Oscar bait DENIED: CHANGELING- Page 2

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 10/25/08 at 4:51am

Updated On: 1/13/09 at 04:51 AM

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 10/25/08 at 12:32pm

Stephanie Zacharek wasn't fond of it either:

"No one in "Changeling" is saved from his or her worst impulses, not even Jolie. Part of the problem is that Jolie just has the wrong look for the role: She skulks through too much of the movie like a ghoul, her heavily mascaraed eyes glowering from beneath a series of cloche hats -- she's more vamp than grieving mom. The performance she gives is wrapped mostly around the lines "I want my son back!" and "Did you kill my son?" repeated frequently and at gradually increasing decibel levels. Normally, Jolie is an actress capable of both intensity and subtlety, but her performance here is too amped up to register as anything more than a star turn. Did nobody notice that the real Angelina had been snatched?"

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 10/25/08 at 12:34pm

But..but..Rex Reed adored it!

[StockardFan]

Posted: 10/25/08 at 12:52pm

I still want to know if they ever found the real son again?

[tazber]

Posted: 10/25/08 at 12:55pm

It's ok, Clint has Gran Tourino in the wings (late December release) to pick up his requisite nominations.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 10/25/08 at 4:52pm

EW gave it a C+.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 10/25/08 at 5:45pm

What's this? An Eastwood film that isn't inspiring bizarro devotion from the Movie Reviewer Establishment? How is this possible?

Well, at least Eastwood has Roger Ebert to lick his ass for him. Eastwood will never lack toilet paper while Ebert's around.

The best line: We could not do without (Eastwood's) work as an actor.

Wow. I've heard lots of things said about Eastood's alleged acting, but nobody to my knowledge has ever referred to any of his "performances" as being indispensible.

Time for Ebert to RETIRE.
Ebert On Eastwood

Updated On: 10/25/08 at 05:45 PM

[DAME]

Posted: 10/25/08 at 9:29pm

Saw it today. It was excellent.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 10/25/08 at 9:51pm

So it seems like people are quite split on it. Half seem to love it, half seem to hate it.

Which makes me REALLY want to see it.

[LilMiZBroADwaY23]

Posted: 10/26/08 at 12:11pm

Saw it last night, also thought it was excellent.

A little long perhaps, but worth every penny. I loved it.

[Luckydave14]

Posted: 10/26/08 at 5:30pm

I also loved this movie. It was really powerful and visually stunning as well. Angelina was excellent, as was the supporting cast including Jeffrey Donovan, John Malkovich and Amy Morton. Even though as someone said, the last 45 minutes could have been a text scrawl, these were some of the most powerful, intense, and shocking points of the movie and I just wanted it to keep going and going. Eastwood makes the audience really feel for Christine Collins and by the end of the movie, I just wanted to know more of her story.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 10/26/08 at 6:49pm

It was really powerful and visually stunning as well. Angelina was excellent, as was the supporting cast including Jeffrey Donovan, John Malkovich and Amy Morton.

Is that a typo or is Amy Morton really in this film? She is not listed on IMDB.com and I don't think it's on her playbill bio either, but I'm wondering.

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 5:35pm

I thought it was endless. There were only one or two moments early in the film where I actually felt engaged by it.

Jeffrey Donovan's performance is astoundingly bad. I never knew someone could be so bland and so grating at the same time until now.

[wink]

Posted: 11/3/08 at 9:32pm

I didn't like it. I don't understand how anyone can consider Jolie a good actress. It's obvious she worked very hard at playing a character who never changes even though you would expect a mother to who undergoes such tragedy to metamorphis in some way.

Although it's filmed beautifully, there is no nuance in any of the characters. They're either all good or evil.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 1:38pm

I thought it was ghastly on just about every level.

SPOILERS

Being based on a true story seemed to inspire some of the laziest screenwriting I've ever seen. Motives were either missing or reduced to black/white, those of simplistic villains or a beautific, maternal heroine. The melodrama was so thick, the darkness so pervasive, it was almost laughable.

A few of the hundreds of holes:

Who WAS the faux child? What was his story? Why was he so willing, at age 9 or 10, to go along with this enormous scheme? What happened between him and Jolie's character -- we saw one sustained scene, but how did the child function? What was his performance in school?

Speaking of which, why didn't the OTHER children in the class rise up, en masse, and join the teacher in saying "That's not Walter!" He was only gone 5 months -- those savvy kids wouldve gone home, told their parents "This strange kid is in our class pretending to be Walter..." Parents would've jumped in. This was a public school? It doesn't track with any children's behavior. (What of the bully mentioned in the first scene? He alone would know that ain't Walter.)

