Request for tutorial - what was so great about 'Sideways'?

Post by **Whistler** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 6:42 pm

I like movies with Shakespearian characters in car chases.

Post by **Cerin** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 6:45 pm

That would seem to leave you with a rather limited pool of preferred movies.

Post by **nerdanel** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 6:48 pm

I saw Sideways in January 2005, and I remember enjoying it, but I don't think I could give anyone a tutorial in appreciating it.

I'm no wine sn - er, connoisseur, but I wish to learn enough to be one someday, and I liked that the movie at once showcased these folks, and lightly mocked them for how seriously they took wine. I loved the humor throughout the movie. I liked the gorgeous views of the wine country (the reason I went to see it, actually).

But I find that the characters were utterly unmemorable, and a year later, I couldn't name and would be hard-pressed to describe even one of them. After glancing at the IMDB entry, I can remember them, but still couldn't tell you what to appreciate about them, Cerin.

It may just be one of those movies - some enjoy it on their first watch, some don't, and most feel no need to see it twice.

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 7:44 pm

I love wine as much as the next person, but have already stated my opinion on SIDEWAYS. I think your appreciation of the film is not impacted in the least by your attitude towards wine. As far as TRANSLATION, I actually despised this film, it was a complete waste of money and time. They made the Japanese culture look as if it were imported from Mars ... "these people are weird" was the implicit message .... very xenophobic. As a middle aged guy myslef, I hate these films about hot young sexual women who are just looking to connect with cynical, desperate, unattractive older men. These seem to be the wet dream fantasies of producers and studio executives. I would rate it a 2 on a scale of 10 compared with SIDEWAYS which would get a 4.

Post by **Whistler** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 7:57 pm

I hate these films about hot young sexual women who are just looking to connect with cynical, desperate, unattractive older men.

No, you just hate that you haven't found one.

Post by **Cerin** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:35 pm

tolkienpurist wrote:It may just be one of those movies - some enjoy it on their first watch, some don't, and most feel no need to see it twice.

Yes, it does seem to me to be 'just one of those movies', which is why I was curious to understand the accolades, Oscar nominations and Oscar it received.

sauronsfinger, I know what you mean about 'films about hot young sexual women who are just looking to connect with cynical, desperate, unattractive older men'. That annoys me just as much from the female side, but I think in the case of LIT it showed a developing friendship out of loneliness, not the usual unrealistic scenario. And another annoying thing, why can we have less than conventionally attractive male actors like Giamatti in leading love-interest roles, but they still have to be paired up on screen with women who are much more physically attractive than the women they would really 'get' in real life? Let's have some female equivalents of Paul Giamatto on the screen in roles like that! (Not that it will ever happen, because as you say, men run the show).

yovargas wrote:Both those pics are really fairly simple pics, with nothing particularly unusual or original going on.

Actually, I think they are alike in the low-keyness; I agree with your above description for 'Sideways', but to me the characters and situation portrayed in LIT, or rather, the characters reactions and the relationship that developed were extremely unusual and original. I recall watching with a kind of heightened attention throughout because it was all so odd and unexpected in subtle ways. Whereas everything seemed fairly predictable in 'Sideways' to me. I agree, I think there was something wonderful about the direction in LIT.

Or in other words, I had no trouble understanding in an instinctive way why LIT was celebrated that year, the way I am wondering now about 'Sideways'.

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 10:15 pm

Cerin
You bring up an excellent point. Actresses all have to be the top 1% of female attrctiveness while men can run the spectrum. I never did care for the ROSEANNE show but at least Roseanne Barr and John Goodman certainly were well paired. Unlike that KING OF QUEENS show where he is a walking disaster of blubber and she is this cute little slip of a thing ... gimme a break.

Post by **Cerin** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 11:19 pm

Exactly, sf.

Post by **Alatar** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 12:12 am

Hey! I'm a walking disaster of blubber and my wife is a cute little slip of a thing!!!

