Movie Review Chat: "Me and You..."

Me and You and Everyone We Know
Plot: A lonely shoe salesman (John Hawkes) and an eccentric performance artist (Miranda July) struggle to fit in to their world in search of happiness.

Lee: I knew nothing about this film beforehand, had only seen the poster, and judging from that I thought it was going to be a solid quirky independent film. The film didn't quite fit that bill entirely, but I thought it had its moments. I didn't think it had a lot to say, but I thought it was very tolerable and the director (Miranda July) had a fine sense of tone. But I was a little disappointed.

Scott: I was very disappointed by the ending.

Lee: The poster gave me this feeling of one of those weird independent flicks that's possibly a sleeper hit, and has well-thought out, offbeat characters and an elaborate story. And in that angle, I thought the movie was somewhat under-whelming, but nevertheless watch-able. The film brings some interesting concepts to the table about fitting in, but doesn't do much with them.

Scott: I found it to be a weird indie flick in the bad sense of the phrase. There are some good lines that made me think and respond, but that was about it.

Lee: You basically thought Miranda July was Todd Solondz' sister.

Scott: The story and dialogue don't go anywhere. No, I don't think it was quite as depraved as a Solondz experience, but it ultimately didn't make me feel good at all to watch.

Lee: It was weird because I was thinking Solondz at certain moments in the movie and you mentioned him after the screening even though you haven't seen most of his films.

Scott: I have only seen Happiness. But seeing one is seeing ?em all.

Lee: This film was nowhere near as pretentious and boring as Palindromes.

Scott: Yeah but I don't think in terms of comparisons when grading films. Me and You? is a crappy film in its own right. I think we can safely agree that the term ?Art Film? is taken quite literally in this movie.

Lee: Palindromes is the definition of pretentious filmmaking ? when a filmmaker is somehow given the opportunity to do something that is only meant for them to watch. That's what I hear Gus Van Sant's new film is like.

Scott: And you think this movie isn't pretentious? To me, these kinds of movies are for people that absolutely must be labeled as different. It's as if the filmmakers are actively trying not to entertain you.

Lee: No, things actually happened in this story. Pretentious to me is when every scene is exaggerated in the tone for an arty effect. And it usually has to do with the cinematography ? holding on shots for way too long as if every frame has meaning. This film attempted for a story, and even though I think the story could?ve been better, I admired what it set out to do. It was the kind of film I might not care so much for on paper but I enjoyed the tone and thought the cinematography was pretty good. I also liked John Hawkes' performance. I thought he was very believable. But I didn't care so much for Miranda July's character. I thought she only had moments. To me she was like a grown-up eccentric girl from high school who no one really ?got? or understood back then. The type can make for an interesting character study, but like most of these characters, the material could?ve been a little deeper.

Scott: To me this movie was incredibly pretentious; so many lines of dialogue sounded unbelievably silly.

Lee: Yeah the dialogue was a little awkward at times.

Scott: A ?little? awkward? It was coming from a whole different hemisphere than some of the rest of the story.

Lee: Well if you're talking about Miranda July, it fit into her character as an oddball.

Scott: These arty types think they can just do whatever they want and people will eat it up as some magnificent piece. No, every single character was an oddball.

Lee: I thought she was the only one with awkward lines.

Scott: There wasn't an authentic note in any of the roles. You're wrong, we already talked about the exchange between the young guy and the two teenage girls.

Lee: As much as you ridiculed the guy hitting on the two teenage girls, I could actually see that situation happening in real life. The posting of the notes on his window in terms of what he wanted to do with them, sexually, might have been a little more "out there," but you never know.

Scott: Well then you must see real life through Cinerama glasses. I thought it was totally scripted claptrap. This movie had that same Typewriter Effect that we experienced earlier this year with Woody Allen's Melinda & Melinda. All the lines sound as if someone had written them ? a classic symptom of an artist going off the deep end just to alleviate their own boredom.

Lee: It was basically a mediocre movie to me in a glossy package, but not in a Charlie's Angels 2-glossy package.

Scott: Glossy? It is far from glossy. It looks like the dirt-cheap indie that it is.

Lee: It basically took the Todd Solondz formula (and a little bit of Napoleon Dynamite) of weirdos trying to fit in, characters talking in philosophical standpoints, and a little bit of sexual awkwardness. I mean glossy in an art-house way: tone and cinematography. If the cinematography's good, that can draw me in to a certain extent.

Scott: The cinematography here isn't that good. At first I thought it was okay and then it just devolved into a muddy mess, save for a few shots. Also, am I the only one who's sick and tired of precocious children in movies?

Lee: I wouldn't exactly call the kids precocious ? they had very few lines. The only hint at intelligence was that they were creative on the computer.

Scott: How bout that girl with the Hope Chest? What is that all about?

Lee: Yeah, that might've been "just a little" over the top, but nuances like that can't really kill a film for me. I wasn't rolling my eyes through the whole film.

Scott: I've just never seen a movie that portrays kids as they really are: sometimes annoying little people who, strangely enough, don't know more than Sports Agents and Shoe Salesmen.

Lee: I do think many kids and teenagers are more intelligent than some people think. But an 8-year old having a hope chest? Yeah, I can feel you on that one.

Scott: That is exactly the kind of thing that ruins a movie: needless, pseudo-symbolic story points.

Lee: Maybe I'm just as weird as these characters. Maybe that's why I tolerated this.

Scott: Hey, I like weird as much as the next guy.

Lee: I'd ask you what you thought of The Good Girl considering the similarities in story and tone, but I think you said you hadn't seen it.

Scott: Yes, I haven?t.

Lee: I thought that was a bit better than this. That was borderline B/B+ material.

Scott: I like weird, but this film's weirdness didn't speak to my sensibilities. Perfect example: the stupid painting of a bird. One of the last shots in the movie is of the sun setting and rising again, reflected in this painting of a bird. That's just a half-baked ?poetic? idea. It has no place in a movie with a supposed narrative structure. You can't explain anything that happens in this flick.

Lee: It's nice to know we can actually disagree once in a while. Sin City?s the only other one this year where we?re a whole letter grade apart.

Lee's Grade: B-
Scott's Grade: C