Manchester by the Sea

[Wet Blanket]

What to make of this? It's got more or less universal critical acclaim, but thought it was pretty slight myself.

It's certainly not a bad film, but no better than say, a Sunday night prestige drama on BBC2, probably starring Sarah Lancashire. Casey Affleck acts his little socks off, and I've no doubt it's a sensitive and accurate portrayal of someone in that character's position, but there's not much in the way of insight or originality, and it's hyper-realist insistence on open-endedness, and inarticulate characters unable to change (or to only barely hint at some change) is admirable, but narratively something of a dead end. It could just as easily be about a man whose brother is not

Spoiler alert

dead

[close]

, who hasn't

Spoiler alert

been afforded custody of his nephew

[close]

and who isn't

Spoiler alert

carrying debilitating guilt.

[close]

I sometimes suspect that critics, bored by superhero films and frat-boy comedies, will leap on any plain story, filmed plainly, just by virtue of its being straightforward and apparently grown up. I also wonder if, especially at this time of year, a greater number of new films are seen on screeners than at previews, and that more televisual fare has a greater impact on the small screen.

[Head Gardener]

got halfway through Manchester By The Zzzzzz but ended up just watching the BBC News instead

[clingfilm portent]

Watchable enough drama. Affleck is decent in it. Bit unsure why the nephew was featured so much in the trailer I saw, he barely made an impact on the story overall.

It does that annoying thing that mumblecore-type films do: overcompensate by featuring excessive swearing in mundane settings.
That said, I thought there were some moving scenes and couple of amusing (if not laugh-out-loud) moments. Worth a watch I'd say.

[hewantstolurkatad]

I assume it's fairly in line with Lonergan's other films? I liked both of them so I've high hopes but I can fully imagine it being something that doesn't necessitate a trip to the cinema.

[Keebleman]

A superb film, absorbing from the start.  Plain?  Not at all.  Not flashy, certainly, but it is wonderfully and deeply cinematic.

[Wet Blanket]

To be fair it's probably the third best film I've seen this month, after La La Land and Silence, but I wouldn't call it even remotely cinematic. It's just a load of standard two-shots in drab interiors for the most part. It's the emotions what do the talkin'.

[Keebleman]

There is nothing intrinsically un-cinematic about a two-shot, and for me Lonergan keeps the film visually interesting without ramping up the technique.  cf Jackie, where the director has so little confidence in his material that he can't even shoot the framing device of Jackie Kennedy talking with the journalist without resorting to gimmicks like having the two look directly at the camera.  Nothing like that in MbtS, but it never feels stagy nor repetitive, not to me anyway.  Despite its low-key setting and storyline it felt like it belonged on the big screen. 

[Funcrusher]

All youse 'Jackie' haters can suck a dick. I'm seeing this at the weekend. Should be okay, although 'Margaret' was somewhat overrated due to all the grand struggle story around Lonergan getting his final cut released.

[confettiinmyhair]

The little nuggets of dark comedy made the film for me, such as the family arguing when the brother was given his prognosis. It felt somewhat like Good Will Hunting, only without any redemption for the main character, might be the Boston connection.

[Funcrusher]

The two-shot is a cinematic technique. How can it be uncinematic?

[GeeWhiz]

I'll say this: it was the most moved I've felt in a long time - and I'm not an easy sell. I liked the mixture of tones, the willingness to include long pauses and the decision to (mostly) drop musical cues. I don't care if it was 'uncinematic'. It felt real to me that the big moments (the encounter with the buggy, Affleck's admission at the end) would be so muted or fudged.
Life so rarely dishes these things out. 

[Wet Blanket]

I would use 'cinematic' to describe a film that makes conscious use of the widescreen format, benefits from cinema exhibition and is likely to lose something in translation to the small screen; in that respect I'd describe Silence, for instance, as cinematic in a way that Manchester by the Sea is not. If you watch the latter on a laptop or a phone it will be just as powerful; I don't think Silence will be. You might argue that's in its favour; I wasn't using 'plain' as a criticism particularly, I meant that it stands out among the very flashy CGI-enhanced visuals of most modern mainstream films.

Jackie was total wank, however.

[Funcrusher]

I would use 'cinematic' to describe a film that makes conscious use of the widescreen format, benefits from cinema exhibition and is likely to lose something in translation to the small screen; in that respect I'd describe Silence, for instance, as cinematic in a way that Manchester by the Sea is not. If you watch the latter on a laptop or a phone it will be just as powerful; I don't think Silence will be. You might argue that's in its favour; I wasn't using 'plain' as a criticism particularly, I meant that it stands out among the very flashy CGI-enhanced visuals of most modern mainstream films.

Jackie was total wank, however.

Not all cinema is widescreen though -pre CinemaScope films for example, or recent films that have been in Academy ratio because the director decided that was the best fit.

The more I reflect on 'Jackie' the more I like it.

[Bad Ambassador]

Saw it. Terrible. Laughed at the

Spoiler alert

fire

[close]

scene. First edit of a first draft. First time in years I left as soon as the credits started. Broderick terrible casting. Affleck in a coma. Williams Harvard-yard-ing like she was on speed. DISMAL.

[Twed]

Williams Harvard-yard-ing like she was on speed.

I can't wait for the films that rely on the device that people from the Boston area say things slightly differently—which is only interesting when framed in the context of how boring Boston is—die out completely along with Ben Affleck[nb]he's not even from Boston, is he? Why is every movie he's in about him saying CAH instead of CAR?[/nb]. Fuck off, I'm never watching The Town, it's boring.

Actually, they should make a movie and consult with my father-in-law who is from Quincy and has a real Boston accent and is effortlessly cool. All of these stupid affectations in these movies from people who have lost touch, when you could instead have people saying great stuff like "bluebries" and "badaydas" (potatoes).

[LanceUppercut]

Saw it. Terrible. Laughed at the

Spoiler alert

fire

[close]

scene. First edit of a first draft. First time in years I left as soon as the credits started. Broderick terrible casting. Affleck in a coma. Williams Harvard-yard-ing like she was on speed. DISMAL.

Hmm not sure if your serious or just trolling.

I thought it was great something different to the usual tosh.

[Bad Ambassador]

I'm as serious as congestive heart disease.

[hewantstolurkatad]

Saw this, thought this was fantastic tbh and bloody gorgeous at points to boot. Definitely benefits from dedicating all of your attention to it.

Don't get how Broderick was terribly cast, his character has one purpose that's meant to be clear from the second you meet him. It's also pretty much the only type of character Broderick can do.

[Red Lantern]

Just back from seeing this. My wife found it really tedious and didn't find any of the characters emotionally engaging. I, on the other hand, thought the film was marvellous and really enjoyed it. I think it helped that I identified with the characters and the situations they were going through more than she did. I loved the use of music throughout the film, really calming.