I saw this movie the other day during a Matinee with a friend and couldn't quit laughing about 20mins into it. This is probably the worst movie I've ever seen... I mean, I almost blushed with embarassment at how bad it was. I really racked my brain walking out of the theater trying to figure out how in the hell a film like this could be soooooo bad on sooooo many levels. Could it be the writting, directing, editing.. I don't know. Occasionally Hollywood puts out a movie like this and I alway wonder if the actual footage, acting, writing, script, etc. are for an entirely diferent movie that what I had just saw. Give me a couple of days to put it together in my mind and I'll clarify my position, but I am sincerely scratching my head wondering why this movie left me feeling completely empty and having wasted 2 hours of my life...
Two of my favorite films this year, this and Weather Man, we marketed all wrong. They marketed them as straight comedy, when they were more on the drama side. People expected something else when they saw these two.
Yeah I liked it. It's all a matter of opinion really but I appreciated the movie for making a cool modern film noir comedy. Not a subgenre you see that much anymore. I have no problem with unsympathetic characters, sometimes they're just more interesting to watch. Violence doesn't bother me nor does a bad attitude about the Christmas season. if anything it was the perfect movie for this time of year. I agree it really shouln't have been marketed as a straight comedy as it was more of a dark comedy but even that's stretching. I think they could have extended the flick a little more and cut out Oliver Platt's too long drunken mess by a scene or two (although funny, it didn't do much for the story)
See... thats the thing... I hated it as a "Film" but the elements I did like had nothing to do with your typical viewing.
The cinematography was beautiful.. I grew up in the Chicago suburbs and this film was definitely filmed there! No place like it on Earth. The color palette looked great (grey and white), and the Noir throughout the film was right on, shadows, blinds, mood music, etc... That was done beautifully... Im a huge fan of John's and thought his acting was right on.. unfortunately I thought the writing, directing, and editing was really dissappointing. Somewhere in there is a good film, I just thing the aformentioned three executed the delivery of it badly.
I agree also in that it was marketed completely wrong and even a split second sound-byte mentioning "Badder Santa" did an huge dis-service to this film and moviegoers expectations...
I always think a Film should stand on it's own elements and endorsed reality and should be able to withstand lower than expected coherency. All the elements are there, just not properly shaken and stirred. I just think this film was robbed of its potential and I feel a little bitter buying into the marketing hype.
His was an intelligent reason to not like the movie but I have to disagree. Not everyone who doesn't like it would have to be an idiot... in fact while I quite liked it...it was a movie I realized would be very difficult for a lot of people to like
It just had too many cliques. Like(SPOILER) how many people didn't see it coming for two days that A. Billy Bob would get shot out of the box and B. Cusak would get stabbed in the foot???? Come on.............a 9th grader could have written this.
Yes--went in because it was the only movie we had not seen playing at the local theater and was truly glad we went about 15 minutes into the movie- think this will develop a true cult following over time--John Cusak's fans will embrace it because it shows such a mature side of his boychick image loved how Connie Nielsen was a whore with a heart of cheap gilt-plating--isn't she some kind of brave actress--will do any part and do it well-- loved the cinematography--great to see a movie shot in real local that is done well--made me think of Badlands w/Sissy Spacek and Martin Sheen and Days of Heaven w/Richard Gere and Brooke Adams--I froze in the movie theater and bought my son in law who is working as consultant at aircraft mfg outside Wichita some long underwear for Christmas based on those outdoor shots ---loved Oliver Platt--he really deserved a best supporting nomination for this role -- it was a good tune up for Casanova His and Cusak's buddy relationship is the love that will last--unlike that in Brokeback Mountain
the writing was wonderful so intelligent because it was sarcastic, brutal and sad at the same time Poor John Cusak was terrible father--but the image of him raiding the 7-11 for Christmas presents and placing them under the tree is just too funny-- I guessed about Connie Nielsen but did not see the knife coming--that hurt! Think it is a great Christmas movie--how many people have felt like they were stuck in Wichta during their own Christmas weekend sometimes
Yes! Yes! YES! You understood this film as well! I wasn't expecting a hilarious comedy. More so a dark, kinda sad crime/drama/comedy. I got exactly that and loved it.
I have to agree with writerdude on the marketing issue. I love most of John Cusack's films. Loved Grosse Pointe Blank and Pushing Tin. Didn't care that much for High Fidelity. But seeing Billy Bob Thornton and John Cusack together again? Hot damn, that was bound to be a funny movie.
