free counter with statistics In the Land of Women | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

women4.jpg

Someday. Someday, I Suppose.

In the Land of Women / Dustin Rowles

Film Reviews | April 20, 2007 | Comments (57)


This totally sucks, because no one is going to believe me. You’re all going to read this review, assume that I’m deluded, crazy, plain dumb, or worse — that the valley girl has invaded my soul and that I spend my days pining away over the cancellation of “The O.C.” You’re going to shake your head, snicker, and wonder what the fuck happened to Pajiba. But damn it, In the Land of Women is not the movie you think it is. It is not the teenage romantic comedy depicted in the previews; it’s not a Hughesian version of The Graduate, and it’s not a Braffian travesty that skates by on nubile flesh and a hipster soundtrack.

Believe it or not, it’s an adult drama that just happens to feature Adam Brody, Kristen Stewart, and Meg Ryan, whose reputations are severely misleading when it comes to marketing this film. The intended audience will hate it, because it’s not a big-screen version of “The O.C.,” and the audience that might enjoy it will never see it, because they’ll think it’s a big-screen version of “The O.C.” But trust me, it is the perfect antidote to Garden State quirkiness — a quiet, subtle film about relationships that relies not on well-screaming melodramatics and The Shins but on simple gestures, knowing looks, and atmosphere and mood. And Brody will absolutely stun you — I never knew anything existed beneath the Seth Cohen wisecracks and the pathetic infatuation with Summer Roberts, but the guy can actually turn in a solid, weirdly relatable performance. Granted, he’s no Ryan Gosling, but Adam Brody can act freakin’ circles around Zach Braff.

Not that In the Land of Women is a great film. Not by any stretch. In fact, there’s not a whole helluva lot of substance to it — the writing is Lifetime-for-Men at best, mostly what you’d expect from the debut effort of 27-year-old Jon Kasdan (son of Lawrence, brother of Jake). It’s a 2 a.m.-phone-call kind of film — the sort of epiphanic dialogue that might sound deep and meaningful under the spell of tipsy insomnia but that sounds pedestrian and platitudinous in the light of day — like love letters, or post-last-call emails you might have written early in a relationship, only to reread them three years later and wonder how in God’s name you convinced her to fall in love with you. But what Kasdan’s film lacks in substance, it more than makes up for in tone and texture.

Indeed, I don’t think I’ve had a similar movie-going experience since Beautiful Girls, 10 years ago — an empty mess of a script that nevertheless succeeded on its aura and Ted Demme’s deft direction, not to mention the spot-on casting. Beautiful Girls, in fact, is a apt comparison here, because Adam Brody’s character, Carter Webb, reminded me a bit of a 30-year-old male version of Natalie Portman’s Marty: confident and charming when dealing with other people’s problems, but a bit of a neurotic, ingratiating mess when dealing with his own. Carter is a writer whose model/actress girlfriend dumps him over coffee. In an effort to escape his problems, he moves to suburban Michigan to take care of his ailing grandmother (Olympia Dukakis in a scene-stealing role), whose impending death seems more a fit of her imagination than actual ill health.

There, he meets Sarah Hardwicke (Ryan) and her daughter Lucy (Stewart), who live across the street. Over a period of weeks, he becomes a confidante to both. Sarah has been diagnosed with cancer, and her husband is having an affair, while Lucy (a teenager who wears Bob Dylan, Def Leppard, and Genesis t-shirts(!)) has a strained relationship with her mother and difficulties with high-school dating (and don’t let the kiss between Brody and Stewart in the trailers fool you; it’s not what it looks like). Admittedly, Meg Ryan’s botched plastic surgery is distracting for a while, but it ultimately works for her character — a suburban housewife who feels insecure in her own skin, the type of person who might seek plastic surgery to create an illusion about herself. (And, in a way, it’s also heartbreaking to see — I mean, c’mon. Meg Ryan — the non-sexually cute epitome of romantic comedies for 15 years, and now she looks like a catfish crossed with a 45-year-old Angelina Jolie. If that doesn’t break your heart a little, I don’t know what would.) And there is a lot of honesty in the part that Kasdan — who underwent chemo and radiation as a teenager for Hodgkin’s disease — gives to Ryan, who turns in her best performance in, I dunno, God knows when.

