Review of SIDEWAYS

I mention Sideways when people ask me to recommend films currently playing because it has wide appeal, and I myself found it worth my time and money. On the other hand, if I were to compile a top 10 of 2004 films I've seen so far (I'll be catching up until the end of January), Sideways would not be on the list. This is based on a single viewing. I feel compelled to watch it again, if only for the film's notoriety (does anyone doubt it'll get an Oscar nom for best picture, displacing worthier movies?).

Mark's glowing review at the top of the thread seems too common. He states: "Over the course of a week, these characters grow, and we're given the fulfillment of watching them evolve". Like bix said "Jack never grows". So the movie is about Miles, a character used by Payne in several slapstick, comedic scenes designed for cheap laughs (or is it Giamatti "overacting"? Both?). Scenes that coexist with others (thanks cinemabon) that dig deep into the psychology of the character and his relationships with others.

I find the conjecture that this is a movie that middle-age, male critics find psychologically comforting quite interesting and worth examining. I've decided not to begrudge Payne for choosing not to showcase the "ethnic" characters. I know American cinema rarely bothers with highly successful "ethnic" characters (like the Armenian family very briefly seen in Sideways). And if you ask me, I'm fucking tired of Latinas as maids in Hollywood trash. Miles is a rich enough character to build a film around, but the resulting film has flaws that render it unworthy of unreserved praise.

Oscar: You seem to be in agreement with me on most issues.

(does anyone doubt it'll get an Oscar nom for best picture, displacing worthier movies?).

I've no doubt at all that much more deserving films like Before Sunset and especially Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind will be overlooked.

I definitely agree with you and should've given you credit for pointing out flaws in Sideways that others choose to disregard. The much superior Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind received high praise from crits upon release last spring. Could it be that these scribes have serious memory problems? Is it a handicap to have a great film released early in the year?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oscar jubis
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind received high praise from crits upon release last spring. Could it be that these scribes have serious memory problems? Is it a handicap to have a great film released early in the year?

---

I think you'd agree that almost every year, there are worthy films that get overlooked simply because of their release dates. On the other hand, a few lesser films benefit from being released later in the year as they also get the proper exposure during the late festival and "holiday" seasons. I don't believe the problem lies with our best critics per se (most of them here in NY) as they haven't forgotten about the likes of Eternal Sunshine or even Kill Bill Vol. 2 and these film have made their top 10 lists; instead, other film industry associates who represent the majority in terms of voting for the major awards seemingly do have some "serious memory problems" as you said. Any other films you can think of?

I agree it is a very good film. However, I am more inclined to say
-- it has a very good cast (and characters portrayal)
-- it has a very good script! (It gets better as the movie goes on).

HOWEVER, I am NOT willing to award it the Best Picture of 2004.
I am still wondering why so many critics readily do so ...
-- At times, I wonder is it simply to prove that they are a cut above "mediocre" movie goers? ha ha ha
;PPP

As I have mentioned in another thread,
... If I were to tell my friends overseas that this is the best film of 2004, they will be like "huh?! what?!" ... baffled ...
... I am more inclined to vote for "Million Dollar Baby" or "The Aviator".
;)

Originally posted by arsaib4
I don't believe the problem lies with our best critics per se (most of them here in NY) as they haven't forgotten about the likes of Eternal Sunshine or even Kill Bill Vol. 2; instead, other film industry associates who represent the majority in terms of voting for the major awards seemingly do have some "serious memory problems" as you said. Any other films you can think of?

You're right. Other films I liked released early? I liked Dogville very much. (#2 in Hoberman's list, #9 in Film Comment's poll, not a chance of any noms). And I liked a modest film titled We Don't Live Here Anymore which nobody watched. I think it's at least as good as the notorious Closer, with which it shares thematic elements. It features very good perfs by Mark Ruffalo, Laura Dern and Naomi Watts. As you know from our heated exchange on another site, I'm not a big fan of Kill Bill.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oscar jubis
You're right. Other films I liked released early? I liked Dogville very much. (#2 in Hoberman's list, #9 in Film Comment's poll, not a chance of any noms). As you know from our heated exchange on another site, I'm not a big fan of Kill Bill.

