| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Paddy C |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 11:01:17
Maybe I'm getting cynical in my old age, but I really didn't enjoy this movie. Why should Will Smith get an oscar nod for doing something actors are supposed to do in every film they're in, dammit!! "Hey, look, Will's acting!" Fair play to him, as he does alright, but I reckon this is more of a corrective action on his part rather than anything we should be applauding...  
Meanwhile, brilliant comedic performances, like Aaron Eckhart in 'Thank You for Smoking', and Sacha Baron Cohen in 'Borat' are almost guaranteed to be overlooked by Oscar, due to a blatant and unhealthy derision for movies that make people laugh. The Golden Globes are beginning to seem far more relevant than the Oscars..
Do yourself a favour, and give 'The Pursuit of Happyness' a big fat miss. (and if you're still not sure how I feel about this movie, have a read of the more-than-four-word review..  |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 07/13/2007 : 14:35:06
I think Paddy C's got this exactly right. This is a story about how money = happiness. This movie worked just fine for me until I sat down and thought about it. Why didn't he just get another job instead of still trying to sell those worthless devices? How admirable is it to take an unpaid internship when you have unresolved business with the IRS and a family to feed? The fact is, they slept in a bus station bathroom because that is the choice Will Smith made. And the demonization of the wife character really grates, as she makes perfect and total sense; she IS pulling double shifts at the laundry. Will Smith's character is a complete dick. |
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 07/13/2007 : 11:31:15
Saw this tonight since it's come out on DVD. Just popping to add my 2 cents worth. I have no problem with changing storylines to emphasize situations in films based on true stories. No one advocates that they are documentaries, so that in itself allows for dramatic license.
Personally, I found this film to be inspirational. The emphasis on the importance of being a good and loving father, not to disappear from his son's life, was fulfilling to me.
One has to be in the situation of being nearly broke, looking at homelessness and fighting to keep the basics of live to appreciate Gardner's desire to make things different. Gardner's stipend of $1000 a month sounds fairly good on the surface, but when all the various income taxes, child care, housing, food, transportation, clothing and necessities are considered, it isn't all that much. The problem is that once you get below a certain point in life, it's a Herculean challenge to pull yourself out. The one expense I heard specifically mentioned in the film was the cost of day care - $150 a month. That's fairly huge in 1981.
No, money can't buy happiness, nor does it equal that, but when the constant pressure to meet even basic needs are being met, life does seem much simpler and happier. Not being able to do this becomes the all-consuming demand, so lack of money certainly buys more misery than vice versa. As Silly said "Try telling a poor person that money can't buy happiness."
|
| Conan The Westy |
Posted - 01/19/2007 : 20:56:22
Saw it last night and really enjoyed it (despite the "dramatic improvements"). |
| Montgomery |
Posted - 01/19/2007 : 15:50:58
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
Do you think that he didn't sleep at homeless shelters and sleep at a bus bathroom once?
I'm sure he did, but (i) I've slept in a toilet before from having nowhere else to go and it's not the end of the world and (ii) this did not originate from him being lumbered with scanners he couldn't sell. I'd have to know why he actually was in that situation.
SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!
The article Silly left a link to seems to spell his life out in more detail. He apparently, was trying to make the $1,000 last between daycare costs and diapers and whatever else and trying to save up to have the deposit for an apartment. But, that would have been hard to explain in the movie, so they made it seem like he was completely desitute, rather than explain why he had some money but still stayed in shelters and the bus terminal.
I still think it's a pretty amazing story. And I enjoyed the film. I'm not so upset that the story was changed some. They didn't say, "This is a true story", which is the only time where I think it has to be completely true -- or, in the case of a documentary, where it definitely needs to be true.
It's not like the book "A Million Little Pieces" where the guy presented it like the whole truth and then admitted that he had changed several key parts of it for better drama, etc.
I refused to read that book once I realized great parts of it were really fiction.
EM :) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 01/19/2007 : 09:41:23
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
Do you think that he didn't sleep at homeless shelters and sleep at a bus bathroom once?
I'm sure he did, but (i) I've slept in a toilet before from having nowhere else to go and it's not the end of the world and (ii) this did not originate from him being lumbered with scanners he couldn't sell. I'd have to know why he actually was in that situation. |
| Paddy C |
Posted - 01/19/2007 : 09:06:48
quote:
Originally posted by duh
one of the worst things to do to any child is to rear them in a culture or atmosphere where they aren't encouraged to dream and to believe that there are virtually no limits for those who work hard enough.
Very true. Perhaps not having kids myself meant that I couldn't relate to Happyness as much. I've been defending my stance on this film a lot since writing the (now seemingly controversial!) review and I have to say, there seems to be a big audience for films like Happyness.. i.e. feel-good movies with a positive message relating to family and hard work.