What about neighbors and neighborhood children? Did none of them weigh in?

Why did the Dentist and teacher suddenly disappear, never to voice their strong reactions, while the Jolie character was in the nuthouse? Where was the child's pediatrician? Once Jolie was freed, THEN they magically reappear to support her. Like many such details, they were all timed to fit into the schematic demands of the screenplay.

And then, why, on why did every single person in the psychiatric ward have to be out of the Bedlam sequence in SWEENEY TODD? To a person, they were a pack of monsters. Was everyone in cahoots with the LAPD? It was the usual central casting of monstrous, homely women with moles and facial hair, either bone thin witches or chubby ogres. They were all all comic book fiends.

And then the unwatchable serial killer story, grafted onto the last third...

Why was this man given so much screen time? Did we ever learn anything about him or his heinous motives? (Was he a pediphile, or just a guy who got off bludgeoning little boys?) Why were we subjected to his hyenna-laughter moments and non-responses to questions from the press that would illuminate why he did what he did? Why were we subjected to a lengthy hanging sequence complete with the singing of "Silent Night" before he fell through the door? What was the point of seeing his sustained demise, when he revealed nothing to the end? What did his evil-ness have to do with Jolie? Who stood on the sidelines like she was offering a cameo in another film?

I've never seen any film so poorly structured. In the final 45 minutes, they literally had to drag Jolie into the "new" story of this ghastly, un screen-worthy "villain." Watchng her shuttle between the 2 courtrooms, as we learned nothing new, was excrutiating. And the soap opera results of her "enlightnent" -- standing on the stairs of the hostpial as the women were released. It was an Erica Kane moment. As was the ludicrous, clearly added on beat when she threw the killer up against the wall. Suddenly, she was in yet another style of film, playing another character. I didn't buy any of it.

I was appalled by the use of so much talent -- start with Peter Gerrity and especially the brilliant Dennis O'hare, in one of the film's many one-dimensional roles. He didn't twirl his moustache, he chewed it up and swallwed it. Everyone was do quick to demonstrate his evil chauvinism, to prove how he, too, could aid in destroying this woman. Again, it was laughably arch.

And I'm glad I laughed, because the film's grafted on 2nd story -- about the death of these small, frightened boys on that chicken ranch -- was so beyond the pale for any big screen entertainment. Why did we have to SEE and hear any of it?

There's a small fascinating film buried inside this behemoth drek -- about what would actually happen betwen this woman and this transplanted child who isn't hers. Call it Martin Guerre syndrome. But that was lost, and instead we got unmitigated nastiness dressed up in period details, beautiful cinematography and lavish stylings. I found it all lurid and unworthy of any of the gifted talents connected. As for Ms. Jolie, well, she cries beautifully on cue. But she is an exhausting screen presence when she has no script and no real help from a director.

Stay away. You've been warned.

Updated On: 11/9/08 at 01:38 PM

[Robert Taylor]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 2:26pm

I adored it and would definitely put it in my top five of the year so far. Jolie was excellent, of course, but the entirety of the supporting cast was excellent as well.

And audiences seem to enjoy it as well--last week it overperformaned and this week had a surprising 22 percent decline, surprising because most people thought it would drop 50-60 percent. Obviously, this one is doing quite well for itself.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 2:34pm

Ergo it isn't dreck?

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 2:44pm

I did like the gentle masculinity that the sexy, balding character actor Michael Kelly brought to the role of the detective. He's about the only part of the film I can praise without putting a "but..." on the end of the sentence.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 2:47pm

Arf, as the kids say!

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 2:50pm

One man's dreck (okay, not 'drek') is another's Oscar bait. But I cannot fathom what is enjoyable or illuminating about the human condition in this material.

I'd appreciate hearing someone defend the last third -- at least 50 minutes woth -- to justify the screen time devoted to explicating the verdict and demise of the serial killer. Please explain to me why that's compelling or even relevant, ultimately. Do we learn anything more about the LAPD? No. About Jolie? No, except she can continue to supervise telephone operators on roller skates -- and excell -- even while shuttling back/forth to court rooms (perhaps she wore the skates then?). It's inherently static material, since the killer isn't a dimensional character, or a compelling Hannibal Lecter (if he were, it would still be another film, not connected to this one).

Please explain to me why the San Quentin sequences are there? Why we are made witnesses to a the slow, drawn-out hanging of a character we don't care about, and who tells us nothing -- NOTHING -- in the sequence? It's a baffling debacle, the last third, grafted onto an already lurid tail.

