24th Hall of Fame

I got another one coming up for you as soon as I get motivated enough to write it.

Yeah, I just finished it and I agree with most of these. It's late, so I'll post more thoughts tomorrow.

__________________

Good recipe. I like it.

__________________
What I actually said to win MovieGal's heart:
- I might not be a real King of Kinkiness, but I make good pancakes

~Mr Minio

Not to spoil my review too much, which I hope to post next week, but don't hesitate about watching The Secret in Their Eyes.

Speaking of, how does the American remake compare? I see it has mediocre reviews, but what a cast.

I wasn't interested in the remake because I don't believe it's the story that makes the original great.

Literally speaking, a rudder is a blade located underwater at the stern of a boat that, along with the helm, is used to move it towards a certain direction. Lacking one will probably leave the boat drifting at the mercy of the waters and winds, with no way to control it properly. Metaphorically speaking, being "rudderless" means lacking a guiding strategy or a clear sense of one's aims.

That is the title of William H. Macy's debut feature film, which follows Sam (Billy Crudup), a successful advertising executive that has to cope with the tragic death of Josh, his teenage son, during a shooting at his university. 2 years later, Sam has abandoned his former life, while living in a boat and resorting to alcoholism. Eventually, he seeks refuge in the recordings of his son's music, who was an aspiring musician.

The titular term can be used to define Sam's life, as he just goes along with the flow with no clear purpose or goal in his life. His son's music provides a rudder as he, reluctantly at first, begins playing it. First, alone in his boat, but then during open mic nights at a local bar. When a young man called Quentin (Anton Yelchin) finds himself captivated by Sam's music, he reluctantly agrees to play together, which eventually leads to them starting a band which they call... Rudderless.

Inspired by Sam's boat, the term can also be applied to the band per se, as none of them seem to be clear about their musical goals at first. Is it just to pass the time or for the thrill of the performance? Is it to get girls or make money? Sam is obviously using it as a cathartic exercise to cope with his son's death, which is something he doesn't share with his new bandmates. Maybe because of this or because of age, he isn't willing to commit to this project... he's rudderless, just going along with it with no clear goal.

Unfortunately, the titular term can also be partly applied to the film's execution and narrative. Like a one-man band, the script tries to play too many things, too many sides to the story which results in most of them not feeling fully realized or ultimately necessary. For the former, we have the poorly executed conflict with Josh's ex-girlfriend (Selena Gomez). For the latter, we have a somewhat pointless conflict between Sam and the supervisor of the lake resort where Sam's boat is. Like the titular term, Macy doesn't seem sure of where to lead the audience, which makes the film feel a bit scattered.

But despite those faults, the film manages to stay in course, thanks primarily to committed performances from Crudup and Yelchin. Although the way their relationship unfolds isn't perfect, there is good chemistry between the actors, and Crudup has some solid emotional moments towards the end. The second thing that anchored the film for me was the music. This soundtrack was right down my alley and I've found myself humming, tapping, and listening to it since I finished the film. Kudos to Crudup and Yelchin for actually playing and singing on it.

In the end, there are several things I would've changed that I think could've kept the film more focused, but as it is, Rudderless has enough good in it to keep it afloat.

Grade:


Review also on my Movie Loot

Just finished movie number 6 for me awhile ago. A review incoming tonight!

Now that I have a bit more time, I wanted to add that I really liked this approach. Like you said, I don't think this is a perspective that has been explored a lot, which made it seem fresh in that respect. I still would've liked for the film to push that theme further, but it was still interesting to see that side of grieving, the double burden on the parents of the shooter.

As for the music, like I said on my review, I haven't been able to get the songs out of my mind. Remember I said I started the film two nights ago? well, had to stop halfway but I still found myself sorta humming the "Real Friends" song all day. I finished the film last night and what do I listen on my drive to work this morning? The Rudderless soundtrack, of course. So thanks for that

I think that the point of view is the best part of the film. I just wasn't sold on wedding that story to a "small band makes it big" narrative. In fact, I would have liked more time with both the main character and someone who knew his situation better. I thought that the scene in the graveyard, for example, was very illuminating in terms of how he is handling things.

I liked the music too...I wish I had more time, but I have to get back to work
So one quick thought about Rudderless and you guys can ponder it' validity, or maybe I'm just full of it

...But I'm wondering if the director intentionally: had the story meander, had the characters drift without ever delving deeply into their various paths, and without wrapping up the main characters arch. I mean he quits the band but we don't know if he ever gets his own self together or not? To me it seems the director intentionally shows life after a school shooting as being screwed up with no resolution in sight. Thoughts?

In a Glass Cage



Among the worst film I've ever seen.














I thought about ending my review with that top sentence because this really isn't a movie that is in my taste or wheelhouse, but the real question is with that sort of a subject matter, just how the hell can it be in anybody's wheelhouse? The content is as sick and deranged as anything I've seen in film even if it isn't visually. I'm honestly trying to wrap my head around how anybody can "enjoy" watching the film. But perhaps it's because I see film more often as a form of entertainment that I come to feel this way.