Whistler, I'm assuming then that your film collection contains Baz Luhrman's Romeo and Juliet?

Post by **Whistler** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 1:02 am

Yes, Alatar. So far, it's the only one I can find!

Post by **Jnyusa** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 1:35 am

Pf! - Alatar! We've seen your picture and know better.

But I think that Paul Giamatti is cute and so is Bill Murray in his own way. The one who annoys me is Clint Eastwood. He looks like a darn mummy and always has a girl at his side who looks about 15 years old. He was too old to be a credible prom queen escort when he was starring in Rawhide. I was in elementary school then and I'm a grandmother now, so ... do the math.

Paul Newman did a murder mystery movie a few years ago (5 years maybe?) in which he was the love interest ... do people still think about killing for love when they're on social security? .... but at least he had the good sense to be having his affair with a woman in her fifties. He's ... what? ... 80 years old by now?

Jn

Post by **vison** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 2:07 am

I am so relieved to learn that I am not the only woman in the world who isn't mad for Clint Eastwood. He affects me powerfully, all right: he makes me wanna

He always did, too. Thankfully, I never saw "Rawhide". Our TV didn't get that station. I feel that this made me a better person, somehow.

It's a riot, these old geezers pulling the birds, to go all Austin Powersy on you. Sean Connery is fabuloso, but he's drawing 'is pension now, and ought to retire the fetching glances. And maybe buy some new dentures, since he sounds more and more like he has a mouthful of parritch......

I've always liked Bill Murray and think that Groundhog Day is a wonderful movie. I liked him in his coarse and vulgar incarnations, too. But I haven't seen Lost in Translation.

Actually, I haven't seen many movies lately. Saw "Wallace and Gromit", which I really, really liked. Not sure what I'm doing in this thread. Just like to poke my oar in, I guess.

Carry on, carry on.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 3:00 am

I once saw a serious formula for calculating the "perfect" age for a male character's wife/girlfriend: divide the actor's age by 2 and add 6. It's pathetic. But as an irrelevant female (appropriate as mate for an actor of 82), I do find it deeply amusing.

Post by **Cerin** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 5:21 am

But as an irrelevant female (appropriate as mate for an actor of 82)

Ha! For this reason I had to love Richard Gere for playing husband to Susan Sarandon (a woman of an appropriate age for once!) in the recent ballroom remake 'Shall We Dance.' Mel Gibson is another one who has said he will never make a fool of himself by pairing off with a much younger woman on screen. We'll see if he holds to it (if he's even acting anymore).

Fri Dec 30, 2005 6:18 am

There was a movie I saw a couple years ago, I don't remember the name or any of the actors or actresses, about an older man who was dating a young woman, but then falls in love with her mother (after he has a heart attack). Meanwhile, a much younger, handsome doctor also falls in love with the mother. Anybody know what movie I am talking about?

Post by **Jnyusa** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 6:27 am

Jack Nicholson tugged at my memory, but I had to look it up on imdb. "Somthing's Gotta Give" with Nicholson and Amanda Peet.

I saw it and can't remember a darn thing about it. Ah, yes - Diane Keaton played the mother. She's the reason I wanted to see the movie but nothing about it sticks in memory.

jn

Fri Dec 30, 2005 6:34 am

Well, you can see how much it stuck in my memory.

(Of course, I'm not on top of my game, without my chicken suit and all.)

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 4:42 pm

No chicken suit? Then you must be feeling better! Hurray!

Fri Dec 30, 2005 5:02 pm

Unfortunately, not much, yet. But I'll be fine soon.

More importantly, it sounds like you are feeling better.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 5:16 pm

I certainly hope you'll be fine!

I'm much better, until Tuesday, anyway. But I think we've figured out what was making me so weak and will take steps against it right away rather than letting me lie on the floor for a week first. So that's hopeful, too.

I may ask to borrow the chicken suit, though.