I would be a bit more cynical and suspect that he picks vulnerable targets on his set as a way of bullying. So someone like De Niro may be too aggressive to be bullied.

you're misreading what i said about De Niro:
...I find it hard to believe that De Niro would come back 2 more times to watch his co-stars being abused...

I don't know if this is because I grew up a few blocks from the setting (and shooting location) of Silver Linings Playbook or in spite of it, but I really can't imagine living in a universe where those family dynamics feel less "genuine and real" than the first act of this film. But hey, when Gummo is something that passes through your realism bullshit detector... (sorry, that was a low blow, but unfortunately applicable)

I would agree with a lot of people here on that the first part of Joy is not that great and the second part is much better. My take on the first part is that it reminded me of a Martin Scorsese film, Goodfellas in particular. You know, with the moving camera work, the vintage music from the era that the film takes place and the narration from the grandmother. I found it to be rather forced and not natural. However, the second part when she gets into selling the mop was done much better. I think they really needed to do some more runs through the typewriter as Gene Siskel would say regarding the first half so it would work better. Maybe you could cut a fairly large portion of the first part and make the movie more about Joy's career as a business woman. I don't know. Maybe even go further with the story and show more of her career. The first part grew rather tiresome after a while and there were a few people that left the theater before the film ended. That's just my two cents.