The next word I'll use is perplexed. I'm perplexed how Villaronga can even make a film like this. I'm perplexed how a cast could possibly want to join in on a film of this nature. In particular David Sust, who is probably the most evil creature I've ever seen on film. Never have I wish ill will on a film character as I did him.

I'll catch flack but I'll say it. It was a bad nomination. How anyone could think this would have any sort of contention in a Hall of Fame is beyond me and it seemed more of a "shock" the crowd nomination instead of a unknown potential favorite of forum members. But to each their own. Had I done more research on the film I may not have even entered this myself as a host, but that's over and done now. I had to also watch it "YouTube" style, in segments or I would have wanted to smack myself upside the head otherwise for spending too long watching a useless film.

When your first reaction after the film is to look at your bottom 10 list of all time, and then realize there isn't too much competition, that's when you know you have hit cinema's rock bottom for your personal tastes. And I have.

Lastly, I hope nobody takes this review personal, especially Pahak, but those are my true feelings.

Hehehe, that might not even make my top 100 disturbing list when I get around to it.

I don't think the issues had to do with the narrative per se, but more with the execution of the narrative. A film can be ambiguous, open-ended, and maybe even "meandering", but well executed. The thing is that Macy doesn't know where to put most of his chips. Is it in the grief-stricken father and how he's coping with the aftermath? is it in his relationship with this kid he meets? is it with the "small band makes it big" story? is it with the conflicts with the other people affected by his son's death (i.e. his wife, the ex-girlfriend)? And that's without getting into the whole thing with the boat guy or Laurence Fishburne's record store guy. Granted, most of this plot-points are intertwined and rely on each other, but the focus is somewhat off and Macy neither makes the most of the one's that work nor restrains the ones that don't.

And I want to reiterate my overall take, which is that I liked the film (see my review). But given the powerful themes it tries to address and the cool music they got out of it, I felt this could've been a home run with the proper polish.

The problem is that this central story about a man adrift in the aftermath of a tragedy is paired with broad comedy (his run-ins with the guy who is on the board for the lake) and a cliched-feeling arc about a small time band breaking into the big time. It's a film about chaos that is too structured. And moments that are kind of weird--like a 50 year old man buying clothing for and styling the hair of a 22 year old--are treated as wholesome instead of what they really are, which is kind of creepy/inappropriate.

I kind of wish that the film had leaned more into the messiness of the aftermath of an unfixable trauma/tragedy. The main character treating his bandmate like a surrogate son is kind of icky! It just is! But it is also totally understandable. It's uncomfortable and it also makes total sense. And instead of exploring how, say, the main character might develop an unhealthy dependence on his relationship with this child-proxy, instead he teaches him to dress nice! He gets him a girlfriend! He encourages him to put his own music out there! The only conflict between them is that the main character was concealing the origin of the music.

I think that the main character does get a resolution. He owns his relationship with his son, and he is finally able to come to terms with the guilt and grief that he has been drowning in drink. That is the part of the story that I found very powerful. There is shame that he feels about the actions of his son and shame that he feels about his own failings as a father. And the truth of what led to the shooting is something he will never know. Would being at home more have made a difference? Maybe. Would his son have hurt someone even with mental health interventions? Possibly. The moments where the film lets that ambiguity in are, in my opinion, the best ones.

What did you think the point of the film was and the reasoning behind telling its story?

There was a couple things I didn't like...You mentioned the 'whole thing with the boat guy' and I agree, I didn't like that brief scene either. More so I didn't like what the makeup department did to the boat guy official. I'm guessing the makeup people were trying to make him look like an uptight nerd? But he was done up too comical looking. My least favorite scene was when the father is playing his guitar while boating through the middle of the boat regatta. OMG that was like a Ferris Bueller moment

I see what you're saying there. I too wanted more of this and more of that story, but then the film would've been 3 hours, OK maybe it would've been 2 hours 20 minutes long...But yeah I'd liked to seen more too. But I did enjoy the world it showed me.

Wow, I didn't see their relationship that way at all. They had a bond with a mutual love of music, and yes the film makes the 22 year old a surrogate for the lost son who the dad had shared that love for music with. I sure don't see anything sick or icky about their relationship.

Not sure that I know or care. Not trying to say that snobbishly but I dont really try to hunt for deep meanings in films that make me feel sick to my stomach so to speak.

I think that their bond went beyond just being friends. I think that the main character sees Yelchin's character as a chance to do the things he should have or wished he had done for his son: help him express himself, help him be more social, encourage him to pursue his dreams. And I think it's weird and unhealthy for him to do that when he hasn't come to terms with the loss of his own son and his own role in it.

So is your position that certain content doesn't belong on screen, regardless of intent or perceived intent?