|
|
Post by london777 on Apr 11, 2017 4:02:09 GMT
I love this little film. I do not know of another quite like it, though if you think Jim Jarmusch or Terry Zwigoff's "Ghost World" (2001) you are in the right ballpark. Knowing that it was directed by Shari Springer Berman will not help you much, as she has since directed movies as wildly different as The Nanny Diaries (2007) and Cinema Verite (2011). (I would like to see her documentary Wanderlust [2006] on the history of Road Movies).
Being English, I had never heard of Harvey Pekar (and I do not know how well-known he is in the US. Maybe already forgotten?) But that did not affect my enjoyment of the film. There are two and a half reasons that I love it.
Firstly, there is the fine performance by Paul Giamatti, stalwart support actor in around a hundred movies and star of Sideways (2004) good and Lady in the Water (2006) rubbish. He really enjoys himself here and one of the funniest parts is when he and a crew member are cracking up watching the "real" people doing their stuff for the cameras.
Secondly is the interweaving of three realities. Pekar and his cronies appear live but are also impersonated by Giammati and professional actors, as well as being shown as comic book cartoon characters. The film constantly switches between these layers and sometimes splices them, as mentioned above. Pekar's comic books were about boring, very ordinary people but made fascinating here. This was my second fine film in two evenings to turn tedium into great entertainment (see my comments on Das Boot). I also like movies that show how life generates art, whether Shakespeare in Love or Lust for Life.
The half reason is the title song by Eytan Mirsky, a humble ditty, but very moving in context and a foreshadowing of the rise of Trump and Sanders.
Hope Davis is typecast as a bossy bitch again, but her lines are more conventional and the film loses momentum when Giamatti is not center-stage, grimacing with frustration or grinning with sardonic humor.
There is a good line in The Earrings of Madame de .... (1953). The husband says that his and his wife's relationship is "only superficially superficial". The same applies to American Splendor. It may seem just a quirky humorous biopic of a comic-book writer but, set in the desolate wasteland of Cleveland, it is a moving comment on the millions of hopeless lives who caused a political upheaval last year.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Apr 11, 2017 5:44:39 GMT
I love this little film. I do not know of another quite like it, though if you think Jim Jarmusch or Terry Zwigoff's "Ghost World" (2001) you are in the right ballpark. Knowing that it was directed by Shari Springer Berman will not help you much, as she has since directed movies as wildly different as The Nanny Diaries (2007) and Cinema Verite. I would like to see her documentary Wanderlust (2006) on the history of Road Movies. Being English, I had never heard of Harvey Pekar (and I do not know how well-known he is in the US. Maybe already forgotten?) But that did not affect my enjoyment of the film. There are two and a half reasons that I love it. Firstly, there is the fine performance by Paul Giamatti, stalwart support actor in close on a hundred movies and star of Sideways (2004) good and Lady in the Water (2006) rubbish. He really enjoys himself here and one of the funniest parts is when he and a crew member are cracking up watching the "real" people doing their stuff for the cameras. Secondly is the interweaving of three realities. Pekar and his cronies appear live but are also impersonated by Giammati and professional actors, as well as being shown as comic book cartoon characters. The film constantly switches between these layers and sometimes splices them, as mentioned above. Pekar's comic books were about boring, very ordinary people but made fascinating here. This was my second fine film in two evenings to turn tedium into great entertainment (see my comments on Das Boot). I like movies that show how life generates art, whether Shakespeare in Love or Lust for Life. The half reason is the title song by Eytan Mirsky, a humble ditty, but very moving in context and a foreshadowing of the rise of Trump and Sanders. Hope Davis is typecast as a bossy bitch again, but her lines are more conventional and the film loses momentum when Giamatti is not center-stage, grimacing with anger or grinning with sardonic humor. There is a good line in The Earrings of Madame de .... (1953). The husband says that his and his wife's relationship is "only superficially superficial". The same applies to American Glory. It may seem just a quirky humorous biopic of a comic-book writer but, set in the desolate wasteland of Cleveland, it is a moving comment on the millions of hopeless lives who caused a political upheaval last year. While I am glad to see someone on this board talking about a relatively recent film London777, I shall watch with interest to see if the admin move your thread to another location - which is what they did when I started a thread