| Author |
 Topic  |
|
turrell 
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
 Posted - 12/11/2006 : 17:36:32
|
Anyone seen this one yet - Stars Kate Winslet. I don't want to dissuade anyone from this film with a review, but since this movie has received a lot of good reviews and I had several problems with it, I was curious if anyone had a frame of reference that could help me understand why they thin kit is good.
Kate Winslet is very good in this role, there are some interesting things about the film, but for me ultimately it failed. |
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 12/11/2006 : 18:11:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
Anyone seen this one yet - Stars Kate Winslet. I don't want to dissuade anyone from this film with a review, but since this movie has received a lot of good reviews and I had several problems with it, I was curious if anyone had a frame of reference that could help me understand why they thin kit is good.
Kate Winslet is very good in this role, there are some interesting things about the film, but for me ultimately it failed.
For what it's worth, it's included in my BAFTA reviews thread.
|
 |
|
|
demonic 
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 04:31:12
|
| I found it extremely disappointing too, particularly following the great reviews. I thought it all began wonderfully, but my imagination constructed four or five better films before the end, none of them as unsatifying or flawed as the real one. I thought all the acting on the whole was top notch, I was just totally unconvinced by the premise. Mind you I was disappointed by "in the Bedroom" as well so I guess I'm never going to be a Todd Field fan, no matter what the critics say. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 07:24:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
I found it extremely disappointing too, particularly following the great reviews. I thought it all began wonderfully, but my imagination constructed four or five better films before the end, none of them as unsatifying or flawed as the real one. I thought all the acting on the whole was top notch, I was just totally unconvinced by the premise. Mind you I was disappointed by "in the Bedroom" as well so I guess I'm never going to be a Todd Field fan, no matter what the critics say.
Oh! So this is a Todd Field film. I found "In the Bedroom" to be terribly disappointing. There was, however, a sequence of shots in that movie which I found to be marvelous. It's when the parents are in mourning and they're attempting to go about their daily business. Beautifully done, that sequence. Unfortunately, Field blew it with the metaphore, didn't use it properly and the film dragged and had an unrealistic ending.
If he did "Little Children", perhaps I should avoid it. |
|
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 07:32:32
|
I'm so glad you also found In the Bedroom disappointing - I found kit to be too much one note and a dreary one at that. In this film, I felt like the voice over was hastily added late in the process and really didn't fit the film. It felt grueling to sit through this movie and SPOILER alert below:
If Kate's character wanted to leave she should have, her emotional connection with her daughter was minimal so she had no real obstacles - I generally don't like films that deal with infidelity especially when there are obvious alternatives. |
Edited by - turrell on 12/12/2006 07:33:20 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 09:30:05
|
Spoiler continued...
I enjoyed it, but I agree that it did fall a bit flat. However, I think this what partly from its being an adaptation � I wonder whether the novel follows the different characters, such as the paedophile, more evenly. The film then couldn't decide whether or not to stick with just the main two characters.
With regard to Winslet's character staying, it wasn't presented that convincingly, but nevertheless it is a convincing enough context. Although she seems detached from the daughter, it is clear that the daughter still loves her, but also would not want to be torn from her home and father. Thus the mother feels her rightful responsibility towards her, and I think her love is also supposed to be awoken at the end. (All this was also nicely paralleled by the paedophile's devoted mother, who always does her best for him despite not being completely blind to his faults).
Have you noticed how Kate Winslet, despite being quite beautiful, is often supposed to be the relatively unattractive one in films? It's like Hollywood is saying it's O.K. for a woman to be plain - but not O.K. enough to feature actually plain women! |
|
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 12/12/2006 : 15:10:03
|
| Yeah - I'd have to believe Jennifer Connoly's part was cut down because she had basically a nothing role. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 12/14/2006 : 22:57:11
|
Yeah, I tried to start a thread on this flick a couple months ago when I saw it at NYFF. [So long ago that my original thread's not even active any more.]
