Trigger

I loved Magnolia.

slop101

Magnolia's problem was that it didn't understand itself...

Groucho

I didn't understand it.

Dr. DVD

Liked Magnolia and Sideways.

I am not as old as the characters in this movie, but I liked it for its simplicity and enjoyed it thoroughly, more upon reflection than anything else. That said, I don't think it's fair to say someone didn't "get it" as to why they didn't like the film. It's not like this movie is complex with its plot, nor is Magnolia. It's a simple plot that has depth and layers to how it is carried out and communicated. It is very possible for someone to understand what is being said about something but not like the way in which the message is delivered. If they don't they don't, simple as that.

Trigger

Another one of these movies that people dragged the 'didn't like it? you didn't get it' debate into was Eyes Wide Shut. I hated that one... and I love Kubrick.

Cygnet74

right. considering that the experience of watching a film is a subjective, one-way communication, its more accurate to say the movie didn't make an emotional or intellectual impact on the viewer than it is to speculate that one "didn't get it". which still, does not put blame squarely on the filmmaker. the subjectivity involved includes many factors including distractions, education, personal experience, as well as the refusal or willingness to be mindful of what's being communicated. the only way a film can truly fail is by failing to find an audience.

slop101

I hated EWS so much that I christened it "Eyes Wide Shit", but since then, I've come to like it more. I don't love it or anything, but maybe I just understand it better now...
Actually, leaving the theater after seeing Sideways, I really didn't think much of it and it really didn't do much for me. It was after some reflection and letting it digest that I was able to appreciate it more and then seeing it for the 2nd time made me love it.

Trig, you were saying that maybe you'd be more into Sideways if you played golf or drank wine - if the characters played videogames, instead of golf, and were into, say, films, instead of wine - do you think you may have identified with it more and liked it better?

Trigger

Probably not... I don't find watching people play video games in a movie particularly interesting. The problem was that their big hurrah plan was to go to wine country and play golf... sure, it turned into more of a traditionally dirty week of pre-marital debauchery, but their initial plan was dull. And even the debauchery they experienced was pretty mundane. I did have some positive reactions to some of the scenes, but overall the film didn't hold me. It didn't draw me into the plight of the characters.

As I said, one was a pompous asshole drunk loser - but he was so benign that he failed to draw me into his misery. He was just simply average and dull. It's like his life lacked enough meat to fill a 2 hour movie. His big breakdown was unmotivated since he already knew he wasn't going to get published... and aside from that, his deterioration was so understated that it felt not worth getting involved in for me as a viewer. Also, the resolution of his character was another non-event for me.

The other one was a soap and commercial actor who didn't have many dimensions... he was motivated by his penis. This further shows how off their matching was as friends and how off their choice of how they spent their week was. As motivated by his penis as he was, they should've gone to vegas instead... or at least detoured. I mean, if the idea of the joke was that here's a horny man of low moral fiber and his boring wine-drinking buddy going on a trip that's not suited to the situation, then they should've at least tapped into that more than they did. It was a missed opportunity. And Lowell didn't seem the least bit opinionated about it one way or the other. He was empty behind his eyes... to which I attribute to a poor performance or poor writing.

I basically just found it to be a nothing movie about nothing special and thought it was far too long and quite dull... my hatred for it stems basically from all the universal praise it's getting because I feel it's undeserved. I'm not knocking anyone for liking it... the only thing I don't understand about this movie is why people like it so much. To me it's a reflection of how starved people are for good movies - that's how i reconcile it in my mind - because this year was so devoid of cinematic genius (save for a few like Eternal Sunshine) that something so mediocre and ho-hum as Sideways gets lavished with accolades.

Drop

Well you are knocking people for liking it. You are saying that because you couldn't connect with it, no one should, and if they do it's only because they confuse average with great because they have no better reference this year. Which I personally find insulting.

Now, I know (think) you don't really mean that, so I won't take it personally.

However as far as I'm concerned it was one of the best movies of the year, right up there with Eternal Sunshine, which you feel was genius.

You have explained very well why you didn't like it, and I think the supporters have explained themselves very well. I just think that last bit should have been said differently, as it takes away from your case.

Trigger

I didn't mean it as an insult - just that this is how I've reconciled it in my mind since I am having trouble figuring out why people are finding it so brilliant. And maybe I need to re-read the thread, but I haven't seen anyone outline and explain what was so great about it.

Dr. DVD

Not only has he explained why he didn't like it, I think others have as well, even if they were different reasons than the ones he gave.

