Although now he’s one of the lead characters in a sit-com, so maybe it’s balancing out?
Are you fucking kidding me? I posted that I’m looking forward to seeing it, WHY I am looking forward to seeing it, why I think it looks like something I’m looking forward to seeing, and I’m not supposed to do that?
I hope to see you in every “<movie title> anticipation thread” from now on saying that people aren’t supposed to comment on why they might be anticipating seeing said movie. Unbelievable.
And Sean Penn’s been in plenty of comedies/played plenty of smiling fun characters. He just won an Oscar a couple of years ago for playing a joyous, happy person.
See The Station Agent. Michelle Williams has a small but nice role as a town librarian with an awful boyfriend but ends up in a better relationship.
Yes, I love The Station Agent. But Michelle is not doing roles like that these days. It seems like once she got to a place in her career where she could be selective about scripts she started choosing the most dreary scripts around.
No, you came in and questioned my criticism of the film without having seen the damned thing yourself. Your post was at once arrogant and pretentious.
Sorry if I spoiled the fun you usually have rushing into Cafe Society with a breathless thread about the latest obscure-but-critically-acclaimed drama. I suspect that is the explanation for your weirdly emotional response to my criticism of **a movie **you haven’t seen.
I’m a fan of Michelle Williams but totally agree with the OP’s premise that she gravitates toward bleak downers. The ones mentioned aren’t even the ones that first came to mind, just the most recent examples. My first thoughts were Land of Plenty, The Hawk Is Dying and the already mentioned Wendy And Lucy. Probably also Mammoth but that one didn’t survive a DVR purge when I was running out of space. It got the axe based on her track record of bleak downers that go nowhere. heh.
Jennifer Lawrence was headed that way until she signed on for X-Men. Winter’s Bone was upbeat compared to her earlier work in The Poker House.
“Downer roles”? Has it ever struck you that these “downer” movies actually intend to (and in most cases DO) represent real, live reality? As opposed to the “average” Hollywood film which bears very little resemblance to real life? If you merely want to be entertained, read reviews before you go to the theatre. Leave the gritty, mature films to people who appreciate them.
P.S. Never, ever watch Little Children. One of the best movies I’ve seen in years. I just know you would walk out of there scratching your head.
Hell no. If life were this depressing, there wouldn’t be any point in going on. I pity anyone who really sees life this way.
Spare me. Movies don’t have to be unrelentingly grim to be realistic. People do learn things in real life. People do redeem themselves in real life. People laugh and smile in real life. You’d never know it from some of these films.
Actually The Station Agent is an example of a movie that finds a nice balance. We see the hard truths: divorce, suicide attempts, bigotry, an aging parent, an abusive boyfriend. But these things are balanced out with friendship, camaraderie, the simple joy of a shared meal, love and hope. That is realistic filmmaking, in my book.
And I can name any number of movies that reveal grim truths but balance them with various forms of redemption. The Apostle. In Bruges. Schindler’s List. The Lives of Others. Mystic River. Lars and the Real Girl. Michael Clayton. On and on…
If you’d read the thread you’d notice that I have seen Little Children. And I didn’t scratch my head, I shook it.
Any filmmaker who thinks realistic=unrelentingly-bleak-and-grim is a hack in my book.
Michelle Williams seems to be taking her Tragic Professional Bereaved Widow persona to heart (though she wasn’t ever married to Heath Ledger). Either that, or she’s coasting on her Tragic Bereavment to keep the fans coming. Being in a comedy might turn them off.
A bit full of ourselves are we? I did not question your criticism. I said nothing whatsoever about your criticism. I in no way addressed your criticism. Shape or form either. I have no idea why you think my post was questioning your criticism. Your reaction to me is very bizarre.
You’re the one thinking people ought not to talk about anticipating a movie before they’ve seen it, not me.
What the hell are you talking about? I can only think of a few films I’ve started threads about in the past few years. What comes to mind off the top of my head are Winter’s Bone (which, nearly a year later, did go on to get Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Actress, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Supporting Actor), The Fall, City Island and Let Me In. Did you have a problem with those threads?
I am aware that it’s pretty useless to start threads about movies that aren’t opening on 2000 screens. Believe me, as many movies as I’ve seen, those threads only represent a tiny fraction of the obscure dramas I’ve seen and loved, movies I didn’t start threads about even if I wanted to. I’ve seen several movies already this year that could go on my year-end Favorites of 2011 list and I haven’t started threads about them. The titles wouldn’t mean anything to anybody. They’re not all obscure dramas either. Several are delightful comedies, but it’s useless to talk about them. No one will see them because they didn’t and won’t play at the local multiplex. It’s frustrating, but I accept it. It amazes me that you get on my back for talking about the ones I did.
