Juno (movie)

Cafe Society
61

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
(and what 16 year old girl listens to Iggy Pop and the Stooges? I call bullshit)
[/QUOTE]

My favorite bands when I was 16 (in 2001) were Talking Heads, The Clash, The Velvet Underground, Pixies, Sonic Youth and Hüsker Dü, so I could easily believe her taste in music. Actually, the character of Juno reminded me a little of myself as a teenager in several ways, including being a little too clever-clever, and I think Ellen Page did a beautiful job of pulling that off. That said, I wanted to love the movie but just couldn’t. I liked it a lot but best film of the year? No way. I thought a lot of the dialogue was lame and I gagged on the forced hipness.

Actually, it reminds me of the critical reception of Once a few months ago: so many critics and viewers liked it that it seemed more important than simply being the very good movie that it was. However, Juno has had a bigger marketing campaign than Once and more people have seen it, so its astounding popularity makes me a bit more defensive and critical. I know that I should like a movie for itself and not the publicity around it, but I can’t help that it’s part of the movie-going process. Anyway, in terms of this year’s teen comedies, I found Superbad to be much more enjoyable.

62

[QUOTE=Lisa-go-Blind]
Actually, it reminds me of the critical reception of Once a few months ago: so many critics and viewers liked it that it seemed more important than simply being the very good movie that it was.
[/QUOTE]
Come on, seriously? By expressing their happiness no one was/is trying to make these movies sound “more important” than they were/are. Once and Juno are still tiny movies that 99.9% of the population have never heard of, but because many of the critics like them and because most of the people who have seen them like them, they’re overrated? I know you didn’t use that word, but that’s what it sounded like.

[QUOTE=Lisa-go-Blind]
However, Juno has had a bigger marketing campaign than Once and more people have seen it, so its astounding popularity makes me a bit more defensive and critical. I know that I should like a movie for itself and not the publicity around it, but I can’t help that it’s part of the movie-going process.
[/QUOTE]
“Astounding polularity”?? Are you kidding? Once made a whopping $14,822,550 worldwide! You were talking about Juno, and yeah, oh sure, it’s a blockbuster at $25,681,000 in 998 theaters (#87 on the list of Top 2007 movies, go Juno!), but that’s nothing (The Golden Compass has made $150,384,574 so far and is considered a massive bomb), so I don’t know where this perception of “astounding popularity” comes from.

[QUOTE=Lisa-go-Blind]
Anyway, in terms of this year’s teen comedies, I found Superbad to be much more enjoyable.
[/QUOTE]
Superbad made (a well-deserved) $168,984,307 and lots of people talked about how much they liked it. Superbad’s widest release put it into 3,069 theaters. THAT’S what I would call “astounding popularity” in the real world.

I’d have thought that it would be too early for this kind of unreasonable backlash but I guess not. If you’re irritated now, your head is going to explode when Juno is nominated for 3 Academy Awards (Best Picture, Best Actress and Best Original Screenplay, which it will probably win). You’ll be among the people who will grouch and grumble that it doesn’t deserve that kind of recognition. But those of us who like it will be marveling that such a small, quirky, indie movie got noticed at all.

Twice now people have said things along the lines of “Best of the year? I don’t think so” but who called it that? For some fans, it might be, for most of the rest who liked it, it might be one of the best (which of course only translates into “one of my favorites”). It’s ok to enjoy or appreciate in some ways a movie without setting it to such a high standard (it was cute but BEST? NO! How dare the movie have such lofty goals!)

It honestly doesn’t bother me if someone doesn’t like it, or likes it but doesn’t think it’s all that, but it’s not a movie’s fault if other people do like it, and it’s not a movie’s fault if people talk about it thus creating a “buzz” (which is very different from “hype”). Both Juno and Once could just as easily have died without anybody discovering them at all. Lots of excellent movies do exactly that every year. It warms my heart that these two very sweet films just happened to catch a small wave of admirers.