about how sad and hideous Faye Dunaway (an elderly actress and former star with roots reaching back into the classic era) now looks after multiple botched plastic surgeries. I feel the modern cinematic era and the classic era are linked and think this board will die if we are not allowed to talk about movies in general as opposed to stuff that the majority of posters only ever saw on television when they were kids and the moldy oldies they watch on You Tube these days. Going off on a somewhat related tangent, AMERICAN SPLENDOR is one of the few post-1970 American films I haven't seen yet, but (seeing as you brought it up) I love GHOST WORLD, and BAD SANTA is both a gloriously tasteless blast of comedy fresh air and one of the great Christmas movies. Of course, Zwigoff's superb documentary CRUMB is my favorite of his films (ART SCHOOL CONFIDENTIAL is worth a watch, but it's ultimately rather ordinary). I'm a massive fan of Jim Jarmusch, with the wonderful PATERSON being one of my very favorite films of 2016. Also love his BROKEN FLOWERS, GHOST DOG: WAY OF THE SAMURAI, DEAD MAN and DOWN BY LAW. I do have an interest in maybe one day seeing AMERICAN SPLENDOR, but Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini's THE NANNY DIARIES is a mediocre family film at best. I did enjoy their Ethan Hawke, Haillee Steinfeld, Asa Butterfield-starring 2015 Indie drama 10,0000 SAINTS, though. And I kinda liked their Kristen Wiig/Annette Bening-starring comedy GIRL MOST LIKELY - which is enlivened by a hilarious, deliciously demented supporting turn from Matt Dillon (as The The Bousche). |
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Apr 11, 2017 13:06:58 GMT
While I am glad to see someone on this board talking about a relatively recent film, London777, I shall watch with interest to see if the admin move your thread to another location ... I feel the modern cinematic era and the classic era are linked and think this board will die if we are not allowed to talk about movies in general ...My first-ever post here two months ago was to politely ask for a definition of "classic". As a newbie I did not want to cause offence by posting in the wrong section. I received firstly a smart-ass reply from one of the regular posters for daring to ask the question (a nice welcome to the board), followed by a load of sometimes thoughtful but mutually contradictory opinions. The consensus seemed to be that a "classic" is anything we posters want it to be. If that is not so, then admin needs to grow a pair and post a definition. Personally, pre-1980 looks good to me. I see this board a bit like one of those post-apocalyptic movies. We have the grave, white-robed senators in the Classic section calmly discussing what we consider to be "serious" movies, which can be anything from James Cagney to some Albanian documentary on harvesting machines, while the rest of the board is infested with the slobbering, knuckle-dragging proles endlessly re-rating their Michael Bay favorites. I do not care what the definition of "classic" is so long as it keeps them from swarming into our small bastion of literacy and reason. I love GHOST WORLD, and BAD SANTA is both a gloriously tasteless blast of comedy fresh air and one of the great Christmas movies.Agreed but it has to be the unrated version of the latter, sometimes called Badder Santa. I shall not watch the sequel. Of course, Zwigoff's superb documentary CRUMB is my favorite of his films.Crumb features prominently in American Splendor. I'm a massive fan of Jim Jarmusch, with the wonderful PATERSON being one of my very favorite films of 2016. Also love his BROKEN FLOWERS, GHOST DOG: WAY OF THE SAMURAI, DEAD MAN and DOWN BY LAW.Agreed on all these. I do have an interest in maybe one day seeing AMERICAN SPLENDOR, but Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini's THE NANNY DIARIES is a mediocre family film at best.Which as why seeing Berman's name on the lid, gives us little idea what we are going to find inside the can. |
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Apr 11, 2017 17:14:46 GMT
Having posted that I have just noticed that, in the sub-header for the Classic Film section, the board says: Discuss great old films from silent to noir and everything in between.If that means chronologically, it rules out 90% of the films being discussed in this section and is absurdly over-restrictive. Why say it, if they are not going to enforce it? If it does not mean chronologically, then I do not know what it is supposed to mean. |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Apr 11, 2017 19:05:05 GMT
I love this movie. It was very creative. And Paul Giammati was great in it. But isn't it too recent to be in the classic section?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lebowskidoo 🎄😷🎄 on Apr 11, 2017 20:58:17 GMT
I bought this movie right away back in 2003, having read about it in Wizard magazine or somewhere. Made my friend watch it with me, I loved it, she didn't and questioned my taste! This, from a former production assistant on bad TV movies!