You’re on drugs. I wasn’t emotional at all. I said I wanted to see it, and why. Had nothing to do with you or starting a thread or anything.
This is what I said:
[QUOTE=Equipoise]
I’m seeing Meek’s Cutoff tomorrow night. I’ve been looking forward to it for a long time and it’s finally opened in Chicago. It looks fantastic and I trust the critics who like it.
[/QUOTE]
Your reaction to that innocuous paragraph is surreal.
Oh by the way, I HAVE seen Meek’s Cutoff now, and thought it was indeed as good as I expected, if not better. I can understand why some people wouldn’t like it, but I’m with the 87% on RT who did like it.
off to look for some ballot boxes to stuff
Hold the phone. You don’t think there are pedophiles in real life? You don’t think that a nurse and a blue collar worker with a kid ever fall out of love and get divorced? Blue Valentine reminded me so strongly of my own parents, it was almost scary.
If you’ve never had an unrelentingly bleak period in your life, that is a privilege and you’re clearly taking it for granted. Don’t you know that *real people *die and cry and fail and commit suicide every single day? But you don’t want filmmakers to explore those dark facets of human nature for some strange reason.
You are weird.
Feel free to start a thread about that next time, instead of hijacking mine. This thread is not about “Ooooh, I can’t wait to see Meek’s Cutoff!” It’s about Michelle Williams taking grim roles.
Here is the place to admit, now that you’ve seen the movie, that this was a grim role.
Even considering that we’re talking about the movie business, this is an exceptionally cynical outlook. Maybe she finds this bleak stuff more interesting than being the crush in a romantic comedy or the supportive girlfriend of some historical personage in biopic. Blue Valentine certainly wasn’t uplifting, but it was a good movie and she gave a very good performance.
Did you not just see me list Mystic River as a good movie? It is about that very subject. And handled much better (and here’s a point: more entertainingly) than Little Children. It is possible to handle a tough subject without giving the middle finger to the popcorn munchers.
Oh bullshit. Everybody goes through tough times. It’s part of being human. That doesn’t mean we have to wallow in it. You can always find some humor, some spark of optimism. And the best movies, even the grim ones, reflect that. I’ve named some.
I don’t think I have gone through the grimmest day in my life without finding something to smile about. But hey, if you want to mope and moan your way through life, that’s your business I guess.
Aren’t we all?
That is a false dichotomy. There are a lot of points in between bleak, hopeless downer and fluffy romantic comedy.
Of course there are. And I also find unrelenting bleakness off-putting. I agree it doesn’t fully reflect life and it can be part of a bid for critical acclaim that isn’t any deeper than the fluff. But it’s not implausible that Michelle Williams just finds these kinds of movies more interesting as an actress. It doesn’t mean she’s cashing in on Heath Ledger’s death.
Why do you think that anybody owes you happy endings and entertainment? Not everything is about you. Not every director is thinking about you when they choose a topic to film. Lots of times, life IS fucking bleak and depressing, for *great numbers *of people. And even for people that it isn’t, it’s a fascinating look at the lives of people who seem to be vastly more real than the average plastic celebrity.
The fact that you think a good imdb rating has to be a scam, because you didn’t like a movie, reflects more strongly on you than you seem to realize. Are you this narcissistic in real life too, or is it just about movies?
If you know anything about IMDb and independent film, you know that ratings often start out very high (as friends and family of the people involved all give the movie a 10), then crash as the audience for the film widens.
So far, this film only has 500-some-odd viewer ratings. Just in the time I’ve been paying attention the rating has gone from 7.9 to 7.2. Let’s see where it is when we get up around 3,000 reviews.
OK, I agree with that. And Michelle Williams was trending toward downer roles even before Heath’s death.
The movie was worth watching for the boobs.
What? I think Vince Vaughn and Kevin James are funny playing clueless characters.
Look, you’re welcome to dislike the thing. It could even be that. over time, the IMDB rating will go down. This often happens not only for independent film, but also for blockbusters, as the first wave of diehard fans makes way for a more representative audience.
But, as i noted above, the film also has an 89% rating among the professional critics at Rotten Tomatoes. This doesn’t mean that you have to like it, of course, but it does mean that your allegation that good review scores must be a product of ballot-stuffing is pretty lame and unsustainable.