Sideways

Fysh

I didn't see a thread for this anywhere else( IMDB info here), so I thought I'd post up about it. I saw it at the weekend in the Galway Omniplex, and it was really good.

The premise is quite simple; the week before Jack is set to get married, he goes off for a holiday with his pal Miles for a road trip around California. Miles thinks the holiday is going to be about wine-tasting (his personal hobby) and golf; Jack thinks it's one last chance to act the free man and shag anything that moves.

It sounds formulaic when described like that, but what puts this film head and shoulders above other recent comedies is that the humour is always derived from astute and accurate characterisation. Miles and Jack are individuals with hopes, fast-fading dreams, and insecurities, rather than stereotypes or identikit personalities. The film follows them as they get into a series of ridiculous and very funny scrapes, which are all the more funny because of their plausible construction. It's even one of the few films that deals with relationships in both a funny way and a serious way, and it's written well enough to get away with mixing the two.

Anyone else see it? If so, what did you think?

ixoy

Myself and ObeyGiannt had a little discussion on it here...

I enjoyed it for the reasons you said. Many comedies force situations too much on their characters or go OTT rather than let the characters move natually into the comedy. The fact that there was good characterisation is a far leap from most comedies and it's criminal Giamatti got no Oscar nod for his smashing performance here.

There's a nice gentle tone here and it's easy to see it was the same guy responsible for 2002's "About Schmidt".

Did you like the ending? I thought it was the most perfect moment to end a movie since (but not beating) last year's "Before Sunset".

Fysh

I thought the ending fit the film perfectly, again by being more about Miles' character and his development, rather than a specific event. It didn't have to be specific about what happened, because that's not what matters.

I'm kind of surprised that ObeyGiant didn't like this because of the characters; I found Miles' character engaging (possibly because I have one or two character flaws in common with him) and I have several friends who have more than a touch of Jack about them. All down to personal tastes, I suppose.

Pigman II

ixoy wrote:

same guy responsible for 2002's "About Schmidt".

Ah fcuk! I've arranged to go see Sideways today. I wish I'd found out that particular factoid before agreeing.

simu

Yup, good film, quite funny.

Re: Obeygiant's criticisms - why is redemption so important in a film?

dudara

Really enjoyed this, even though I saw it when in an absolutely foul mood. Really good comic humour and excellent characterisation. Though I have to say I hated the ending, but that's just me.

ionapaul

I thought it was excellent - funny, touching and believable.

I didn't find the 'Jack' character as loathsome as some others did - much more pathetic than loathsome. Didn't seem like the worst friend, TBH.

Pigman II

Pigman II wrote:

Ah fcuk! I've arranged to go see Sideways today. I wish I'd found out that particular factoid before agreeing.

Actually, now that I've seen it I take that pessimestic stance back. This is a v.funny film with a bevy of emotionally powerful scenes to boot, such as

the stealing cash from mother scene, the 4 at dinner scene and the madsen explaining her love of wine scene

.

Anyway, 8/10, check it out.

ObeyGiant

simu wrote:

Yup, good film, quite funny.

Re: Obeygiant's criticisms - why is redemption so important in a film?

I don't think it's important that there be some redemption in every film. Far from it - I tend to immediately warm to films where there is no redemption, no actual resolution. But in this particular case, I left the cinema feeling as if the filmmakers were trying very hard to make a heartwarming, things-always-work-out kind of ending. This didn't really wash with me. After the cinema let out its collective "Awww" at the end, I felt like standing up and shouting "NO! He's a cunt! An unmitigated cunt! He doesn't deserve your pity!". Obviously, I didn't.

And did I also mention the fact that the movie felt a little on the self-indulgent side to me?

simu

ObeyGiant wrote:

I don't think it's important that there be some redemption in every film. Far from it - I tend to immediately warm to films where there is no redemption, no actual resolution. But in this particular case, I left the cinema feeling as if the filmmakers were trying very hard to make a heartwarming, things-always-work-out kind of ending. This didn't really wash with me. After the cinema let out its collective "Awww" at the end, I felt like standing up and shouting "NO! He's a ****! An unmitigated ****! He doesn't deserve your pity!". Obviously, I didn't.

I don't agree.

You're left with doubts as to whether stud-guy's marriage will work out and there's no guarantee things will go well between novel-boy and horticulturalist-woman. Although it might have been better just to do a scene with horticulturalist reading the book and being drawn into it at the end instead of reading out her letter and showing writer-guy going to visit her. That would have been more subtle - the way they did it they emphasised her change of heart too much.

It's a pity you were in with such a moronic audience - it always takes from the film from me when people do "aws".

And did I also mention the fact that the movie felt a little on the self-indulgent side to me?

How exactly? Give examples!

Fysh

ObeyGiant wrote:

I don't think it's important that there be some redemption in every film. Far from it - I tend to immediately warm to films where there is no redemption, no actual resolution. But in this particular case, I left the cinema feeling as if the filmmakers were trying very hard to make a heartwarming, things-always-work-out kind of ending. This didn't really wash with me. After the cinema let out its collective "Awww" at the end, I felt like standing up and shouting "NO! He's a ****! An unmitigated ****! He doesn't deserve your pity!". Obviously, I didn't.

That's how you took the ending? Hm. I interpreted it rather differently. I didn't think there was any redemption of the characters, but more because the film was about treating them as individuals instead of doing that usual Hollywood thing where someone acts the arsehole at the start and then ends up reforming their ways to become some clichéd version of a "nice guy".