And yes, in a way, Lucy develops a crush on Carter, while Carter develops an unspecified, unexplainable affection for Sarah, which is reciprocated to some extent. And Carter’s heartbreak and anguish makes him the ideal person for the troubled women to form solidarity around. Though the movie isn’t really about that, either. It’s about moments, and conversations, and about talking about one’s feelings during walks or over coffee or late at night while smoking a cigarette and the sort of relationships that flow out of that — think a less successful version of Before Sunrise set in suburban Michigan, or the sort of film Cameron Crowe might make if he were 20 years old today and not singularly obsessed with showing off his iPod (and if you don’t like Before Sunrise or Cameron Crowe, there is no hope for you here). Though Kasdan, too, has a sharp ear for tone-setting music — really, where else are you going to see a movie that features Bruce Springsteen, Neil Finn, and the absolutely coolest unironic use of Huey Lewis and the News? It’s a great soundtrack — effective, but never overbearing.

Not that any of you will ever see In the Land of Women, because none of you will believe me. So, go ahead, shake your head. Scoff. Laugh it up. But in two years’ time, when Jonathan Kasdan has made a much better, more assured film with a similar emotional texture, you may revisit In the Land of Women on late-night HBO, and you’ll see then that — but for a few touching moments — while this movie isn’t that good, all the elements are there for the makings someday of a truly great film. And who knows? Maybe Adam Brody will even be in it.

Dustin Rowles is the publisher of Pajiba. He lives with his wife in Ithaca, New York. You may email him, or leave a comment below.


Like, OMG! Pajiba is Sooo Fetch | Vacancy



Comments

"...it's not a Braffian travesty that skates by on nubile flesh and a hipster soundtrack."

William Goldman wrote once that Easy Rider cost the studios millions. No, not the movie itself - that was a success. It was all the movies that came afterwards that tried to copy it, and flopped. I'm thinking the same thing about Garden State now. No, it's not a perfect movie. But it is good, and touching, and has a kick-ass soundtrack. Ad the gorge-screaming scene felt real to me. What I'm saying is, don't blame every faux-hipster movie sporting metaphorical black-rimmed glasses on Braff. I think Garden State is good, even if I can't stand the indie scene or vibe.

...and that devolved greatly from my original comment, which was: nubile flesh in Garden State? Where?

Posted by: Sarah at April 20, 2007 5:07 PM

I've always thought Braff was skeevy. I will still tread lightly when going to see this film, but at least you've convinced me to at least consider seeing it!

Posted by: Be Adequite! at April 20, 2007 5:14 PM

Nubile flesh in Garden State . . . there-wolf!

But seriously Sarah, remember the spin the bottle scene with the girls kissing? I sure do. Also, Natalie Portman's bare arms throughout the film, which is catnip for the geeks and fanboys out there.

Posted by: fb at April 20, 2007 5:30 PM

God, I love seeing Braff ridiculed in print and plan to use "Braffian travesty" in a sentence within the next 24 hours.

With that said, I absolutely hated "Beautiful Girls" and was very creeped-out by the Portman element. I don't know, maybe it's a dude movie.

This movie sounds charming, Dustin. What do you think - Netflix status?

Posted by: Samantha T at April 20, 2007 5:38 PM

I honestly thought this movie would be complete rubbish. I'm heartily glad that it's not and I might even watch it. Might. So what's with the appalling trailers?

Also, apologies for off topic-ness but why are people now linking to their blogs through their comments? Why do they want strangers to know what they had for breakfast?

Posted by: James at April 20, 2007 5:41 PM

Oh, and Natalie skimping around in the blanket and getting it on with ZB at Velcro-Boy's mansion. Implied nubile flesh in Garden State.

Posted by: fb at April 20, 2007 5:41 PM

Ad the gorge-screaming scene felt real to me.

Nothing in that movie felt real to me. I do enjoy the soundtrack though.

Posted by: MDA at April 20, 2007 5:44 PM

Samantha- you may be onto something with Beautiful Girls, I'm also girl and thought it was weird...

Posted by: Be Adequite! at April 20, 2007 5:54 PM

Samantha and BeAdequite!: My wife feels the same way about the Timothy Hutton-Natalie Portman relationship in Beautiful Girls, in contrast to the pang of sympathetic nostalgia I feel about it. I think it has something to do with men's unsavory fascination with adolescent girls, which is unfortunate but well-established. Even the most decent guy has an unhealthy "Lolita" switch in the fevered-fantasy lobe of his reptile brain. The social wrongness of the attraction is a significant plot point in the film, with Hutton discussing its origin and problematic nature, and it relates closely to the major theme of the film: the decision whether to live in the past or mature gracefully.