63

[QUOTE=Equipoise]

“Astounding polularity”?? Are you kidding? Once made a whopping $14,822,550 worldwide! You were talking about Juno, and yeah, oh sure, it’s a blockbuster at $25,681,000 in 998 theaters (#87 on the list of Top 2007 movies, go Juno!), but that’s nothing (The Golden Compass has made $150,384,574 so far and is considered a massive bomb), so I don’t know where this perception of “astounding popularity” comes from.
[/quote]

Its per screen average is currently one of the highest out there, so I guess it’s popular in that regard. The theater I saw it in was sold out, which surprised me since I thought it was one of those movies that only film geeks would be clued into (the fact that it was set in Minnesota and written by a former local might have had something to do with it too). “Astounding” might be putting it too strongly (if you want to see “astounding,” look at the per screen averages for There Will be Blood. They’re nine times higher than Juno’s), but it’s finding mainstream success and will probably break 100 mil before it’s over.

Roger Ebert. It was referenced upthread.

64

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Roger Ebert. It was referenced upthread.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, you’re right, I forgot about that. But still, as I said, “Best of” lists are only “My Favorite” lists in disguise. He liked it more than any other film this year, and that’s cool. It’s his opinion. I don’t think he seriously thinks EVERYBODY should think of Juno as the very best film of the year. He’s going to be the only one. Owen Gleiberman’s #1 was I’m Not There. Lisa Schwarzbaum’s #1 was There Will Be Blood (wow about that per-screen average! We tried to see a sneak preview Saturday at midnight, got to the theater 8 hours! early to buy tickets, and it was sold out!). Other critics chose Atonement as the Best Film of 2007. Some chose No Country For Old Men. Some chose The Diving Bell and the Butterfly.

Ebert often likes to put smaller and more obscure movies in his top spot to bring more attention to them. He did that with Dark City, Hoop Dreams, Almost Famous, Being John Malkovich, Eve’s Bayou, House of Games, Small Change, on and on. It’s not surprising that he chose Juno as his #1 of 2007. That still doesn’t make the film overrated.

65

Yup. Just saw this for the first time last night. I thought Ms. Garner really stank the thing up, which was definitely not what I expected. Michael Cera was a little too stiff for his character–I sensed some discomfort with his new typecast–but Bateman was awesome and Ellen Page shouldered a big weight brilliantly.

Most of the characters were almost a little too cool. I mean, everything from the script to the casting to the direction was just perfect at creating a cast of characters who could make an indie soul like me want to be a piece of furniture in their weird lives.

The music was fitting for the movie, but that one song they played twice (“I like to go out/you like to stay at home” or whatever) was awful. I liked some of the other stuff, though.

jackelope, I think you nailed Bateman’s character. I’m a huge, huge, huge fan of him and from this point on I don’t think I can miss a performance of his. (Though I also saw The Kingdom last night and was underwhelmed. ETA: By the movie, not by Bateman, who was great as usual.)

That’s actually the only line of his that didn’t make me cringe, although it was obviously jammed into his mouth with a mallet.

I disagree with your initial statement that ND fans won’t like Juno. I think Juno has an ND-like ethos, except that it’s a lot smarter, it doesn’t rely on hipster cred for laughs, and, as you say, it loves and respects its characters. I liked ND and I loved Juno.

I, myself, wonder not how it will do among young people–I think most teens and adults who give it a try would have to love it–but how well it will age. It’s very slang-heavy, and I’m worried that it will be cheesy as hell in 30 years. I cringed at how the writer seems to think 16-year-olds talk.

I bought it. I knew 16-year-olds who were at least that pretentious when I was 16. I, for one, listened exclusively to 70s rock until I was about 14, and I’m only 21 now. Hell, the entire cast, including all the cool parents and the abortion-clinic Jesus freak, really rang true for my high school experience (even though I went to a small school with few sports, no lockers and few stereotypical jocks).

This is the same girl who

shied away from abortion because the fetus and the other people in the waiting room all had fingernails.

Au contraire, cynical one: she’s nothing if not consistent.

