Oh my god I saw a horrible movie. I feel it is my duty to warn others, so instead of spending two hours watching this movie they can do something more enjoyable. Like going for a swim in a pool of nails and lemon juice. That would be more enjoyable than this movie.
The movie is called ‘The Upside of Anger’. But be warned, there is no upside, except for maybe the credits.
Let me preface my rant by saying that I’m a huge fan of movies. I appreciate all different genres and budgets and languages. It takes a lot for me to HATE a movie. I mean, it has to be a special kind of crap. My two qualifications for hating a movie are 1) it has to really really suck and 2) it has to have talented people involved in it. These qualifications keep me from hating too many movies. Because while not all movies are great, very few really really suck. And fewer of those actually have talented people involved in them.
And why does it matter whose involved with the movie? Frankly I expect more from the talented people. I know they have it in them to do great stuff, and when they choose to do crap, I get upset. It’s kinda like when I was a kid and I always brought home A’s on my report card, and then – heaven forbid – I brought home a B, my parents would be upset. But on the other hand I had friends who always brought home C’s on their report cards. When they brought home B’s their parents were ecstatic. It’s all about expectations.
So for example, when Tom Cruise and Cameron Crowe combine their talents to make the pile of poo movie ‘Vanilla Sky’ I get upset. Cameron Crowe made ‘Almost Famous’, one of the best movies I’ve ever seen. And Tom Cruise – well Tom Cruise is Tom Cruise. He’s got a great smile and could get a silent film about the migration of squirrels made, if he really wanted to. (And squirrels don't even migrate, but I'm sure he could convince them to.) So when these two combine to make ‘Vanilla Sky’ it’s unacceptable. I can’t even give you an intelligent critique of that movie, cause I can’t even tell you what it was about. My friend called it ‘Vanilla Why’ and I think we all deserve to know the answer to that question.
So in order for me to have really HATED ‘The Upside of Anger’ it had to really really suck (check) and it had to have talented people involved (check, check, check, check). The writer and director of this movie isn’t anyone who has proved himself to be talented, so I’ll let him slide. But the movie has an amazing cast. Joan Allen stars along side Kevin Costner and some talented young actors. I think Joan Allen is an amazing actress, very underappreciated. And Kevin Costner might be past his 15 minutes of fame, but he’s still a good actor. The girls in the movie, the ones that play Joan’s kids, are all really talented as well. I’ve seen them all in other projects and been impressed. So what the hell are all these people doing in this movie? They must have been drugged. Someone must have incriminating photographs with which to blackmail them. This is the only possible explanation.
Stop reading here if you actually ever plan on seeing this movie and don’t want me to ruin it for you. I wouldn’t want to spoil it for you. It spoils itself just fine.
The main concept of the movie is that Joan Allen, who is a horrible woman, gets left by her husband (who can blame him) and becomes a raging alcoholic bitch who treats everyone around her like crap. And she has a daughter named Popeye. I don’t know what that has to do with anything, but it seemed to tip the absurd meter while I was watching the movie, so I thought I’d point it out.
Now I’m all for having a nice little breakdown, even having a few drinks and yelling a little. But this movie takes place over the course of years and this woman never gets any nicer or any less drunk. And yet, all these people around her just put up with it. I don’t get it. I also don’t get why she gets a call in the middle of the night saying that her daughter is in the hospital with what appears to be a stomach ache. Why is this confusing? Because her daughter lives in Joan’s house. How did the daughter even get to the hospital? And do her stomach aches have anything to do with the fact that her sister is named Popeye? We never find out. All we know is that she is in the hospital, and she is tired and all she wants to do is dance. But her mom is too busy drinking Greygoose and making out with Kevin Costner to care about her daughter’s dancing dreams.
So the seasons pass and Joan passes out and all that. Then at the end of the movie we find out that the husband didn’t actually leave her, he actually fell in a hole behind the house and died there. What the? So let me get this straight, let me try to fully appreciate the plot points here. One night Joan’s hubby didn’t come home. He didn’t leave a note, didn’t take any of his stuff, didn’t leave a forwarding address for his FOUR children. But of course the first assumption of Ms. Greygoose is that her husband has run off to Sweden with his secretary. ????!!!! The dude is dying in the backyard and his wife is lining up shots to comfort herself.
But at least Joan has drunkness to blame for her complete lack of any sense. These daughters of hers are between the ages of 15 and 25. Not ONCE in the course of 2 years do ANY of them try to contact their father? Not when they graduate college? Not when they get married? Not when they have a stomach ache? Not when they finally have had enough of their ridiculous Popeye name? AND DID ANYONE NOTICE THAT HE DIDN’T EVEN TAKE HIS CAR WITH HIM?!
People. Do yourself a favor. Avoid this movie. I know the preview looks good. I know there are talented people in it. I know that some critics are saying it’s great because the performances are outstanding. But keep in mind that I could do an outstanding performance of Hamlet, Cirque du Soleil, and the series finale of The Facts of Life, but that doesn’t mean when you put them all together it will make for an outstanding piece of art. (Although Tootie as an acrobat could be fun.)
The movie is called ‘The Upside of Anger’. But be warned, there is no upside, except for maybe the credits.
