MovieChat Forums > Year of the Dog (2007) Discussion > This is a badly made film. Period

This is a badly made film. Period

posted 18 years ago by bingham_bryant
41 replies | jump to latest

I can safely say that this is one of the worst films that has come out in a long time. The only redeeming thing about it was Molly Shannon, who really should have put her tail between her legs and ran as soon as she realized what a disaster she had gotten herself involved in. I really wanted to like this movie too, honest. I thought School of Rock and Nacho Libre were pretty good for the innocuous fluff that they were meant to be so I was looking forward to Mr. White attempting something just a tad more serious. But this was pure tripe.

Just because a film is indie does not mean that it is good, or even that it has something interesting or unique to offer. People seem to forget that, just as mainstream Hollywood occasionally produces truly great films, indie filmmakers occasionally produce trash. This is exactly that. Its main crime is the directing, which is painfully slow, clumsy and stilted. I am not one of those people who like their films fast and furious. In the Mood for Love is one of my favorites, and that film's pacing moves at the speed of growing grass. This film went out of its way to slow the pacing and act quirky in a desperate bid to gain indie cred. The characters were dull and cliched. I know exactly what it was going for and it tried far too hard. Films like Rushmore or Last Life In The Universe are great examples of how to make a touching, funny, unique film. This is an example of the concept gone horribly wrong.

I'm now going to act like a child and take an Ad Hominem argument, for the simple fact that it really irritates me that people think this is a good film. If you like this film you are either:
A.) possessing of a superhuman tolerance for bad filmmaking and will lap up just about anything that is thrown at you without complaint.
B.) Chronically pretentious and over eager to prove your indie cred by supporting anything produced independently regardless of actual quality.
C.) a person of very bad taste.
D.) stupid. stupid enough to think that the fortune-cookie sentiments of this film have anything of real value or depth to offer.

Top 3: The Royal Tenenbaums, In The Mood For Love, Lawrence of Arabia, The Third Man
Last Seen: 8 and 1/2 (10/10)

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bingham_bryant 18 years ago

Alright wise guy, before you start pointing out the earth-shattering ironies in my argument how about you come up with an argument of your own. The real irony is that, in claiming that you will "disregard the majority" of my opinions without consideration or discussion, you have proved your own pretentiousness and total lack of a leg to stand on. So chew on that for a while and then maybe you'll have something insightful to add to the discussion.

You also proved your ignorance by dismissing a film completely while at the same time admitting that you had never seen it. Nacho Libre was not a great film. However, it was a very unique film, with an interesting setting and characters, very different fare from your typical family comedy. Its premise was fresh and original, its characters endearing, and, most surprisingly, it was shot beautifully, capturing a great deal of the beauty and color of its setting in sixties Mexico. So don't discount it.

My main complaint with the Year of the Dog was, as I said before, the directing. Although I would say that the writing in that particular film was pretty poor, I also believe that White has some talent in that area. In my opinion, he should stick to his strengths and not let them get buried under his complete inability to direct.

Also, the guy who wrote School of Rock should have been able to pick a better soundtrack for his directorial debut. It was abysmal.

Top 4: The Royal Tenenbaums, In The Mood For Love, Lawrence of Arabia, The Third Man
Last Seen: The Fallen Idol (9/10)

[–] Solipsisticblog 18 years ago

Time for the evidence:

Actors dull and cliched? How?

What was it "going for" and how did it try too hard?

You make many claims, but offer little evidence.

[–] bingham_bryant 18 years ago

The characters (not actors, it had a great cast) were dull and cliched. In what way? Well, how overly familiar do the following two character descriptions sound?

The protagonist: A mild suburban woman who has difficulty forming meaningful relationships with men and seeks solace in her work and few hobbies (dogs), but is full of inner beauty. During the course of the film events conspire to "awaken" her, bringing new meaning to her life and the love that she deserves.

The Boss: A neurotic, overbearing man, with irritating nervous tics and speech mannerisms. Insecure about his place in the company and condescending to those below him.

Top 4: The Royal Tenenbaums, In The Mood For Love, Lawrence of Arabia, The Third Man
Last Seen: The Fallen Idol (9/10)

[–] Solipsisticblog 18 years ago

But I found these characterizations very true to life and consistent with people I have known. In fact, the film humanizes these characters and refuses to paint them with a broad brush. So I didn't find the characters to be overly anything and at times found them to be dead-on characterizations.