---

As you probably know by now, I'd much rather watch an ambitious film which might even divide critics and audiences as long as it brings out passionate responses from both sides (I'm sure I can say the same about you); and I believe that's the case with both Dogville and Kill Bill Vol.2. Probably more so with the former for obvious reasons. Jim Hoberman, the mathematician, went to work analyzing just that in "Take 6 poll" and reported, "The Top 10 movie that, as quantified by the Village Voice nerdometer known as the Passiondex™, inspired the greatest devotion among its voters was Dogville, over Before Sunset by a hair. (The Passiondex™ divides a film's total points by the number of its voters and then multiplies this average by the percentage of those voters who ranked it first.) Measuring the intensity with which critics championed a particular film, the Passiondex™ distinguishes between those movies with real partisans and those that, typically filling out the lower slots in a critic's list, are consensus choices."

I loved Dogville and it will surely be on my combined (American and foreign) top ten list.

Hoberman also mentioned that, "Such was Sideways, a movie with many friends but few lovers, finishing dead last in the Passiondex™ ratings." I think that this says a lot about the film.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oscar jubis
And I liked a modest film titled We Don't Live Here Anymore which nobody watched. I think it's at least as good as the notorious Closer, with which it shares thematic elements. It features very good perfs by Mark Ruffalo, Laura Dern and Naomi Watts.

---

No, I haven't seen it, but I know it's buried somewhere in my Netflix queue. For this film, I remember Hoberman giving the ultimate compliment to Watts by comparing her to the great Isabelle Huppert. A little later they both ended up in I Heart Huckabees.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by arsaib4

instead, other film industry associates who represent the majority in terms of voting for the major awards seemingly do have some "serious memory problems" as you said.

---

I think 'serious memory problems" aren't really applicable when awards not presented are critics are handed out. I think "serious monetary considerations" are what awards not presented by critics are what we such be talking about. Either the movie made a lot of money or cost a lot of money. "Master And Commander: The Far Side Of The World" took up a spot that should've been held by a more deserving film. "The Two Towers", much as I loved it, probably did too; if "The Fellowship Of The Ring" didn't win, you knew sure as daylight that "The Two Towers" wasn't gonna either and that everyone was just waiting to reward "The Return Of The King". (And if I remember correctly, "The Two Towers" didn't receive another major nomination.)

I'll bet that when the Oscar nominations are announced--when? next week, right?--"Sideways", for better or worse, will be there but so will some unworthy film be there too, like possibly "Collateral" or "Kinsey".

*The meter created by Village Voice to measure voters' devotion to a specific film is very helpful, but let's not forget "Take 6" is an alternative press poll. I don't think we can apply Hoberman's conclusions to the critical community in general. I'm afraid mainstream critics are more enamored of Sideways. Jonathan Rosenbaum seems to be aiming the comments below at those folks who write for the major dailies:

"I don't know whether to laugh or cry. It's not that I have anything against comedies, last year Down With Love was second on my ten best list. Besides, Sideways has a dark side_its infantile hero steals from mother, and his infantile sidekick, who's about to be married, compulsively cheats on his fiancee. If my colleagues who love this movie are implying that it contains valuable life lessons, I wish they'd tell me what they are. Giamatti is an acerbic loser hero who's eventually given a ray of hope, like the Woody Allen hero of 20 or 30 years ago but without the wisecracks. So, is regressing to that moviemaking model the proudest achievement of world cinema in 2004? Stumped, I watched again. An utter waste of time. It has no secrets to yield, no mysteries to clear up_except the meaning of its title. I have to admit it's flawlessly executed_in the same way that a Fig Newton can be flawless. Alexander Payne has nothing to say about over-the-hill males that we don't already know or couldn't find in a sitcom."

**I love Naomi Watts. Wish she got some type of recognition this year but she won't.

***Huckabees is the single film of 2004 that I couldn't make up my mind about. I'm glad those responsible had the gumption to make it, but I don't know if it's any good.

****Monetary considerations are certainly an important variable. As far as earning noms and awards, how much money a given studio is willing to spend pushing their films and filmmakers is probably most important.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bix171


I think 'serious memory problems" aren't really applicable when awards not presented by critics are handed out. I think "serious monetary considerations" are what awards not presented by critics are what we should be talking about. Either the movie made a lot of money or cost a lot of money.

---

Of course, I think the money issue is a given. Along with Master and Commander, the nominations Pirates of the Caribbean recieved was only because of the fact that it did extremely well at the B.O. But I still believe that if a film like Eternal Sunshine was released within the last couple of months, there'd be more of a push to get it nominated.

I'll bet that when the Oscar nominations are announced--when? next week, right?--"Sideways", for better or worse, will be there but so will some unworthy film be there too, like possibly "Collateral" or "Kinsey".