I thought it was sublime, and if Jackie Earle Haley is overlooked come plaudit time, it will be an egregious oversight.
EDIT: For production fans, there's a wonderful sequence, which might have been a montage in a lesser movie, showing a couple meeting at a public swimming pool over a span of time. It's portrayed as one continuous shot. |
Edited by - randall on 12/14/2006 22:58:55 |
|
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 12/15/2006 : 00:18:19
|
| Randall - I assume you really liked "In the Bedroom"? |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 12/15/2006 : 00:56:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
Randall - I assume you really liked "In the Bedroom"?
STJI: Hi Turrell [I know, I'm NOT Randall  ], but anyway -- it's not obligatory to like one film by a director and if you dislike another. I thought In the Bedroom pushed the bounds of pretentiousness and, despite some lovely performances, especially by Spacek, was Bor-ing! But, flawed as it was, Little Children is a far more layered and brave film. It doesn't ask you to like the characters -- how could you? -- but it does, I think, allow a glimpse of the way so-called ordinary lives become affected by both repression and indulgence. It's the diffusion of focus that makes it fail, for me, as a cohesive piece of work.
|
|
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 12/15/2006 : 01:20:53
|
The reason I asked was I didn't like Little Children and I didn't know until later that Todd Field directed it and then it was a light bulb going off. I agree with you to a degree - I hated In the Bedroom and mildly disliked Little Children, but there is a one note tone to both films that make them Todd Field films. I wondered at the time why so many people thought In The Bedrrom was so great and the only thing I can think of is it is serious and the acxtors portray misery well, but there is a lack of dynamics in both films in my opinion. I thought this film was boring too, it dragged, it didn't have much to say and the main character was so flawed (she had no Earthly reason to stay in her marriage so why should we care whether she leaves or not or gets caught, etc.)
I think style-wise they are very similiar and I would guess that Randall would have liked ITB given his comments on this film. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 12/15/2006 : 12:17:00
|
Well, I am Randall, and I preferred LITTLE CHILDREN to BEDROOM, though the performances in the latter are certainly laudable. [Maybe it helps that Field himself is an actor -- that's him as the piano player in EYES WIDE SHUT -- and perhaps he knows what actors need to hear.] I think it's possible to like or dislike different films by the same director or screenwriter; don't you have a favorite Robert Altman or two, and don't you just hate some others? [I have no idea which particular movies would be in which category for you, but I still believe my statement is true for just about everyone.]
Don't read any further if you haven't yet seen LITTLE CHILDREN and think you would like to.
There was nobody to root for in LITTLE CHILDREN because virtually everyone was letting go that childhood id which most of us learn to repress [without which repression we'd have pretty much an anarchic society; see Jerome Bixby's much-adapted story "It's a Good Life"]. This is unattractive, even in basically decent people, and only tolerated in children because we understand their lack of development and automatically cut them a little more slack than adults get. What we needed -- and what we got -- was a catharsis in the major characters, a reaffirmation of the id-dampening fact that actions have consequences. Knee-jerk hatred of the pedophile and its resultant vandalism -- repulsive as he was, but was he really a victim too? -- is wrong and can be overcome. The couple in the foolish affair could come to their senses. The skateboard accident could knock out the silly youth-wish that's hampering the lawyer wannabe. [Or is it the law part that's really hampering him?] Etc etc etc. That to me is a satisfying narrative. Regarding pace, the story is indeed told at human speed, but I don't understand how anyone could find the last twenty minutes slow.
The characters each lazily descend into childlike behavior because they're guided: the Internet porn-loving husband and the other couple's distant, self-absorbed wife add up to an affair which begins almost imperceptibly [Field's one-shot summer, which I referenced above, is a master stroke], as I would imagine most of them do. God knows what the pedophile had to endure from his father. And on and on.
