I knew people were going to like this movie, I just didn't realize that much!

I can't necessarily explain it, but Alexander Payne's last flck was "About Schmidt", (maybe I'm spacing out),and I give that about a 63. "Election", I probably give a 70.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mark f,

I never saw "Election" but I thought that "About Schmidt" was a very good character study and Jack Nicholson, who is in my opinion, one of the greatest actors EVER, did an excellent job.

I dont know if it deserved an 86, but probably like a 75-80.

But 94 for Sideways!! That puts it almost in the top 10 highest scoring movies on Metacritic, which by the way needs to be updated to include it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark f:
I can't necessarily explain it, but Alexander Payne's last flck was "About Schmidt", (maybe I'm spacing out),and I give that about a 63. "Election", I probably give a 75!

---

MARK! you of all people I expected to love the magnifecent film "About Schmidt". Funny..poignant...true to life..."Schmidt" is the best thing Payne has ever done (not seen "Sideways" though...

Concerning "About Schmidt", I agree that there was a lot to like, but at two hours, it just seemed about a half-hour too long. Also, I want to say that I believe a 70 is a GOOD film. I rarely give anything over an 80 (EXCELLENT). I only give two films ever made 100.

Concerning Payne's other film, "Citizen Ruth" with Laura Dern, I'd give that a 60, and to be actually honest, I don't give "Election" over a 70.

Whoa there is an identical post in the "Best of 2004" board. Mark, why dont you move this thread down there for this was posted a day AFTER that one.


Damn I wish I was a moderator!

We are in the process of trying to work out the bugs so moderators can combine threads, but so far it's a no-go. If I move this thread down there, it will still be a different thread. I can move a thread to a more appropriate topic, but not combine threads yet. I was aware of the other thread, but I'm waiting to see if I get the permissions before I tinker with them. Apparently, if I get the permission to do that, it gives me lots of other permissions which I or My Evil Twin maybe shouldn't have.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eccentro:
Whoa there is an identical post in the "Best of 2004" board. Mark, why dont you move this thread down there for this was posted a day AFTER that one.

---

Sorry,

Thats my fault for not checking first. I'll be more careful next time.

Well, I just saw it and well...it certainly didn't deserve a 92. I could definately tell that it was Alexander Payne, the way he makes his movies seem like he just too a piece of real life and made a movie of it.

But it just wasn't meaningful to me. The characters weren't likeable, the acting was pretty good but not great, and it only had a few funny parts.

I definately thought that "About Schmidt" was better. At least Jack Nicholson's character was likeable and very well portrayed.

"Sideways" was still the same kind of story that made you feel a little depressed at the end, but just wasn't as enjoyable to watch. And there was so many scenes loaded with tons of boring information about wine that only a true wine lover would really care about.

To quote Salon.com, "Sideways makes you feel like you're trapped at dinner with a wiseass who's trying to convince you what a sensitive guy he is."

Despite all this, the movie had its share of good things. It was very believable and realistic, the dialogue was well written, the music was nice, and I'm sure it will recieve some oscars, but it really did not meet myexpectations and did not seem worthy of a 92. I'd say more of a 70 or so.

I saw Sideways yesterday afternoon and thought it excellent, though perhaps a bit overlong.

I really enjoy Payne's dialogue, he sets up shots in a subtly beautiful manner, and may be one of the few filmakers I know right now who actually has an idea of how to work with a composer to create a score that accents a film rather than bullying the audience.

I'm a bit surprised at the criticisms of the film's focus on wine and wine culture. There is a really lovely scene featuring Paul Giamatti waxing rhapsodic about Pinot. Up until that point in the film, there was little to recommend his character beyond an entertainly twitchy individual. His monologue, though, revealed a poet's soul buried in a frightened, beaten man and made him much more engaging.

As I mentioned, it is perhaps a bit overlong and there are a few scenes that might have been trimmed or lost altogether, but the extensive dialogue on wine is a really great metaphor and doesn't fall into that category.

Now Playing: The Chargers up 10-3 on the Colts in the 2nd quarter

I haven't seen Sideways, but I thought I'd post here because I just read an interview with Paul Giamatti and I found out that his late father was former MLB commissioner and former Yale prof Bart Giamatti. Was I the only person in the world who DIDN'T know this???

quote:

---

Originally posted by philosopherEric:
I haven't seen Sideways, but I thought I'd post here because I just read an interview with Paul Giamatti and I found out that his late father was former MLB commissioner and former Yale prof Bart Giamatti. Was I the only person in the world who DIDN'T know this???

---

Yeah, I think your'e the only one. Seriously, though, his brother is also on Judging Amy -- a show I don't watch, but know of. Sideways is a fantastic flick. It captures a certain emotional state so perfectly, that only those who haven't been there won't be able to appreciate it. Great stuff.

Sideways is by far the funniest movie of 2004. I think Eternal Sunshine is the more creative, well-rounded movie, but Sideways was phenomenal. I'll be satisfied so long as one of those two movies wins it this year...

I just saw Sideways and thought it was fantastic. The characters and dialogue were just so real. I'm still laughing at the wallett recovery scene.

William H Macy needs to call his agent, because Paul Giamatti is challenging him for the title of Best Actor who specialises in playing losers.

There are a few reasons why I really disliked this film.

First of all, everyone likes it which makes me dislike it more. It has one by far the largest about of best film awards from various reviewers and might win best picture from the Academy.

Second, the film's characters were selfish, snobby and rude. The main character, played by Paul Giamatti is an overall, shall I say, loser. He is hated by girls, upsessed with wine for no particular reason and is just a selfish idiot who steels from his mother.

Third, the supporting character, played by Thomas Haden Church is a snob. He cares only, and I mean only about sex. He cheats on his fiance and is happy in doing so. And is an overall stupid and totally shallow person.

Fourth, this movie was centered and solely based on wine. I understand this could be for metaphorical purposes but it didnt seem like that. I wasnt sure how they were comparing this to life or whatever Alexander Payne was trying to get across.

Fifth, what was the plot, seriously? Was it a character study, why would you want to study those characters? Going on a trip to wine country as to drink constant wine and cheat one your fiance? That was pretty much it. Maybe reviewers like this film because they feel some sort of relation to the characters, but I do not feel this at all.

I am very dissapointed, as well as many of my friends are, about this movie. I saw the acclaim and was hoping for something. I loved About Schmidt which had a meaning, a purpose, but Sideways, had nothing.

I really would like to know what everyone sees in this movie.