"Beautiful Girls" Fun Fact: During the confrontation between Matt Dillon and Mira Sorvino about their relationship, Chris Isaak's "Graduation Day" plays almost inaudibly in the background -- nice use of soundtrack-in-relation-to-major-theme. I think the movie is underrated.

Posted by: fb at April 20, 2007 6:09 PM

Very well, then. I shall see it.
If however, I determine that this has been some cruel prank--a pox upon you and your house.

Posted by: Dr. Derek Faux at April 20, 2007 6:13 PM

Yeah. I have to agree about "Beautiful Girls". I was kinda creeped out by the crush on the teenage girl too, so maybe it is something guys can relate to better.

However, I am worried about Dustin. And I haven't decided if I believe his review. Pregnancy hormones may be messing with his brain.

Posted by: greer at April 20, 2007 6:22 PM

I liked Beautiful Girls, and I didn't find the Timothy Hutton-Natalie Portman interactions creepy. And I'm female, so there you go.

Posted by: Lannie at April 20, 2007 6:23 PM

Was this really a Mighty Mighty Bosstones reference in the title? I'm legitimately impressed if it was.

Posted by: WD at April 20, 2007 6:46 PM

All the comments from women about how creeped out they were about the Hutton-Portman thing in "Beautiful Girls" seem to miss the point, so well expressed by fb. It's kinda *supposed* to be creepy. And a little sad, and a little sweet even. He's less infatuated with HER than what she represents; read it too literally and the whole movie has gone past you.

But it's definitely not unrealistic. And really... as if no teenage girl just discovering her sexuality has ever flirted with adult men, just to see the reaction... this is far from a one-sided phenomenon.

Posted by: Landon at April 20, 2007 7:16 PM

Landon, I think *you* miss the point, maybe. But I'll only speak for myself here. I find the interaction between young adolescent girl and older man creepy because IT'S NOT ABOUT HER. She could be anybody. He is objectifying her. As you say - it's all about what she presents. That's what was so horrifying about Lolita, too.

Speaking for myself, I want it to be ABOUT me. When I like a guy, I want the attraction to be specific. Otherwise, I'm just an object to him. I don't much care how much he loves that object.

Speaking of the movie, I am half-persuaded. I'm not sure I'm in the mood to see a movie that romanticizes nothing. But I might be interested in seeing a movie that I can see will later become something.

Posted by: Wendy at April 20, 2007 7:37 PM

Maybe I'll rent this movie, I don't know. I must disagree with Dustin on his Garden State-bashing; I loved that movie. Ah well.

Posted by: Sarah at April 20, 2007 7:46 PM

a catfish crossed with vagalina jolie, thats soooo fucking great that i might watch this on dvd someday thanks!( suns in five, bye bye ballhog bryant!!)

Posted by: pasadenamike at April 20, 2007 7:54 PM

Based on DR's review, I will look forward to "In the Land of Women" showing up on a movie channel in four months so I can take a look.

As for "Beautiful Girls," I think this is one of those disagreements, like so many in the comments on this site, where the truth is in the eye of the beholder, to Colbert-ize a metaphor. (Do you pronounce the hard "t" when an Anglosized French word is followed by a suffix beginning with a vowel?) The film was truly directed for men within a certain age range falling around Matt Dillon and Timothy Hutton at the time. From the improbably tomboyish-yet-ultrahot Uma Thurman character to ex-jock Matt Dillon's continuing trysts with Lauren Holly, there's a lot of male wish-fulfillment going on. The only scene likely to resonate well with many women viewers is the grafted-on-after-the-fact Rosie O'Donnell rant about . . . the ridiculousness of male wish-fulfillment.

But I disagree that the Hutton-Portman theme objectifies women; in fact, the film strongly implies that the right choice in the situation depends strongly on the superior maturity and patience of the woman Hutton is seeing, the sorely underused Annabeth Gish.

So.

Posted by: fb at April 20, 2007 7:58 PM

Two "stronglys" in one sentence; nice job smackhead.

Regarding the "Lolita" matter, one need only peruse the banner ads on this website to see how prevalent that theme is in our society. And I don't mean that as any kind of criticism of Pajiba -- it's simply the world we live in, especially as filtered through the lens of advertising.