And your remarks about people lapping it up because it's an indie are ill-considered. I liked, but not loved the movie, not because I'm an indie film--whatever that means anymore--sycophant, but because I found it to be well acted with interesting characters.

[–] bingham_bryant 18 years ago

First of all, why exactly do you call me a sycophant? Who or what exactly have I been flattering in the hopes of gaining favor?

Also, I am sorry but it was not well acted. Each actor just stuffed their performance so full of nervous tics and irritating mannerisms that they cease to seem real and became nothing more than uninteresting, cliched caricatures. Again, strained, forced quirkiness to create that ever-elusive indie tone.
Perhaps you're right, you don't belong in group B with the incurably pertentious. In that case you belong in either group A, C, Or D.

So, which group defines you as a person?

Top 4: The Royal Tenenbaums, In The Mood For Love, Lawrence of Arabia, The Third Man
Last Seen: The Fallen Idol (9/10)

[–] Solipsisticblog 18 years ago

I didn't call you a sycophant. Either your reading comprehension is poor or you read too quickly. I said I was not one. You accused people of liking this with being beholden to indies. I was saying I was not in that category.

I find your rating system a little ludicrous and refuse to assign myself an A, B, C, or D.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bingham_bryant 18 years ago

My reading comprehension skills are not poor. In fact, I received a perfect score in that section on my PSATs. No, indeed it is your writing which is at fault. You wrote:
I liked, but not loved the movie, not because I'm an indie film--whatever that means anymore--sycophant, but because I found it to be well acted with interesting characters.

It is unclear here who the term sycophant is referring to due to your bizarre punctuation and clumsy sentence structure. Your point would have been better served if written as thus:
I liked, but not loved the movie, and not because I'm an indie film sycophant (whatever the term indie film means anymore), but because I found it to be well acted with interesting characters.

I was not madly foaming at the mouth about as you'd like to think I was. I understandably misunderstood your post, and I apologize for doing so.

Top 4: The Royal Tenenbaums, In The Mood For Love, Lawrence of Arabia, The Third Man
Now Watching: Paprika

[–] Solipsisticblog 18 years ago

I understand how complex sentences can be challenging, but--with a little more schooling--it will become easier for you to understand them.

If you think that sentence was hard to read, just wait till you get to college and have to read philosophy, criticism, James Joyce, etc. My sentence could have been more trim--aka boring--but it was gramatically sound. In fact, by your Senior year of college--particularly if you choose a liberal arts track--your professors will be expecting more complex writing such as the sentence with which I stumped you.

Dashes serve the same function as parentheses. If I had structured the sentence as you wished, the phrase "whatever the term means anymore" would have modified sycophant and not indie film. That was not my intention. One practice that may help you read complex sentences is to first skip over the modifying clauses and then come back and observe them once you have grasped the basic idea of the sentence. This will likely keep you from being confused. Also, remember that the dashed or parenthetical clause frequently modifies the word or clause directly preceding it.

I believe in you and know someday your comprehension will improve. Reading slowly will help you will build the mental stamina to tackle more complex sentences. Good luck on those SATs.

[–] bingham_bryant 18 years ago

Blather on mindlessly as much as you like, the fact remains that your sentence was poorly written. You are quite simply wrong in your claim that my revision "would have modified sycophant and not indie film", so I am left flabbergasted at the fact that someone who very clearly possesses extensive technical knowledge of the English language could write so clumsily. I suspect that your words are sometimes tripped up by your bounteous arrogance on their way onto the page.

Oh and by the way, I just happen to be reading Joyce's Ulysses right now. It's certainly not light literature, but I felt ready to tackle it after Gravity's Rainbow. Which, in case you haven't read it, (Doubtful, I know, seeing as you are a college student and are therefore without question intellectually superior to God's other less beloved creatures, including all high school students and the dolphin.) is excellent

Top 4: The Royal Tenenbaums, In The Mood For Love, Lawrence of Arabia, the Third Man
Last Seen: Alphaville (9/10)

[–] Solipsisticblog 18 years ago

Again, your poor reading comprehension rears it's ugly head. I never said I was a college student.

Dude, if you can't understand the proper use of modifiers and sentence structure, I can't help you.

