NOT SINCE PROPERTY CLASS: A lot of folks are likely to see The Descendants because of its Oscar buzz, and some because of its trailer, which erroneously sells it as a madcap comedy, and some brave souls may now be more interested in seeing it knowing that it invokes the Rule Against Perpetuities as a major plot point. I really admired parts of it, particularly the performances from George Clooney, Shailene Woodley, and a surprising dramatic turn from Judy Greer, but I found myself unsatisfied by the end--without spoiling things here (though the comments are fair game)--it seems we're building to a moment of catharsis, and then, instead, we opt to end in a moment of quiet. In that way, it reminds me of Payne's prior About Schmidt, which ended not with Nicholson exploding, but with a moment of peace.
It also seemed to polarize the audience, with some applause at the end (seemingly primarily from the older set), but a fair number of folks grumbling that it was the worst thing they'd seen in a while. I find myself in the middle, though the older folks may drive it to a few nominations (screenplay and Clooney seem the naturals).
The response seems to be typical for most of Payne's movies, even among the critics. Those that love them (for example, Owen Gleiberman) love The Descendants; those that don't (for example, Stephanie Zacharek) don't love The Descendants. I'm firmly in the "I LOVED IT!" camp.
ReplyDeleteAs good as Clooney was (and I thought he was really good), for me the great performance in this movie belongs to Shailene Woodley. There's a shot near the end of the movie as she walks her little sister into the hospital room that just broke my heart.
May I complain about the local supposed alt-paper, the once-great Chicago Reader? Their review starts out with this:
ReplyDelete<span>Alexander Payne has won an Oscar for best adapted screenplay (</span><span>Sideways</span><span>), but you'd never guess that from this clumsily written drama</span>
Which would make sense, except that the screenplay is by Nate Faxon, Jim Rash (Dean Pelton on Community) and Payne, so basically the first two mainly with his input (rank speculation alert). A little basic fact-checking and you're not going for the easy joke, reviewer.
Based on billing and media reports, Faxon and Rash are a writing team and did the first draft, and Payne did a rewrite. Interestingly, Jim Taylor, who's been Payne's writing partner on his prior projects, isn't billed as a writer, though he has producing credits.
ReplyDeleteI didn't LOVE IT, but liked many parts of it. I completely agree with you about Shailene Woodley's performance - she and Clooney had really good chemistry (in a totally appropriate father/daughter way - not a creepy way).
ReplyDeleteLoved it.
ReplyDeleteI liked it very very much. I thought Clooney was just great, and yes, the daughters were terrific too. It's not my favorite Payne (it's no Election) but I certainly enjoyed it more than About Schmidt.
ReplyDeleteI loved it. I would actually argue that Nicholson *does* explode at the end of About Schmidt, just not in a violent way, or the usual Nicholson way. That letter from Ndugu breaks through his emotional defenses and it's a beautiful moment of catharsis. For me, the quiet ending of The Descendants showed that Clooney's character had truly come back to his family and was truly there with his daughters, both physically and emotionally.
ReplyDeleteAgreed re: Shailene Woodley, she was a revelation. Loved Judy Greer too.
Liked it very very much, which I'll round up to Loved. I thought Clooney was just terrific in a difficult role, and as has been mentioned, the daughters were good too. It's not my favorite Payne (that would be Election) but I'd certainly rank it above About Schmidt.
ReplyDeleteSo, not to threadjack much, but will we be talking about Hugo anytime soon? Because I loved it so much that I was joy-crying behind my 3D glasses.
ReplyDeleteClooney's performance was really good, but I wasn't ever as invested as I would have liked to have been. Part of it was my divided attention between the trust plot and the Elizabeth plot. I realize that both were bearing down on Matt and that they did end up being connected in small ways eventually, but I felt like both were underserved in the end.
ReplyDeleteAlso, what the hell Matthew Lillard looking his age (41)? When did that happen?
Me too.
ReplyDeleteI really liked it, but would have trouble saying I loved it. I thought the performances were excellent, especially both of the daughters. And I really enjoyed Clooney's performance, especially his evolving reaction to the knowledge that his wife had an affair. And I thought the final scene of the family on the couch was a perfect ending. But I had trouble really engaging with the story and the characters - as much as I admired the storytelling, it didn't hit me emotionally, which is I suppose how I upgrade from like to love in the case of a movie like this.
ReplyDeleteYes to what both Watts and Sue have said. I struggled to connect to any of the characters as real people. Everyone just seemed such written types: The Clooney Character (Now Available in Schlub), the Teen Daughter, the Wise Doofus (very much in the Keanu-in-Parenthood mode), and the Cute Little One Capable of Sass. The stakes throughout just seemed really low, meaning I never got a sense that this man and these girls have just had their livesblown apart and now need to pick up the pieces and carry on in a new way. I blame the script, not the actors -- all of whom gave fine performances, although I admire Clooney's work in Michael Clayton and Up in the Air more than his work here, and I'm genuinely puzzled by the hail of praise for Shailene Woodley, whom I thought was quite good but hardly, say, Jennifer Lawrence in Winter's Bone- or Elizabeth Olsen in MMMM- or Jessica Chastain in EVERYTHING this-year- revelatory.
ReplyDeletePayne did a massive rewrite. I liked Nat and Jim's script better.
ReplyDelete