Once again, standout performances. Kate Winslet makes it look easy; it's not. [I fully agree with whoever said that the movie version of "plainness" would be absolute walking-into-lampposts hotness in real life.] Haley, as I said before, is award-worthy. I actually did not know it was he until I saw the title card at the end.
I can certainly understand why LITTLE CHILDREN might not be everybody's cuppa. For me, though, it was the highlight of the 2006 NYFF. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 12/15/2006 : 14:11:51
|
By the way, here is my original post in my former topic, the next day after seeing the movie, October 2, 2006:
I saw Todd Field's magnificent new movie yesterday afternoon at the New York Film Festival. I can't recommend it enough. You'll probably forget this by the time it appears in theaters, but Jackie Earle Haley [yes, the guy from BREAKING AWAY] is so stunning -- and has so changed his appearance since then -- that I actually didn't realize it was he until his card appeared after the feature. He is almost certain to receive a supporting Oscar nomination. The rest of the cast is equally superb. This movie is a satirical melodrama. It will make you laugh, gasp, claw your armrest in tension, and break your heart, all in two hours and change. What a terrific job by everyone involved.
When it appears on fwfr, LITTLE CHILDREN will get as many stars as there are from me.
EDIT: It opens in New York and LA this Friday. MguyX, cool, other Left Coasters: get your butts in there asap.
--------
Mid-December 2006 edit:
The first noms were the Golden Globes, and LITTLE CHILDREN was nominated for Best Picture - Drama, Best Actress - Drama [Winslet], and Best Screenplay. As you can see above, I thought Jackie Earle Haley should have been there too, but Best Supporting Actor - Drama included such heavy competition as Eddie Murphy from DREAMGIRLS, Ben Affleck in HOLLYWOODLAND [support?!], and Jack Nicholson in THE DEPARTED. At the very least, though, these nominations keep LITTLE CHILDREN on the radar for Oscars. |
Edited by - randall on 12/15/2006 14:23:38 |
|
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 12/15/2006 : 17:27:50
|
| Well said, Randall - as I said I know a lot of people love this film and this helps explain why. |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 12/15/2006 : 18:12:13
|
One more thought that just occurred to me that I thought of in the cinema - did it feel like an extended episode of "Desperate Housewives" to anyone else? I couldn't shake the feeling, especially with the slightly patronising tone of the narration and the opening sequence of the dull housewives spying on the hot man in the park (even with red, blone and brunette stereotypes!)
Randall: I agree up to a point about Haley; I've never seen him in anything else so I had no benchmark on his usual performance, but he did a good job. What ruined it for me was he looked for all the world like you'd expect a convicted child molester to look like. How much braver would it have been to make him more "normal", just as Salopian pointed out the same way Winslet, or another actress playing her part could have been plainer, and realer. I actually thought the best performance in the film came from Patrick Wilson, who looked exactly right, playing it pitch perfect and his character's motivations made the most sense, even when they were unusual. Apart from the final sequence that is - where everyone's characters behaved completely irrationally - Wilson, Winslet and Haley. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 12/15/2006 : 18:28:10
|
Turrell, thank you. And believe me, I respect your opinion too. It's just that I suffer through so many lousy movies [as a regular festivalgoer, I've seen more than my share, trust me on this] that I'm almost giddy whenever I get the chance to enthuse. I'll bet you and I agree on more flicks than we disagree.
Demon, the narrator prickled at times, absolutely, and Kate was definitely a desperate housewife. Re Haley: perhaps you need the context of his earlier performances to be fully blown away. Maybe that context made his performance more special for me than it really is: who knows? It's just that this was an actor familiar to me who busted his resume in two on this one. Roger Ebert wrote that he didn't realize it was Charlize Theron in MONSTER until the credits rolled. Same here. Rent BREAKING AWAY -- a fine film in its own right -- and prepare to be dazzled as you think about his performance in this one. |
Edited by - randall on 12/15/2006 18:44:34 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Little Children
