Tune in next week as Tim Heidecker joins us for one of the oddest episodes of How Did This Get Made! Paul reads some Corrections & Omissions from Anaconda, Sleepaway Camp, and lets us know which VHS tape he will never throw out. Be sure to get your tickets for a special Valentine’s Day episode of How Did This Get Made? LIVE Feb. 13th at Largo!
1
Episode 53.5 — Minisode 53.5
Started by Earwolf Admin, Jan 15 2013 12:01 AM
13 replies to this topic
#3
-
- Members
-
- 518 posts
Advanced Member
- LocationEvans City, PA
Posted 15 January 2013 - 08:57 AM
Stamps.com, really? "If you need to send a package at 3 in the morning"? I don't want to know the guy that HAS to ship something in the middle of the night like that, and I sure as hell don't want to be the recipient of said package. I don't want my mailbox becoming a crime scene.
Leonard Part 6: A Film Without Equel
#8
-
- Members
-
- 150 posts
Advanced Member
Posted 19 January 2013 - 03:02 AM
I think this is a case of a movie that didn't know what to do with itself. It's like a haphazard mix between a fantasy-tinged adult drama and a fable aimed at children, resulted in something that is just stupid and boring. Maybe there was a lot of screenplay notes and re-writes? Who knows?
For example, there was that whole plot thread about water rationing and drought at the beginning, then it was just dropped in favor of the factory closing in the second half of the movie. Granted, neither are particularly original plots, but I guess if you're doing a fantasy or fable as a movie, you're purpose isn't to break new narrative ground anyway. Still, everything about this movie seems rather haphazard. In a children's fable, it doesn't matter where Timothy really comes from, but in an adult story it kind of does. At the same time, a children's fable should probably not be concerned with the goings-on of an adoption agency's bureaucratic maneuverings. A failure on every level.
Questions:
Why DOES the adoption agency ultimately grant these nutball "parents" another kid? Is it supposed to be another miracle or something?
Where did this stellar cast come from and what are they doing? Fucking M. Emmet Walsh? David Morse? Rosemary Dewitt? These are heavy-hitting, outstanding character actors, given characters with nothing to do but stand around and look disapprovingly at the Handsome Leads that have both done outstanding work in other films. A special nod should go to Shohreh Aghdashloo, who seems to play cleanup hitter every time a movie is desperate for Wise/Classy Ethnic Woman.
For example, there was that whole plot thread about water rationing and drought at the beginning, then it was just dropped in favor of the factory closing in the second half of the movie. Granted, neither are particularly original plots, but I guess if you're doing a fantasy or fable as a movie, you're purpose isn't to break new narrative ground anyway. Still, everything about this movie seems rather haphazard. In a children's fable, it doesn't matter where Timothy really comes from, but in an adult story it kind of does. At the same time, a children's fable should probably not be concerned with the goings-on of an adoption agency's bureaucratic maneuverings. A failure on every level.
Questions:
Why DOES the adoption agency ultimately grant these nutball "parents" another kid? Is it supposed to be another miracle or something?
Where did this stellar cast come from and what are they doing? Fucking M. Emmet Walsh? David Morse? Rosemary Dewitt? These are heavy-hitting, outstanding character actors, given characters with nothing to do but stand around and look disapprovingly at the Handsome Leads that have both done outstanding work in other films. A special nod should go to Shohreh Aghdashloo, who seems to play cleanup hitter every time a movie is desperate for Wise/Classy Ethnic Woman.
#9
-
- Members
-
- 115 posts
Correction/Omission Ninja
Posted 19 January 2013 - 10:32 AM
Elitist Prick, on 19 January 2013 - 03:02 AM, said:
Why DOES the adoption agency ultimately grant these nutball "parents" another kid? Is it supposed to be another miracle or something?
This seems to be a recurring theme in Jennifer Garner roles. In Juno, I always wondered why she was still allowed to take the baby considering she was a recently divorced single mother who works full time.
#10
-
- Members
-
- 518 posts
Advanced Member
- LocationEvans City, PA
Posted 19 January 2013 - 11:53 AM
JustinL, on 19 January 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:
This seems to be a recurring theme in Jennifer Garner roles. In Juno, I always wondered why she was still allowed to take the baby considering she was a recently divorced single mother who works full time.
I'm curious to see how they conclude the "Jennifer Garner playing barren women who adopt kids with wacky origins" trilogy. I'm pretty sure that the next one will be from space or an alternate dimension or something.
Leonard Part 6: A Film Without Equel
#11
-
- Members
-
- 1 posts
Newbie
Posted 20 January 2013 - 07:50 PM
As a middle aged father of two teenagers, who can see my "empty nest" status looming, i'm not ashamed to say this movie had me sobbing for the last 15 minutes. It could have been so good. But I think they lost sight of their audience. Preteens, who I think it's geared at, would probably find it boring and confusing,. And parents of preteens would probably find it annoying for all the reasons others have pointed out. I'm still confused about Joni. What's her story? Whats with the birthmark? She was a bit old for Timothy, right? But I have to say that little boy was phenomenal. I really cared about him. My 17 year old daughter caught me in the kitchen sobbing - she laughed at me. I was watching the end where he disappears. I just wish the rest of it wasn't so 'meh'.
#12
-
- Members
-
- 115 posts
Correction/Omission Ninja
Posted 20 January 2013 - 11:03 PM
My problem is that Timothy's very existence was meaningless and cruel. Ultimately, his only accomplishment is inspiring the pencil that saves the town, an act which he tells them at the end they didn't need him for. So really his major contributions are losing a soccer game, getting his mother fired, facilitating petty rivalries with family members, and killing his great-uncle. To Eric's point, he seems to be good for Joni, but we never see how or why. We either see no positive influence or no explanation for his positive influence. Also, he knows from the beginning that he's going to be with these people for a brief time and then leave.* So all we see is a boy who makes people love him, does nothing for them, and then abandons them knowing full well from the start that's what he was going to do. Whatever magic force that sent him has the ability to instantly grow a human/plant hybrid lifeform from a box full of paper using a spontaneous and pinpoint accurate rainstorm...but can't just whisper "Hey! Make a pencil out of leaves."
* Pun.
* Pun.
#13
-
- Members
-
- 254 posts
Advanced Member
- LocationMaine
Posted 21 January 2013 - 09:04 AM
JustinL, on 19 January 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:
In Juno, I always wondered why she was still allowed to take the baby considering she was a recently divorced single mother who works full time.
... Because Juno chose to still give her the baby. They didn't go through an agency, she found their ad in the PennySaver.
#14
-
- Members
-
- 97 posts
Advanced Member
Posted 22 January 2013 - 03:23 AM
Okay I am going to say this again - Sleepaway Camp is a motherfucking riddle of baffling proportions and I was one convinced that the original explanations couldn't work.
Still waiting eagerly for 'Sleepaway Camp Revisted' with the guy from the movie (posted here a few times).
and,
Yes.. the sequels are bonkers but were not 'true sequels' as one of the guys here pointed out. Its that last one (by the same director) that is banana nutbars on crack!
Still waiting eagerly for 'Sleepaway Camp Revisted' with the guy from the movie (posted here a few times).
and,
Yes.. the sequels are bonkers but were not 'true sequels' as one of the guys here pointed out. Its that last one (by the same director) that is banana nutbars on crack!
