Question:
Both are strong contenders for Best Movie of 2004, IMO.

I'll refrain from voting for the moment. Part of me really wants to vote for Garden State, but I'll think it over for a bit.

Choices:
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Garden State

 

I voted for "Garden State", but neither film makes my top ten. "Garden State" is funnier and more real, but stretches things out at the end a little bit at the expense of entertainment. The characters are more likable to me, and its quirkiness seemed less forced. (I've seen it twice.)

"Eternal Sunshine" is well-acted but doesn't even come close to examining what it's supposedly about. Joel and Clementine "love" each other in his brain, but there's no evidence whatsoever that in real life, Clementine won't fly the coop again and that Joel won't go back into deep depression. To me, the film is only about being wild and crazy bookended by "serious" episodes which apparently fool people into thinking they're seeing something profound. It's not a bomb like I thought originally, but it's still maddening that so much originality wasn't fleshed out better. (I've seen it three times, and my wife thinks it's worse than I do.)

Garden State got my vote, in the end.

I agree with most of what you said, mark f.

Garden State, while a decently entertaining first movie from Zach Braff, started somewhere and ended right where it began. If there is any example of "being wild and crazy bookended by 'serious' episodes which apparently fool people into thinking they're seeing something profound" Garden State is a prime contender. Not to say it's bad--I highly enjoyed it, but Zach Braff didnt develop the eccentricities that he brought into the screenplay. Here are three examples of what Im talking about none of which you should read if you havent seen the film


1.) Silent Velcro
2.) Cop who wants his story to become a movie
3.) NATALIE PORTMAN'S EPILEPSY!!

the list could go on

If Braff decided to expand on these three ideas I dont know if he'd make a better film but it, to me, would be much more satisfying.

You can debate the merit of the core love story in "ESOTM" but for the visual genius that is displayed Im gonna have to give my vote in that direction...

If they ever make a sequel, E, they can expand on #3. I don't see how any of them have to do with a 26-year-old male coming of age, dealing with his personal demons (mostly, his family), determining to wake up and make a life rather than being a drugged-out zombie, and committing to another person before the "Me First" theory. The character at the end of the movie is completely different from how he was at the start, but opinions are fine with me. I just wished the final act's seriousness and semi-cliched ending blended better with the film's overall presentation of quirky humor and sympathetic characters.

EccentricSam: I'll agree that Eternal Sunshine is a more impressive film visually (although Garden State certainly had its moments in that regard), but, to me, the interaction between to the two leads in Garden State seemed more believable.

Yes, Garden State did have some loose ends (I was expecting #3 on your list to come into the story at some point), but I had mostly forgotten about them by the end. Sure it was hackneyed, but I was fairly pleased with the ending.

Interestingly, Pitchfork's review of the Garden State OST did include two comments about the movie itself that I sort of agree with. One, the soundtrack is often applied too literally (which is related to the soundtrack, but they could have just reviewed it as a collection of songs). The other being that the ending could have worked as well, if not better, without dialogue.

Oh well, although it was far from perfect, Garden State just worked better overall, in my eyes.

P.S. I'm an "Upwardly Mobile Participant". Yay!

I personally think mark f's comments are completely backwards.

To me, Garden State's 'notebook eccentricities', while usually amusing, felt quite forced. I call them notebook eccentricities because you (or I) could practically see Zach Braff sitting in a diner, scribbling little 'wouldn't it be cool if?' scenarios into his pocket notebook, and then slamming them all together for his first movie, whether they worked in connection to the story or not. While I agree with EccentricSam's points, the only point on his list I felt needed expanding was number three. The absolutely GLARING piece of notebookicity was the wannabe detective adopt-an-African guy. What the?

Let's not forget the other bits of hackney involved in Garden State. When Zach Braff was standing in the rain at the end, prior to yelling into the infinite abyss (a little loud in the symbolism there, to be honest) I honestly thought he was going for some sort of sarcasm. I only realized he wasn't on the ride home. Pretty ridiculous. Not a bad movie at all, but it was quite obviously the man's first effort.