FWIW, Trigger's post is very illustrative of the backlash this film is getting. Many people are reading the reviews and going in thinking it will be the best thing since sliced bread, and are discovering it is something different. I know many films that had praise heaped upon them that could never connect with a mass audience. I remember when Talented Mr. Ripley hit theaters critics were heaping praises upon it and comparing it to Hitchcock. I went on opening night with a packed theater, and I think about twenty people walked out on it. Was it because the movie was bad? Not really, it just didn't deliver what many thought it would deliver in the way they wanted it.
One can tell a story in many ways, and some people prefer one method more than others. The one of Sideways has been done MANY times over, just with a different style and setting. Had they set this movie in Vegas and had the characters be in the same occupation but put Sean Williams Scott and Seth Green in the roles, some people might have preferred that method to tell the story, but it would be a different movie altogether.

Trigger

There has to be a happy medium between the actors in Sideways and Sean William Scott and Seth Green.

badger1997

I guess I don't understand how acclaim for a movie you didn't like can make you like the movie even less. To me, a movie is what it is. I can see how before you see the movie talk about it might affect how you feel, but for me over time that fades away and only the movie I saw is left behind. But to see a movie, not like it and then get upset that others did and like the movie even less, makes little sense to me.

Tarantino

I watched it and I was bored stiff.

Trigger

it didn't really make me like it less... it just made me angry. perhaps it amplified my dislike for it some as well. I don't know.

ivelostr2

Have you loosened up yet?

Tarantino

If I was getting married, I'd want my friend to take me somewhere I was interested in...seems like Lowell should have taken Miles for a wine tasting weekend before a marriage...not the other way around. Maybe Miles should have taken Lowell to a strip club or Vegas or something.

And what's with people wanting one last fling before marriage? I never got that...

Cygnet74

maybe its not relevant to you yet. if you revisit the film when you're in your thirties or forties it might make more of an impact on you.

Tarantino

If it was done well, it'd have made an impact on me. About Schmidt did.

badger1997

I gotta disagree with you there. So it didn't connect with you, fine. But to say it wasn't "done well." It certainly was done well enough to connect with many people.

Cygnet74

i doubt that's really true. i've seen plenty of well crafted films that have failed to make an impact on me upon first viewing, only to re-emerge years later to become a cherished favorite.

anyway, i only suggested that might be the case because you seemed to express a certain lack of understanding as to why these characters would do the things they do and why they felt the way they felt.

btw, funny just how unique an experience a movie for each individual can be. personally, i didnt like About Schmidt. I thought it lacked depth. a depth i was happy to find in the characters of Sideways.

Groucho

Whoa whoa WHOA! Let's not say things we can't take back. The Wizard was a masterpiece.

Dr. DVD

Wizard like a mo fo!

Drop

Okay, here is exactly why I liked Sideways, I think back to it and I can't quite remember specific things in scenes, but I remember the feel of it, and it rang very real and very true. Like that scene on the porch where Miles and Maya where they have a very intimate talk, I can't remember what exactly was said, something about wine and how it related to Miles life, but the feel of the scene, how Payne filmed it, really connected with me. It was real emotion, and that hits hard.

That sums up the whole movie to me. It worked, and I left feeling something good, it certainly wasn't a feel good movie, but when a movie connects that is a good feeling. Same thing with Eternal Sunshine.

SMB-IL

Random thoughts on "Sideways":

I'm 47, saw "Sideways" and hated it. It was two losers going on a Loser Adventure before one of the losers gets married -- oh, yeah and wine, wine country and wine tasting as a metaphor for humans and the relationships they have -- lots of "whining".

I'm yawning, I'm snoring, I'm asleep.

I couldn't like, or even identify with, any of the characters. No one seemed to really learn anything or to say anything or feel anything that I cared about. Am I too old? Was the movie aimed at only a very small segment of the population?

I don't understand why Thomas Hayden Church was nominated and Paul Giamantti wasn't. Nothing against her acting ability or her character, but I also don't get why Virginia Madsen was nominated either. It was the porch scene, wasn't it?

slop101: not quite sure I care much for the attitude with Trigger about this film -- seems a bit unnecessarily arrogant to assume that all people should have the same feelings about a film as you and if they don't then they "don't get it". So, for your edification:

Eternal Sunshine: got it, loved it.
Talented Mr Ripley: got it, loved it.
Magnolia: mostly got it, loved it.
Eyes Wide Shut: got it after three viewings, loved it.

BONUS MENTIONS:
Lost in Translation: got it and hated it more than any other film I've ever seen in my life.
Virgin Suicides: got it, loved it almost as much as I hated Lost in Translation.