Introducing: In Defense Of....

Comments

Sorry. I love me some Dazed and Confused. But Richard Linklater's finest films are the one-two punch of Before sunrise and Before Sunset. This is a distant third.
I don't know what planet you've been living on for the past fifteen years, because that piece of shit movie has almost universal appeal among both critics and lay people (Lehman?). Witness its 88% fresh user rating and whopping 98% fresh critical rating on Rotten Tomatoes. And that bastion of Cinematic snobbery - the Criterion Collection - has given it the fawning 2-disc special treatment. In short, nobody hates this movie - though they should, because it's terrible. I eagerly await the next installment of "In Defense of..." in which you take the bold position that puppies are cute.
Hotrod: I'm defending the against you, and post-ironic hipsters like you, very effectively I might add. And I still have never understood your pigheaded resistance to the brilliance of this film, given your adulation for films in which nothing happens.

Jodi: You should be comforted in knowing you're at least not as wrong as Hotrod.

Seriously have you ever seen Before Sunrise/Sunset? I don't see how you can watch such honest and moving films and call the pot-comedy best. Maybe you smoked too much of that pot a decade ago.
I'm defending the against you, and post-ironic hipsters like you, very effectively I might add.

Did Crunch write this?

Anyway, I'm not wrong, but I will grant that you are right about one thing. Linklater has made five movies starring the unwatchable Ethan Hawke, the tedious "Slacker," the insipid "School of Rock," and an unnecessary "Bad News Bears" retread. So yeah, "Dazed and Confused" is the best of the lot. Faint praise, indeed.
As someone who continuously defends insipid blockbuster movies, how can you diss on School of Love? That movie's adorable.
Stupid movies with explosions and shape-shifting robots are awesome. Stupid movies with small children blow. QED.
And the fact it features a bevy of actors/actresses (McConaughey, Affleck, Milla Jovovich, Joey Lauren Adams) who've had forgettable careers lends Linklater a tremendous amount of praise for this flawless movie.
Wait - I just want to be clear here... Are you actually arguing that casting a whole bunch of shitty actors and actresses makes this a better movie? Like I said - I just want to be clear about what your point is, because if that's what you're saying, that's about the stupidest thing I've ever read.
I'll tell you what, Daby - the support for your position is amazing. You've got Jodi saying "Dazed and Confused" isn't quite as good as a couple of unwatchable turds and you've got Crunch defending a horrific train-wreck of a cast. I might be able to stop commenting on this one altogether.
So what is your point?
I didn't realize reading comprehension was one of your shortcomings.

Richard Linklater created a film masterpiece despite the track record of the cast. I don't know where the term "better movie" comes from since I'm not comparing it to anything else. I'm only showering Linklater with justified praise. As Daby said, defense rests.
Wow, debate really isn't your strong point, is it?

"Better movie: refers to what might have been achieved had he hired a competent ensemble of actors. I realize this is not the movie's only shortcoming - the script sucks too - but I'm just responding to your weak argument. It's hardly surprising, though, that Linklater's cast is so dreadful. Guys like Scorsese choose to work with a DeNiro over and over again. Linklater's DeNiro is Ethan fucking Hawke. It's no wonder his casts suck so hard.

"Dazed and Confused" is not a "masterpiece." It's the highlight of extraordinarily lackluster career. If Linklater had gone into a field that actually holds its practitioners accountable, he'd have been out of work long ago.

I realize that this blog's terms and conditions require all comments to be inflammatory ("Obviously germanium is the lamest metalloid, you stupid cow!"), but I found Dazed & Confused just...eh. The buzz-and there was a good bit-was that this was a new Fast Times, but it was mildly amusing, nothing more.

I guess these were Affleck and McConaughey's finest roles. But considering the other possibilities-"preppy asshole" in Mallrats, and "playing nude bongos", respectively-that's some pretty underwhelming praise.

Hear, hear.
It wasn't the new Fast Times, because it wasn't a slapstick teen comedy. Fast Times was the new Animal House, and I suppose American Pie, for whatever it was worth, was the new Fast Times.

If anything, Dazed and Confused was the new American Graffiti, a coming-of-age film set in a readily identifiable segment of our recent American past. If you were expecting Spicolli moments from Dazed and Confused, I have no doubt you were disappointed.
When was the last time you saw "Fast Times?" I'm guessing - based on your description of the film - that you were in your early teens.
I've seen Fast Times more often than is healthy, and while it may have had more plot elements than your average 80s sex comedy, that's still what it primarily was...and this is a movie I like, mind you.

The iconic moment in Fast Times is Phoebe Cates doffing her bikini top. The other top contender is Spicolli having a pizza delivered to his history class. Fast Times is still essentially a situation comedy with high-school as the setting. Dazed and Confused is a naturalistic film about high school that is often funny.

Ah, yes, many is the sitcom with a hilarious abortion scene.

I like Animal House, but it doesn't have that much in common with Fast Times.

Hooo, wheeee, FS! I'm laughing just thinking about that scene. Also that hilariously awkward scene with Stacy and Damone in the poolhouse that resulted in said abortion. Oh wait, it was just awkward, without the hilarious.

I tried to give you an out, Daby, by suggesting it might have been a while since your last viewing. But if you've watched the film as an adult and you still think of it as a madcap sex comedy, you've seriously missed the point. It's every bit as much a coming-of-age film as "Dazed and Confused" and not nearly as stupid.
I need to step in here and mention that you all seem to have forgotten Parker Posey's brilliant turn in Dazed. It gave rise to some oft-quoted lines for me in the mid-90s. "Wipe that face off your head, bitch" and "lick me, all of you."


I think neither of you ever saw an episode of Blossom, or the Facts of Life. Teen sex, abortion, its all there.

Every scene involving Spicolli is an over-the top caricature. The football sequence with Forrest Whitaker and his super-human response to his destroyed car is completely over the top. The Cates Scene is completely over (without) the top. The film is not naturalistic at all, or if it is, it blends its naturalistic elements with over the top comedy elements...like Animal House. If you'll recall, Boon and Katy have several human conversations in between food-fight sequences.

And neither of you have mentioned -- probably because it further undercuts your already weak arguments -- that Fast Times ends IDENTICALLY to Animial House, complete with the goofy captioning invented by that film.




Oh and Emma, you're right of course. Parker Posey is her usual brilliant self. My favorite performance in the film is actually Adam Goldberg's turn as the nebbishy high-school reporter.

Not to mention the confrontation between Bluto Blutarsky and Dean Wormer is replaced with Jeff Spicoli and Mr. Hand.

Although, I can't say I've seen an episode of Blossom.

Post a comment

Already a Vox member? Sign in

Dabysan

About Me

Dabysan
United States
For he on honeydew hath fed, and drunk the milk of paradise

Neighborhood

Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.

Archives

  • Powered by Vox