For my money the ending had two things in particular that I liked -

one, the fact that the last scene we see where Miles and Jack are together is the wedding. Miles leaves the wedding and skips the reception, despite being best man. We have no idea if they remain friends or not (sort of like the ending of Y Tu Mama Tambien). The other thing is that Miles seems to finally accept that he has to take chances if he wants to be happy, even if taking those chances open him up to being hurt.

AARRRGH

Great movie! I normally always leave the cinema disappointed, but I really liked this one.


By the way - SIMU! USE SPOILERS!!

Kone

3 words : Piece of Sh1t!

It had all the wit and charm of About Schmidt... None!

Hugh Hefner

I saw this on it's opening weekend and really liked it. I thought it was going to be more of a comedy and less of a drama but I didn't mind because it was so good. The type of comedy was very refreshing. Definately an intellectual film. Why do I get the feeling that a lot of the wine jokes were lost on ObeyGiant's audience? Hmmm...

Anyway, I loved it and I use all the superlatives above.

9/10

ObeyGiant

simu wrote:

I don't agree.

Well, that's fair enough. I can't disagree with your interpretation of the ending, or of the film. I do sometimes think I'm far too 'traditional' in my views of morality.

simu wrote:

It's a pity you were in with such a moronic audience - it always takes from the film from me when people do "aws".

This was roughly a week after the oscar nominations were announced. The chances of the cinema being this packed for a Paul Giamatti film under any other conditions were extremely slim, so I'm guessing it was just filled with people doing the Oscar rounds. Next week: Million Dollar Baby!

simu wrote:

How exactly? Give examples!

I get this way about all films involving men in the middle of a mid-life crisis. There's a slight hint of the autobiographical-yet-still-wishful about them all. That there are so few actually saying something new (or even saying something old but in an interesting way) makes me regard them as slightly self-indulgent.

ObeyGiant

Hugh Hefner wrote:

Definately an intellectual film. Why do I get the feeling that a lot of the wine jokes were lost on ObeyGiant's audience? Hmmm...

No offense, but I couldn't disagree more. Although it might have had an air of intellectualism, there was no more intellect in this movie than most other men-in-a-midlife-crisis movies.

As evidence of this, I present this news article about sales of Pinot Noir soaring since Sideways' release.

"Dummy's guide to Connoisseurship".

ionapaul

Still laugh to myself (and look strange in public) when I think of Miles flipping out outside the Hitching Post about the Merlot. Wonderful.

I also thought all four main actors shone, maybe with the exception of Sandra Yo - she perhaps didn't have the lines the others were given.

simu

ObeyGiant wrote:

That there are so few actually saying something new (or even saying something old but in an interesting way) makes me regard them as slightly self-indulgent.

So, what you're saying is that it didn't strike you as being all that original. Fair enough. I didn't think it was groundbreaking either but it was a fairly pleasant, way to pass an evening.

It seems to me that all artistic creation is self-indulgent to an extent, at least the way it's carried out in western society so I always found self-indulgence to be a strange fault to level at a film.

Crucifix

I really enjoyed the film. I liked the cinematography alot, particularly when Miles is drunk, and the focus keeps changing. It was funny overall, and I found both main characters endearing despite any flaws.

simu

Can anybody think of a reason why this film was called Sideways btw?

Such a dull and seemingly irrelevant name!

Tusky

Loved it. Sorry to drag up old threads.

pickarooney

simu wrote:

Can anybody think of a reason why this film was called Sideways btw?

Such a dull and seemingly irrelevant name!

Probably in reference to Mrs. Doyle's "Ride Me Sideways", referring to Jack's desperate attempt to get laid before his wedding.

Prior Of Taize

i had no expectations of it tbh... Thomas Hayden Churches character was not imo an unlikable character...i thought he was perhaps going to be like he was in George of the jungle (lol im such a child) but he wasnt anything like that...

i think they made the characters what they needed to be...

Pigman II

pickarooney wrote:

Probably in reference to Mrs. Doyle's "Ride Me Sideways", referring to Jack's desperate attempt to get laid before his wedding.

Sounds like a lost episode of Father Ted.

Trip Hazard

simu wrote:

Can anybody think of a reason why this film was called Sideways btw?

I was discussing this with my friend when i went to see it, my theory is, there is alot a wine pouring in it, the bottles get tipped "sideways" alot. could have something to do with that.

overall was a good enjoyable film, about average joe's, people can relate to. the comedy wasn't pushed that helped alot.

pwd

I really liked it after the first half hour. I had been considering leaving the cinema before that, and probably would have only I hadn;t seen my companions for a while.
I found it very funny. Not heartwarming at all. Two rather obnoxioius charatcers who are nonetheless very human. The enjoyment for me was primarily laughing at their expense. I think some scenes that I found very funny at a laugh at the pathetic bastards type of way, might be interpretted as drama rather than comedy by more sympathetic viewers, hence the differences in perceptions about drama/comedy. Eg:

When Jack is crying after cheating on his wife, I laughed, and liked the fact I could laugh at it. Also when it is revealed that Miles' marriage ended because he had an affair, that was highly comedic imo. Miles' betrayal of Jack, and his dodging confessing it afterwards is also darkly humourous. The humour was from highlighting their basic ****tiness, hypocrisy, and indulgent self-pity of characters who bring on their misfortunes themselves.

Bizarrely, Miles' anal wine snobbery has effected sales of both Merlot and Pino Noir wines in America (a 2% dip in sales, and a 13% increase respectively). Some people really can't see when someone is taking the piss.
I very much liked About Schmidt too, though I was far more sympathetic to the protagonist in it.
I took the title as talking about moving sideways as describing personal change without personal growth. They don't move forwards or backwards, but sideways. A variety of plausible reasons for the title can be found here:

http://forum.foxsearchlight.com/viewtopic.php?t=8085