Eternal Sunshine was simply a better, more cohesive whole. As far as Joel and Clementine's undpredictability, that was never the issue. Eternal Sunshine wasn't about getting these kids together again, it was about exploring the psyche and all those little nuances that make up our perception of love. (Yes, that sounded ungodly pretentious. I apologize.)

Mr. McBadass, welcome to the site. Your opinions are valid and a welcome addition. I assume you have some scripts or at least, script ideas, which you are notebooking? One thing to remember is that a script is not a film, and that many films are more than the sum of their parts, while others are less than that sum. I look forward to seeing you around the site.

For me, the choice is simple:

I loved Eternal Sunshine and loathed Garden State. One of the best films of the year versus one of the worst.

I agree with JohnnyBadass for the most part. I thought the movie screamed "look at me, i'm so indie, i'm so quirky." I felt suckered in the end because it left me feeling as if I had just finished watching another chick flick.

As for the characterization. I had a very hard time believing the characters. The guy character(I forget his name) was supposed to be quiet, thoughtful, somber and despondent. Instead, he comes off as being very flat, and at times boring. Natalie Portman, though quite charming in the first scene, is hard to buy into b/c she's a little too quirky, a little too bubbly. Her character had no shape or facets.

I really adored Eternal Sunshine and I agree 100% with what Johnny said about how it is about "exploring the psyche and all those little nuances that make up your perception of love."

Hmm.

I enjoyed both films, but I'd give ESOTSM a slight edge. I don't spend as much time as many of you do analyzing movies, but I'm sure, in retrospect, I could be annoyed by some of the same things you guys are.

To nutshell them, I think ESOTSM is a "big picture" movie trying to take on huge questions of metaphysics, epistemology, and human nature and doing a good job of it, although biting off slightly more than it can chew.

I think GS is a little movie, with some underlying big questions. I think the character development that some of you bemoan was deliberately vague, and I didn't find it unsatisfactory. I know people who are just like the Natalie Portman character...overall quirky and bubbly but covering up for some personal problems. Were there some underdeveloped bits? Sure. Maybe it was a case of "wouldn't it be funny if..." But to me, I saw GS like another little movie favorite of mine, Swingers. Some stuff gets tossed off and left out there, but they're the funny little moments that don't mean much but make me laugh later. Those are the moments in my life (jokes without huge punchlines or buildups) that sometimes make me laugh the hardest.

A movie that screams "I'm so indie" isn't exactly what I would call Garden State... especially considering it was a HUGE release and Zach Braff and Natalie aren't Z-list stars by any stretch. I think that he intended a big budget release, but there is territory that cannot be crossed when you are a first time director. He pulled it together the best he could with his moderate budget and the movie is available wherever movies are sold (not screaming indie, and also a Fox Searchlight release.) It was a nice mellow love-story that was kind of overcalculated...

Eternal Sunshine is of course, crazy. However, I don't dissaprove of it. Some may say that Charlie is to movies what Chad Palahniuk is to books, but there is where I disagree. If you aren't familiar with Chad, he is, as I would describe, over-interested in being off the wall, its a pride of his. I would say that Charlie shares that pride, but doesn't push it as far as he can to be opposite everyone else. The love story is between man and woman and an obvious complication. Where Kaufman goes different is, with his talent of expanding territory, gives it a zaniness that makes exploring peoples minds easy and believable. I mean, could you ever see this far and wide through out the mind of a human without Kaufman? I don't think so... its vivid in its thoughts and great with the intentions. I also think it has a subtle underlying truth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nickel-Z:


Eternal Sunshine is of course, crazy. However, I don't dissaprove of it. Some may say that Charlie is to movies what Chad Palahniuk is to books, but there is where I disagree.