Again, please defend it with particulars. Just tell me, any of you who "loved it" what you got from watching the story evolve or devolve into some sort of IN COLD BLOOD Lite, unrelated to this woman's journey?

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 2:50pm

repeat, but it's a "tale," not a "tail." Perhaps if it were grafted onto a "tail," I would be more intrigued.

On the way out, a baffled woman shrugged and said "So what message do we take away from THAT?"

I interjected, "Maybe ... get a babysitter?"

Updated On: 11/9/08 at 02:50 PM

[Robert Taylor]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 4:53pm

Personally, the last hour of the film was all about the vindication of not only the Jolie character, but most of the citizens of Los Angeles. The story becomes about something bigger than just her son--it's about an entire city that has digressed into wickedness. Seeds of this were planted quite early in the film, particularly with the Reverend's character. As Jolie states, "I didn't start this fight, but I'm going to finish it." And that she does. Because of her refusal to step back and admit that her child was gone, she brought down an entire police department. To me, at least, the scenes were incredibly meaningful and without them, the movie would have been inexplicably, disgustingly depressing. I found the actor quite gripping in his serial killer role and Jolie's final moments with him in the prison before he was hanged were beautifully staged and shattering. To me, those sequences showed that, despite her vindication in public and court, there were still no easy answers for her. The man who might have killed her son was punished by being murdered by the State, but that did not give her any closure, nor did her talk with him prior to the hanging. But despite the lack of answers, she comes to realize she still had something--the final word she speaks in the film.

Just my two cents.

One of the great things about film is that you can disagree about a subject while still seeing the argument from another person's perspective. Auggie, I respect your opinion but disagree with it, and think that the final third is just as gripping as the first two-thirds.
Updated On: 11/9/08 at 04:53 PM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/10/08 at 10:49am

I'm intrigued that you found so much in that last third. What you say makes sense. My problem is that much of that take-away was not dramatized. Jolie's character was incredibly inactive, and her one "active" moment didn't produce any results, or even any shift in her frustration. I know we'll have to agree to disagree, but I am startled that you said the film would be more disgusting and depressing WITHOUT the lurid hanging sequences. I didn't care about that man, his response to the hanging was so off point -- nothing was revealed about the crimes or even him (other than knowing the lyrics to "Silent Night.") I was appalled that we were subjected to the neck breaking, the twitching feet, etc. Why was that shown? What dramatic point was served? Yes a bad man did horrible things. But it's not his story, it's hers, and witnessing the execution doesn't change this woman.

As to the end being about larger themes, or at least, larger impact on the city -- I found that too dramatically generalized. Maybe big changes were wrought in LA, but it's a single woman's tale we're following, and she disappears in the loud melee of screaming accusations. I wish her response had been DRAMATIZED, so that we didn't have to infer her reactions. Maybe the city of LA was going through hell, but she kept her job, kept her stoicism. She was so singularly defined by this crime (critics have pointed this out -- she's just a mom, just an operator supervisor -- we're startled when she suddenly talkes about the Oscars) that we at least deserved to hear her speak about the changes she was going through. "I want my son back" as a dramatic mantra is limiting.

I suppose the film irked me so much because a really extraordinary story is set up -- again, per my earlier post, the whole biz about the faux child. Far too little was done with all of that, and too much was made of a lurid, exploitative story of a monstrous killer. I didn't want to spend time with that man, and still don't know why we had to. He pulled the focus and in effect ruined the movie for me (and at least a couple of critics).

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 11/10/08 at 10:57am

SPOILERS

Another thing that bothered me is that the film ends on a note of renewed hope after Jolie hears the boy who escaped tell the story of how Walter saved him. But wouldn't the police then question the older boy who helped with the murders again and try to find out if Walter got away that night or not?

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/10/08 at 11:03am

And it's a bizarre and unsatisfying place to leave her -- and us. Aha, we think, having heard and seen yet another grisly flashback to that damned ranch of doomed boys, so she's heartened to learn something specific and real about her son's courageous behavior. After 5 years, wouldn't she be overcome to learn he was heroic? Someone who helped/ But no, we don't hear that. Way too specific and fresh for this screenwriter. We hear: "Now I have hope," which is basically been her MO for the entire film. As she dashes across the street, "hopeful," we get a blandly generic tag to a movie that didn't know how or when to stop. It ends so many times, you can throw your back out, getting up out of your seat and then having to shve your butt back down. Maddening.