I just read OSC's review of The Upside of Anger and I was wondering if anyone else here had seen it. See, I'm pretty used to him having very different opinions on movies than I do, but what caught my eye in this review is that he makes reference to the comedy of the film several times. It is being marketed as a comedy but I didn't find the movie as a whole to be particular comic, despite the fact that there were certainly funny moments. That, in itself, wouldn't be so surprising, except that I don't recall hearing very many laughs from the rest of the audience either. What I'm wondering is if perhaps there's just a big difference in the audiences of Greensboro, NC and Orange County, CA.
Anyone?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Here's a user comment from the IMDB.
quote: 18 out of 25 people found the following comment useful:- Drama with some laughs and a twist, 28 January 2005
Author: ArizWldcat from Ogden UT
I saw this when it premiered at the Sundance film festival (although the director & actors didn't bother to come to our screening), and I enjoyed it. Kevin Costner plays a baseball player, but the movie is not about baseball; it deals with the anger the lead character feels when her husband disappears, along with his secretary. Joan Allen plays the wife of the missing man, and is the mother to four daughters, played very well by Evan Rachel Wood, Keri Russel, Erika Christensen, and Alicia Witt. Joan Allen was marvelous. We laughed many times when she glared in anger at different characters in the movie (and we were glad she wasn't mad at US! LOL...) I have not been a big fan of Kevin Costner in recent years, but thought that he did a great job as the man who helps Joan Allen's character pick up the pieces. The writer/director also has a role in the film as an older man who dates Joan Allen's daughter. I thought the message of the film was delivered well, and it was an entertaining story.
I thought this movie had promise. Then again, I like Kevin Costner's epic flops, so what do I know?
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
I actually saw this movie on a semi-date, and just before the movie started she leans over and says, "This isn't a chick flick is it?" in a very disparaging voice. I didn't think it was, but then the scene comes up where the girls are all on the mother's bed and talking about how they hate their father. We bolted out of there and snuck in to see the back half of The Ring Two. She ended up thinking that movie was a comedy, and she laughed especially hard at the parts where I got scared and jumped a little in my seat.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: I thought this movie had promise. Then again, I like Kevin Costner's epic flops, so what do I know?
So I guess that means you've liked all of his movies (Okay, Dances With Wolves was good. But that's the only one coming to mind.)
[ April 12, 2005, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Uhleeuh (Member # 6803) on :
Hey, I thought Field of Dreams was great and I think it did fairly well in theaters.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Bull Durham wasn't bad, either.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: Hey, I thought Field of Dreams was great and I think it did fairly well in theaters.
Oops. Forgot about that one That makes two (Never saw Bull Durham).
edit: I actually think Field of Dreams was good because James Earl Jones was in it, but hey
[ April 12, 2005, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
For the Love of the Game put me in tears. Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Costner does pretty well in sports movies. Tin Cup was also quite good. In my opinion, aside from Dances With Wolves, the only non-sports movie he did a good job in was Silverado, and he had a reasonably small part in that one. Well, I should say except this one. The Upside of Anger is absolutely Costner's best non-sports performance. Possibly his best performance ever.
But, regarding my original question, I'm guessing not enough people here have seen it to really say?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
By epic flops, I meant the ones he directed. The Postman and Waterworld were the two I was referring to. OSC mentioned he wasn't playing the epic hero, and I am of the personal opinion that had he stopped directing films after Dances With Wolves, he would be much more popular than he is because of those two particular disasters, which I liked. I like The Postman more than Waterworld, but give me a post-apocalyptic world and I'm happy.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
The Postman irritated me because I liked the book so much.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I didn't object to him in "Robin Hood", but that's mostly because of the supporting cast.
quote:Prince John: And why would the people listen to you? Robin of Locksley: Because, unlike some other Robin Hoods, I can speak with an English accent.
::wipes tears from eyes::
Damn, Men in Tights was such a funny movie. I'd completely forgotten that line, till you reminded me of the disaster that Costner was in.
I never read The Postman, so the movie wasn't bad. I don't think you should ever see the movie if you've read the book. I've never seen a movie that I thought was anywhere near as good as the book. Unless it's Harry Potter, and then if only to make sense of the movie.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
From saxy's review of Fever Pitch
quote: it's quite possibly the least funny Farrelly Brothers movie ever,
Now see, there isn't a Farrelly brother movie that I ever thought was funny to begin with.