Try reading more slowly.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] watsonanna 18 years ago

I agree, it's not a great film. It paints animal activists as nuts. Laura Dern is the saving grace - her performance is excellent.

[–] Solipsisticblog 18 years ago

I think you might have missed the ending. She actually finds redemption through activism, but learns to temper it with common sense and a level head. If anything, it validates activism.

[–] bingham_bryant 18 years ago

A few notes for Solipsisticblog on his reviews...

First of all, Banlieue 13 was trash. Not even the "so bad it's good" kind of trash, just plain old "so bad it's bad trash". Other than the parkour there was absolutely nothing redeeming about this film. A throwaway plot, cardboard cut-out characters, flat action and truly laughable political commentary do not a good film make.

Superman Returns? I cannot comprehend how you can boast about reading Joyce while praising dull, bloated special effects vehicles like this. Bi-polar perhaps?

The Illusionist did not harken back to the graceful simplicity of the cinema of the silent era. No, it was simple in the archaic, un-PC meaning of the word. Stiffly acted, riddled with plot holes and ludicrously predictable, it was the usual studio tripe dressed up in a period costume, an Austrian "The Patriot".

Lady In The Water a seven? Deja Vu and Meet The Robinsons eights? If these scores are accurate then Citizen Kane must be, what, a 27?

I have not seen World Trade Center, but from what I've heard about its symbolism your eight seems to be the raving of a madman. Jesus handing out water bottles at ground zero? Spare me!

Dicaprio in Blood Diamond was a complete joke. In every moment of tension or strong emotion his accent was dropped to the ground like a neurotic girlfriend, left to be trampled underfoot by the talentless pretty-boy. Honsou was fantastic, but even he could not rescue the film from its pathetic and hackneyed attempts at meaningful social commentary. See The Constant Gardener if you want to know what film Blood Diamond should have been.

Some of Almodovar's work is very good (Bad Education), but Volver was just as cheaply sentimental and paper thin as any of the 4 dozen chick flicks produced domestically each year. Obviously we don't need to import more. Duenas gave a very fine performance, but only just manages to shine through Almodovar's lecherous (strange, as he's gay) and blunt directing.

Dreamgirls. I will never forgive The New Yorker's David Denby for his review of this film. Now I only read Anthony Lane's criticism, but that's alright, as he's the best in the business. His article in the current issue of the New Yorker on Tintin is an especially great read. But I digress. Like all modern musicals, it is best described as a massive sequined turd.

Lastly, The Host was undeniably unique and entertaining, but it was by no means worthy of a ten. For one thing, I was never in the least bit frightened, and though you seem to be a real sucker for blatantly obvious political messages, the social and political commentary became pretty laughable. It was interesting to see an openly anti-Bush message in a film from a historically pro-American country, but "Agent Yellow"? Seriously? That's about as subtle as a kick in the balls from a WWF wrestler with tourettes.

But thats just my opinion.

Top 4: The Royal Tenenbaums, In The Mood For Love, Lawrence of Arabia, The Third Man
Last Seen: Alphaville (9/10)

[–] Solipsisticblog 18 years ago

Keep letting your ignorance shine. It's quite amusing.

Oh, and I never said "The Illusionist" harkened back to the "graceful simplicity" of the silent era. But you seem to have a little trouble comprehending the meaning of words and sentences, so I guess I should go easier on you.

Read more slowly and breathe. Complex sentences and ideas will then be nearer to your grasp.

You will never forgive David Denby? Really? A film critic? That's pretty sad and reveals some whacked out priorities.

[–] bingham_bryant 18 years ago

Solipsistic, you said: "The Illusisionist" is filmed in sepia tones and uses much of the syntax of silent era films.
The "syntax of silent era films" means "graceful simplicity" to me, so I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that that was what you meant. If you say something as vague as that then you must expect readers to come to their own conclusions about what exactly it is that you meant.
The same goes for my assumption that you were a college student. You smugly told me that I should watch out for reading in college, and so I assumed that you were a college student. Few college graduates I know are as overbearing and conceited as you.

Personally, I think that the ad hominen argument is perfectly valid, even educational, under certain circumstances. For example, everyone knows that Paris Hilton is a ridiculous figure. The more pressing issues are her fans and followers, American youth who look up to her as a role model. The mindset and culture which produces them are the real problem.
The Year of the Dog is of course a far less extreme case, but I feel that there are certain parallels, and I wanted to point them out. Perhaps I was a little too biting in my remarks, but I stand by them nonetheless.

