criterionforum.org

If I see a worse movie this year than the Russos' Cherry, someone here needs to slap me across the face and tell me to make better viewing choices. A shapeless hodgepodge of badly color-graded rip-offs of better movies (I couldn't believe it when, barely even 10 minutes in, the Russos had the gall to directly steal the Children of Men car shot for a nothing scene), it feels like it's ten hours long especially for how often the Russos try to jazz up the footage by putting it in slo-mo. While I'd recommend everyone stay away from this, I would be interested to hear therewillbeblus's take on its treatment of addiction (heroin and opioids in this case), because it struck me as an embarrassing imitation of already over-the-top movie cliches; the Russos hope that if the main character pukes on himself enough, it will be perceived as a "real" portrait of addiction. It might be better if Tom Holland was up to the task of playing down-and-out, but in every scene you can only see the strain of him fighting against his inherent boy-scout demeanor, it's kind of grotesque how much unsuccessful effort he puts into seeming "seedy".

Is it true that the film features

Spoiler

a scene of Tom Holland getting cavity searched, with the camera "placed" in his CG asshole, set to the tune of Van Morrison's "Into the Mystic?"

I read somewhere that that was the case, and that description alone is enough to make me hate the film on principle

Thanks for taking one for the team Narrator, but I’ve heard it’s awful and problematic and, as it has no chance of being nominated for awards, I will skip it instead of being almost certainly offended on multiple levels (first and foremost, apparently, as a moviegoer)

Never Cursed wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 5:08 am Is it true that the film features

Spoiler

a scene of Tom Holland getting cavity searched, with the camera "placed" in his CG asshole, set to the tune of Van Morrison's "Into the Mystic?"

I read somewhere that that was the case, and that description alone is enough to make me hate the film on principle

I could not tell if it was CGI, but otherwise yes, that is 100% what happens in the movie.

Oh man, per IMDB the film apparently features a bunch of Morrison's best songs. Dammit.

So glad we have a thread for Cherry but not Promising Young Woman yet

Just for that, I’m putting all the Promising Young Woman posts in the Space Jam 2 thread

The roman a clef novel this is based on is so forgettable that I didn't even recall reading it under looking at some reviews of this film. It's pretty much Joe Forgettable robs bank, fucks, robs bank, shoots heroin, fucks, etc. for a numbing 300 pages. One of those hugely overhyped wastes that accompany a massive advance and film deal. Stick with Edward Bunker.

I took this in on a whim and was flummoxed by the runtime when the coda finally rolled in, but there were a few bright spots in an otherwise hugely expensive looking movie (Michael Gandolfini stealing a few scenes, Ciara Bravo as an almost-charming love interest, and the indefatigable Michael Rispoli). Nothing that hasn't been said 100 times by other movies about the military, opiate addiction, or even, god forbid, the eloquence of "love", with little to no genuine humor, pathos, or literal humanity - kind of like a superhero movie, but the main character is powerless to his plight/cause/etc., and we have to suffer it while Van Morrison whines in the background (no slight on Van, but that's what this movie turns him into). I only read a few chapters of the book years ago, and it's a pity none of that writing style is present, which could have possibly saved the picture.

If the dynamic of this film seems enticing whatsoever, please consider the similarly themed and wildly more successful Arkansas, directed by Clark Duke (!), based on the book by John Brandon, instead.

All these reports of their last two movies makes me so disappointed in what Marvel has seemingly cursed the Russos to.

Never Cursed wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 5:27 am Oh man, per IMDB the film apparently features a bunch of Morrison's best songs. Dammit.

It can't do any worse for Morrison's rep than his own anti-lockdown/vaxxer lunacy tbf.

Shame this is stuck on a streaming service I will never subscribe to, because it sounds HILARIOUSLY bad.

The Russos include a laughable "artistic statement" with the streaming copy of this on Apple TV:

Spoiler

Never Cursed wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 3:05 am The Russos include a laughable "artistic statement" with the streaming copy of this on Apple TV:

Spoiler

Says career is devoid of external influence. Proceeds to explain how whole career was influenced by Truffaut.

It's interesting how they choose to define themselves against what their career is largely based on: mostly anonymous work for larger franchises in which they toe the company line. Yet in their own words, they're the inheritors less of Truffaut than Godard. Wonder if it speaks to some embarrassment for taking such a corporate role in their artistic field, and that they see Cherry and its absurd excesses as a breaking away from that to show who they really are as artists. Tho' I am being very reductionist. Still, they see their body of work very, very differently than most.

