Garden State

[Recce]

i wanna see some of braffs work from film school. i dunno why, i just do...that is all.

[matt35mm]

This was a fairly good movie.

I don't recall this being said specifically, so I'll say it:  The movie never really said anything, nor was it ever truly moving at any point.

I may have said this before for some other movie, I don't remember.  Anyway, I mention those two things because the movie WAS trying to say something, and it was trying to be moving.

And yes, the music cues were bad.  10 songs that played for no more than 30 seconds--I swear one played for 10 seconds.  And they added just about nothing to the movie.

The photography was distant and sterile, even towards the end when the movie was trying to be closer to the characters.

OTHER THAN those things, the movie was good.  It could've been great, which is why I think we're being more critical of it, because I think we would've liked to see it actually become the masterpiece that it could have been.  Braff is talented, and is the kind of person who WANTS to say important things and wants to move us, so that's good.  I think it means that, as he develops as a filmmaker, he'll make better movies and is totally capable of making a great one someday.

I still think that the teaser trailer rules, though, and is a piece of art unto itself.

[grand theft sparrow]

And yes, the music cues were bad.  10 songs that played for no more than 30 seconds--I swear one played for 10 seconds.  And they added just about nothing to the movie.

What is with everyone bitching about the music cues? They didn't really draw attention to themselves (except for the Shins, of course) so I don't see why they were so bad.  Not everyone can be Wes Anderson in that respect.

The photography was distant and sterile, even towards the end when the movie was trying to be closer to the characters.

I think that was the point though.  In the end, when Large gets back off the plane and finds Sam and says that he wants to be with her and then asks, "What do we do now?" He wants to get closer to life, to feeling, but he's been so numb for so long that he doesn't know what to do. Visually, it comes across as well. Why should we feel like they are closer to each other when they've only known each other a short time and they don't really know what they're doing? At least, that's how I see it.

[matt35mm]

And yes, the music cues were bad.  10 songs that played for no more than 30 seconds--I swear one played for 10 seconds.  And they added just about nothing to the movie.

What is with everyone bitching about the music cues? They didn't really draw attention to themselves (except for the Shins, of course) so I don't see why they were so bad.  Not everyone can be Wes Anderson in that respect.

The truth is, as independent moviemakers, getting music rights are a total bitch and we have to kill ourselves to just get one song.  Zach Braff has fairly good taste in music, with several songs that I would've loved to be able to put in a movie of mine.  Because it'd be so difficult to secure even one song, when he used 10 songs for just a few seconds, I just got jealous.  That's part of it.  The other part is that I personally didn't feel that he let the music play long enough to establish the mood it was going for.  I mean, they're great songs--let them be heard.  When "Let Go" played at the end, it felt almost like a release after hearing just the buildup to so many other songs.

And perhaps there was a point in that distant, highly symmetrical photography, and I figured it was to visually show his numbness, but towards the end when the characters were getting more emotional and closer to each other, I wanted to be THERE and in the moment, but something about the photography held me back.  But I realized pretty quickly that it was supposed to feel sterile at the beginning (his L.A. apartment looks more sterilized and clean than his Scrubs hospital).

But again, I totally want to make clear that this was a good movie.  I'm just hung up on those little things because they could've made the movie better for me.  And I agree that there were several moments that were great--that any of us would love to have in our movies.  It was a good movie and worth the money, totally.  And it is also worth mentioning that while it was never moving, it was always entertaining and never boring.

[pete]

what do you mean they didn't draw attentions to themselves?  we're all here talking about them, that's because they totally did draw attention to themselves.  they were not just indie-pop; they stuck out, felt contrived, in your face, and didn't work its charm the way wes anderson and cameron crowe did.  they were pretty much used the same way as the pop songs in lets say "Heartbreakers" did, they were not even on par with There's Something About Mary or My Best Friend's Wedding.  Not even close.  the music cues were used like any other studio teen movie aimed to sell its soundtrack, or a DMX movie even, the only similarity they had with wes' films is that the selection is similar, but not in the way they're used.
there.

