JayDee's Movie Musings

I know you liked Play it Again Sam; but I saw that's just written and starring him.

...



you've seen a lot more Scorsese movies than i have tho. good job on the reviews and being willing to seek out so much of his filmography

Your stomach playing up again.


Does not compute.

I know. WTF is that all about? Have they seen this crap?

Did he pretty much invent the comical NY neurotic Jew, though?

I can give you a list if you want one.

I don't think you'll like it, for all the reasons you've already explained bar the slapstick. Despite that, it's his best work.

Give Bullets Over Broadway a go. You get John Cusack instead.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

I think you're being rather unfair. If I was actually avoiding watching those films and just assuming they were crap because of those things that would be one thing but I have given them all a chance. And while their standing in those respective genres is certainly part of the reason why neither of those Scorsese films are favourites of mine, it's not the only reason. I thought both films had flaws and elements which annoyed me. And as for Woody Allen I actually blind bought a few of his films a few years back so I obviously wanted to like them. I don't ever watch a film I'm expecting to hate just so I can rant about it, I'm not a masochist. And as for influencing my ratings, as I've said many times before my ratings generally represent my enjoyment of a film.

You're reminding me of Mr Minio from a while back. Are we just not allowed to dislike films anymore? Or is it just those that come from revered sources such as Scorsese and Woody Allen? If we don't like something one of these cinematic gods deliverss why does it automatically seem to be it's because we didn't get it or because we went into with pre-conceived notions and didn't allow ourselves to enjoy it? If I was saying the same things about the the torture porn genre or the films of Michael Bay or Adam Sandler would you say the same thing? Or have they been approved to dislike and mock?

Just to reiterate I don't think they're 'bad' movies, they just don't appeal to me on a personal level. I don't find them greatly enjoyable or have any strong emotional connection with them. The fact I don't really care for De Niro in these types of roles plays a big part in both. And a large reason with Goodfellas is indeed its setting in the land of the gangster; it's just not a world or a set of characters that really interests me. Beyond that I have similar problems with it as I do to Wolf of Wall Street; an episodic nature which lacks a focus, characters I don't relate to or like, mining comedy from such characters etc. However I can admire certain things about it (such as Scorsese's direction) and actually enjoy it more than I expected to. With Taxi Driver I also think it has flaws but admire some of it. It's just a bit too bleak for me. Going on my enjoyment/fondness for them both would still fall around the mark so I certainly don't hate either.

When I typed that I thought it sounded a bit dodgy and was wondering if someone would use it for a joke. It really shouldn't have come as much of a surprise who it was!

So you're not a fan either? Just to check do you generally like Woody Allen or not? I'm never exactly sure

Well I couldn't tell you that but perhaps. I'm sure there are more knowledgeable people on here who would know.

Well you know that the forum loves a good countdown list so how about Honeykid's Top 20 Most Punchable Actors?

Good call. I actually watched it a little while after writing up about those films, would probably fall around the same 2.5 kind of territory for me. For me the whole film was just a bunch of people I didn't like moaning about stuff I didn't care about.

I'll keep an eye out for it. Looking at the cast I see it also has Jennifer Tilly. She always gives me at least a 'couple' of reasons to watch a film. Any others you'd recommend? Is there not actually a Woody Allen on your top 100 that stars Drew Barrymore? Or am I having a brain fart there?

__________________

You're the worst. You're the Britta of MoFo.

There definitely seems to be a culture emerging around here lately that holds up certain directors or films as sacred, and lots of people (not everybody, before anyone jumps down my throat) seems to want to actually discuss anything, instead contenting themselves with a "shocked reaction gif" or something. I think the issue is that you seem to be the kind of person who experiences films on a much more personal level than one that is overly concerned with the reputation of the director/film or the technical, cinematic elements of the movie, and you're not afraid to be honest about those feelings. For a lot of people, I think (myself included) there's this pressure to like the "right" films because if you don't you feel alienated, or that you don't "get it," as if there's something wrong with you. I guess some people are more adept at handling that and being secure in their own opinions and reactions.


I feel like he did. Everyone who is doing that character at least partially owes it to Woody Allen. But if he's not for you, he's not for you.


Bullets is great. Give it a shot. It's hard to recommend Woody Allen movies to someone who strongly dislikes what I consider three of his best films, but I can try to suggest some that go at least a little against his grain. If you disliked Sleeper then I would steer clear of Bananas and Take the Money and Run. Zelig is very un-Woody, even though he stars in it, and extremely smart and original. Stardust Memories and Deconstructing Harry take different approaches than you might be used to from his films. Manhattan Murder Mystery is more plot-driven than many of his others, and Interiors is pretty much his only straight drama. And as far as I'm concerned, you can't definitively say you dislike Allen's sense of humour until you seen (what I think are) the riotously funny Mighty Aphrodite and Love and Death. Two very different films, but if you don't like those, then there's no hope for you.

