edited by Jonathan Doyle

Cloverfield [BLU-RAY] (Paramount Home Entertainment, 6.3.2008) Disguised under deliberately goofy, yet deliciously edible-sounding, aliases such as Cheese and Slusho, Matt Reeves' Cloverfield was produced and rushed into theaters under an equally appetizing shroud of secrecy. From last year's incredibly elusive Super Bowl ad to the film's viral marketing campaign, Cloverfield had everybody scratching their heads and drooling in anticipation. Aside from the as-yet untitled title and the Blair Witch-ian visual style, the film's biggest appeal was the enigmatic creature who was last (un)seen hurling the decapitated head of the Statue of Liberty onto the crowded streets of New York City. All we knew about the mysterious beast was that it was big and angry. Now that the highy-anticipated project has come and gone, one question has fortunately been answered: Cloverfield was a major success. (continued)

Upcoming

December 31

Defiance

Good

January 2

Cargo 200

January 7

Silent Light

January 9

After Dark Horrorfest 2009

Bride Wars

How About You

Not Easily Broken

The Unborn

Yonkers Joe

January 16

Chandni Chwok to China

Cherry Blossoms

Hotel for Dogs

My Bloody Valentine 3-D

Notorious

Paul Blart: Mall Cop

January 21

Of Time and the City

Hair Is Almost Everything

email this story
read comments (19)
post a comment

Bouncing off New York's 4.17 Vulture item about lowered expectations for the upcoming Tribeca Film Festival screenings of The Wackness ("Why Reviews for The Wackness Might Be Mad Wack, Yo"), here's a re-post of my reaction to Jonathan Levine's film, which I tapped out at the end of Sundance '08:

"I'm not saying that this well-made under-30 relationship film is dimissable, but it just doesn't have that schwing. At best it's an in-and-outer -- mostly out. Set in '94, The Wackness is an urban buddy saga (older therapist, teenaged pot dealer) with a funereal visual palette (i.e., covered in dark gray-green murk) and a vaguely off-putting, constantly medicating male lead (Josh Peck) with a haircut that I came to really and truly hate by the 30-minute mark.

I may as well as admit that I see Peck as another big galumph -- a galumph with greasy black hair and an affected Dr. Dre speaking style, which is how a lot of hip urban kids who grew up in the '90s tend to sound. I took an instant dislike to Peck during my endurance time with The Wackness last January. Street homie dawg...yo!

"The only unmitigated plus about this film is Ben Kingsley's nicely skewed performance as the pot-smoking therapist. But, as I wrote during Sundance, 'when you add in Peck's weirdnesses and all those cigarettes and doobies that everyone keeps sucking into their lungs and before you know it you're thinking about hitting a health club just to flush the experience out of your system.'"

Blue and Low<< previous | next >>Praising The Fall

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on April 18, 2008 at 9:16 AM

comment #1

LYT says ...

With a title like that, I'm bracing for a slew of reviews written in bad phony slang.

Thanks for not going that route.

Posted by LYT at April 18, 2008 9:57 AM

comment #2

David Ehrlich says ...

another movie loses you (in part) because of the lead's appearance! a haircut that so crippled your enjoyment of the film that it needed to be in bold.

well, if the general reception to THE WACKNESS is anything like that of another film whose lead's physical appearance flabbergasted you - FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL - it's going to be the indie hit of the year. this could be the start of a trend after you predicted cataclysmic results for the apatow flick and it's running 84% over at RT (88% cream of the crop). does phenomenally bad hair a galumph make?

Posted by David Ehrlich at April 18, 2008 10:06 AM

comment #3

MiraJeffAICN says ...

I was really surprised by how much I enjoyed The Wackness and let me be the first (or among the first) to start the Ben Kingsley for Best Supporting Actor Oscar campaign. Yes, it's possible in that Alan Arkin in Little Miss Sunshine kind of way.

Posted by MiraJeffAICN at April 18, 2008 10:30 AM

comment #4

Mgmax says ...

Why is it in '94 with a haircut that only appeared last year?

Posted by Mgmax at April 18, 2008 10:31 AM

comment #5

Rothchild says ...

Jeff had a stupid statement in his original review that would become classic if something like that was possible:

"For some reason he's sporting a haircut from at least 15 years ago."

I can't believe I agree with MiraJeffAICN on something. I think DevinFaraciCHUD and FrostyCOLLIDER are on the same page, too.

Posted by Rothchild at April 18, 2008 10:50 AM

comment #6

frankbooth says ...

Where do you live again, Mgmax?

This movie looks annoyingly cute. The title alone bugs the shit out of me.

Posted by frankbooth at April 18, 2008 10:53 AM

comment #7

frankbooth says ...