You can imagine (and most of you have felt) the confusion when I saw a movie that was NOT a comedy. Was it funny? Hell yes........in places. Not so much in others. When Vic tells Charlie that the mob enforcer overestimated Vic's commitment to his (Vic's) wife, I snorted diet pepsi out my nose and almost died laughing on the floor of the theater. I know that makes me look sick, but I do not care. I thought it was hilarious.
Other scenes, the end for example, were not funny. They weren't bad. I liked how it ended. It just was not funny.
When going to a movie, you have to understand a few things. You may like the movie. You may leave the theater screaming something like, "I WANT MY TWO HOURS BACK, DAMMIT!" We have all had that experience. Movies are like the lottery. You may get a winner and you may get a loser. It does not matter. Do NOT blame the film makers. Blame yourself. You have the choice of going or not going. They did not take your money. You gave it to them.
Like most investments, movies often warrant some research first. Ask a friend. Read a review. Realize that these opinions belong to someone else and make up you own damn mind whether you want to spend $9.50 on a movie that you might not like.
wrichjr, it's nice to see that someone with more than half a brain or who ISN'T on angel dust can write in these boards. Good post, and I'm going to rent and see the movie based on what you wrote. Thanks.
I agree with you right up until there. I have to blame them for a bad movie. Sure, I went to see the movie. Me not liking may or may not have anything to do with my expectations, but if the filmmakers did or did not do their job well will automatically affect my decision, and I have no part in that. To say that I should only blame myself for a bad experience at the movies, because everything is in the eye of the beholder is to say that every bad experience we have in life we should see coming, and if we don't, well, that's our own damn fault.
The filmmakers are to blame for making a bad pic. Some films we don't understand. Some films just aren't our cup of tea, and some films are advertised one way, and end up being nothing like that. None of the films that fall into these categories are BAD, however. I don't care for Sideways or Life Aquatic. I don't think the people who made these films screwed up, they just aren't films that I can enjoy.
For me, Ice Harvest is one of those movies. I enjoyed it up until about 40 minutes in. Once Charlie discovers the thumb, the film starts to unravel for me. I think it's an average movie.
> Two of my favorite films this year, this and Weather Man, we marketed all wrong. > They marketed them as straight comedy, when they were more on the drama side. > People expected something else when they saw these two
Your my hero, people are going into these movies thinking all the wrong way and John Cusak is by far my favorite actor who here hasn't seen High Fidelity if you haven't go watch it hilarious!!! "... And Just Like The Movies We Play Out Our Last Scene." -Alien Ant Farm
i expected a film like groundhog day, however i wasnt dissapionted. its nice to see that harold ramis can do both types of films and do them so well. too bad this didnt make any money in theatres. i personally loved it.
I liked it a lot. I thought it was hilarious for the first half or so, then had to switch gears into grim, black, brutal noir (okay: "black noir" is redundant). The plot was so good that this was not a problem --- I was gripped. My more sensitive wife was not able to make the shift, even for Cusack, and she felt cheap the next morning. But then, I liked Blood Simple, too. And I'll watch anything with Randy Quaid in it.
Okay, so this is kind of a roundabout way of getting to my point, but bear with me.
You remember the show The Comeback, with Lisa Kudrow? Well, I really enjoyed it, but I've read a lot of viewer feedback, and it would seem I'm in the minority. From what I gathered, the main reason people disliked the show was that the humor was lacking for them. They just kept saying, in one way or another, that basically she couldn't be so unlucky and so unfortunate and still have it be a comedy. In my mind, my constant response was, "Then look at the show as something else, and see if you LIKE the fool thing!" I just couldn't get over how many people just said, "Not funny. Not good comedy. Me no like," instead of, "Let's see if I like this as a satire. No? How about a light drama," etc. It just kinda pissed me off.
So then...
We have a new John Cusak movie. I frickin' love John Cusak. And Oliver Platt. And Pushing Tin was enjoyable, so Cusak and Thornton should be fun. And to top it all off, I hear several comparisons to Get Shorty. Some critic says it's the sequel that should have been. Another says Elmore Leonard couldn't have done any better. Well, I frickin' loved Get Shorty as well. So self aware was it. So smooth and suave. Suffice it to say, I was going to love this movie.
And then I saw it...
John Cusak was not charming. Billy Bob was hardly in it at all. The movie did not have a keen awareness of itself. Where Get Shorty was clean and cool and put together like one of Chili Palmer's suits, Ice Harvest was cold and dark and ever falling apart like Cusak's character. Suffice it to say, I was disappointed.