Glad to see it here amongst the "classics." Giamatti was great in it, I believe the real Harvey passed away, R.I.P.
|
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Apr 11, 2017 21:34:33 GMT
But isn't it too recent to be in the classic section? See my post preceding yours. When I asked what is the cut-off date, the consensus was that there isn't one and films can be grandfathered in as "modern classics". Don't ask me, I just post here. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Apr 12, 2017 8:42:24 GMT
My first-ever post here two months ago was to politely ask for a definition of "classic". As a newbie I did not want to cause offence by posting in the wrong section. I received firstly a smart-ass reply from one of the regular posters for daring to ask the question (a nice welcome to the board), followed by a load of sometimes thoughtful but mutually contradictory opinions. The consensus seemed to be that a "classic" is anything we posters want it to be. If that is not so, then admin needs to grow a pair and post a definition. Personally, pre-1980 looks good to me. Among the films I have re-watched (i.e. seen them on Blu Ray for the first time) recently are COOL HAND LUKE (1967), THE SEARCHERS (1956), RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY (1962), PHILADELPHIA (1993), 12 YEARS A SLAVE (2013) and MANCHESTER BY THE SEA (2016). I also re-watched a digitally remastered print of THE PARALLAX VIEW (1974) on Netflix. In my humble opinion all of these films are classics. I should imagine many posters here will disagree with me on 12 YEARS A SLAVE and MANCHESTER BY THE SEA because they are such recent films, but having seen somewhere between 12 and 13 000 feature films (including films from the 1920's to the present day) in my life and having watched both 12 YEARS A SLAVE (cinema/dvd/Blu Ray) and MANCHESTER BY THE SEA (cinema/V.O.D./Blu Ray) three times each - as well as having seen all the previous films from their directors Steve McQueen and Kenneth Lonergan, I firmly believe these fine films will stand the test of time. I also re-watched a crisp,fine- looking print of the 1948 Barbara Stanwyck/Burt Lancaster-starring, Anatole Litvak-directed thriller SORRY, WRONG NUMBER. While I'm a big fan of both Babs and Burt and SORRY, WRONG NUMBER is not without merit or entertainment value, it is badly dated, does not deserve multiply viewings, and is definitely no classic. However, on the IMDB's now defunct classic board it would have been called - by many of the archly conservative longtime regulars, a classic simply because it was made during the so called "classic era", while 12 YEARS A SLAVE could never be a classic because it was made during the modern era. I cannot even begin to tell you how much this used to piss me off, and I certainly hope that attitude hasn't carried over onto this board. I see this board a bit like one of those post-apocalyptic movies. We have the grave, white-robed senators in the Classic section calmly discussing what we consider to be "serious" movies, which can be anything from James Cagney to some Albanian documentary on harvesting machines, while the rest of the board is infested with the slobbering, knuckle-dragging proles endlessly re-rating their Michael Bay favorites. I do not care what the definition of "classic" is so long as it keeps them from swarming into our small bastion of literacy and reason. LOL. Presumably, when you say "this board" you mean the entire IMDB2 London, and that the Classics section is "our small bastion of literacy and reason." Ironically, I was defending Michael Bay's technical skills on Film General recently (I'm not going to provide a link, but if you have the desire you can check it out by going to recent posts on my profile), and I would argue that I have never seen any threads - either here or on the now defunct IMDB forums - where posters are "endlessly re-rating their Michael Bay favorites" - in fact I have often seen him being derided simply because he chooses to make (rather skillfully) broadly accessible popcorn films which entertain millions of people of all races and nationalities across the globe. However, I have seen the type of Neanderthals you refer to endlessly re-rating Christopher Nolan's films, so perhaps you were talking in a general sense rather than specifically. I should point out that none of the above means I am going to watch the TRANSFORMERS flick Bay is currently making when it is released. The reason I defend Michael Bay is because, in a more than roundabout way, the millions and millions of dollars in profits his (and others) films generate allows Hollywood to continue making less broadly and overtly commercial, but superior, smaller films. Agreed but it has to be the unrated version of the latter, sometimes called Badder Santa. I shall not watch the sequel. I enjoy both the R-Rated and the Unrated versions of BAD SANTA. For my sins, I have seen the R-Rated version of the godawful BAD SANTA 2. It's a dreadful film, but if you think either version of BAD SANTA pushed the envelope as far as raunchy content was concerned you ain't seen nothing yet (naturally, if you have ever wanted to see Cathy Bates on the toilet or all the anal sex gags and simulated anal sex scenes known to man and woman you might want to give it a watch). I cannot even begin to imagine what it is the Unrated version, and I have no desire to find out. Choosing not to see it was a good choice on your part. Crumb features prominently in American Splendor. I heard this at the time AMERICAN SPLENDOR was on my radar (arounf 2003) London. Your comments about the film in your opening post are compelling and have brought the film right back onto my radar. Now I need to see AMERICAN SPLENDOR asap! Thank you.
