Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
First off (and I know this is gonna get me dinged), I enjoyed it MUCH more than "King Kong": half as long, and twice as good. Funny how that sometimes works.
Secondly, this type of movie isn't generally my thing (not big on those 40-something-friendly comedy-dramas starring Nicholson, Keaton, Cage, McClaine, Costner, Streep and the like), but this one had Sarah Jessica Parker and Luke Wilson, two actors I really like to watch, and who rarely disappoint me. It's funny, sweet movie. Surprisingly tearjerking in a few scenes (but it was genuine and real). I never felt manipulated, and that's the important point. It rolled off as real. Some characters were broadly-drawn in places, but once past a bit of a heavy-handed opening (to establish where everyone is and coming from), it does get quite funny and enjoyable. It's like a mixture of Steve Martin's "Parenthood" and DeNiro's "Meet the Parents" (with Sarah Jessica in the Stiller role of meeting this big family she has little in common with, and who don't exactly take to her). Maybe throw in a bit of Christmas nostalgia and bittersweetness too. There is a slow, subtly-developed sub-plot that, once you realize what's going on, you start to see the movie in a slightly different way. And it's more sweet in places, and you can forgive some of the quirks and attitudes of some of the characters. And it sets up the beautiful ending. The final scenes are really nice, but you kinda knew it was going there all along. Anyway, some great performances all around. A solid cast: Craig T. Nelson and Diane Keaton as the parents, Rachel McAdams (meow!) as one of the daughters, Luke Wilson is funny, as always, and the rest of the family does great work (actors I didn't recognize). Sarah Jessica Parker does a wonderful job, and doesn't mind making herself look foolish or outright unlikable in earlier scenes. But it's all cool in the end...and something about her is sexy beyond words. You'll laugh. You'll cry. But you'll mostly laugh. I solid 8.7 out of 10. The trailer plays like a chick-flick, fellas, but don't buy into that. Anyone who has a Mom (or a big, quirky and loving family) should enjoy it quite a bit. The only thing that marred the experience was something that wasn't even happening on screen: I've noticed that when I go to these types of "adult" comedies ("Analyze This", "About Schmidt", "As Good as it Gets", this one, etc.), grown people - almost always women in their 40's or 50's - can't SHUT THE HELL UP THROUGHOUT. Theatrical Clucking Hen Syndrome (TCHS), I call it. Other than that, it was a nice experience! |
quote |
25 chars of wasted space.
|
Just a random note, not really relating to this thread too much. I hate peoples ratings of 1–10 for movies because (and 'scates, correct me if I'm wrong with your usage) people use it in a very general sense, which ends up not meaning anything. What I mean is that they say a movie might be close to 10, but that is just because they are rating it on an average movie or something instead of the scale from the best movie they've ever seen being 10 and the worse movie ever being seen as a 0. Gummo, Changing Lanes…ect. ect.
I may be too critical, but RARELY is a movie just a little bit worse than your favorite movie. When you give a movie an 8/9, if it's not amazing, I feel it takes away from describing a 10 (your favorite, the absolute best). >exit rant; |
quote |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
On a scale of 1-to-10, I'm giving you a 9.4 for "shut up".
Ah, it's just something I've done for 4-5 years now. I don't even take them that seriously (the number behind the decimal point is me being silly). All you have to know is, if it's above 7 or so, then it's a good movie, and I liked it. I've never given a 10, and I don't think I've ever gone below a 3-4... Instead of getting hung up on the one-sentence number rating, pay more attention to the multiple paragraphs of actual review/opinion. THAT'S where you'll get your useful info from! |
quote |
25 chars of wasted space.
|
Quote:
I know, most people won't give a 10, and won't go below a 3 like you. That really just f's the whole scale. I was just saying, something that bothers me about peoples movie reviews. A, B, C, D, F might be better. So a bad movie could have the broadest range. Thanks for the review though, I'll have to consider checking it out =) |
|
quote |
ಠ_ರೃ
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
|
Yeah, ratings tend to go on a 7-10 scale rather than a 1-10, with anything below 7 often garnering a 1 or a 0 from the reviewer.
Well, I take that back. Depending on who you listen to, 8 could mean excellent or it could mean average. 5 could mean worth seeing or it could mean total crap. Even a 1 could signify a movie that either was really bad, or that the reviewer kind of liked but couldn't watch because of one factor or another. I prefer to go by subjective ratings since "objective" ones aren't really objective but they are also vague and nonspecific. Phrases like "worth seeing," "worth renting," "good if you like (fill in the blank)," "don't take it seriously," and "you need to see this in the theater!" actually tell me something. Obviously it's your opinion of the movie, but then I know what your opinion is. 8.7 out of 10, to me, is a movie that is very solid and is worth watching in the theater, maybe even worth buying. It means a movie that I will remember and talk about for a long time, and recommend to others. I might even see it a second time if one of my friends wants to see it. I don't like using the decimals but the above basically describes how I see the "8" range. The "9" range is basically the same, but more. So instead of "maybe worth buying" I'd say it's definitely worth buying. A 9 would also mean one that I would willingly see multiple times even if there wasn't anyone to watch it with. Conversely, a 7 would be one that I might enjoy watching once but I wouldn't want to see again. 6 and lower would probably mean I would only get mild or no enjoyment from it, and watching it would be mainly for social reasons. |
quote |
25 chars of wasted space.
|
I try to work on a 1–10 bell curve ...maybe making the peak somewhere between 5-7.