Until... (you like all these ellipses breaks, by the way?)
I came here. You guys basically became me telling others to just look at it another way. Thank you all. I may not see the movie again, but you have truly enlightened me and sorta humbled me. Not in a big, earth-shattering way or anything, but in an appreciated way. I acknowledge that this film had its merits, many of which I may have missed due to other expectations, and that is solely because of this thread. Thank you.
I really enjoyed the movie as well. I've never really considered myself a fan of black comedy, but I laughed almost the whole movie, especially during Oliver Platt's scenes, he was hilarious! The guy in the box was pretty funny too. I was thoroughly entertained by this movie. It had messages, but they didn't try and force them on you or anything. I have no real complaints about the movie, they even had a good ending for it.
I just got back from watching this movie. After reading all the bad reviews here I wasn't expecting much. I was somewhat bored during the first 15 minutes actually, but it definitely picked up after that. By the end of the movie I was surprised, I actually enjoyed it. Not the best I've seen this year, but definitely not as bad as everybody is making it out to be.
I think the wrong expectations can really ruin this flick. I mean, not even the short summary you get from various sites on the 'net give an accurate overview. And that's the movie's main weakness. Regardless of what you expect when you watch it, it'll fall short of that.
Yes, it's a film noir. But it's not like the 30's and 40's films noir (really, who would watch something like that these days, let alone finance it?). Yes, it's a drama, but not in the usual sense of the word, or the way drama is associated with movies. Yes, there are tragic characters in the movie, but they're so distorted and estranged that it's actually quite difficult to guess at their motivations.
For me, that makes a helluva movie. It doesn't get boring, it presents an over-abundance of itty bitty symbols and chiffres ("As Witchita falls, so falls Witchita Falls", NOW I get it!), and the characters keep fighting an uphill battle that they're bound to lose. Which is, in fact, a very classic story. It still doesn't fail to entertain.
So then, what advice could I possibly give to those who haven't seen this movie? DON'T read any more about it. DON'T think it's a film noir, or a comedy, or a satire, or a drama, or whatever. Just sit down, watch the movie, and have a good time. It's a good story, good actors, good filming, in fact, it's really a very good movie.
Have just came across this on imdb and I can't believe this has been made into a film! I read the book by Scott Phillips and absolutely loved it! Has anyone who has read the book seen the film. I'd be interested in hearing their views. Also, is the ending the same, and will they be doing the sequel?
I thought it was revolting and offensive, not too mention boring and pointless. I don't see it as some "cult" thing I would like if I was sooooo profound and alternative...it was just crap. So what then? I didn't like it...I guess I am not "hip" on the "cult" films.
Sorry about the rant, but I got a lecture from an apparent hardcore Ice Harvest fan who acted as though I commited a mortal sin by simply saying I found it too be irksome and trite.
I would like to just make the statement also that I noticed when a movie such as this is bromidic and banel on the level it was, someone always has to say "Well that is because it is a cult classic and you just don't understand it."
No , sweetie...all that means is it sucked and you are in denial.
I respect that you didn't like it...but am confused as to why you found it revolting and offensive? It was just different...
As for not understanding it, I assume you did, not really much to understand...but I liked it a lot...as did my sarcastic 18 year old...which makes me proud...lol, feel like I raised her correctly.
I didn't find it predictable, and I enjoyed Cusack not being the perfect love interest for once, been a fan of his since Better Off Dead, and love him in the different stuff..The Grifters, Malcovich, etc. But even I get tired of Serendipty, Must Love Dogs...now those movies are trite.
Funny though, the one part of the movie I hated was the woman. Thought she was a horrible actress, way over the top as the dirty girl, and she seems to be the only thing most of the critics loved...
Oliver Platt was great as the drunk, but I agree that there was too much of it.
I loved the ending, though, makes me smile to think of it...one of those things that people wish they could do...run off with a bad guys money and go on a road trip with your drunk best friend who married your selfish ex wife...although I have a selfish ex husband instead.
Ditto! Maybe it was marketed wrong but i don't think it would have helped. In my town movie success is all word of mouth and this one died in about an hour and a half. I was embarassed also for both John and Billy Bob. Both of these guys are talented but they better get someone to screen their scripts or they will both be "Waking Up In Reno" "the tv sitcom..." Oh well, i'll just get out my copies of "Grosse Pointe Blank" and "The Badge" and pretend I never saw this one.....