I think the date is January 25th, but I could be wrong. There's no question in my mind that Sideways will be among the 5 finalists for Best Picture. I'm hoping that films like Collateral and Kinsey aren't with it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oscar jubis
I have to admit it's flawlessly executed_in the same way that a Fig Newton can be flawless. Alexander Payne has nothing to say about over-the-hill males that we don't already know or couldn't find in a sitcom."

---

Rosenbaum makes an interesting point. It is a very tight film, but what about it is new? I would argue the tone and the particular characterizations are somewhat new. Beyond that? I dont know, and maybe that's not enough to be the best of 2004. Although its sure looking like the critical favorite.

Just a few words in defense of "Sideways", which seems to be in the midst of a Critical backlash....First of all, I think Rosenbaum's crititicism of the film is a bit unfounded, particularly in that he heaps so much praise on "Million Dollar Baby" in the same breath (a film with characters that are borderline two-dimensional and a premise that is rather formulaic).

"Sideways" is a film about human neuroses, frustrations, and relationships, among other things. I'm not sure what about that is "new", but then again what would be "new"? These are themes that have been around for ages, hurdles in life that we as humans never seem to be able to fully clear.

Also, what's frustrating to me about criticism of this film is that the focus seems to be strictly on the two main lead characters. Sure, they're the center of the the story, but many other characters in the film are equally well-realized, both in the screenplay and in the screen performances. The character of Stephanie could have been drawn up just to show Jack's selfish, delusional nature; but instead we also see its impact on her, not just in her violent outburst, but also in her more tender mannerisms, her budding hope about their future together.

This film is more than just a "buddy movie" or another film about a road trip, and I think it's unfair of critics to box it into those classifications. At the same time, it's not so bogged down in its own self-importance that it feels heavy-handed. Payne is a realist; he tells a story in a straight-forward manner and leaves it to the viewer to pass judgment.

[I'm coming into the discussion rather late because I put off writing about the movie after I first saw it in November. As you'll see I've read Rosenbaum, but I had not read all of this thread when I penned the following.]

Alexander Payne: Sideways (2004)

By Chris Knipp

It's good, but what's all this fuss about?

"'This is my favorite movie of the year,' I realized," Bay Area food writer Meredith Brody begins a food column -- "as I watched Sideways for the third time with the same sense of delight and pleasure as I had the first time, six weeks earlier, at the Toronto Film Festival."

Brody's most certainly not alone, but there are prominent dissenters. Here's Jonathan Rosenbaum, beginning his own annual Ten Best list to explain why Sideways isn't on it: "Ten film critics' polls in Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Toronto, and Washington, D.C., have named Sideways the best movie of the year. I don't know whether to laugh or cry... Stumped, I watched it again. An utter waste of time. It has no secrets to yield, no mysteries to clear up -- except maybe the meaning of its title...I have to admit it's flawlessly executed -- in the same way that a Fig Newton can be flawless...but as art, aside from some first-rate acting and swell casting (Church, Giamatti, Virginia Madsen), it's almost completely without interest. As entertainment, it's OK -- the sort of thing people can fall asleep watching on late-night cable. As social observation, it's knowledgeable yet familiar...Director and cowriter Alexander Payne has nothing to say about over-the-hill males that we don't already know or couldn't find in a sitcom. Overall the film is unoriginal and unchallenging -- unless one considers an obsession with wine a daring subject." He concludes by pointing out that while critics may like the movie so much because they identify with the "infantile" "loser" wine devotee Giamatti plays, since a connoisseur is a kind of critic (as A.O. Scott proposed, reacting to the exaggerated praise), the public has voted differently -- Sideways is down at 115th on the Variety box office chart. Still, Sideways is tops with a certain kind of "thoughtful" viewer, especially around here in California.

My reaction differs from both Rosenbaum's and the "thoughtful" viewers'. I was simply glad to find anything at all to like in the movie. Likewise with Wes Anderson's The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou -- which, however, I liked much better. Anderson and Payne are viewed by many as America's bright young auteurs, so one wanted to like them. But Royal Tennenbaums seemed nauseatingly precious, and About Schmidt was self-satisfied and mean-spirited. Anderson's new movie, The Life Aquatic, was something of a revelation, mainly through Bill Murray's genial portrait of another American loser -- arguably a much more accomplished one -- who finds a kind of redemption. This time Anderson's quirkiness made sense.

