SIFF: Winners announced

as at today ratings for ellie parker at rotten tomatoes are:

70% fresh and 80% cream of the crop

links to selected film critic reviews:

http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=sundance2005&nav=reviews&content=reviews&reviewID=VE1117926241

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/11/movies/11elli.html?pagewanted=print

http://variagate.com/eliepark.htm?RT

http://www.laweekly.com/film/film_results.php?showid=3649&Sumbit.x=60&Sumbit.y=9

http://www.filmthreat.com/Reviews.asp?Id=6829

http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/ny-etret4505927nov11,0,4008263.story?coll=ny-moviereview-headlines


http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0545,anderson,69792,20.html

http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-et-ellie11nov11,0,3937970.story?coll=cl-mreview

Reply

to: Kim Voynar

you haven't seen ellie parker. i have.
the more than a dozen of people who have seen the film and with whom i've talked to unanimously like the film intensely and agree it's a priceless gem for its superb acting, wits and style on the reported low budget. it's not surprising at all that the SIFF jury had chosen it as the best new american film with special praise for naomi watts' performance, the honour is duly deserved.
i suggest you talk more about films that you've seen and not one that you haven't but irresponsibly slighted in length based only on street gossip.

Reply

I'd have to disagree with you that it's irresponsible to comment on being surprised that a film won an award, based on the buzz around the film. I haven't seen it yet, which is why I disclosed that fact up front. I did see (and like) other films that were up for the Jury prize.

Part of reviewing a festival is paying attention to the post-show buzz around particular movies. A lot of people who tend to go to film festivals are your more serious "film buffs" - not necessarily the same demographic as mainstream filmgoers.

They go expecting to see serious, artsy, indie flicks, not mainstream cinema, so it's not like the majority of people there weren't expecting good acting on a low budget - that's a dime a dozen at SIFF, and there were over 100 films in the festival that could make the same claim.

As I said, I did not hear a single person coming out of that show gushing about how much they liked it. When buzz around a film is good, you feel it. Did I talk to every person? Nah. But I was right by the door and in a good position to take an audience temperature, and it was not good, that I assure you. I'd love for SIFF to disclose what the average audience vote was for this film, that would be interesting to see.

I'm glad that at least one person liked the film; I'll be reviewing it myself in a later date, and should I change my mind about being surprised that it won the Jury prize, you folks will be the first to know. My surprise at this point - as previously noted - was based on the audience reaction I observed post-show, and the considerable buzz around the jury choice during the Closing Gala., which was not positive.

Reply

Perhaps you don’t know who Naomi watts, or you have never seen her in mulholland dr or 21g, or you don’t like those type of artsy (e.g., non-chronological) & think her best work is the ring. But when 21g director inarritu was asked why he selected Naomi for the follow-up to his first-time oscar nominated film, he said it was ellie parker not md that induced him to select Naomi for her oscar-nominated film—that her incredible range was much more on display in ellie than md. After 21g, over 30 critics from London to Sydney, ny to la, said she was the best actress in the business. The ny times rafferty, in fact, proclaimed her the most eloquent sufferer in the history of sound film.

If you think her forte is only serious drama, variety’s todd Anthony compared her comedic talent in ellie parker to Lucille ball & carole Lombard. I hope you know who they are. Critics at sundance were almost universal in their praise for watts in ellie parker. I can submit a list. Does that mean the average theatre-goer will like her work as much as star wars? No. indeed Harvey Weinstein told robt altman that he wanted jay-lo for unfinished life, at which point altman & paul newman quit. Of course that was before
21g & gigli.

Peter Jackson said he never considered anyone other than watts for the follow-up to his oscar sweep—perhaps because oscar nominee ferdinando meirellos wanted her for his follow-up. He said her friend kidman was too old, but when told Naomi was only one year younger, he said Naomi could do anything.