Really? My local AMC seems to be blessed with:

Aliens vs. Predator (so bad the studio wouldn’t let reviewers see it before it came out)
Alvin and the Chipmunks (even worse than Garfield, I’m sure)
American Gangster (probably another piece of stereotypical urban-crime pap)
Atonement (sounds cool)
Charlie Wilson’s War (saw it–awesome flick)
Enchanted (Disney pap)
Fred Claus (at this rate, Vince Vaughn will be in porn next year)
The Golden Compass (probably pretty cool if you’re 10 years old)
The Great Debaters (root for the black kids so you can say you’re a good person)
I Am Legend (a promising hour ruined by 40 minutes of deus ex machina, appeals to religion and an ending with enough cheese to rival Wisconsin and California combined)
National Treasure (come the fuck on)
P.S. I Love You (chick flick)
Sweeney Todd (probably cool if you wish you could like RHPS)
Walk Hard (one dead comedy horse after another being mercilessly beaten)
Water Horse (probably cool if you’re 5)

Now, if you’re talking about arthouse theaters, that’s a different story. (Although I’m not as impressed by the current lineup at the local ones as much as just over a year ago, with the killer Science of Sleep, Half Nelson, etc.) But in terms of the mainstream, it’s just as shitty right now as it has been for the last couple of years. There was a bright spot there in the summer, briefly, with a return to classic melodrama spearheaded by We Own the Night. But color me unimpressed with the mainstream ticket in general this year.

66

[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
Really? My local AMC seems to be blessed with:
[/QUOTE]
It all depends on how eclectic your tastes are I suppose. I’m much more interested in arthouse-ish films, but I’ve seen almost everything on your list. They range in quality.

[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
American Gangster (probably another piece of stereotypical urban-crime pap)
[/QUOTE]
You’re wrong. It’s a very good movie, based on a true story that hadn’t been told before. It’s Ridley Scott, Russel Crowe and Denzel Washington man! No, it’s not Blade Runner, but neither is is Bad Boys 2. An interesting story and amazing acting make it worthwhile. It’s certainly not pap.

[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
Atonement (sounds cool)
[/QUOTE]
I thought it was excellent. I’m dying to see it again. It’s one of those movies that will reward greatly a 2nd viewing. It’s far more interesting than the period romantic epic it appears from the trailer.

[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
Charlie Wilson’s War (saw it–awesome flick)
[/QUOTE]
I agree.

[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
Enchanted (Disney pap)
[/QUOTE]
No, it’s not pap. It’s sweet, smart and funny, and it’s worth seeing just to watch a star being born in Amy Adams.

[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
The Golden Compass (probably pretty cool if you’re 10 years old)
[/QUOTE]
Tell that to the Catholic bitches who are trying to supress it. It has terrible flaws in that it’s too short and too rushed, but what’s there is worthy and it’s just a shame in that it could have been a great movie.

[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
The Great Debaters (root for the black kids so you can say you’re a good person)
[/QUOTE]
That’s a shocking thing to say! I won’t use the “r” word but damn that comes close! It’s a wonderful movie and you root for the kids because they’re great at what they do. I loved this movie, and race had nothing to do with it. It’s well-written, well-acted, well-directed, intelligent, moving and I think it’s a damned shame it’s not going to get nominated for Best Picture.

[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
P.S. I Love You (chick flick)
[/QUOTE]
I’ve seen much worse chick flicks (usually against my will). It went a little deeper than average and the acting was of a higher-quality than average. Maybe I’m too easy on it, but I love Gerard Butler and Harry Connick Jr. so what can I say. Sometimes movies are guilty pleasures. I wouldn’t recommend it, but I liked it.

[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
Sweeney Todd (probably cool if you wish you could like RHPS)
[/QUOTE]
Huh? What’s “RHPS”? This is a very genre film, so of course everyone’s not going to like it. I liked the movie but not the music. I do want to see it again though, and try to get to like the music.

[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
Walk Hard (one dead comedy horse after another being mercilessly beaten)
[/QUOTE]
I thought it was funny. Not as funny as Superbad or Knocked Up or The 40-Year Old Virgin, but funny enough. It’s a pretty good parody of musical biopics, the songs are actually good, and John C. Reilley can actually sing.