Off to see "Hot Fuzz," YAHOO!!!

Posted by: fb at April 20, 2007 8:03 PM

Comparing it to Before Sunrise? That might actually make it Netflix-worthy. The trailer certainly didn't make it look like anything I would ever want to watch.

Posted by: Kris at April 20, 2007 8:37 PM

The only scene likely to resonate well with many women viewers is the grafted-on-after-the-fact Rosie O'Donnell rant about . . . the ridiculousness of male wish-fulfillment.

Actually, my favorite scene in that movie was when the chubby little man went up to Lauren Holly's character and you totally thought he was gonna ask her out to fulfill some desperate high school dream and get painfully and fantastically shot down for his trouble, and instead he called her mean as a snake. (I freely admit I've got lingering issues over all the high school popularity bullshit, but god I love that scene.)

So yeah, I'm a woman, and I liked "Beautiful Girls." I don't think I LURVE it as much as some mens I know, but I liked it: Rosie O'Donnell's rant, and the rest too. The Natalie Portman/Tim Hutton relationship didn't squick me out, I think because it was so obvious neither one was going to do anything. And then glorious Annabeth Gish sailed in and he realized how not-just-age-appropriate but also RIGHT she was for him. The end. HEA.

Posted by: Lizzie (greeneyed fem) at April 20, 2007 8:41 PM

Female. Loved Beautiful Girls. Fell in love (in a non-sexual way) with Natalie Portman upon viewing. Some people are waaaaay too picky/overly critical. Makes for interesting commentary though.

Posted by: Michelle at April 20, 2007 9:19 PM

I admit that I hadn't even given this film a second thought after seeing the trailer the other day, but your review has sparked a bit of interest...I may have to grab a girlfriend and see it.

As far as "Beautiful Girls" goes, I found out through experience that my husband used to utilize the film as a sort of litmus test with prospective girlfriends. He'd have the chick over, play the movie, and then seek her opinions afterward. If she didn't "get" the film, or even like it, he'd know she wasn't a "keeper" (yes, I did end up marrying him). Well, I liked the film and understood the themes and feelings involved, which I guess, after reading some of the previous posts, makes me a sort of rarity. I think its hilarious just how many litle "tests" men put women through - even the men in "Beautiful Girls" - to see if they're 'girlfriend material'.

Posted by: Kolby at April 20, 2007 9:29 PM

Sorry but the only method to get me anywhere near a flick with Meg (the Joker) Ryan in it would require a blunt object to the head and dragging me while unconscious and then tying me down.

Pass

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at April 20, 2007 9:51 PM

the only thing I still remember of Beautiful Girls is an excellent, right-on speech Rosie O'Donnell gives about men, which of course is totally ironic now.

I know Ryan fucked up her once-perfect face by way of Awful Plastic Surgery, but I saw her on the cover of Redbook in the checkout stand and she looked pretty good actually.

Posted by: matt at April 20, 2007 11:09 PM

Well, that's a relief. I saw the trailer and was a little bit nervous because I was a little bit interested. I'll sleep easier tonight.

Posted by: TK at April 20, 2007 11:24 PM

All I needed to know about Adam Brody's acting ability I learned in Thank You for Smoking. The kid's got talent. He just needs the right projects to showcase him. This, as great as he probably is in it, was not the right film. But it was made right when he became popular on the OC so I doubt he expected it to be released so far after it was made.

Posted by: Robert at April 20, 2007 11:28 PM

Seriously Dustin, you need to do something about the Valley girl in your head...first you know the words to the cheer from Bring It On, and now you're referencing a song that will forever make me think of Clueless.

No wait, which is worse, that you're referencing them both, or that I recognize the both? Hmmm

Posted by: kdm at April 21, 2007 1:33 AM

I knew it. As soon as I saw the trailer I knew this would be a decent movie, worth a couple hours in a movie theatre on a lazy weekend. My sister, friend and I are seeing this even though we wouldn't admit to each other we wanted to see it until I finally confessed that it looked...good.
Pajiba never lets me down.

Posted by: Rebekah at April 21, 2007 3:12 AM

And really... as if no teenage girl just discovering her sexuality has ever flirted with adult men, just to see the reaction... this is far from a one-sided phenomenon.

And far from a teenage-girl one, too. Try being a young female prof--there's at least two male students making doe-eyes at me per class every term (we get 'em at aged 17 in these parts).