I am sure when you review ellie parker that you will pan it. Otherwise, your comments thus far will look foolish. I have a copy of the penultimate ellie parker (before chevy chase was added), & I can tell you that it is as good a job of acting as I have ever seen. Though I will not say it was better than she did in 21g, I will say I think it was better than she did (more range) than mulholland dr. Lucille ball & carole Lombard would be proud.

As for the primitive production values, which have caused many upscale fest viewers to look down upon it as not worthy of studio production values, I can only marvel that he filmed the scenes in the car, etc., w/a handheld camera w/o breakaway cars like nakata had in ring2. this is not a case of spielberg-private ryan chic, but just an average guy w/his own camcorder filming one of our finest actresses before the world knew it (thanks to david lynch). A few critics wanted the director-writer to be more optimistic, but he decided to keep it honest & provide a story of the 100s of stuggling actresses who do not make it.

Remember that it began as a short to much acclaim at sundance 2001 (before it became so commercial) & won awards in Europe for best short, & expanded because everyone wanted to know about ellie’s life after the audition. Of course, the average theatre-goer doesn’t care about actresses that don’t make it. They prefer geeks, like napoleon dynamite who do. Or they prefer things that blow up real good--for summer entertainment.

Reply

Um, John? What's up with the rant on Naomi Watts? Reread my post, dude. I wasn't putting down Naomi Watts. I think she's a fine actress, actually, and quite underrated.

If I didn't like artsy films, John, I wouldn't have taken on covering SIFF, nor would I have agreed to also cover indie film in general for Cinematical. I've liked many films at SIFF that were low-budget - budget has nothing to do with the quality of a film, as evidenced by the reams of dross churned out by mainstream Hollywood.

And I can assure you that when I see Ellie Parker, I will give it a fair review. I haven't said anything bad about the film itself - how could I, when I haven't seen it? - just my observations of the general buzz around the film at SIFF, which I may or may not agree with when I see it.

Reply

My wife and I both saw Ellie Parker at SIFF. In fact, I've never been much of a fan of Watts, and only went to this film because it was in the same theatre as another film I wanted to see immediately afterwards. I had little expectation that I would be impressed with the film.

Both my wife and I LOVED it. I was absolutely blown away by Ms. Watts' performance in this movie. I can see why she did this film, even when she was getting a name for herself and her agents (according to the director) were trying to talk her out of it. It gave her a great opportunity to show just what she is capable of.

If only most American indies were as interesting and well done as this one! The sleeper of the fest IMO.

As for listening to post show buzz at SIFF: if you want to get the temperature of the crowd after a show, make sure you listen to the crowd who stay for the Q & A (they leave later, don't you know!) as well as the ones who left before it, cause those are more likely the ones who liked the film!! (IE, you are not getting an accurate picture of the crowd's attitude towards the movie if you just listen to the people who leave first).

Reply

Eric,

Actually, that WAS the post Q&A crowd that I caught. I missed the early leavers while I was grabbing a chai tea next door. Which was why I was rather surprised that no one I overheard or talked directly to had much positive to say about it, other than the occasional, "Naomi Watts was good, but I hated the film".

In my own experience, just because folks stay for the Q&A doesn't mean they like the film. Sometimes people just don't want to seem rude or "unintellectual" by leaving before the Q&A. I heard negative comments from quite a few people who stayed for the Q&A at more than one SIFF film this year.

As I said, I'll be catching the film myself and reviewing at a later date, I'm really interested to see the film now, since the response to it seems so mixed.

A lot of people didn't like LAST DAYS, and I really enjoyed that film (my review on that one will be up later tonight or tomorrow). It's quite possible I'll think ELLIE PARKER is amazing. I'm certainly going to be watching it with an open mind, I'm really curious to see it now.

Reply

well here's another positive one from one who evidently had attended the Q&A.

http://thecompany.net/jason/posts/2005/review-ellie-parker/

Reply

and another good one by S. Frederick Les of einsiders.

http://einsiders.com/features/columns/siff20052.php

Reply