comment #1

Walter Sobchak says ...

If "Dead Man" were released today, it would still pretty much die at the box office, despite having Depp in it.

Oddly enough, the Brad Pitt thing might actually hurt this film. A lot of his fans, (that is, girls who think he's "like, totally hot"), aren't going to dig a movie like this. Conversely, a lot of people that might like a film like this might be turned off by the presence of a "movie star" in it. (the kind of people that reflexively dislike Spielberg films)

Bloody shame either way.

See this movie!

comment #2

Dan Revill says ...

It's Phoenix man. Phoenix. Or are doing a little Dan Le Sac vs Scroobius Pip spelling here?

comment #3

Higgy Hackford says ...

I didn't care for the film, so I won't cry if it dies, but I'm perplexed by the way Warner Bros. is handling it. I inquired twice about a Houston opening date. The last time was last week. I was told Warner would decide this week. Then, on Monday, I learned it was being rushed into theaters.

I did two interviews for the movie in Toronto but won't have time to write about it before it opens. It opens the same date here as Michael Clayton, We Own the Night, Elizabeth: The Golden Age and Lust, Caution. It hasn't got a chance in hell.

comment #4

Mark says ...

Brad Pitt has been fronting movies for over a dozen; i think he's a bit above securing only the niche market of young girls that buy US weekly. (It definitely wasn't that market which made Fight Club and Snatch huge DVD successes.)

comment #5

Dave says ...

Hmmm, what to say here.

I saw it last Friday in Arlington, Virginia. I was interested in seeing this-- not excited, but interested. The trailer is mesmerizing, the cast and pedigree is excellent, and it definitely came off as "adult" fare.

Which is why I'm so surprised that everyone here but me (and the cinema-loving friends I went with) are raving about the film.

Perhaps my expectations were too high, but I was just kinda. . . *bored* by it. I recognize that the fine line between "lyrical" and "overlong" is a matter of personal opinion, but man, this movie is LONNNNG.

It's pretty to look at (God, the train heist in the beginning is gorgeous, the lantern-lighting contrasted with pitch darkness is indeed sumptuous), but Jeffrey (not to mention all the ravers here) fail to recognize that the movie's strongest suit-- the revelation that Casey Affleck can really f'ing act-- is also its biggest downside.

Affleck plays a creep. A demented, twisted, miserable, stalking, worm of a creep. A thoroughly worthless excuse for an individual. Every scene he's in is painful to watch precisely because he's so good at capturing the awkwardness of being in a room with such a cretin. I can respect the performance-- it's phenomenal-- while acknowledging that it's not a pleasant experience to sit through. The opposite, in fact-- it's deeply UN-pleasant.

Pitt has a better role-- more "fun"-- but even then, he's a sociopathic racist weighted down by, what, exactly? The loss of his soul? That he never had a soul to begin with? That he's not proud of being a "hero" for Robert Ford to worship? I know that movies don't have to hit it on the nose, but this movie wasn't even hitting it on *the feet*. It just kinda meandered, wandered, mosied. A beautiful-sounding poem filled with rhymes that don't mean much at all when read more closely.

This movie, regardless of it's praiseworthy elements (and it has many of them-- no film-lover should miss it), will utterly bomb, and probably deserves to. While Jeff will surely lament the mouth-breathing mall-feeder's lack of cinematic taste, sometimes the mob is right-- The Assassination of Jesse James is a beautiful film about unpleasant people, with no profound truths to reveal other than "Beware of Single White Cowboys."

Plus, let's face facts-- TOO LONG.

comment #6

JD says ...

If its any consollation Dave, I thought it was heavily-flawed. At its best, it's amazing. But it's not just long, it's sloppy.

comment #7

Craig Kennedy says ...

Dave I saw the Robert Ford character as more layered and complex than you give it credit for and while I may not have come away with "profound truths", I came away with profound questions.

comment #8

T. S. Idiot says ...

"he's a sociopathic racist"

Maybe I missed something--it's 160 minutes after all--but I don't recall race coming up.

comment #9

Dave says ...

Flawed, yes. I won't bash it for being flawed-- I'd rather see this than Transformers, that's for sure.

But it just keeps wandering around for no reason other than it wants to wander around. I'm often okay with that (I love Malick films, including his recent ones), but this one was off-putting, probably because of the "Bob Ford's not a good man to be around" factor.

I will throw in two elements that I haven't heard talked up, one minor, one major.

Minor: Nifty James Carville cameo. When he first showed up he sucked me out of it-- stunt casting! favor from a friend!-- but then he appears again, and I dug it. I may disagree with his politics, but he's always an, ummm, interesting character. Great voice, great ugly mug. Makes me think that chould he care to he'd be welcome as the Dem version of Fred Thompson, Character Actor.