Drew Barrymore was in Everyone Says I Love You. Can't remember if it was on the HK 100.

hmm, i don't ask the following in a derogatory manner, just wanting to understand. what sort of story world, set of characters, and tone do you need to be interested and to be able to connect on a personal level?

i think, to some degree, Daniel M is right. that your opinions or worldview on certain subjects may influence your ratings to an observable degree. i think everyone does this to an extent, but some more than others. this isn't an insult, it just seems to be true

not like everyone has to be crazy about Taxi Driver or GoodFellas, i just think it's intriguing to try and understand where you're coming from since you place them down a ways compared to the rest of his filmography. to be honest, the first time i saw GoodFellas, i wasn't crazy about it either for some reason. that has its own simple explanation. i loved it on rewatches tho and it quickly became one of my favorite movies

i think i remember you saying you really don't like strong type-A male personalities bc they remind you of your dad or something... is that right? not out to get personal, but i think that's probably a clue into why you don't like these movies. the Robert DeNiro characters seem to turn you off... along with some of Jack Nicholson's characters in other movies

there may be something to be said for projecting too much of personal experiences onto movies, almost sorta having ratings over-reflect the projection of ourselves and where our identities fit into the movie

you can tell me if i'm way off-base. if not, folks might be amazed how liberating and how much more enjoyable movies can be if we can find a balance of letting the movie tell its story, without projecting too much of our own experiences onto it

i say balance, bc i think naturally we will project our experiences onto movies. i just think it's possible that can be overdone

Yeah. He's not me, y'know.

So long as I saw it before SC, it shouldn't have been a surprise.

I quite like his films, though not his earlier stuff. Annie Hall/Manhattan/Zelig and the 90's are what I like. I've not really seen what he's done this century which, for someone who makes films at the rate of Allen, isn't good.

I'll give it some thought. Would this just be punchable or would hating come into it, too?

That's pretty much what I thought you'd think. Like Skepsis, I'd recommend Zelig to you.

I was going to mention Jennifer Tilly for that very reason(s). Dianne Weist is really good in it, too.

I was wondering whether Manhattan was there or not, but it seems it's not. It's around that area, though. Or, at least, it was. I haven't seen it in a very long time.

Congrats on the 100 pages.

The first thing I love about Woody is his writing which almost goes without saying. What I think he does that is hard to duplicate is create these neurotic, self centered characters with horrible views of humanity. Yet puts them in films that are light hearted and mostly hopeful. I love this about him because although I think Allen's world view is much different than mine, I see a lot of myself in the way he views human behavior. His characters continuously let each other down and behave like narcissists but they never see themselves that way. They see themselves as trying to be happy instead of just being happy. His films are very easy to watch for me. I dont feel like I am expressing myself very well but there it is.

__________________
Letterboxd

I'll reply to the rest later but there's something I have to address first
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You mean I'm the funny, adorable, awesome one of the board? I'll take that!

Or some people just have better tastes.

Seriously, though, I never feel the pressure to like certain films because they are 'sacred'. I add to this culture of idolatry towards certain directors (Woody Allen is an example of that), because I genuinely believe that those filmmakers showcase signs of cinematic brilliance in (a big part of) their films. Therefore I'm always a little bit surprised when some people don't tend to see that.

Then I try to understand why they don't like it and I THINK it's often (but not always) because of personal bias and wrong interpretations (or an inappropriate cynical way of watching the film because of prejudices). Now, we can probably never switch these personal "flaws" completely off and all these particular irrational bits are just parts of ourselves and that's what makes it interesting to see everyone's take on certain films. Even the great Roger Ebert, the most famous and popular film reviewer of all time, sometimes wrote odd and obviously biased reviews

It's always a matter of 'opinion' and 'personal views' and I also like films that are "objectively" not that good and dislike certain films that are probably of a higher quality than I'd like to admit, but what we should always do, is trying to explain properly what we like and what don't like about certain films. That's when dialogue and discussion can start and that's how we can see why certain people like a film and other people don't. It's the core of what makes film discussions interesting for me!

Now, back to JayDee and his pitiful Woody Allen Hate-a-Thon.

I'll try to explain why I personally like the films that you "hated".

The Purple Rose of Caïro:

Sure, the films is built on a clever, funny little gimmick, but Woody is one of those directors that can transfer certain interesting existential problems in a refreshing, comical way, (often) using this kind of gimmicks! His whole filmography is filled with stuff like that!
In one film it's a sperm cell that is afraid of what will happen and what his faith will be when he's at the point of leaving his usual phallic habitat, in another film there's a guy who automatically transforms into the kind of people around him because he's afraid of not fitting in and in this film it's about a woman that suddenly gets approached by a film character that comes off the silver screen.
These gimmicks themselves are already pretty cool and inventive but what makes Woody Allen a true genius and one of the most respected film directors of his time is how he poignantly and self-consciously is able to make a philosophical statement or offer certain insights to the viewer, while still giving them plenty of stuff to enjoy along the way.
The Purple Rose of Caïro shows us all those frustrating (little) things in life that can make you feel kind of depressed. We rarely see that kind of stuff in films and Woody cleverly mixes the perfect fantasy universe with the frustrations of real life. What we get is therefore a mix of fantasy and clever microscopic satire. Woody's statement at the end is wonderfully and fittingly ambiguous. At first sight, it's kind of sad and depressing, but the last scene is, in spite of everything, strangely uplifting. It charmingly shows how a simple thing as a Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers musical can make us forget our problems for a minute. In a way, it tells us how we shouldn't lose sight of the beautiful side of life even in the darkest times. It doesn't even matter how abstract and banal that glimpse of beauty and escapism may be...

