Obiter Dicta

email this story
read comments (14)
post a comment

I truly admire the talent and effort that goes into writing an obliging review that sounds so smart and aware that you're not aware what's actually going on. Seriously -- it's not easy to do this right. I can think of no one better at tapping out intelligent critiques of this sort than Variety's Joe Leydon. At the same time, I would be less than honest if I said I fully trust Leydon's take on films such as What Happens in Vegas. I'm saying this with respect.

"Some trend-conscious wags won't be able to resist describing Vegas as Judd Apatow Lite, since it's about a self-involved slacker who becomes more directed and/or responsible as a result of his relationship with a more mature woman. But, really, that set-up already had whiskers long before Apatow became a brand name.

"In fact, the roots of this new pic can be traced back to screwball comedies of the '30s and '40s. The big difference -- well, okay, one of several big differences -- between Vegas and those fast-paced comedy classics is that Vegas actually becomes more enjoyable as it tamps down the over-the-top helter-skelter of its early scenes."

Leydon's use of the words "okay, one of several big differences" is the Big Giveaway. Judgment slips out! You don't need to read any further than this. On these words hang all the law and the profit.

Crusty Complexion<< previous | next >>Close Ranks

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on May 4, 2008 at 3:17 PM

comment #1

Terry McCarty says ...

I have a memory of Leonard Maltin writing something like this in one of his TV MOVIES books--perhaps in the eighties:
After seeing [current films], I want to go back and give 4 stars to everything Alfred Hitchcock [and other directors of Hollywood's Golden Age] ever touched.

Then Maltin mentioned something about reviewing recent films in the context of the period in which they are released. (An example is SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT--given one-and-a-half stars when it first appeared in a Maltin guide, then it was subsequently upped to three stars, with the reasoning given as "a classic compared to the countless sequels and ripoffs that followed.")

Obviously, that's what Joe Leydon is doing.

Posted by Terry McCarty at May 4, 2008 6:29 PM

comment #2

pm123 says ...

How depressing. Look at the still you are running. Flat, shadowless lighting; two people shot while sitting on a couch, no doubt trading "witty" banter. Yet another sitcom - all sound, no picture. The TV aesthetic has really crushed the whole concept of film making, hasn't it? Could films be any less about moving PICTURES these days? Does the school of Apatow even care where the camera is placed or what lights are used?

Posted by pm123 at May 4, 2008 8:21 PM

comment #3

K. Bowen says ...

You know, as much grief as he takes, Kutcher's films haven't been that bad. I still think A Lot LIke Love was a rom-com that actually cared about its characters more than just as generators of humor.

I"m not saying he's Robert Downey Jr. or anything. I'm just saying the level of derision is a little out of whack with what it deserves.

Posted by K. Bowen at May 4, 2008 8:32 PM

comment #4

K. Bowen says ...

"The TV aesthetic has really crushed the whole concept of film making, hasn't it?"

I totally agree. Or at least I agree that people don't care about the filmmaking aspect to the degree that they should. Compare the weight that the Oscar observers place on the screenplay noms as opposed to the cinematography noms.

Posted by K. Bowen at May 4, 2008 8:35 PM

comment #5

p.Vice says ...

pm123 is right on the money. This looks like a still from That 70s Show, and most likely that's not by accident. In fact, take out one of the actors and you could mistake this for a Christopher Nolan movie.

Posted by p.Vice at May 4, 2008 8:43 PM

comment #6