If this is any indication, it's a bad hair movie all-around:

http://www.cinematical.com/2008/04/09/exclusive-images-from-the-wackness/

Posted by frankbooth at April 18, 2008 10:58 AM

comment #8

David Ehrlich says ...

all i know is that - in a movie set in nyc in the summer of 94 - if none of the characters reference the rangers winning the stanley cup it's going to be my version of jeff's hair qualms. 'twould be unbelievable!

Posted by David Ehrlich at April 18, 2008 10:59 AM

comment #9

MiraJeffAICN says ...

Eat me, Rothchild. I am right about everything. I don't even know what 'wrong' is. What is this concept you speak of? Devin is The Man so it's no surprise we agree.

Posted by MiraJeffAICN at April 18, 2008 11:35 AM

comment #10

Arizona Joe says ...

Now see, Wells shows real trenchancy of mind here. Haircuts are important, in everyday life and especially in drama. A haircut says something about a person.

It's in a guy's best interest to get a haircut that fits his face and the nature of his hair. A woman can go from okay to great looking with an appropriate haircut, and with a bad haircut, dismissed as a sexless drone.

I know a woman anesthesiologist. A consummate professional whom I would entrust with my life. But she has never inspired a sexual thought in me because she has a lousy haircut.

Posted by Arizona Joe at April 18, 2008 11:42 AM

comment #11

televisiontears says ...

"Galumph" is sooo the new "low-thread count". Silly me, I thought it was a verb.

Posted by televisiontears at April 18, 2008 11:45 AM

comment #12

JeffGP says ...

"I see Peck as another big galumph." Well... haven't seen the movie, but that "big galumph" has lost over 110 pounds in a couple years.

Posted by JeffGP at April 18, 2008 11:48 AM

comment #13

George Prager says ...

Peter Krause kind of had a shitty haircut like that in Season 3 of "Six Feet Under" (the season Lili Taylor had his testicles in her back pocket). Made him look like a member of the Dave Clark Five. Drove me fucking nuts! I'm prepared to hate this movie!

Finally saw JUNO. It was ok. Kind of cute. Pretty good. Barely made sense. So Jason Bateman wasn't prepared to have a kid, even though he was prepared the previous time, when the other pregnant person flaked out on them? What's up with that? LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE was a thousand times better and holds up on repeated viewings. I can't imagine watching JUNO again, unless it's on cable during a boring day after Thanksgiving.

Posted by George Prager at April 18, 2008 11:55 AM

comment #14

Rothchild says ...

Jason Bateman's character was the flake when they tried the first time.

Posted by Rothchild at April 18, 2008 12:55 PM

comment #15

George Prager says ...

Congratulations, Rothchild, you are now the Pope Benedict XVI of JUNO.

Posted by George Prager at April 18, 2008 2:44 PM

comment #16

Arizona Joe says ...

Juno made a lot of sense, if you can believe that a 17 year old girl would have that much wit and insight into human nature.

(Spoiler Warning) Juno had more affinity with the Jason Bateman character. But when he reneged, she had the maturity to make the optimal choice in a bad situation. Juno put her biases aside, and made an objective, wise decision. It was refreshing.

I liked the composition of the final scene, the expression of Juno's relationship with Bleeker. But I wished they would have used a different song, like a Cobain-esque arrangement of an Everly Brothers number.

Also, although the young guy played Bleeker very well, his legs betrayed that he had never done much track running. He should have worn some effeminate cold weather running tights rather than the stupid wrist bands.

The casting made the movie. Just like putting together a basketball team or culinary art, the ingredients are the main thing.

I was prepared to dislike it, because of the in-your-face style of Diablo Cody. But I liked it very much.

Posted by Arizona Joe at April 18, 2008 2:55 PM

comment #17

George Prager says ...

Here's another problem with the movie (other movies do this too and it drives me crazy): JUNO is about Juno. The story is about Juno and how people react to Juno and how she reacts to them. All of the scenes in the movie should have JUNO in them. Therefore, any scenes that don't have Juno in them (like the Juno-less scenes with Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner) have no purpose and should have been cut out of the movie.

Posted by George Prager at April 18, 2008 3:10 PM

comment #18

Mgmax says ...

Like I'd tell someone named "Frank Booth" where to find me!

I don't know when that straight hair/little sideburn thing came in but it was a long ways after 1994, which was either preppy or loose-flowing locks and a day's stubble.

Posted by Mgmax at April 19, 2008 7:43 AM

comment #19

Aladdin Sane says ...

David, as a Canucks fan I don't see how the Rangers couldn't at least merit a mention. It ended a long drought and was fantastic sport all around.
It still remains one of the best playoff series and the best finals of my lifetime. Too bad the blueshirts won though. ;-)

Posted by Aladdin Sane at April 19, 2008 11:03 AM