[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
Water Horse (probably cool if you’re 5)
[/QUOTE]
I’m not 5 and I liked it. It’s a beautiful movie.
I saw these all for free:

[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
Fred Claus (at this rate, Vince Vaughn will be in porn next year)
I Am Legend (a promising hour ruined by 40 minutes of deus ex machina, appeals to religion and an ending with enough cheese to rival Wisconsin and California combined)
National Treasure (come the fuck on)
[/QUOTE]
Fred Claus was horrific. I wouldn’t have seen it if it hadn’t been a free pass. I enjoyed I Am Legend the first time but when I saw it again (because my husband hadn’t seen it) it didn’t hold up. National Treasure was dumb as a rock, but the short that showed in front of it, “How To Hook Up A Home Theater,” was worth leaving the house for.

I haven’t seen and have no interest in seeing:

[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
Aliens vs. Predator (so bad the studio wouldn’t let reviewers see it before it came out)
Alvin and the Chipmunks (even worse than Garfield, I’m sure)
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
Now, if you’re talking about arthouse theaters, that’s a different story.
[/QUOTE]
I was mainly talking about arthouse-ish films, though here “arthouse films” play in multiplexes too.

Besides Atonement, Charlie Wilson’s War, Sweeney Todd and the Great Debaters and the others you mentioned above, my local AMC theaters are playing:

Juno
No Country For Old Men
The Kite Runner
The Orphanage
The Savages
Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead
I’m Not There

Also playing nearby (in actual art houses) are:
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Control
Blade Runner: The Final Cut
Youth Without Youth
Starting Out in the Evening

I’ve seen them all (except Youth Without Youth, but I will) and they’re all worth seeing. I’m lucky in where I live. The only better places to live when it comes to movies are New York, Los Angeles and London.

Btw, I do agree with you about The Science of Sleep. It was one of my favorite movies from last year. I missed Half-Nelson. I also agree that We Own the Night was very good, and sadly overlooked.

67

Oh, come on. It’s a tired movie that’s been done over and over and over. How many movies about the black high school team winning do we need to prove the same thing to our society that’s been generally accepted since the 1970s? We all know that kids will rise to the occasion if you challenge them, that we need to cast away our prejudices as a nation continually troubled more by racial oppression and hatred than any other first-world country, that we’re failing our youth, and that we can do more to reverse the sad state of racial affairs that still exists in this country. What will The Great Debaters do to move us forward that Remember the Titans or even the less-worthy Coach Carter or all the other takes on the cliche couldn’t? Don’t call me a racist for rolling my eyes at Hollywood cliches. What I’d really like to see is a day when more than a handful of black actors can get a job playing anything other than a troubled kid, a drug dealer/crack whore, a cop or an inspirational high school coach. For the love of God, why is Will Smith the only black actor who gets to save the world? Why is Jamie Foxx the only black actor who gets to successfully run a covert ops mission in the Middle East? I’m sick and tired of the same damn old movie getting made over and over again to prove the same point we all freakin’ understand. I don’t doubt for a second that The Great Debaters is well-written, well-acted, well-directed, intelligent and moving, and that you loved the movie regardless of the race of the progatonists. I just wish we could get a damn movie about black neighborhoods that isn’t one of the same two or three movies done over again.

If you don’t mind hijacking the thread further, can you give me some opinions on No Country for Old Men, the Kite Runner (have you read the book? would you recommend it for someone who has?), the Savages, Diving Bell/Butterfly, and Starting Out in the Evening? I haven’t seen any of these and I’m probably going to end up seeing 1-3 of them.

Oh man. SEE IT. And go see Lars and the Real Girl, if you haven’t. Those two movies combined have convinced me that Ryan Gosling is one of the purest refined talents in the business. His characters have serious problems in both–some subtle and some not-so-subtle–and he nails them perfectly; more impressively, they’re completely different problems that almost completely stand in contrast. His crackhead schoolteacher in Half Nelson can’t find meaning in his life and is oversexed and underloved, popular and socially successful (in his way) but frustrated at his inability to mean something to someone; his delusional hermit in Lars and the Real Girl is overloved and undersexed, disturbing and not completely accepted, yet a little too meaningful to the people of his town. Anyway, Mr. Gosling has range. He could sell snow to Inuits.