P.S.If you reply with yet another childish jab at my far more than adequate reading comprehension, you render anything else you might have to say invalid in my eyes, and hopefully those of others.

Top 4: The Royal Tenenbaums, In The Mood For Love, Lawrence of Arabia, The Third Man
Last Seen: Alphaville (9/10)

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Solipsisticblog 18 years ago

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, but I don't think I ever went after your use of ad hominem or your using it in relation to "Year of the Dog." I was in fact addressing your pretentious labeling of those who liked it as stupid, not the rhetorical technique of ad hominem. (See, this is another example of your failure to grasp concepts.) If you're going to take a superior tone, don't be surprised when others attack your own intelligence particularly when you make it so easy to do so.

"Syntax" and "simplicity" are quite different terms, concepts. This is a prime example of why I have been pointing out your reading comprehension failure. Your failure to comprehend has led to rampant mischaracterizations of my own writing.

I got "smug" with you because I found your criticism of the film and those who liked it to be pretentious and ill-founded. Your writing puts on airs. You attacked me with your ludicrous A,B,C or D rating system and then asked me to willingly label myself as a dumb ass with one of these letters.

My point remains: one can enjoy the film, be intelligent, not feel the need to impress anyone, and not be an indie film sycophant.

Where's your Phd? Slow down. Calm down. You're no expert. Neither am I. You have a long way to go and much to learn. Drop the pretense and I'll be more civil.

[–] Heavens_Chimney 18 years ago

It's a pretty shoddy argument to claim that all silent films, or even all exemplary silent films, are characterized by 'graceful simplicity' (especially with that Eisenstein fellow out there, not to mention the German Expressionists and the French Impressionists, and the baroque visual contrivances of even the Griffiths and Murnaus, who had to compensate visually for the lack of sound) and even worse to assign a personal opinion to somebody with whom you obviously disagree. The phrase 'syntax of silent era films' is not particularly vague, unless you're unclear of what 'silent era films' are or how syntax is used when applied to film, nor is it suggestive of 'graceful simplicity,' as it could easily be applied to the films of Guy Maddin, and claiming that a film uses the syntax of an era doesn't mean that it harkens back to what you as an individual (wrongly) consider to be the hallmark of that era. You seem to be a strong misreader, and as such you try to show that your interpretations are the result of how somebody else has written. They aren't. Silent films are not characterized by graceful simplicity or any other two-word phrase (even 'silent film' is misleading since most silent films had scores and were not experienced as silent), and your decision to equate the two either shows your general inexperience with silent films or your willingness to disregard your own experience to support contested opinions.

All that said, I haven't liked a Mike White-penned film yet and his directorial debut did nothing to sway me. But you're not doing a very good job of arguing that opinion.

[–] bingham_bryant 18 years ago

After much thought, I apologize. i agree that I have been too biting, too aggressive and personal in my remarks. I should not have called anyone stupid. However, I do think that films like Year Of The Dog try and capitalize on their Indieness, even though they may be abominable on the level of real cinematic or artistic value. I also believe that to a certain extent the people who like such films have been duped. I am sorry for drawing other conclusions about the viewers in addition to this one.
A lot of the time my sarcasm gets a little bit ahead of me and my arguments tend to suffer for it. I would still like to dispute the quality of Year of the Dog with you all, and promise to be far more civil.
However, I would like to assert that there is such a thing as bad taste. One can not just put everything down to personal opinion. There is bad art and good art, bad literature and good literature, bad cinema and good cinema. This is an undeniable fact. Yellowcard is bad. This is a truth and the people who disagree are probably not fortunate enough to have been exposed to anything better in any sort of meaningful way. Which good art is better than other good art is a far more ethereal and unresolvable matter. I am quite certain that you are all wrong in saying that The Year of the Dog is good cinema, and am eager to dispute this opinion. I will vow to avoid personal jabs, but I think such a discussion should be had.