However I've derailed this thread enough, back to the movie! Sorry 'scates! |
quote |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
Yeah, those are good scales. I don't think I'd watch "The Family Stone" AGAIN, but the cool thing about Christmas-themed movies like this is that they truly do have an extended life, and can "live on" in DVD or cable TV form long after their December 2005 coming-and-going.
I can easily see this particular one winding up on USA or TNT at some point, and becoming a popular seasonal showing. There was no nudity, violence or sex to edit out. And only a few TV-unfriendly profanities, which are easily dubbed. Wouldn't be like editing "Pulp Fiction" for TV... It's genuinely funny, with just enough drama and heart to make it well-rounded. And its "Christmas-ness" means it's got legs, from here out. Last edited by psmith2.0 : 2005-12-19 at 11:28. |
quote |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
|
I watched the movie last night with a friend and really enjoyed it. Luke Wilson stole the movie and had some really good scenes. I liked that he was the one character you could count on for comedy. With the other characters, you could never be sure if what was coming out of their mouths was going to be incredibly funny or really, really mean. One of my favorite parts was when they were playing charades and Rachel McAdams said that SJP's character was racist. It took awhile but it was awesome.
I think it might be time to make the Rachel McAdams Rule: any movie that she is in will be good. While I haven't seen Red Eye, I still haven't seen her in a bad film. Maybe she just knows how to pick them. Ben Affleck should call up her agent for tips on how to pick good scripts. |
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ottawa, ON
|
Thanks for the interesting review 'Scates. I think that I'll see it with my wife, if we can get a night off this week.
You've done some good film reviews on AN. ....new career direction?? When there's an eel in the lake that's as long as a snake that's a moray. |
quote |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
Thanks, chinney.
Nah, I just like movies sometimes, and talking about them. And since this is a Mac forum, I need to point out the presence of a Ruby iMac in the kitchen that Diane Keaton used a bit at the beginning (I'd forgotten how nice those looked!), and, later on, a 15" or 17" aluminum PowerBook in the den/TV room. (gotta get my Mac geek points in!) The Ruby iMac got some nice screen time, with the red Apple logo on the back shown prominently several times. I half expected one of the clucking hens behind me to say "oh, that's one of those computers the iPod people make!" |
quote |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
When I rate movies on a 1-10 scale I try to base it on how well the movie accomplished what it set out to do, or what it purported to be. That said, as a rule, I hate 1-10 scales for anything.
Haven't seen Family Stone, but it looked good. I generally enjoy Luke Wilson, and neither Rachel McAdams or Sarah Jessica Parker are hard on the eyes :-) Slacker, did you see Wedding Crashers? What did you think of it? |
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: State of Flux
|
Quote:
2. I've seen dozens of movies that in my estimation have warranted a rating from 0-2. Have you seen Sliver? Or Pearl Harbor? Or Air Force One? Star Wars, Return of the Jedi? I liked your movie review, although I typically avoid movies like this. The INSTANT I get a sense of cheap sentimentality, the movie is ruined for me. But if this one avoids it in the main than I'll give it a shot. Cheers. Last edited by AWR : 2005-12-20 at 04:46. |
|
quote |
Apple Historian
Join Date: May 2004
|
Quote:
|
|
quote |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
|
I thought that the first half of Wedding Crashers was the funniest movie I had seen since Old School. Vince Vaughn was at the top of his game and stole every scene.
In the second half, the love story between Owen Wilson and Rachel McAdams takes over the movie and I thought it was a little slow for what was supposed to be a comedy. I still really enjoyed it and Rachel McAdams was very good in the role. I think she is really underrated. She can be funny, serious, mean, intelligent...I know that when she is in a movie, it's not just because she's really, really, really ridiculously good looking. She has a knack for picking good movies and makes the most of the character she is playing. Also, I did notice all of the love that Apple received in this movie. After the iMac and the Powerbook, I was waiting for someone to open an iPod as a Christmas gift. |
quote |
Member
|
I saw this movie over the weekend... thought it was good.
Rachel McAdams has been on a roll since 2004 (Mean Girls, The Notebook). Luke Wilson was great (anyone see Bottle Rocket? one my all-time favorites) The ending also didn't seem to take the cheesy Hollywood route that I thought it would... I won't spoil it for anyone, but I will say that I was glad that the director/writers didn't go take the easy route (especially for a "Christmas" movie). |
quote |
Member
|
Quote:
Fuck it, she's hot. |
|
quote |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
Quote:
Sometimes, more is said with silence/absence, huh? So many other movies would've gone the complete opposite wa (in one of two directions: focusing/dragging out, OR tacked-on happy "miracle"), and it wouldn't have been as sweet and "real". |
|
quote |
Posting Rules | Navigation |
|
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"DOOM" movie, not so Doom-like | Brad | AppleOutsider | 47 | 2021-01-27 16:39 |
What is this movie? | macgeek2004 | AppleOutsider | 122 | 2005-12-31 14:25 |
"The Aviator"...really good! | psmith2.0 | AppleOutsider | 6 | 2005-01-01 23:33 |
Movie Review: Steppford Wives 2.0 | Moogs | AppleOutsider | 8 | 2004-06-14 17:52 |
"The Day After Tomorrow" movie | psmith2.0 | AppleOutsider | 29 | 2004-05-30 21:15 |