My opinion of Happyness doesn't mean I disagree with the message of the movie, but perhaps in this case, I should defend my right to criticise the messengers! |
| duh |
Posted - 01/19/2007 : 06:33:32
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Westy
Everyone has problems rich or poor, but money can allow people to be miserable more comfortably.
I haven't yet seen the film.
This discussion reminds me of something I was thinking about today. I have so much fun; so many ideas, so excited about doing so many different things that I would need several lifetimes to do them all. The thought occurred to me that one of the worst things to do to any child is to rear them in a culture or atmosphere where they aren't encouraged to dream and to believe that there are virtually no limits for those who work hard enough. |
| Conan The Westy |
Posted - 01/19/2007 : 03:46:25
Someone once told me:
Life is like a shit sandwich, the more bread you have the less shit you eat. (I said a rude word twice - please don't tell mum, Markandlain. ) That said we ALL have to eat it.
Everyone has problems rich or poor, but money can allow people to be miserable more comfortably.
The self-help books preach positive thinking but I remember Zig Ziglar once saying (major paraphrase coming up folks), "Positive thinking won't make Michael Jordan a race-winning jockey but it will make him a better jockey than if he had a negative attitude.
I love the inspiration that can be gained from a story well told but I find that by "improving" on true stories film makers sometimes cheat the viewers or lead them to become cynical when the full truth comes out. Silly's link about the "real" Gardner still provides plenty of inspiration for rags-to-riches without having to re-write his life to lift the drama.
Check out MelissaS's "Real vs Reel-life" accolade for 170 flicks where true stories have been "interpreted". Currently only Randall has it. Just think of the discussions we could have if we went through it - one film per week - like a book club with a new thread each week.   |
| silly |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 22:32:23
I found this interesting article that talks about the real Gardner (and, by association, may spoil some of the film)
I'd be interested to read the book when it comes out.
Try telling a poor person that money can't buy happiness... 
Edit to add (after reading the entire article): this sounds closer to the movie in some ways than the IMDB snippets posted by users; however, I can also see why they had to edit some things to make the timeline fit. Otherwise, it would have made a decent miniseries, trying to explain all of this in movie format.
quote:
Gardner doesn't see his as a rags-to-riches story. What he hopes people come away with is that life is full of possibility if you put your heart into it and don't give up.
On his earlier trips to the city once he'd made it, Gardner would book a room at the Hyatt with a view of Union Square so he could see where he and his son had camped out on the grass and benches. This time, he's at the Fairmont Hotel.
"Those were the darkest days of my life,'' he says. "I'm ready to let it go."
|
| Montgomery |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 21:02:37
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I still think everything that I thought previously; I especially think that the changes from the real story are highly significant - many people today live on less than he was living on then, so they changed things to make us feel sympathy for a character who didn't need it even at his poorest. It is always a negative thing when films veer from the truth; sometimes the benefits outweigh this but not this time.
Do you think that he didn't sleep at homeless shelters and sleep at a bus bathroom once? Maybe not the whole time that he was in the internship, since you found out that he got a stipend, but maybe he did before he got into the internship program. I liked the story. I thought it was well acted. Oscar Worthy? Maybe not. But, there are a lot of far worse performances that have gotten nominations in the past, so I wouldn't take offense if Will gets nominated for this in the Oscars. It has the advantage of coming out late in the year, so it is fresh in the nomination committee's short term memories.
I think they had to veer from the truth, if the real guy got that much money, because, you're right, it probably wasn't as dire as the movie portrayed. And, therefore, wouldn't have been quite so interesting.
Has anyone read "Nickel and Dimed in America". A good study (although just one person for a few months each job) of just how hard it is to make it on minimum wage here in the good old U.S. of A.
EM :) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 19:13:55
I still think everything that I thought previously; I especially think that the changes from the real story are highly significant - many people today live on less than he was living on then, so they changed things to make us feel sympathy for a character who didn't need it even at his poorest. It is always a negative thing when films veer from the truth; sometimes the benefits outweigh this but not this time. |
| Paddy C |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 18:33:18
quote:
Originally posted by Montgomery
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy C
Couldn't agree with you more on 'Happyness'. There are thousands of books written by successful people, preaching about how all you need to do is stay positive, create your own opportunities, all that self-righteous revisionism of their own path to success, which, as you say, involves luck as well as ability.. also, the majority of people don't enjoy multi-million dollar success.. But this fact does not make good movies, apparently... I would have preferred Happyness if the main character had found self-respect through living his life, rather than simply pursuing cash money dollars.
Okay, I take issue with a few of the comments on this thread, not just Paddy's, but I don't know how to get multiple quotes in my thread, so I'm just going to respond to his.
I agree with a lot of what you say Monty, like the fact that in parts it's a sweet movie, about a man dedicated to his son, and has good performances from Messrs Smith.