 |
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Apr 12, 2017 17:14:59 GMT
But isn't it too recent to be in the classic section? . Primarily films from a certain era are discussed on the CFB but there are no hard and fast "rules". The only time the discussion of what is and what isn't considered "classic" occurs , seems to be when someone new to the neighborhood asks because they want to avoid writing on the "wrong" board. It's usually someone equally new who will then try to put the term into a no-wiggle-room box. What is disturbing is when the occasional poster fusses about the lack of discussion about contemporary films on the classics board. It seems to me to be like going to the Baseball Board and then complaining because no-one is discussing Cricket or Rugby there. There is a really interesting weekly thread : "What Films Did You Watch This Week" which is about films of every era. Great place to learn about old and newer films. |
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Apr 12, 2017 19:43:10 GMT
Maybe the answer is to have both "Classic" and "Modern Classic" sections with a particular year as the dividing line (1980, or what you will). I know that anything and everything would get to be discussed in the Modern Classic section, because one poster's Modern Classic is another poster's pretentious bore, or maybe his trivial trash. At least with the older Classics the "test of time" does help to weed out the real rubbish a bit, although no movie is too bad to have its supporters. Some people even think The Last of Sheila is a decent film! Incredible, I know, but true!  |
|
Froggy
New Member
@froggy
Posts: 32
 
|
Post by Froggy on Apr 12, 2017 20:15:56 GMT
"set in the desolate wasteland of Cleveland, it is a moving comment on the millions of hopeless lives who caused a political upheaval last year."
As a denizen of the Cleveland area, who has worked in downtown Cleveland for the last 22 years and who is at this moment enjoying a beautiful view of both its majestic skyscrapers and its shoreline along Lake Erie, a body of water rightly referred to as "great," I will have you know that: 1) Cleveland is not a "desolate wasteland"; 2) its inhabitants are by and large are not living "hopeless lives"; and 3) Cleveland voted solidly against the current occupant of the White House last fall, being the anchor in a county that voted for his opponent by an over than 2-1 margin and provided the current occupant of the White House (don't make me say his name) fewer votes than it gave to Mitt Romney in 2012.
|
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Apr 12, 2017 20:53:34 GMT
"set in the desolate wasteland of Cleveland, it is a moving comment on the millions of hopeless lives who caused a political upheaval last year." As a denizen of the Cleveland area, who has worked in downtown Cleveland for the last 22 years and who is at this moment enjoying a beautiful view of both its majestic skyscrapers and its shoreline along Lake Erie, a body of water rightly referred to as "great," I will have you know that: 1) Cleveland is not a "desolate wasteland"; 2) its inhabitants are by and large are not living "hopeless lives"; and 3) Cleveland voted solidly against the current occupant of the White House last fall, being the anchor in a county that voted for his opponent by an over than 2-1 margin and provided the current occupant of the White House (don't make me say his name) fewer votes than it gave to Mitt Romney in 2012. Well defended, Froggy. But I was talking about how it is depicted in the film. I thought it was the Forest City but I could not see any trees. As for the politics, when I coached soccer I told the lads "We win as a team and we lose as a team". As far as I am concerned, Americans lost as a team last year. |
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Apr 13, 2017 7:04:45 GMT
i am suprised giamatti wasnt nommed.
|
|
