"I’m not sure what you get from shifting the whole thing to the world of Los Angeles private equity, not a field that is world famous for its air of intellectual brinkmanship; or from giving the lead role to Paul Rudd, who happens to be one of the most affable, easy-going invertebrates on the planet. “That’s messed up,” he protests when he first hears about the scheme; and just in case we miss his principles the first time, here they are again: “that’s messed up” says his girlfriend Julie, who is played by French-born actress Stephanie Szostack, presumably on the principle that if you are to ransack a country’s most venerable farceur traditions you may as well grab their most winsome, button-nosed actresses while you’re at it. Once a new job is waved in front of him as bait, Rudd succumbs, thus turning the film from a story of comic deliverance visited on a snob who richly deserves it, into a story of comic deliverance visited upon someone who isn’t a snob but pretends to be one, although really — truthfully? — he should know better. Now, I am not the biggest fan of Hollywood’s insistence that everyone on screen be the proud recipient of a gleaming character arc, leading them from the error of their ways and into a well-lit, carefully irrigated world of moral beneficence, but even I could tell you that if you start introducing characters who should know better into the equation, all the fun goes out of the thing. Driving down the street one day, Tim run his Porsche into a sad sack in a windbreaker called Barry Speck (Steve Carrell) who dusts himself off — Carrell actually brushes his palms, as if getting up from press-ups — and takes the occasion to show off his collection of stuffed mice dioramas. Tim has his idiot. Or does he? Steve Carrell’s movie career has been so fitful of late that his fans have been forced into rare, retrospection, revisiting the delights of The Forty-Year-Old Virgin as the film that both minted and perfected the Carrell persona — a fortysomething late-starter with a streak of old-fashioned gallantry behind his collection of comic-book figurines. Alone amongst the current crop of comedians, he doesn’t play stupid — he’s way too quick, a venal schemer in The Office, whose fine features twitch with intelligence — so I would be fascinated to learn what thinking lay behind casting him as a stone-cold dumbkopf. Carell dons some rabbity false teeth and a pudding-bowl wig, the same worn by Jim Carrey in Dumb and Dumber, but Carrell has not, thus far, modeled his career on the plasticine antics of Carrey, so why start now? “He’s a tornado of destruction,” says Rudd and you think: no, he’s not. Carrell is and always will be the guy standing in the path of the tornado, his hand raised and a stapler attached to his tie." — from my review of Dinner For Schmucks for Slate
Rudd can play jerkball when called upon (cf. "Wet Hot American Summer"), but I'm generally in agreement about his likability quotient, not to mention what sounds like a typical gumming up the works of the "character motivation" in his latest movie. Hollywood's accused of being brainless, but sometimes I wonder if more often than not they're guilty of overthinking.
Your thoughts on Carrell are equally perceptive, except that I don't see his Michael Scott as a "venal schemer" on "The Office." He's more like that nitwit TV host babbling about Christina Hendricks' bath.
Re Rudd: there's a whole scene in the movie where they explain that even thought he's a nice guy, he's still going to do this. A whole scene. It's like overhearing a script meeting discussing his motivation.
The point I was trying to get across about Carrell is that those he rarely looks people in the eye. You can see the cogs whirring. He's transparently manipulative. But he's never dumb. He's just self-deluded and self-defeating. There's some pantomime value in seeing him play dumb but I never bought the character. (I was too busy being annoyed by him.)
Hey Tom, one thing that's come up in criticism in the age of the web is review aggregate sites.
Rotten Tomatoes operates on the yay or nay mode, and I think most readers can easily discern this is a nay.
Some people think it's important to consider the strength of the opinion. Pinpointing it can be tricky, though. Metacritic scored this review 50/100. For them, a "C" is a 50, but here you gave it a D-. Movie Review Intelligence deemed your review's rating of the movie "poor."