Re Will Smith, I don't think the bar is lower for him, but I do think he could challenge himself a little more than playing a working father, and starring opposite his own son to boot. He does a good everyman though.
Re the economic aspect, I'll try and defend my previous comment somehow! It's very clear from the film that poor = unhappy. The stockbrokers are happy, and so are the fund managers. Why does Gardner conclude that they're happy? ... because they have fulfilling jobs? It's possible that's this is true, but I'd be more likely to believe it if he was looking at a group of architects, or teachers for example. Stockbrokers, especially in the 80's, made a whole lot of money. Gardner had zero cash and was a smart guy, so he made the connection. The scene in the movie where he stands outside Dean Witter thinking to himself "they all look so happy", is hogwash for me. A more accurate thought would be "they all have such nice watches", and that's not an Oscar-worthy sentiment. To make my point, this sentiment is the turning-point in the movie, describing the character's main motivation... and I didn't go for it. This is pretty much the nub of why the movie rankled with me. (I am getting cynical amn't i!)
I'm not sure I disagree with you entirely Monty, but for me the best parts of this movie weren't the story, the characters, or the message, it was the relationship between father and son. I do think Smith was good, but I certainly don't think he deserves an oscar for what i saw as a capable enough acting job in a movie that, to me at least, that felt like an air-brushed, hollywood revision of events.
My final final problem with the movie is that it is as thinly diguised a star 'vehicle' as i've ever seen.
end of rant!!  |
| Montgomery |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 17:19:41
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy C
Couldn't agree with you more on 'Happyness'. There are thousands of books written by successful people, preaching about how all you need to do is stay positive, create your own opportunities, all that self-righteous revisionism of their own path to success, which, as you say, involves luck as well as ability.. also, the majority of people don't enjoy multi-million dollar success.. But this fact does not make good movies, apparently... I would have preferred Happyness if the main character had found self-respect through living his life, rather than simply pursuing cash money dollars.
Okay, I take issue with a few of the comments on this thread, not just Paddy's, but I don't know how to get multiple quotes in my thread, so I'm just going to respond to his.
First, I saw this movie. I did think that Will Smith did a nice job. His performance was understated at times, jubliant when it needed to be. Real. He made me feel for this character. Is the bar lower for him, since he started as the Fresh Prince? Maybe. Not sure. But, I did think he did a very nice job with this role.
Secondly, The movie is based on a true story, so to say, "I would have preferred Happyness if the main character had found self-respect through living his life, rather than simply pursuing cash money dollars." Okay. But, that's not what happened. He did live his life, but his life story included that he made a lot of money and was very successful eventually. You'll notice, that was just a mention at the end, though. The movie focused on his struggle to just get by.
Third. I didn't get from the movie that rich = happy. He noticed that the people going to that job were happy. (Is that a stretch that stockbrokers would be happy? Maybe.) But, something caught his eye and he got into what that career was all about. He was good with numbers. Obviously a good people person. Talked a good game. And was willing to work for what he wanted. I think it's more a statement about doing what is right for you and not giving up. He happened to get really rich. Okay. Fine. That's not the only story there.
In fact, I thought it was a very sweet story about a Dad's dedication to his son. That was the bigger story for me.
SPOILER TO COME. SORRY DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO INVISIBLE TYPE.
If you want to pick on something that's unbelieveable in the movie, how about those machines he was selling, getting stolen and then showing up right when he needs them again to sell them. That was a big, big stretch. I'm sure that wasn't exactly how that happened. In fact, you found out he did get some money during his internship. Whatever. They left that out to make it more dramatic. I can forgive. They said "based on a true story", so that gives them the license.
I would tell people that this was a sweet movie with good performances. I don't think Will will win for his role, but being nominated, I think that isn't completely unreasonable. He did a nice job.
I liked the movie.
EM :) |
| demonic |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 14:44:01
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy C
Cate Blanchett was unbelievably good in the Aviator though, and that movie changed my opinion of DiCaprio too.
I will NOT watch that film. All the clips I saw of Blanchett playing Katharine Hepburn showed me that they got her ALL wrong. They made her into a cheap, party-girl, fame-chaser and she was NEVER that at all. Hollywood did Hepburn a huge disservice by portraying her that way and she deserves far, far better treatment than that.
I think you're missing out CL - it's a brilliant multi-faceted performance by the best actress of her generation, and a very worthy Oscar winner. Bear in mind that the clips you saw of the film were probably chosen by advertising executives trying to sell the film and not particularly representative of the finished product - Hepburn doesn't come across the way you supposed at all. In fact she's seen as the only true friend and perhaps love of Hughes' entire life. Also if you know Blanchett's work at all, you know that she's not the kind of performer who'd disrespect the character she's playing in any way. I'd recommend it very highly. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 13:38:29
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
I happen to know of the broker Marc Rich
Seems like a piece of work. |
|
|
