stop complaining

the first thing to be said is that is my opinion. take what you will from it. i noticed that many critics are claiming that this film in similar words : "is not worth it and that it could have been done better" well i have news to all of those people : do it! this film (punch-drunk love) is exceptional. i guess everyone was to busy eating popcorn and thinking of the previews and who they will go and see them with during the first 5 minutes of the film when the mood is set straight into your face; that you are to take what you want from this film and not have to wait for someone to tell it to you the way it is. basically pay attention to what you want to pay attention to.
north america seems to have been very negative towards this film, yet it was praised at cannes. do i need to remind certain people that david lynch was not given proper recognition (nominations do not count when they are given over and over and lose to awful films) except for 'wild at heart' at cannes? this film is not only for "film geeks" it is very much for everyone. the entire film is just a reflection of how we all are. crying for no reason (physically or mentally), taking chances (or dreaming of taking chances and not doing them when we should), smashing up bathrooms all the time (again : physically or mentally), scamming someone somehow and then when caught, deny and try to retaliate; a conscious decision to hurt one another. punch-drunk love is showing all of this and is not having to do this for the lowest common denominator. and we all know that there is nothing but films like that being "created" from hollywood. just look at the academy awards and the films it has been awarding instead of the films it has just been nominating.
instead of being negative on punch-drunk love and the other few films that take this path, we should support them so that very slowly and hopefully surely, more companies in hollywood will not have to conform to the studios format, and can still, with large enough budgets, cast that is not inexpensive and unknown, a plot written before the actual film is shot, keep making films that when end on the screen, the audience is not thinking of what they will see next and how certain previews before! the film look great. Instead take, at least, a moment and just try and feel the roots of what they just sat through.

You can add me to the list of critics that say it's not worth it. I wasn't eating popcorn or thinking about things other than the movie. I just didn't care for the movie. I didn't hate it, but it gets a marginal thumbs down from me.

Not surprising that we disagree, since I also don't like the two David Lynch movies I've seen, Blue Velvet and Wild at Heart.

This movie is definitely not a reflection of how I am...I couldn't relate to any of the characters in this movie. Emily Watson's character was the only normal one and I still found it unbelievable that she'd be attracted to Adam Sandler's character who was a freak.

I'm not going to support films like this just because they are not mainstream, though my favorite movie of the year happens to beRabbit-Proof Fence, which hasn't been released in the U.S. yet.

I respect your opinion of the movie, but stand by my right to dislike it and not be judged as a "North American", but as an individual movie buff the ability to make up my own mind.

I agree. The film was mediocre for me. And Im definitely the type of person (as are most of the users here) who roots for good film. Just didn't find this one too compelling. Neither eccentric as an off-beat character sketch, nor compelling as a love story, it just left me indifferent on all accounts.

I saw this movie on Tuesday and it is a complete waste of time. Almost half the movie consists of light show and screen blackouts.

Of the rest, the first three quarters of the movie makes no sense whatever, and the latter part is a very short love story.

While someone says the female lead was the only normal person, how would they know? Her part was so small we never really got to know her. She could just as well have been played by a cardboard cutout.

All in all dispite rave reviews at Cannes and Toronto, it's really not worth seeing.

We love Adam Sandler and every one of his films. Emily Watson is an Academy Award caliber actress. This was and is the worst movie we have ever seen. We see over 100 movies a year and unlike the critics we like just about every one of them. We couldn't wait for it to be over. It goes to show you that the critics are just like us. One man's opinion!

Wow. I must be in the minority here. I loved PDL.
That score was pulse-pounding, the characters were odd but very compelling. I'm a little biased, tho- I feel that Emily Watson can do no wrong in the acting dept.
And those painted segues were BRILLIANT.

Segue yes, music? Noise..... irratating to the point of driving us nuts. Emily is delectable, but why on earth did she take this part.
What did you possibly like about this movie. As I said, we love just about anything... it is always worth the few dollars we pay to see a movie. Still the best bargain in America for two hours of entertainment. But..... we feel embarassed that we just didn't get it, why are the critics so wild about this movie. We cannot figure out a damn thing about this movie that makes it deserve any recognition at all. Help me, understand what is it that you saw...that we couldn't.

Well, I'll try to jump in to this conversation; I saw the movie yesterday and am having many, many thoughts about it.