“A master-class‑–immersive, detailed, meticulous, privileged inside-dope… Tom Shone is the king of critical cool.” — Craig Raine
“An up-close and personal look at one of Hollywood’s most successful directors…This erudite book is packed with extensive, expansive discussions about Nolan’s films… insights into what he was trying to accomplish with each film; and the movies, directors, books, art, architecture, and music that influenced him…. Fans of Nolan’s films will find this revealing book invaluable.” — Kirkus, starred review
THE NOLAN VARIATIONS
Follow me on Instagram
"Shone is simply one of the most eloquent and acute film writers we have" — Teddy Jamieson, The Sunday Herald
"Shone is a clever film columnist who can also write a wise book: two attributes that don't often go together." — Clive James
"Is there anyone now writing about movies better than Tom Shone? I think not” — John Heilemann, New York magazine
B O O K S
BEST MOVIES of 2018
1 The Irishman A
2. The Souvenir A
3.Marriage Story A-
4. Once Upon A Time in Hollywood A-
5. Apollo 11 A-
6. Parasite A-
7. Ford vs Ferrari
8. Toy Story 4 A-
9. Ad Astra B+
10. For Sama B+
B O O K S
R E V I E W S
"This level of discernment and tart dissent is an unexpected treat... Shone's prose has a beauty of it's own, abounding in nonchalantly exquisite turns of phrase" — Guy Lodge, The Observer
"Sharp, smart... Shone doesn't just follow critical orthodoxies. He makes his argument beautifully. It's the brain food Allen's rich career deserves." — Ian Freer, Empire
"The book is a must for Woody Allen fans" - Joe Meyers, Connecticut Post
.
R E V I E W S
"What makes the book worth taking home, however, is the excellent text... by Tom Shone, a film critic worth reading whatever aspect of the film industry he talks about. (His book Blockbuster is a must).... Most critics are at their best when speaking the language of derision but Shone has the precious gift of being carried away in a sensible manner, and of begin celebratory without setting your teeth on edge." — Clive James, Prospect "The real draw here is Shone’s text, which tells the stories behind the pictures with intelligence and grace. It’s that rarest of creatures: a coffee-table book that’s also a helluva good read." — Jason Bailey, Flavorwire
"There’s a danger of drifting into blandness with this picture packed, coffee-table format. Shone is too vigorous a critic not to put up a fight. He calls Gangs “heartbreaking in the way that only missed masterpieces can be: raging, wounded, incomplete, galvanised by sallies of wild invention”. There’s lots of jazzy, thumbnail writing of this kind... Shone on the “rich, strange and unfathomable” Taxi Driver (1976) cuts to the essence of what Scorsese is capable of." — Tim Robey, The Sunday Telegraph
"A beautiful book on the Taxi Driver director's career by former Sunday Times film critic Tom Shone who relishes Scorsese's "energetic winding riffs that mix cinema history and personal reminiscence".' — Kate Muir,The Times "No mere coffee table book. Shone expertly guides us through Scorsese’s long career.... Shone shows a fine appreciation of his subject, too. Describing Taxi Driver (1976) as having ‘the stillness of a cobra’ is both pithy and apposite.... Fascinating stuff." — Michael Doherty, RTE Guide"An admiring but clear-eyed view of the great American filmmaker’s career... Shone gives the book the heft of a smart critical biography... his arguments are always strong and his insights are fresh. The oversized book’s beauty is matched by its brains”— Connecticut Post
.