Oh and platitudinous.

Yum. Almost as shivery-good as pellucid. Nice. I am, however, too distracted by the keen anticipation set in the "Hot Fuzz" thread to consider anything of this ilk at the moment...

Posted by: Ranylt at April 21, 2007 8:51 AM

"I find the interaction between young adolescent girl and older man creepy because IT'S NOT ABOUT HER. She could be anybody. He is objectifying her."

I disagree. He didn't like her *because* she was young, he liked her in spite of that. He liked her for who she was and would be, and he was sad that the timing was so unfortunate that it meant they couldn't be together.

Posted by: Loob at April 21, 2007 11:25 AM

A Mighty Mighty Bosstones/Clueless reference?

Dustin, is this how the movie made you feel? I can't parse the irony here, you're going to have to walk me through it.

Posted by: christopher at April 21, 2007 12:01 PM

Yes!! I was going to see this, uh, entirely for Adam Brody, but it's good to know it won't be as awful as I'd thought based on the trailer.

Posted by: Natalie at April 21, 2007 3:26 PM

Wendy, you hit the nail on the head. I could always sniff out when a guy was objectifying me ("objectifying" in the purest sense of the word - seeing me as an object upon which to project his fantasy of me rather than grapple with my flawed-ass self) and thought I was "perfect". You will only disappoint dudes like that. Infatuation with a teenager exemplifies this tendency in that the girl hasn't really had a chance to disappoint anybody just yet because she's nascent and not fully formed.

I knew absolutely nothing physical would happen in the movie and, frankly, that both parties didn't *really* want that. I do, however, get creeped out when a dude in his 30s claims a connection with a very young girl. I can't even imagine what I (at 34) would talk about with a 14-year-old boy.

Posted by: Samantha T at April 21, 2007 8:07 PM

i am female and LOVED Beautiful Girls. The thing about the Portman/Hutton relationship was that NP was sort of old soulish anyway and while TH was for sure attracted to her cuteness, he was mostly attracted by her personality. Maybe because I have always attracted the attention of men much older than me for some of the same reasons I didn't see it as creepy at all. I never had a sense that Hutton was actually going to DO anything. Unlike the protagonist in Lolita, he did seem to understand that she was actually a child. But I thought their friendship was more sweet than sick. Anyway, I feel like that movie was a Male Brain 101 class.

Posted by: katie at April 22, 2007 12:50 AM

Oh, I totally knew this movie was going to be good. I felt it in my bones. And having grown up outside Detroit, part of me rather adores a filmmaker who sets his movie in suburban Michigan. I think I shall see this in the theater, even.

Regarding Zach Braff -- I think Garden State was a pretty damn good movie, and it will be a benchmark sort of film for this generation, whether we like it or not. I mean, the ending was lame, and I loathe the soundtrack (sorry), but it's still a good movie.

I think the overuse of nubile flesh is more readily apparent in The Last Kiss. That movie's a cornucopia of firm young bodies, including Eric Christian Olsen's (I wish he were better from the neck-up, on a side note).

But even though The Last Kiss was panned and though (I believe) it tanked, I kind of liked it. Maybe it's because my expectations were so low, but I enjoyed it nonetheless. But let it be said that the Zach Braff character in that movie is shallow and selfish, and I'd have more readily accepted/understood his conflicts and actions if everything had just been deeper and more well-developed.

I don't mind the undertones of skeeviness to Braff's work, but maybe that has something to do with my unwavering love for Woody Allen. I'm just a lil forgiving there.

Posted by: Katie at April 22, 2007 10:11 AM

Like Sarah, I don't get the Braff-lash. I think you're applying a double standard to these two movies: I can't believe you're being harder on Garden State than on a movie that's "about moments, and conversations". If there's something that sounds artificially important, it's that.

And I goddam love The Shins, so sue me.

Posted by: MJ at April 22, 2007 11:31 AM

MJ, I think the difference is that this movie takes itself about 1/10 as seriously as "Garden State" did. This movie exceeded expectations whereas "Garden State", lauded as the second coming by many, fell short for many people.

Posted by: samantha t at April 22, 2007 12:32 PM

I see, but I think it's misleading to overlay people's expectations of a movie with the movie itself when it comes to judging it. The backlash is just as grating as the hype.