Let me preface my rant by saying that I’m a huge fan of movies. I appreciate all different genres and budgets and languages. It takes a lot for me to HATE a movie. I mean, it has to be a special kind of crap. My two qualifications for hating a movie are 1) it has to really really suck and 2) it has to have talented people involved in it. These qualifications keep me from hating too many movies. Because while not all movies are great, very few really really suck. And fewer of those actually have talented people involved in them.
And why does it matter whose involved with the movie? Frankly I expect more from the talented people. I know they have it in them to do great stuff, and when they choose to do crap, I get upset. It’s kinda like when I was a kid and I always brought home A’s on my report card, and then – heaven forbid – I brought home a B, my parents would be upset. But on the other hand I had friends who always brought home C’s on their report cards. When they brought home B’s their parents were ecstatic. It’s all about expectations.
So for example, when Tom Cruise and Cameron Crowe combine their talents to make the pile of poo movie ‘Vanilla Sky’ I get upset. Cameron Crowe made ‘Almost Famous’, one of the best movies I’ve ever seen. And Tom Cruise – well Tom Cruise is Tom Cruise. He’s got a great smile and could get a silent film about the migration of squirrels made, if he really wanted to. (And squirrels don't even migrate, but I'm sure he could convince them to.) So when these two combine to make ‘Vanilla Sky’ it’s unacceptable. I can’t even give you an intelligent critique of that movie, cause I can’t even tell you what it was about. My friend called it ‘Vanilla Why’ and I think we all deserve to know the answer to that question.
So in order for me to have really HATED ‘The Upside of Anger’ it had to really really suck (check) and it had to have talented people involved (check, check, check, check). The writer and director of this movie isn’t anyone who has proved himself to be talented, so I’ll let him slide. But the movie has an amazing cast. Joan Allen stars along side Kevin Costner and some talented young actors. I think Joan Allen is an amazing actress, very underappreciated. And Kevin Costner might be past his 15 minutes of fame, but he’s still a good actor. The girls in the movie, the ones that play Joan’s kids, are all really talented as well. I’ve seen them all in other projects and been impressed. So what the hell are all these people doing in this movie? They must have been drugged. Someone must have incriminating photographs with which to blackmail them. This is the only possible explanation.
Stop reading here if you actually ever plan on seeing this movie and don’t want me to ruin it for you. I wouldn’t want to spoil it for you. It spoils itself just fine.
The main concept of the movie is that Joan Allen, who is a horrible woman, gets left by her husband (who can blame him) and becomes a raging alcoholic bitch who treats everyone around her like crap. And she has a daughter named Popeye. I don’t know what that has to do with anything, but it seemed to tip the absurd meter while I was watching the movie, so I thought I’d point it out.
Now I’m all for having a nice little breakdown, even having a few drinks and yelling a little. But this movie takes place over the course of years and this woman never gets any nicer or any less drunk. And yet, all these people around her just put up with it. I don’t get it. I also don’t get why she gets a call in the middle of the night saying that her daughter is in the hospital with what appears to be a stomach ache. Why is this confusing? Because her daughter lives in Joan’s house. How did the daughter even get to the hospital? And do her stomach aches have anything to do with the fact that her sister is named Popeye? We never find out. All we know is that she is in the hospital, and she is tired and all she wants to do is dance. But her mom is too busy drinking Greygoose and making out with Kevin Costner to care about her daughter’s dancing dreams.
So the seasons pass and Joan passes out and all that. Then at the end of the movie we find out that the husband didn’t actually leave her, he actually fell in a hole behind the house and died there. What the? So let me get this straight, let me try to fully appreciate the plot points here. One night Joan’s hubby didn’t come home. He didn’t leave a note, didn’t take any of his stuff, didn’t leave a forwarding address for his FOUR children. But of course the first assumption of Ms. Greygoose is that her husband has run off to Sweden with his secretary. ????!!!! The dude is dying in the backyard and his wife is lining up shots to comfort herself.
But at least Joan has drunkness to blame for her complete lack of any sense. These daughters of hers are between the ages of 15 and 25. Not ONCE in the course of 2 years do ANY of them try to contact their father? Not when they graduate college? Not when they get married? Not when they have a stomach ache? Not when they finally have had enough of their ridiculous Popeye name? AND DID ANYONE NOTICE THAT HE DIDN’T EVEN TAKE HIS CAR WITH HIM?!
People. Do yourself a favor. Avoid this movie. I know the preview looks good. I know there are talented people in it. I know that some critics are saying it’s great because the performances are outstanding. But keep in mind that I could do an outstanding performance of Hamlet, Cirque du Soleil, and the series finale of The Facts of Life, but that doesn’t mean when you put them all together it will make for an outstanding piece of art. (Although Tootie as an acrobat could be fun.)
2 comments:
Great review, Dawn.
However, as a reforming closet drinker and Tom Cruise fan, let me offer the following theory: 'Vanilla Sky' is a companion piece to 'Magnolia' and 'Minority Report'. Viewed sequentially, one begins to understand the existential scientologist angst that Tom must feel in a post-'Far and Away' world.
P.S. I hate Kevin Costner. I wouldn't be surprised if the working title for "Upside" was "Dancing with Grey Geese."
Kevin Costner is WHAT?? A good actor? What??? He should only star in movies where he has to have one facial expression and that facial expression shouldn't require a chin. The man has one facial expression and no chin. I see him as a very limited "actor".
Post a Comment