Click to order
“The film book of the year.... enthralling... groundbreaking.” — The Daily Telegraph
“Blockbuster is weirdly humane: it prizes entertainment over boredom, and audiences over critics, and yet it’s a work of great critical intelligence” – Nick Hornby, The Believer
“Beautifully written and very funny... I loved it and didn’t want it to end.” – Helen Fielding “[An] impressively learned narrative... approachable and enlightening... Shone evinces an intuitive knowledge of what makes audiences respond... One of those rare film books that walks the fine line between populist tub-thumping and sky-is-falling, Sontag-esque screed.” – Kirkus Reviews
“Exhilarating.... wit, style and a good deal of cheeky scorn for the opinions of bien-pensant liberal intellectuals.” – Phillip French, Times Literary Supplement
“Startlingly original... his ability to sum up an actor or director in one well-turned phrase is reminiscent of Pauline Kael’s... the first and last word on the subject. For anyone interested in film, this book is a must read.” – Toby Young, The Spectator
“A history of caring” – Louis Menand, The New Yorker “Smart, observant… nuanced and original, a conversation between the kid who saw Star Wars a couple dozen times and the adult who's starting to think that a handful might have sufficed.” – Chris Tamarri, The Village Voice
"A sweet and savvy page-turner of a valentine to New York, the strange world of fiction, the pleasures of a tall, full glass and just about everything else that matters" — Gary Shteyngart, author of Super Sad True Love Story and Absurdistan
"A cocktail with bite. I downed it in one" — Helen Fielding, author of Bridget Jones's Diary
"A deft, witty satire which casts its sharp eye over the absurdities of addiction, recovery and contemporary New York" — Marcel Theroux, author of Far North
“Laugh-out-loud funny” — Toby Young, author of How to Lose Friends and Alienate People
"Tom Shone's superb debut is a wise and witty examination of literary celebrity, Anglo-American mystification and the cult of recovery. Shone's prose sparkles: his humor detonates smart-bombs of truth" — Stephen Amidon, author of Human Capital
“A cutting comic debut” — The Sunday Times
“Clever, witty, acerbic, warm” — Geoff Nicholson, author of Footsucker
"A sharp, funny, and ultimately touching debut novel" — Library Journal Reviews
"One of the few novels set in Manhattan that gives you a true feel for the city” — James Wolcott, Vanity Fair
"A splash of cynicism, a dash of self-doubt, and a good measure of humour.... In the Rooms is an entertaining page-turner about humanity, with plenty of hilarity" — The Economist
SEAN BAKER'S (AND MIKEY MADISON'S) ANORA
-
Way back in May it was that Patty, Emma and I drove to the SEE Film
Multiplex in Bremerton to take in *I Saw the TV Glow*, and while there I
took a ...
Happy Birthday Elliott Gould
-
Happy Birthday to one of the all-time greats and one of the coolest of the
cool Elliott Gould. From my 2019 New Beverly interview with Elliott Gould
about ...
National Silent Movie Day: Manhandled (1924)
-
Wednesday, Sept. 29, 2021, is National Silent Movie Day. New York City's
beloved Film Forum is celebrating with a screening of Allan Dwan's 1924
silent...
The King Vidor File – Part Two
-
This part consists of comments on some of his finest and most popular work,
including The Big Parade, The Champ, and Street Scene, as well as one of
his mo...
The Years Of Writing Dangerously
-
Thirteen years ago, as I was starting to experiment with this blogging
thing, I wrote the following: [T]he speed with which an idea in your head
reaches th...
Rudd can play jerkball when called upon (cf. "Wet Hot American Summer"), but I'm generally in agreement about his likability quotient, not to mention what sounds like a typical gumming up the works of the "character motivation" in his latest movie. Hollywood's accused of being brainless, but sometimes I wonder if more often than not they're guilty of overthinking.
ReplyDeleteYour thoughts on Carrell are equally perceptive, except that I don't see his Michael Scott as a "venal schemer" on "The Office." He's more like that nitwit TV host babbling about Christina Hendricks' bath.
Ha!
ReplyDeleteRe Rudd: there's a whole scene in the movie where they explain that even thought he's a nice guy, he's still going to do this. A whole scene. It's like overhearing a script meeting discussing his motivation.
The point I was trying to get across about Carrell is that those he rarely looks people in the eye. You can see the cogs whirring. He's transparently manipulative. But he's never dumb. He's just self-deluded and self-defeating. There's some pantomime value in seeing him play dumb but I never bought the character. (I was too busy being annoyed by him.)
Hey Tom, one thing that's come up in criticism in the age of the web is review aggregate sites.
ReplyDeleteRotten Tomatoes operates on the yay or nay mode, and I think most readers can easily discern this is a nay.
Some people think it's important to consider the strength of the opinion. Pinpointing it can be tricky, though. Metacritic scored this review 50/100. For them, a "C" is a 50, but here you gave it a D-. Movie Review Intelligence deemed your review's rating of the movie "poor."