To keep The Shins's theme, when they got presented to me as the band that "will change your life" in Garden State, I vowed to myself to never look them up, just because of that over-the-top introduction. But now that I've listened to them, I think they're very good.

What I'm trying to say is that, going by Dustin's description of In the Land of Women, I have the impression that it takes itself just as seriously as Garden State does, or even more if you count the title. It seems to be the kind of movie that tries to pass off containing a lot of conversations about feelings as something valuable by itself, without really wanting to say anything precise about feelings at all. Or a movie that "lets the scenes resonate by themselves in the viewer", as press releases would say.

Posted by: MJ at April 22, 2007 1:43 PM

No movie introduction could ever change the fact that The Shins are a great band. They're the kind of band that inspires thoughtful, slightly melencholy people to do something creative.

Posted by: Diana at April 22, 2007 8:06 PM

I'm a bit late in commenting on this one, but I'm really surprised at how many agree that Beautiful Girls must be a guy thing. It is easily on my top 10 movies of all time list. I loved everything about it, including the man crush on the teenage girl. It's interesting because I didn't even think it was creepy actually. Seems more sad to me, like the guy realizing just exactly where he is in life and that something as fleeting as a teenaged crush simply can't exist for him anymore because all of the crushworthy women he'll meet will likely come with a romantic history. It won't be the pure, frantic puppy love it once was. I never got the impression from the film that the guy would act on the crush and I never though he acted inappropriately toward Marty. Is it just me? Am I way off?

Also, I thought Garden State was great and agree that it's unfair to blame any shitty hipster-esque movie that comes along afterward on it. I thought the movie was shot beautifully. Not on my list of favorite movies ever, but not bad in the grand scheme of things.

And finally, just to actually get on topic here - I will go see In the Land of Women because I heart Adam Brody. Shallow, isn't it? But at least it seems like there's a chance it'll be good ;)

Posted by: bluestar at April 23, 2007 9:25 AM

I'm a woman and I really liked Beautiful Girls for its great performances (love Rappaport) and its albeit a little sad insight into the male mind. Plus how about the Afghan Whigs covering Can't Get Enough of Your Love, Baby in the bar scene? That's quality. The worst thing about that movie is that it foisted Natalie Portman upon us in that quirky adorable role that Braff would mine ten years later for Garden State. Because actually, Braff's own cranial-sphincter inversion aside, that would have been a much better movie without the love story and that "quirky girl" character that has now become so cliche as to annoy the ever loving shit out of me during an otherwise bearable movie (I'm looking at you too, Cameron Crowe). phew. rant over.

To the subject at hand, I'm glad I read this review because I had dismissed this one off the bat.

Posted by: MG at April 23, 2007 11:03 AM

I was creeped out by "beautiful girls", and I am female. It has nothing to do with political correctness or reading into anything, it was just creepy to me. I really didn't like the whole Hutton-Portman angle. I felt really uncomfortable with the movie.


fb, I agree with you on the Lolita thing. One only has to look at the banner ads on this site to see all of the objectified females and boobs (one day I counted like 3 shots of boobs, including paris hilton's on this site) displayed in t-shirt ads.

And Samantha T, what exactly does a 30-something man have in common with a 14 year old? My thoughts exactly. My husband would hate this film. He had a teenage female approach him the other week, and he was like, "what am I gonna do with a teenager?" There are guys out there who aren't interested in teenagers. They are rare!

BTW, I love Michael Rappaport as well. I could watch him in anything.

Posted by: Athena at April 23, 2007 1:23 PM

Hey-
I'm a female and I own the movie Beautiful Girls. It was a fabulous movie that was full of honesty and if you are creeped out by the Hutton/Portman relationship, then you simply didn't "get it." Their relationship made me nostalgic for the years of growing up being babysat by the older girls in the neighborhood. Sometimes their boyfriends would come over to visit them while they were watching my brother and I, and the boyfriends (most of whom I of course had a crush on) would say things like, "I'll find you in 10 years," or "if only you were a little older..." And then I would go off to find my trapper keeper and draw the boyfriend's name w/ hearts around it. End of story. There is nothing creepy about that. It's an older guy giving a younger girl (who knows she has a crush on him) a compliment. And if you try to change the way I think about that, then you're pretty much a feeble-souled person.

Posted by: Helcat at April 23, 2007 2:04 PM

Diana,

that's a very beautiful way of describing a band.