I forgot Shortbus as the other shining star from the end of 2006, BTW.

68

[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
Oh, come on. It’s a tired movie that’s been done over and over and over. How many movies about the black high school team winning do we need to prove the same thing to our society that’s been generally accepted since the 1970s? We all know that kids will rise to the occasion if you challenge them, that we need to cast away our prejudices as a nation continually troubled more by racial oppression and hatred than any other first-world country, that we’re failing our youth, and that we can do more to reverse the sad state of racial affairs that still exists in this country. What will The Great Debaters do to move us forward that Remember the Titans or even the less-worthy Coach Carter or all the other takes on the cliche couldn’t? Don’t call me a racist for rolling my eyes at Hollywood cliches.
[/QUOTE]
You’re just about as wrong as wrong could be with all of the above. It’s not a cliched movie and it’s not tired. How can you say that, you haven’t even seen it! It’s a true story that hadn’t been told before. I for one had not seen any kind of movie about debaters before, true or not, and these particular real-life debaters had a unique perspective and interesting experiences, some good, some bad. Soime based on their race, some not. They were historically important, so why shouldn’t their story be told?

Yeah, it’s uplifting, and it’s partially about a teacher’s influence. So what? There can only be one, like Highlander? One of the things that’s not a cliche, the teacher didn’t take a bunch of lazy, unmotivated kids and make them great debaters. The kids were already in college and very smart and high achievers.

And anyway, even if it were cliched, which it is not, so what, if it’s a really good movie? How many football movies have there been, yet I didn’t see the ads for Friday Night Lights or The Final Season and think “Oh god, not another football movie!” (I liked both movies, btw, even though I hate football). Should no one ever make another war movie, or romantic comedy, or fantasy movie? Everything’s been done, so should there just be no more movies?

[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
What I’d really like to see is a day when more than a handful of black actors can get a job playing anything other than a troubled kid, a drug dealer/crack whore, a cop or an inspirational high school coach. For the love of God, why is Will Smith the only black actor who gets to save the world? Why is Jamie Foxx the only black actor who gets to successfully run a covert ops mission in the Middle East? I’m sick and tired of the same damn old movie getting made over and over again to prove the same point we all freakin’ understand.
[/QUOTE]
If you mean all that, then you should see The Great Debaters, because it’s what you say you’re looking for.

[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
If you don’t mind hijacking the thread further, can you give me some opinions on No Country for Old Men, the Kite Runner (have you read the book? would you recommend it for someone who has?), the Savages, Diving Bell/Butterfly, and Starting Out in the Evening? I haven’t seen any of these and I’m probably going to end up seeing 1-3 of them.
[/QUOTE]
I forgot, I haven’t yet seen Starting Out In The Evening. It’s playing at two theaters, one I hate and one that’s hard to get to on public transportation. I want to see it, and I hope to catch it, but I’m not sure I’ll get around to it. I do hear that it’s yet another movie about an old guy who’s breaking down but who learns to see life with a new perspective by being around a younger person, but that shouldn’t count against it.

I haven’t read the book of The Kite Runner, but the movie was pretty good, though emotionally draining. Even though the movie is yet another film about childhood friends who grow apart after a tragedy only to be re-connected as adults (in a way), it was worth seeing. I would place it last of those on your list though.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is one of my favorite movies of the year. I thought it was going to be The Sea Inside Pt. 2, but it wasn’t. This guy, felled by a massive stroke which results in his full-body paralyzing “locked-in syndrome,” doesn’t struggle to die, he struggles to live and communicate, which he does through the blink of an eye. I’ve only seen it once so far but I want to see it again. It’s depressing but at the same time surprisingly witty, with several laugh-out-loud moments. The lead character (this is based on a true story too) has a great sense of humor so even when everyone around him is dour and sad, he’s cracking jokes inside his mind, and we’re in on the jokes. It’s uplifting in its way too but not sappy. And even though it’s yet another movie about a horrifically disabled person learning to enjoy life again, it’s well-worth anyone’s time.