[Edit: cause I'm a dork.]
[ April 12, 2005, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Kayla ]
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
I loved Jackson's LOTR, by comparison. And, even though the book and the film are very different, I loved both A Clockwork Orange the William Burgess novel and Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece.
So, it can be done. Occasionally. Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I'm pretty sure that sndrake didn't review Fever Pitch. And if he did, then one of us needs to do a rewrite so that it doesn't look like plagiarism.
Posted by Uhleeuh (Member # 6803) on :
Kayla.
My favorite part from Men in Tights was the Little John/Robin fight at the bridge when they're meeting for the first time.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Saxy, Sorry. Fixed it.
But really, you have Sakeriver and his name is sndrake. In my head, you are practically the same person!
Ul, everytime I watch it I have a new favorite part. That movie is hysterical.
Oh, and Mandy Patinkin was at KU recently and there was an article in the paper. I found this most interesting.
quote: For his now-famous sword-fighting scene in "The Princess Bride," he trained and rehearsed for "10 hours a day for six months."
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
Didn't your date GET that that scene on the bed was about hypocritical anger AND it was making fun of chick flicks? Sort of the anti-Little Women.
As I think I said in my review, it's not a comedy comedy, it's just got humor in it. And for my money, WAY more than, say, Sideways.
But it doesn't go for laughs. The actors all go for REAL, and the laughs, if they happen, are a bonus.
As for what Greensboro audiences think - how would I know? Kristine and I saw it in a virtually empty theatre. When there was laughter, it was because we did the laughing.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
No, she didn't, and to be frank, I didn't get that either. I thought it was more about the bonding a family can experience when they share common feelings (in this case, anger - towards the father. Still, the bonding is an uplifting side of anger, thus relating to the title of the film.).
It was a weird movie because there weren't many people in the theater when we went, either. A group of elderly people were sitting 6 rows or so ahead of us and laughed at some odd (to me) moments in the movie, which was a little distracting. I empathized pretty well with Kevin Costner and Joan Allen, though, and I thought their performances (or what I saw of them) were good.
quote: I've never seen a movie that I thought was anywhere near as good as the book. Unless it's Harry Potter, and then if only to make sense of the movie.
The Shawshenk Redemption was pretty freaking close to the novella by Stephen King and it was an excellent movie.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I guess I just misunderstood, then.
quote:This movie is so richly written and beautifully performed and subtly directed that through most of it you think you're watching a comedy, except for the sudden moments of tragedy, and amid all the laughing and crying you never once think about the "art of the filmmaker" -- all you think about and care about is these wonderful, sad, angry, funny people who are making life so hard for each other despite their best intentions.
I took this to mean that you saw it as more of a comedy with a few tragic moments than a drama with a few comic moments. I think the confusion was in the word "comedy." I tend to think of Mel Brooks or the Farrelly Brothers when I encounter the word "comedy" without a qualifier like "romantic" or "musical." But the word is actually much broader in scope than that, which is how you were using it.
Sorry for the mix-up. In any event I wasn't trying to criticize your review so much as I was curious about the difference in perception.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: And for my money, WAY more than, say, Sideways.
God, I hated that movie.
Shawshank was a short story.
You know, most of Stephen King's books translate well into movies for me. But I can't stand the way he writes, so the movies are usually much more enjoyable for me. I like the stories, just not the order of the words he uses. Or the words themselves. Or a combination.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Well, King calls the four works in Different Seasons novellas. "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshenk Redemption" is one of those. "The Body", the novella that Stand By Me was based on, is another. I know I'm not about to count how many words are in those pieces of fiction, so argue with him if you want to call them short stories!
(I'm assuming you know the difference between a novella and a novel)
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Of course. I even know what a novelette is.
Considering Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption is 100 pages long, and The Stand is over 1,000, I think it's safe to say that Shawshank is a short story for King.
Does anyone know the word count on the original story? I've seen it referred to as a short story, a novelette and a novella. I'd love to know what it actually is.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I liked Dances With Wolves.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
As did I.
Looking back over my notes, while I did see several adaptations that I liked over the past couple of years, I didn't read any of the books first.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(Okay, Dances With Wolves was good. But that's the only one coming to mind.)![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Kayla.![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
Sorry. Fixed it. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)