Major: The narration. Most purists hate narration because it's clunky, and unnecessary. Why say it when you can show it? But in Jesse James, the narration was perfect. I'm guessing the words were those taken straight from the book? And Hugh Ross (who? I had to check IMDB too) has a great narration voice. Made me think of a younger David McCullough, very easy to lose yourself into the story. Which I guess is unfortunate, as I found myself *missing* the narration when it wasn't there.

comment #10

Higgy Hackford says ...

I disagree with your reasons for disliking it, Dave, but I share your surprise that so many people here love it. The film's visual beauty, lyricism, etc., are all impressive in and of themselves but I didn't think they served the material, which Dominik (no fan or scholar of traditional Westerns) has no affinity for.

I heard him say twice in Toronto that the book on which the film is based "has no story." The movie does finally find a fascinating story -- it begins with Jesse James' death. Most of the material that comes before that is, in my opinion, pretentious, shapeless, empty preening.

It sounds harsh to say that a film, especially one with ambition, "deserves" to bomb. But I would be very disheartened if this one took off and the lavish praise it has received was in some way validated by awards and commercial success.

comment #11

Higgy Hackford says ...

"I would be very disheartened if this one took off and the lavish praise it has received was in some way validated by awards and commercial success."

But now I guess there's little chance of that.

comment #12

Joel says ...

I don't know, I think all the preening serves a pretty specific purpose. It manages to develop both Ford and James with a fair bit of ambiguity, to the point where I didn't quite know how I feltabout either of them. Pitt is certainly magnetic, and I disagree that his character was repugnant -- I got the same sort of twisted Robin Hood outlaw vibe off of him that ultimately made the real James a hero to many. Ford, while certainly a coward and a wimp, was also not an outright hatable guy.

I like the digressions to various members of the gang; I can't say why they were necessary exactly but they provided for great moments. If we didn't see Ford shoot the guy in the head early on, the murder at the end wouldn't ring as true. So the scenes with Liddle are there to set all that up, and are interesting in and of themselves, if only because the actor playing Liddle is totally magnetic.

comment #13

Dave says ...

Okay, I'm wrong in saying that the movie deserves to bomb. It's a quality flick, with serious pretentions, stuff like this should be encouraged even if I personally feel it was a misfire.

That said, it *will* bomb, so my opinion as to whether it should or not is irrelevant.

I mean, 3:10 to Yuma-- also flawed, but which I enjoyed greatly for what it was-- was ten times more of an accessible crowd-pleaser than Jesse James is, and it made decent scratch, but nothing more.

This one felt like a beautiful thud slowly (but beautifully) thudding it's way through 160 minutes of my life.

I think it's worth seeing-- but barely, and for a lot of technical reasons rather than storytelling ones.

comment #14

Craig Kennedy says ...

Carville. He was pretty good, but he was a distraction for me every time he came on screen. Something I'm sure I'll let go of in subsequent viewings.

Narration. I also liked it, but it took me a little while to warm up to it.

I'd also agree that I would love to see a whole movie about what happens after the murder. This just wasn't that movie.

For a long, slow that I really did struggle with I submit: Lust, Caution. I ended up liking it, but it tested my patience.

comment #15

thatmovieguy says ...

I just heard Paramount/DreamWorks vetoed screening THINGS WE LOST IN THE FIRE for critics in my area. But they hardly need to, since Benecio Del Toro and Halle Berry are pure gold at the box office and the film will only be opening against such feeble competition as INTO THE WILD, RENDITION, 30 DAYS OF NIGHT and GONE BABY GONE (all of which will get opening day reviews because they were screened well in advance). FIRE is sure to be the big attraction among that group, right? When movies like this go down the tubes, the studios have only themselves to blame: penny-wise and pound-foolish.

comment #16

Nick J says ...

Man, I just don't know what you guys are talking about--"boring"..."deserves to bomb"...Jesus. Obviously it's all subjective, but I thought it was truly one of the most profound and affecting movies I've ever seen. I sat there for about ten minutes after it was over.

(In order to calibrate your view of *my* view of Assassination--given how variable all such opinions are--here are some of the very, very few films in my life that I've loved as much: Apocalypse Now, 2001, Barry Lyndon, Days of Heaven, Boogie Nights.)

And Dave, I'd argue you're flat out incorrect that there's no story, or that the storytelling is weak/problematic...the fact that it didn't have a standard screenplay structure doesn't mean it was haphazard. It wasn't--at all.

comment #17

Eric says ...

The family of Jesse James posted their own review of the film the day of the New York premiere.
http://www.ericjames.org/Reviews/AssassinationofJesseJames/index.html

On the 5th page of the review, the Jesse James family then accused Warner Brothers of assassinating the film.