The music / noise issue: In my opinion, the best use of music I've ever seen in a movie. Disjointed at first, intended to make you feel uncomfortable, to try to put you into the mind of Sandler's character. Throughout the movie, the music often shifted between this disjointed "noise", which sounded like something cut from a late Beatles' record, to the harmonious song at the end. The harmonium (musical instrument) is obviously symbolic; it had a hole in it and initially it just emitted an annoying sound when played. But Sandler taped it up, learned to play it, and created a nice little tune. Find your harmony in life, that's the point.

Reaction to this movie reminds me of reaction to modern art. Intellectual, yes, but put together in a form that many people just won't comprehend. It's definately saying something, but you've got to work to figure it out, and it's not easy doing so. It's certainly not a comfortable picture. I don't know that I've ever seen a movie like this, or one that's had such an effect.

Two thing that I especially admire here: 1) A romantic comedy that turns the whole romantic comedy concept on its head. 2) An Adam Sandler movie that is decidedly different from any other movie he's ever been in. I can just picture the scene at the multiplex this weekend with Sandler fans leaving this movie confused and a bit angry. No fart jokes here, people.

What else to say? Maybe we didn't get a chance to really know Emily Watson's character, but then again, neither did Barry. Maybe that's the point. He was just happy that a pretty, nice, well-balanced female took an interest in him. It was always about him, never really about her.

Also, I loved the beginning of the movie; his office just a warehouse, early in the morning before anyone else was stirring, just alone in the peace and quiet and isolation. No music at that point, just silence. Very clever by PTA. Oh yeah, I also liked him getting lost in her apartment building.

Also loved the painted segues. And loved Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who is a wonderful actor. He's played four very different characters in each of PTA's four films. Amazing.

So much to say here. Regardless of what you thought of the movie, it's certainly full of much to discuss. I did not like "Magnolia", I thought it was fairly unoriginal and boring. This movie, however, is truly an original.

What a pleasure to read your comments. You hit everything right on the nose! It really is like the appreciation for art or a fine wine. Why in he heck don't we get it, I want to get it but I don't. Your assessment helps greatly. My point with this film is that we are very much avid movie goers. I am a well known author and it quite frankly pissed me off that I just couldn't get anything from this film that I wanted to love. We love Adam Sandler and adore Emily Watson and PTA. But what were they thinking?

One other analogy, I had a young lady who worked for me years ago and my wife stood on line for hours to get tickets to the Picasso exhibition which was five months later. Well the day came and we went to the exhibition and people were crying, people were excited, people were quite frankly out of their minds with joy in seeing his works and we stood there like idiots not understanding what the hell is going on. So I spoke to the young lady who was an art major and asked her why? what are we missing? Why do I feel so inept? I simply think it is crap, am I the one who is crazy, when all of these people are simply so excited about this exhibition. She said, you just have to have in you, it is difficult to explain, much like with a fine wine, you have to have the acquird taste. It is great to be able to interact with people especially on this film. Tonite we are off to see a light crazy dumb movie "waking up in Reno" a no brainer with some beautiful ladies and probably a simple simple plot. Bet we like it better than this one. Anyhow, more later and thanks for your note

silly fluff-

Are we going to start giving credit to things for being incomprehensible? I assume you mean that incomprehensible was the directors intention. I would have to disagree. Certainly, PTAndersen has a knack for the unusual but thats usually within a viewable, traceable film. Dont give him more artistic credit than he's worth just because it sparks debate. While an off-shoot of good art is often debate, debate is not the mark of good art (or good wine).

I suppose Punch-Drunk was a bit troublesome to understand, but I like films with a mystery about them, and to render Mr. Sandler mysterious is a real feat. I expect to work at understanding these "difficult" films when I see them. If I wanted to predict a movie, I'd just watch a new "blockbuster". i.e. Scooby Doo, Spiderman, etc..

God bless the p.t. anderson's and the david lynch's of the world..

I'll try to clarify my comments. To me, it seems that most mainstream "art", whether movies, paintings, or music, is created to entertain or to bring pleasure to the consumers. We buy a ticket to "Waking up in Reno" and we expect to laugh and be entertained, that's it. Well, I compared "Punch Drunk Love" to modern art, however that term is defined, because it doesn't simply let us smile and leave. In fact, it can be so lacking in those sensabilities that it can be a total turn-off for many. It goes beyond that, and any connection to the movie or art is reached on a different level of sorts.

I completely agree that just because a movie or a painting is difficult or incomprehensible doesn't make it brilliant or a work of genius. Frankly, I put the films of David Lynch in this category. It seems that much of the appeal of "Mullholland Drive" for many people is trying to figure out what the hell is going on. But once you put the pieces together, what do you have?