---

I'm guessing you're talking about Chuck ("Fight Club", "Choke") Palahniuk? Or does he go by Chad? I can see the comparison, but it's a pretty broad one. But both are sort of manic and off-kilter in story design.

Oh my god, I feel a blush coming on. You are right, I meant Chuck. I feel really guilty, I just finished Invisible Monster like 3 days ago *smacks head* that is what kind of brought up t he comparison. Really though it was a comparison of how they are both inspired, but generally people that don't like Charlie make him sound so far to the left that the left isnt fun anymore. That made me think of Chucks "Invisible Monster" That was so opposite cliche that I expected everything by just thinking the polar opposite of what you expect from an average book. This of course, isn't like Charlie, and I felt that I should put it out there that he is inspired and keeps it within boundaries therefor making us believe.

ugh, I thought they were both terrible movies... no real plot(s) to speak of and f-ing annoying, whiny characters. for ESSM a mish mash of postmodernism and epistomology does not a good movie make - overly pretentious with annoying characters I didn't care about, a bad ending and stupid subplot. I'd take Chuck Palahniuk any day. And everybody should read "invisible monsters" because it puts kaufman to shame.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hattoori_Hanzo:
ugh, I thought they were both terrible movies... no real plot(s) to speak of and f-ing annoying, whiny characters. for ESSM a mish mash of postmodernism and epistomology does not a good movie make - overly pretentious with annoying characters I didn't care about, a bad ending and stupid subplot. I'd take Chuck Palahniuk any day. And everybody should read "invisible monsters" because it puts kaufman to shame.

---

Sorry, but I can't be bothered properly reading a paragraph which contains so many uses of the words "bad", "terrible", and "stupid". You could really use a thesaurus there, mate.

On a side-note, I remember this thread being on the little sample list of forum topics on Metacritic's main page for something like a week. I feel so proud of my little creation.:joytear:

I'm hoping that this thread will reach two pages in length.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hattoori_Hanzo:
ugh, I thought they were both terrible movies... no real plot(s) to speak of and f-ing annoying, whiny characters. for ESSM a mish mash of postmodernism and epistomology does not a good movie make - overly pretentious with annoying characters I didn't care about, a bad ending and stupid subplot. I'd take Chuck Palahniuk any day. And everybody should read "invisible monsters" because it puts kaufman to shame.

---

Sorry, but I can't be bothered properly reading a paragraph which contains so many uses of the words "bad", "terrible", and "stupid". You could really use a thesaurus there, mate.

---

Not that I agree with Mr. Hanzo's opinions, but he did only use the words "bad", "terrible" and "stupid" once each in his post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kraftdeluxe:

Not that I agree with Mr. Hanzo's opinions, but he did only use the words "bad", "terrible" and "stupid" once each in his post.

---

I could have sworn that I saw at least one of them used twice, but from the looks of things, I was wrong. There were certainly at least two "annoying"s, though.

About the only thing that gets on my nerves in these sorts of discussions is the poorly-written bash posts.

Oh well, I'll admit that I over-reacted a tad.

What mystifies me, is why people can't give an opinion without resorting to bashing someone elses opinion.

I s'pose it's easier to knock someone elses hard won desires, than be open and honest and expose ones own.

quote:

---

Originally posted by burning man:
What mystifies me, is why people can't give an opinion without resorting to bashing someone elses opinion.

I s'pose it's easier to knock someone elses hard won desires, than be open and honest and expose ones own.

---

Nicely said, although I don't begrudge Hattoori_Hanzo's opinion. If he had posted his opinion FIRST, he wouldn't be knocking anyone else's opinion. Sometimes a post reads like an honest disagreement of taste. Other posts, however, seem to be combative or deliberately aimed at a PERSON and not an opinion. I can't say that I thought H_H's post was of that sort...his distaste for both movies is pretty strong, but I don't see him targeting any particular person's opinion. It just happens that he hates two movies that I really liked...oh well. He attempted to offer some reasons WHY he hated these movies, even if they were a little on the vague side...