The Savages was yet another movie about adult children learning to deal with an aged parent, but I thought it was great. It’s funny and poignant at the same time, with a well-written script and great performances.

No Country For Old Men was your basic modern-day western (I know, another one, right?) but it had a pretty good plot and was tense and exciting. Jarvier Bardem’s bad guy (another bad guy in a movie, can you believe it?) will and should win an Academy Award. It’s one of the best movies of the year and is rightly earning its acclaim and awards.

[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
Oh man. SEE IT. And go see Lars and the Real Girl, if you haven’t. Those two movies combined have convinced me that Ryan Gosling is one of the purest refined talents in the business. His characters have serious problems in both–some subtle and some not-so-subtle–and he nails them perfectly; more impressively, they’re completely different problems that almost completely stand in contrast. His crackhead schoolteacher in Half Nelson can’t find meaning in his life and is oversexed and underloved, popular and socially successful (in his way) but frustrated at his inability to mean something to someone; his delusional hermit in Lars and the Real Girl is overloved and undersexed, disturbing and not completely accepted, yet a little too meaningful to the people of his town. Anyway, Mr. Gosling has range. He could sell snow to Inuits.
[/QUOTE]

I have seen the sweet and endearing Lars and the Real Girl, twice! Loved it! My snarkiness above can’t be brought down here. There has never been another movie about a man who falls in love with a life-sized doll. Not that I know of, anyway. It truly is original. Gosling is one of our best actors. I don’t know how I missed Half-Nelson but I do intend to see it.

[/hijack]

69

I have to know, too. What is “RHPS”?

70

Having missed the context of the original citation, I would need to go with “Rocky Horror Picture Show.”

(A New Year’s Eve tradition at Casa Fidelius.)

71

Equipoise writes:

> . . . It’s a true story . . .

Yes and no. It has, apparently, the usual amount of distortions that any Hollywood film does. The reigning national championship team that they defeated was USC, not Harvard. The match wasn’t broadcast on radio. In the debates shown, the Wiley College team conveniently is always arguing the “correct” position (i.e., the position that is currently popular). This greatly distorts debating, in which a team is expected to be able to debate either side of an argument. The movie also apparently exaggerates the effect of their winning a debate with USC or anyone else. Black colleges couldn’t compete in real debate contests then and certainly not in national championships. They won nothing except an informal match with USC. Their win changed nothing. If I understand correctly, the film has the team being threatened with violence by white citizens of the town for their debating team success. In fact, no racist white would have remotely cared what they were doing. The film has Denzel Washington quoting a 1712 speech. In fact, the speech didn’t actually happen, and the quotation that he gives wasn’t invented till after the time depicted in the movie. And those are just the errors I’ve gathered from a quick look at some reviews.

72

I saw Juno last night and liked it. One thing I did not like was the music. It felt too precious for words. And I hated the opening credits. Just hated.

Susan

73

[QUOTE=Wendell Wagner]
If I understand correctly, the film has the team being threatened with violence by white citizens of the town for their debating team success. In fact, no racist white would have remotely cared what they were doing.
[/QUOTE]

You understand incorrectly. The film is about far more than debating. The violence from the previews is due to

communist and union-organizing activity by sharecroppers and agricultural workers of varying races

Honestly, the debating isn’t even the most important part of it. It’s just a backdrop for a much larger struggle at a very turbulent time in history.

Hostile Dialect, the characters in this film are hardly stereotypes. The characters are what make the movie interesting in the first place. The whole ‘‘we debated Harvard’’ aspect really isn’t all that relevant to me. It had nothing to do with the movie’s value.

74

olivesmarch4th writes:

> Honestly, the debating isn’t even the most important part of it. It’s just a
> backdrop for a much larger struggle at a very turbulent time in history.