I've always been amazed at how the Russos, because of their work on some of the biggest hits of the MCU, have been hailed at true auteurs (and seemingly now think they are) while they, in practice, never seemed anything more than anonymous franchisees Yes Men.
And since Yes Man (the movie) was directed by Peyton Reed, who has since also been an anonymous MCU franchisee (and have arguably potentially made better movies there than the Russos), I suspect he could have directed those Russos movies with close to no tangible difference for the viewers.

In a larger fashion, it of course begs the more existential question of how much influence such projects are bound to deal with. I mean, these are $200 to $300m movies expected to make potentially more than $1bn at the BO. Don't tell me they're not facing any external influence.

They certainly added a distinctive voice to Arrested Development, Community, and Happy Endings as directors/executive producers. What a depressing career trajectory

tenia wrote:I've always been amazed at how the Russos, because of their work on some of the biggest hits of the MCU, have been hailed at true auteurs (and seemingly now think they are) while they, in practice, never seemed anything more than anonymous franchisees Yes Men.

When I think of distinctive voices in the MCU, I don’t think of the Russo brothers. I think of Waititi, Gunn, and Whedon. The Russos are more like baseline MCU. So much so that, as Marvel increasingly adopts the styles of its more successful auteurs, you can see the Russos own movies become suffused with the voices of far more distinctive filmmakers. The last two Avengers have Waititi and Gunn’s style all through them, whereas I have no idea what style the Russos brought.

I don’t want to unduly criticize the Russos—those last two Avengers were a real technical feat to pull off, and to some degree I am impressed with their facility for giant blockbuster filmmaking. But I called them corporate filmmakers less because they are mere yes men (I think that goes too far) than because they are establishers and purveyors of a house style.

So it’s interesting to see them advertize themselves as mould-breaking rebels who listen to nobody. And in front of a film that is essentially their Ryan’s Daughter, a more intimate drama blown wildly out of proportion by the filmmaker(s)’s inability to adjust their blockbuster-honed sensibilities to the new material.

I used the term Yes Man because that's the one I know for people merely delivering a product within the company's guidelines but yes, corporate men would then probably a better adjective.

One of the only MCU movies to bear the distinctive thematic/visual stamp of its director was the first Thor, which was a neat fit amongst Kenneth Branagh's Shakespeare fetish (and was rife with the kind of canted camera angles he favors).

tenia wrote:I used the term Yes Man because that's the one I know for people merely delivering a product within the company's guidelines but yes, corporate men would then probably a better adjective.

Yes man is more derogatory than that. It implies self-abased devotion, someone who agrees with every opinion and is willing to do or accept whatever’s asked, uncritically. Think: Walon Smithers.

I’m guilty of overstatement myself. I accused them of merely toeing the line, when I’m willing to bet the Russos, while making many compromises, took stands and fought heavily for certain creative choices. It’s just they seem far happier collaborating on corporate’s vision than, say, Whedon, who found corporate interference on Age of Ultron to be punishing (Ray Fisher even attributes Whedon’s abusive behaviour on Justice League to lingering bitterness over it).

If I understand the role of "previz" in making Marvel movies properly, the Russo brothers can scarcely even be said to have directed their previous films. And if I understand the role of television directors properly, their work on television was largely about realizing a showrunner's "vision." So Cherry is, in a sense, these guys' first work where they were actually expected to have an independently formed conception of what they were making. It may not be their technical first film, but it is for all intents and purposes their first film that is actually theirs. And very few first films have been greeted with the kind of expectations foisted on this one. So it's understandable that the result would be the product of a rare blend of hubris and creative confusion. I'm not an Apple+ subscriber, but my fondness for artistic trainwrecks has piqued my interest in this fiasco.

For anyone interested in the role of "previz" in the Russos' Marvel movies, here's a handy primer:

https://geektyrant.com/news/how-marvel- ... t-shooting

They made Welcome to Collinwood as well.

Then I suppose they should be citing Mario Monicelli as an influence.

RitrovataBlue wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 8:54 pm If I understand the role of "previz" in making Marvel movies properly, the Russo brothers can scarcely even be said to have directed their previous films.

I didn't know about this method, even after seeing most of the Marvel movies, so thank you for that. It certainly makes a whole lot more sense when you consider the turnaround time of making Cherry, as well as all the visual exercises that seemed so automated and lifeless upon execution (not that I can confirm that method was used, but why stop when you're ahead?).

I can't say that the Russos seem like anything more than two guys graced with the opportunity of operating a guaranteed money churning ferris wheel, but maybe the eventual Welcome To Collinwood 4K remaster will change my mind? Honestly, I would give them both my time and money if they would "restore" You Me & Dupree with a 2021 CGI'd inserted Jermaine Dupri over Owen Wilson, but maybe this era isn't quite ready for the World Of Joe Et Anthony Russo box set just yet.

Spoiler