MG,

I'm totally with you on the "quirky girl" thing. I hate the typical character whose flaws get a pass because she's "cute" and "original". The first time was alright, now it's just annoying.

Posted by: MJ at April 23, 2007 3:17 PM

I just watched "Before Sunrise" and "Before Sunset" last week, and I almost OD'ed on the pretentiousness. If I ever get that full of myself, I hope someone slaps me.

Posted by: Ann at April 23, 2007 6:25 PM

And funnily enough, MJ, the "first time" wasn't even Garden State. I can think all the way back to Betty Blue (37.2 le matin)...and even that can't be the precedent.

Posted by: Ranylt at April 24, 2007 8:55 AM

"It was a fabulous movie that was full of honesty and if you are creeped out by the Hutton/Portman relationship, then you simply didn't "get it.""

Those who disagree with you don't "get it." The last refuge of one who can't see something from another's point of view.

Posted by: Eric C at April 24, 2007 10:31 AM

Oh, Eric C, I can see another's point of view, I just feel sorry for them because they "don't get it!"

Posted by: Helcat at April 24, 2007 11:37 AM

Most of you on here complain of pretentiousness in film, yet are the epitome of it. The irony is thick.

Oh, and Garden State was a good flick, and I love the soundtrack. So, do with that what you will.

Something else: not sure how a reviewer who admits to watching The O.C. is qualified to pan much of anything. You watched The O.C. and obviously enjoyed it. I take everything you say with a grain of salt.

Posted by: Kyle at April 24, 2007 11:55 AM

As I read this review I remembered I'd seen "Garden State" via Netflicks, but I couldn't remember anything about it. So I watched the trailer. There were vaguely familiar moments, but... I must have liked it enough at the time to give it three stars.

Posted by: Al Christensen at April 24, 2007 8:44 PM

Female. Hate "Beautiful Girls". Think you have Ted Demme all wrong - he couldn't direct traffic, but as fb noted he did have an ear for music.

I have to say I'm not sure I can bring myself to see this because of Meg Ryan. I just can't stand to watch her now. Yes, Dustin, it's sad. It's too sad. Just horrible.

Posted by: Dot at April 24, 2007 11:17 PM

fb,

Do you pronounce the hard "t" when an Anglocized French word is followed by a suffix beginning with a vowel?

In case this question was even half-serious: yes you would, if you're applying Frenchie-style grammar rules. A suffix beginning with a vowel makes a silent final consonant go un-silent.

And I absolutely agree that Even the most decent guy has an unhealthy "Lolita" switch in the fevered-fantasy lobe of his reptile brain.

In fact, one might even qualify that impulse as healthy, not unhealthy. The ingrained urge to perpetuate the species draws males to young, fertile females... right?

Posted by: Paris at April 25, 2007 11:53 AM

You guys are so lame. In the Land of Women is a great movie. I saw it on Sunday,22. It might be a little quirky, but the older guy and teenager relationship happens all the time and he was 26 and she was around 17. It's not that much of a difference. I've seen worse. Nothing comes out of it anyway. I love this movie. I really love Kristen Stewart and Adam Brody. They were great. Not the best movie I've ever seen, but definetly worth the time to see it and I might possibly buy it when it comes out on DVD. I think you all should give it a shot.

Posted by: Shannon S at April 25, 2007 7:25 PM

I saw this today and loved it. Just a great movie with some great moments. and there isn't even a relationship between Brody and Stewart's characters! At least not romantic. Even Ryan's wasn't really romantic...it was something else entirely. People just see and hear what they want to see and hear.

Posted by: Rebekah at April 25, 2007 10:32 PM

Honestly, I found this review more interesting than the movie itself. I was ready to like it, I was ready to be openminded, (I do have a guilty crush on Brody) but it didn't impress me. It had it's moments, but I left the theater disappointed and wondering if I actually did watch a whole movie and not just a couple ideas for different ones.

Posted by: Kelly at April 28, 2007 8:46 PM

i just got back from seeing the movie. i saw it because i read this review and decided to give it a try, even though the preview looked like an abercrombie ad. i went to see it alone because i couldn't bring myself to ask other people to see it with me... oh, the shame! but honestly, i have to say, it is a really beautiful movie. the entire time i was completely taken away by how the director was able to transform what could have been a flat, uninteresting script into an actual reflection of his perspective. it was unique in a way i didn't expect. thanks for making me see it.

Posted by: kaitlin at April 29, 2007 1:08 AM