Then perhaps the film should have been about that struggle, not about the debate team. The success of the debate team (to the extent that they really were successes, and that’s not clear since the team didn’t officially compete with the white college teams) was basically irrelevant to history. The struggle (and, incidentally, why are you putting the content of the struggle in spoilers? How does knowing that spoil the enjoyment of the film?) was the really important thing going on at the time. I don’t see that the successes of the debate team advanced anything in the U.S. at the time. The economic struggles were much more important. One of the rules of historical change that I’ve formulated is “Intellectuals control nothing.” The debate team plot sounds to me like a sop to intellectuals who want to believe that their theorizing changes something.

75

I do. The only recent exception that comes to mind is Leatherheads, because it’s a completely new take.

I rarely watch any of those three genres, because it’s been my experience that very few of those movies bring anything new to the table. If I spend two hours on a film, I want something I haven’t seen before in return. When a movie comes along that brings a new twist–something like Saving Private Ryan in the war-movie realm–I’ll check it out. I’m not saying nobody should make those movies, I’m saying it’s generally a waste of time from the perspective of what I personally want out of a movie.

I do, and I’m willing to give it a chance based on this recommendation*. Will you put away that R-word of yours now?

  • That doesn’t necessarily mean that I’ll go see it before it goes out of “circulation”–I don’t spend as much time at the movies as you do, and I have other films I want to see first.

That’s what I’m saying. Nor had there been a movie about a crackhead school teacher struggling with the line between rape and consent in his adult relationships and trying to keep his favorite student away from his dealer. Nor had there been a movie about a Mexican-French guy losing his ability to tell dreams from reality in a childhood home that felt foreign while being bandied about by two hot roommates. Nor had there been a serious drama about a New York sex club where a couples counselor and her patients worked through their relationship problems without the thing turning into a porno. There are original ideas out there. Why won’t the major theatre chains take a chance on them outside of New York, LA and Chicago? Because they know what sells, and it’s mostly stale bread.

76

[QUOTE=Wendell]
The struggle (and, incidentally, why are you putting the content of the struggle in spoilers? How does knowing that spoil the enjoyment of the film?) was the really important thing going on at the time.
[/QUOTE]

Because it is a major plot point.

The characters in the film were based on actual people who became very important to the civil rights movement. The Great Debaters is not the best film I have ever seen, and it’s certainly predictable in some respects, but it is not the stereotypical dreck that you and HD assume it is. It is about some brilliant young minds struggling to make sense out of the deep south during the 1930s. I found its characterization to be surprisingly authentic and feel it offered a lot to chew on. I joined this hijack forgetting this was a thread about Juno. I’m going to leave it now and maybe a thread on this particular film will come up in the future.

77

No offense to people, and I’m neither the OP or a moderator, but this is a quite extensive hijack that’s making it hard for me to read points actually related to Juno. Is there anyone willing to create a new thread?

78

I wasn’t claiming that it was dreck, just that it sounded like a typical Hollywood movie that claimed to be dealing with IMPORTANT ISSUES but didn’t mind fuzzing the facts somewhat.

79

Okay. Sorry, Priam, everyone. Back to your regularly scheduled Juno.

I don’t understand the complaint that the movie was too ‘‘clever.’’ What’s so bad about witty dialog? It made the movie more interesting and and enjoyable to watch.

But I’m not a person who expects movies to be realistic. Art isn’t necessarily supposed to reflect reality perfectly–it can be an interpretation of reality, perhaps with distortions to emphasize a particular part of reality. The best movies I have seen (I Heart Huckabees, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Royal Tennenbaums) have a pretty strong disregard for ‘‘reality.’’ I’ve never seen a movie and remarked, ‘‘Well, the characters were just too intelligent/funny/interesting for my taste.’’ That’s sort of what I’m hoping to get out of a movie… intelligent/funny/interesting characters and dialog. So in this regard, I am quite pleased with the outcome.

80

Often movies are sold on the basis of how they are about an important part of recent history. When people point out later that they have numerous distortions, the filmmakers reply, “Well, so what? The story we’ve told is more interesting than the real story.” I think that they should either make an accurate account of the historical event that they portray or they shouldn’t sell their film as being a true story.