To me, "Punch Drunk Love" is one of the most interesting and unique movies I've ever seen. I can't just exclaim that "I loved it!" because it's not that easy. Sorry if it sounds too pretentious, but I'd define the movie as a kind of post-modern romantic comedy. If I had to compare it to any other movie, I would say that it's like a demented take on Billy Wilder's "The Apartment".

I'll stop at this point, though there's much to discuss with this movie.

What a coincidence that you mention that movie in your critique follow up on punch drunk. We saw waking up last night and it was hysterical. Haven't seen any publicity on it, and my wife thinks that maybe this movie was made more than a few years ago because it was released without any fanfare, not tv appearance by billy bob, charlize, Natasha Richardson, Patrick Swayze. The epitomy of Redneck movies. I would hope word of mouth would make this a successful movie much like Greek Wedding. That movie gave us monies worth of laughter and enjoyment while Punch Drunk was way over the top. thanks again.

I didnt find the mystery of the characters or the relationships intriguing. I thought it was just underdeveloped, and that's where the mystery came in. Also felt like Sandlers character was not cohesive even as a rendering of a incohesive dude.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JustaFied
I'll try to clarify my comments. To me, it seems that most mainstream "art", whether movies, paintings, or music, is created to entertain or to bring pleasure to the consumers. We buy a ticket to "Waking up in Reno" and we expect to laugh and be entertained, that's it. Well, I compared "Punch Drunk Love" to modern art, however that term is defined, because it doesn't simply let us smile and leave. In fact, it can be so lacking in those sensabilities that it can be a total turn-off for many. It goes beyond that, and any connection to the movie or art is reached on a different level of sorts.

---

First, I don't think the terms "modern art" and "mainstream art" are interchangeable. But I think I understand where youre going. There is a strain of art-house movies which sends the audience off in a biscotti capucino frenzy with some warm-fuzzies in their hearts. Where we differ is that you give him props for being different than those films, but I think this conversation should already assume a context of good art/bad art and should judge the movie of its own merits. None of my displeasure was because PDLove didn't live up to criteria established by "Waking up in Reno" (I havent seen it). Aside from being better or different from such films, what are its merits in your eyes? Much more to discuss indeed.

Wow, how did you copy my post and then paste it in bold? Pretty cool, I'll have to try that sometime.

I think I probably invoked the "modern art" analogy here because I spent much of the movie admiring the movie's form, its style, instead of primarily being wrapped up in characters and story itself. Sorry if that doesn't make sense, but it's been a long day. Maybe I was really taken in by the way PTA was telling the story and how unique it was. In that sense, it reminded me of "Being John Malkovich" in its originality, though of course they're very different movies.

I do give him props here for being different. True originality, creating something in a form that hasn't really been done, gets some brownie points in my book. Three things here I found paricularly clever: 1) a romantic comedy that doesn't really fit into the genre; maybe it's saying that the stories in typical romantic comedies aren't entirely real. Maybe in exagerating Barry's faults and the situations in the movie, PTA is kindof playing into this falseness or "cuteness" seen in most romantic comedies.
2) An Adam Sandler flick that will clearly disturb those devoted fans who flock to his movie. 3) great use of music, as I wrote earlier.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about this movie, though, was the fact that I drive the same type of car as Barry (early 90's Buick LeSabre, champagn colored). I just about gagged on my popcorn when I saw him driving it.

That's funny about the car, man. Just like how I almost died when I saw (sorry heard) Ben Affleck watching the Batman Super Powers video in Chasing Amy. I thought I was the only person on EARTH who did that in his spare time. (great background noise!)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JustaFied
Wow, how did you copy my post and then paste it in bold? Pretty cool, I'll have to try that sometime.

---

Use the "Quote" button.

Quote:

---

I do give him props here for being different. True originality, creating something in a form that hasn't really been done, gets some brownie points in my book. Three things here I found paricularly clever: 1) a romantic comedy that doesn't really fit into the genre; maybe it's saying that the stories in typical romantic comedies aren't entirely real. Maybe in exagerating Barry's faults and the situations in the movie, PTA is kindof playing into this falseness or "cuteness" seen in most romantic comedies.
2) An Adam Sandler flick that will clearly disturb those devoted fans who flock to his movie. 3) great use of music, as I wrote earlier.

---

#1 and #2 sound like you're giving the movie credit for NOT being something. For me, NOT being an Adam Sandler movie and NOT being a romantic comedy do not a good film make. #3- I can see, although I found the music to be excessive, even beyond the intended punch-drunk effect.