Midnight in Paris:

I think your criticism is focusing on something that doesn't really have much to do with the film's themes and intentions. I think the movie actually even adresses that issue. The relationship is pretty much based on typical superficial qualities of both persons. Rachel McAdams' character is beautiful and Owen Wilson's character is succesful and rich and has that certain romantic aura that many girls would fall for (at first sight). Their relationship kind of starts bursting in Paris, because they start to notice that there isn't really much more to them than just those superficial attractions. I don't see why that would be a flaw in the film.
Furthermore, Midnight in Paris is pretty similar to The Purple Rose of Caïro. It's built on a gimmick and through that gimmick the main character and the audience learn certain things. Instead of focusing on fantasy and escapism, however, the film now tackles the notion of nostalgia. This film is actually part of my top 101 favorite movies, so you can read there why I specifically like this film so much. Obviously, I don't agree with your criticism towards Woody's writing and his characters.

Sleeper:

This is one of those films that seems impossible to dislike to me (but apparently it is possible). I think the comedy is simply amazing! It's cleverly satirical, extremely inventive and just completely absurd (I'm glad you at least liked the bit with the nose, because for me, that part is just pure comical genius). On top of that, it also shows us a really cool and idiosyncratic futuristic world and all of those small, absurd, but strangely believable futuristic elements are brought together and add up to one of the most satisfying and original comical experiences I've ever had!

It's really a shame that you can't enjoy Woody's witty dialogue and sheer originality, like I do, JayDee.

I understand your irritations (believe it or not, I didn't really think Woody Allen was all that special either after I first watched a film of his several years ago), but I think your problems with him should be easily omittable when you start focusing on what makes Woody such a great director, instead of always pointing out what you hate so much about him (this goes for some other quality films that you couldn't appreciate in the past too). I am strongly convinced that everyone should be able to enjoy Woody's best work (and the 3 films you reviewed are part of his top 15 best films, in my opinion). You just have to watch his films with the right mindset and you have to try and stow away the personal problems you have with his persona (the same goes with the alpha-male problem you seem to be having, by the way, because you're missing out on a lot of great stuff because of that).
Open-mindedness is the key to enjoying as many (good) stuff as possible!

Oh well, you definitely deserve credit for what you're doing, JayDee, because at least you are actually trying to explain why you don't enjoy certain films (even if it's because of very personal issues you seem to be having sometimes). I respect that and you deserve rep for it. I wish I could give your Woody Allen post a , but I just can't because those ratings are way too low. I'll rep some of your other posts in return to show my appreciation for your review efforts.

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

I didn't know your Scorsese season was for my benefit, JayDee. I'll have to go back and read through them all at some point, say, when I get a few days free.

As for not posting here, is it not clear that I still haven't forgiven you for your Magnolia review?

I wouldn't call myself religious either but some of my favorite films have to do with religion, religious themes and religious characters. It's one thing to dislike a subject for personal reasons, but in a well-made film I find there is usually something I can identify or connect with in a broader sense. Empathy, not necessarily approval.

For instance Robert Duvall's little masterpiece The Apostle, which probably shouldn't have appealed to me since that character bears some striking similarities to my own preacher father, a deeply troubled man who I've had a extremely rocky relationship with all my life. Yet I felt great respect for Duvall's Apostle as a "person" and film, and while I still strongly oppose organized religion in general and its various shortcomings, I found in that film a representation of true faith and the essential humanity of the character, a flawed man whose failings are many yet he still keeps striving and stays committed to his meaning and purpose.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

Well that's ok, I've not forgiven Paul Thomas Anderson for Magnolia yet either.

I am a Christian, lean right politically, and am a film fan. So trust me you dont have to agree with the person making the art to enjoy it. I glean Christian principles from films consistently that are made by people who would more than likely say they are not making films with Christian themes. Whether this is because I bring my ideals to the viewings or because we mostly fail to understand the motivations of the people we disagree with is up for debate. I tend to think its more of the latter than the former but who knows.

I think we may be missing Jaydee's point though. I dont know that he simply means he disagrees with Allen on issues. If the charges against Allen are true than the man is a criminal not just someone with an opposing world view.

A day late and a dollar short.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Even if he was a criminal it wouldn't affect the quality of his films.

Begin Woody Allen debate........NOW!

Just seen you ranked Raging Bull as the 17th out of 18 Marty movies.


For shame.

Don't just wag your finger. Wag your finger while telling us why.