Sideways makes sense too, but it's far less winning. Its success is in its precision, its social and psychological specificity. Alas, Rosenbaum is right: there's nothing especially profound about the observations. But the details of Payne's new West Coast mileu (he's happily left Nebraska, which had obviously lost its charm for him), while not original, are spot-on, and the acting, as Rosenbaum admits, is very fine. Like Rosenbaum, I watched Sideways a second time, and that acting was what I saw. It's a special pleasure to watch Giammati. He always hits his mark. He's a splendid movie actor. In every scene, he gets the precise effect. But why do we want to watch these two men? That isn't clear to me. Giamatti's character, as Rosenbaum notes, is given a ray of hope (the other, Church's, merely appears to have gotten away with his gross pre-nuptial misbehavior). It's only a ray. It serves to soften the portrait. If Virginia Madsen's warm, beautiful character can see something to like in him, so can we. But so what?

By zeroing in on a couple of middle-class white male mid-life losers spending a self-indulgent week in the wine country, Payne has gotten specific about California without totally trashing it and softened his clear eyed portrait of his flawed characters enough to leave at least one of them with a mildly hopeful future. There is, arguably, more keen specificity -- but only a little -- in Payne's social portraiture than you'd get in a good sitcom. That's enough to make you watch, and that acting doesn't pall. But like Rosenbaum, I can't see going back to watch again. Note that Brody found "the same sense of pleasure and delight" on re-watching Sideways. That's not how it works with great art. With The Life Aquatic -- not that that's great art, but it's a better movie -- there's such a rich panoply of detail that it all looks different on re-viewing. Not so with Sideways. It's finely observed, but it's no masterpiece. 2004 was a good year for movies. There's a lot of equally watchable stuff out there. Unlike Rosenbaum, I'd put it in the top ten US (not worldwide) movies of the year. But it's not the best by any means.

Reprinted with my review of Closer here http://www.cinescene.com/knipp/notsoclose.htm

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
he's happily left Indiana, which had obviously lost its charm for him

---

Omaha, Nebraska, actually, not Indiana. Same thing, though, right?

Once again, I don't understand the argument about this movie not being "profound" or "new". It's a good story, a slice-of-life character study about a certain group of people. That subject matter in and of itself is not "profound". Is this story inferior to, say, the films of Altman like Short Cuts and Nashville, and if so, in what way?

One more thing, have you seen Million Dollar Baby yet? I'm really curious as the the response this film will get from the "regulars" on this board. I wonder if others think it deserves all the accolades it's getting.

Dumb me. I've corrected it to Nebraska. I guess it was just easier to spell Indiana (joke).

Well, it's odd you pick Short Cuts and Nashville. Do you really want to compare little Sideways with works of such ambition and narrative complexity?

Yes I have seen Million Dollar Baby and will write about it soon. But that's another thread.

Please note that I really like Sideways. My "review" is perhaps misleading. Had I written about it earlier what I'd have said would've been different. I'm really more commenting on all the critical response to the movie. I would not list Sideways as "overrated" because it's a very good movie. I simply don't get, any more than Rosenbaum does, why it's being universally chosen as the anointed No. 1 best auteur movie of the year, because there are other good ones.

My annual best lists are alphabetical; I look on all the movies in each category as being of equal value.I personally balk when I see people giving movies precise ratings like A- or B+. I'm more a PASS/FAIL grader when it comes to movies and Sideways is a HIGH PASS. As everybody has been saying, it's very "tight," very well acted and cast, and its social satire hits the mark. But when people keep saying it's the best of the year, you start to think, well, what does it really have to say? Did it bring me joy, did it rock my world? Other movies this year have more grandeur, more beauty, more excitement, more emotional depth than Sideways, make you laugh more or take you to darker places. Some people must just think that because Payne's stayed good and Giamatti's emerged as a top quality actor we have to put the movie up on a pedestal.

My American best list would place Undertow, Collateral, Million Dollar Baby, The Aviator, Before Sunset, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Kill Bill II, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, and yes, Napoleon Dynamite on the same level as Sideways, -- and Kinsey, Primer, The Woodsman, and Finding Neverland (British subject of course but American director and star) not far behind. And then there are all the good foreign films, and the documentaries, and the things that are too unique to put in an ordinary list, that were shown in theaters this year.

My 2004 best lists in all categories are here: http://www.chrisknipp.com/writing/vi....php?p=393#393. (Let me know if you find typos or other mistakes.)