You and Barry have the same car? Maybe you'll end up with Emily Watson too!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sola



#1 and #2 sound like you're giving the movie credit for NOT being something. For me, NOT being an Adam Sandler movie and NOT being a romantic comedy do not a good film make. #3- I can see, although I found the music to be excessive, even beyond the intended punch-drunk effect.

You and Barry have the same car? Maybe you'll end up with Emily Watson too!

---

OK, I've now had 2 message erased from trying to mess with this quote function. I'm worn out, but I'll try to rehash my argument once again.

PTA has created a movie that is both a romantic comedy and a criticism of romantic comedies at the same time. I see criticisms of the film that the characters aren't well developed, that Sandler's character is not cohesive. Well, most would agree that PTA in "Magnolia" and "Boogie Nights" did create coherent, believable chracters in real situations. I agree that this movie is different. So, was PTA simply off his game in this movie. Well, I think he did it on purpose, and that's what I like about the movie.

But, what's clever is not just the characters' lack of believablity, because that in of itself would be too easy to do. It's also the other ways that PTA stretched the limits of a romantic comedy. The music, for one, as already discussed. The fact that Barry flew to Hawaii on a whim just to be with her. Doesn't that go beyond "romantic" and become kindof strange. The fact that, apart from one conversation, Barry never asks her about herself or her background. Is this really a relationship that's going to work? Are the really going to live happily ever after?

Some people who see the movie love it simply as a romantic comedy (See Harry Knowles' blathering review on AICN.com). But, clearly PTA wasn't simply trying to create a standard romantic comedy. He was pushing the limits, pushing the buttons of the audience, in very interesting and unique ways. And, in that sense, it made the movie both intellecually stimulating as well as emotionally stimulating.

As for the '92 Buick LeSabre, it exudes class (and money). It's a babe magnet.

I'm not sure I understand what other viewers found particularly incomprehensible or inaccessible about this film. It was complicated in parts, and there were a few mysterious nits, granted, but I found it to be far more straightforward than "Magnolia," with a conclusion more immediate than "Boogie Nights." This isn't to say that I view "Punch Drunk Love" as being as good as the other two films.

There is much to recommend the film, though. It's not quite a romantic comedy and not quite something else, which in itself is remarkable -- I can't think of a single romantic comedy to compare to it in terms of tone. Here's a guy, Barry Egan, whose life is full of questions that are always answered, "I don't know." It stands to reason that Barry doesn't know much about himself at all -- why he has fits of rage, why he engages in strange obsessive behavior like the purchase of dozens of cups of pudding, and the like. The great irony of the character is that, while intensely self-absorbed, he is probably the least self-absorbed of his family -- his sisters are far worse, seemingly oblivious to anything occurring beyond them. The story is basically one of a character attempting to claim and define his identity. Barry is attempting to live up to the basic Delphic mandate: Know Thyself. There are a few nice symbolic touches along the way.

The strongest point in the film, for me, was the illustration of another aspect of southern Californian culture. Just as "Boogie Nights" shows us the adult industry in its golden age, and "Magnolia" shows us some of the complexities of dealing with entertainment, media and urban life in Los Angeles, so "Punch Drunk Love" illustrates a very lonely aspect of Californian life, ways in which people attempt to overcome that loneliness (e.g., work and phone sex), and the possibility for actually achieving harmony in such a place. As someone who spent two lonely years in southern California, Barry came across to me as very human. I take it back -- very obscurely, if I had to compare this film to a romantic comedy, it would be "LA Story."

That said, I didn't find this to be the strongest Anderson film. It lacked the clever visual work of "Boogie Nights" (e.g., the pool party scene early in the film) or "Magnolia" (too many visually clever scenes to name). It wasn't nearly as quotable as the earlier films -- after "Magnolia," I walked away with lines like, "It's dangerous to confuse children with angels." What does "Punch Drunk Love" leave us with? "Gay boy"? The characters, with the exception of Barry (in my opinion), were decidedly underdeveloped -- Lena, Barry's love interest is so ambiguous that we can't quite figure out if she's "normal" or just as obsessive as everyone else in the film. Everyone I know moaned about the length of other PTA films; I think "Punch Drunk Love" could have used a bit more length and development.

So basically, I don't feel the film was on par with Anderson's past films, which is to say that I don't think it's masterful, just original, interesting, well-paced, and possibly brilliant. I definitely need to see it again and study it.

Anyway, that's my two cents worth. I'm new here and just saw this film today, so I thought I'd say hello.