Top 4: The Royal Tenenbaums, In The Mood For Love, Lawrence of Arabia, The Third Man
Last Seen: Why We Fight (7/10)

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bingham_bryant 18 years ago

Alright, okay. There is no such thing as bad art. Forget it. All art is of equal value and it is very unkind and inconsiderate to say otherwise. Jeff Koons is on the same level as Goya, Michael Bay is on par with Carol Reed, and Yellowcard is just as good a band as the Beatles. Do you know how ridiculous you all sound? Bad art has always endured, and always will. To say that no one has the right to pass judgment upon it is to deny that it exists.
With this said there should be discussion of why The Year of The Dog is bad, or of why I might be wrong in my assertion. So let us shift the focus back to the film and away from our personal animosities. (I should have realized that my impersonal indictment of the film's champions would inevitably be warped into a personal attack, but it's too late for that now. I have apologized and am eager to defend my opinion purely based on the artistic value of the film.)

Top 4: The Royal Tenenbaums, In The Mood For Love, Lawrence of Arabia, The Third Man
Last Seen: Why We Fight (7/10)

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bingham_bryant 18 years ago

Who has the bad reading comprehension? My original post opened with my reasons for disliking the film itself, and in my last post I asked that the discussion be reoriented back towards the merit (or lack thereof) of the film. I even apologized with sincerity for any personal comments I had made. And if you quote someone, quote them accurately. I never said that it sucked, period. I said it was badly made, period. Look at the subject line for god's sake. Stop deliberately warping reality to fit your argument, and discuss the film with me. Tell me why you liked it, please.

Top 4: The Royal Tenenbaums, In The Mood For Love, Lawrence of Arabia, The Third Man
Last Seen: Why We Fight (7/10)

[–] Solipsisticblog 18 years ago

Hey sport,

I don't think Chris questioned your comprehension. That was me.

Whom are you addressing?

[–] bingham_bryant 18 years ago

Dear Solipsisticblog,
I am sorry that you got confused. Let me clarify things. I was addressing Chris in the last post, but alluded to our own discussion because of the similar views and opinions that you and Chris hold. Hope this is helpful, sport.
-Bingham

Top 4: The Royal Tenenbaums, In The Mood For Love, Lawrence of Arabia, The Third Man
Last Seen: Kirikou (7/10)

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Solipsisticblog 18 years ago

If you were addressing Chris, then why did you talk to him about his own reading comprehension? That was me that brought up that deficiency in your thinking. I wasn't confused. I clearly saw that you had us mixed up and had gotten your thinking jumbled.

Again.

Just trying to help point you in the right direction.

Are you reading slowly like I asked?

Tsk, tsk.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bingham_bryant 18 years ago

Chris, I do sincerely want to talk about the film, so let's do so, without sarcasm from either side. I listed a few of the reasons that I disliked the Year of the Dog earlier in the thread, so if you have any thoughts about what I said there I'd be happy to hear them. Why do you like the film?

Top 4: The Royal Tenenbaums, In The Mood For Love, Lawrence of Arabia, The Third Man
Last Seen: Kirikou (7/10)

[–] bingham_bryant 18 years ago

"In a previous post from a couple of days ago, I asked you to tell us the plot and message of this movie as you saw it. I never received a response. Is it that you only look for a battle?"-Chris

Three days have passed since I asked you to tell me what you appreciated about "the Year of the Dog".

A tumbleweed tumbles (obviously) across stage left, propelled by the winds of hypocrisy.

Top 4: The Royal Tenenbaums, In The Mood For Love, Lawrence of Arabia, The Third Man
Last Seen: Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story (8/10)

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bingham_bryant 18 years ago

Chris, if you had actually read the thread thoroughly ththen you would have realized that I have actually given some reasons for my opinion that actually pertain to the film itself, not just those who like it. Again I politely ask you to state and explain your opinions.

Top 4: The Royal Tenenbaums, In The Mood For Love, Lawrence of Arabia, The Third Man
Last Seen: Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story (8/10)

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JDRamone 18 years ago

I didn't find the Peter Saarsgard character cliched. A man who chooses to be celibate a la Morrisey? How often have we seen that in flims? I sure can't think of any off the top of my head.

I would also like to defend Jack Black. He certainly wasn't "playing himself" in The Holiday, except for that scene in the video store.

Oh, and Jack Black and Richard Linklater pretty much had to pick the music for School of Rock. Mike White isn't actually a fan of rock music, he just came up with the concept of this out-of-touch rock guy still clinging to his dream.

"Don't let those empty people try and interfere with your mind"--Black Sabbath, "Under The Sun"

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]