[grand theft sparrow]

what do you mean they didn't draw attentions to themselves?  we're all here talking about them, that's because they totally did draw attention to themselves.  they were not just indie-pop; they stuck out, felt contrived, in your face, and didn't work its charm the way wes anderson and cameron crowe did.  they were pretty much used the same way as the pop songs in lets say "Heartbreakers" did, they were not even on par with There's Something About Mary or My Best Friend's Wedding.  Not even close.  the music cues were used like any other studio teen movie aimed to sell its soundtrack, or a DMX movie even, the only similarity they had with wes' films is that the selection is similar, but not in the way they're used.
there.

I mean that the music didn't draw my attention when I saw it.  But I imagine that if I didn't like the movie, I would feel the same way.

Like I said, the Shins thing was contrived, sure.  THAT stuck out.  But maybe I was paying too much attention to the movie to really be bothered by any of the other music.  

And you actually sat through Heartbreakers, pete?  

[SiliasRuby]

This was a great film for a debut by a director. It was a little bit fragmented and the music cues seemed really planed but overall I think I am going to get this as soon as it comes onto DVD.

[tpfkabi]

it came in at number 10 this past weekend. it's doing pretty good.

here's what Braff said about the DVD on his blog

DVD?
Not sure when the DVD is coming out, but we've already done all the commentaries. There's one track with me and Nat, and another with myself, the cinematographer, Larry Sher, my editor, Myron Kerstein, and my production designer, Judy Becker. There's also tons of deleted scenes and bloopers. It's gonna be a really cool DVD.

http://www2.foxsearchlight.com/gardenstate/blog/index.html

[subversiveproductions]

Do you want to know why I really loved this film?  Probably not, but I'm going to tell you anyways.

I loved this film because it was a first film.  It absolutely reeked of first film.  It was full of ideas that you know have been simmering in Braff's head since the day he first thought about ever making a movie.  It was personal in every sense of the word: from the music that some people thought distracting to the story to the dialogue.  I like to see personal in a movie.

Granted, the film was not without its flaws.  It had some continuity problems and a couple shots that borrowed a little too heavily.  The dialogue was definitely preachy and overly self-important at times.

Despite these problems, I liked the film for its brilliant and touching characters and its sense of "realness".  I liked that it wasn't Peter Pan peanut butter smooth.  In the same way that we like the lo-fi of indie rock because it rings with more sincerity than Creed's slick, studio moaning, I like this film because it isn't perfect.

If you want to try and view this film as an appex, then it certainly falls short.  But it is destructive and futile to view films out of context.  This film is a beginning, and in my opinion, a damn promising one.

[tpfkabi]

several of you have said the film was "too preachy" at times.

what exactly do you mean by this?
site examples please.

i remember one specific part that seemed to be trying a little too hard to be deep: when Braff and Portman are in the pool talking about home. the statement he made rang very true, but it was something about how it was drawn out. and if i'm not mistaken, the camera pulls close to his face to kind of add even more meaning.

[matt35mm]

several of you have said the film was "too preachy" at times.

Well I never said that, but it does remind me of an interesting thing I wanted to point out.

Kids are so impressionable, and we all know that.  But kids around here have been going around quoting lines from Garden State like it's the frikkin Bible.  Well, everyone from 15 year-olds to 25 year-olds.

I wouldn't say it was too preachy, but it did distill some rather obvious (however true) things about life into neat little monologues.  I know I have a tendency to do that when writing--it's hard not to do.  I don't fault Braff for that too much, because I understand it.  It did, however, make me realize that the movie ultimately didn't say anything, except for maybe "You've gotta grab life by the balls and live it," but that's a pretty obvious statement to make.

I dunno why I keep ragging on it, I liked it.  I was entertained and never bored, like I said.  Good movie, but I wince at how GODLY a lot of people think the movie is.  I want to slap the people who quote Garden State to me as though the meaning of life is contained in it.  It's a good movie, but I'm looking forward to Braff making better movies.

[picolas]

well i really really liked that. i was probably pretty demographicasized by it, though.

[Tictacbk]

I think if he threw in a couple of titles at those oddly placed black screens it would've made for a better film and helped tie up a movie that otherwise lacks togetherness.

[pete]

I mean that the music didn't draw my attention when I saw it.  But I imagine that if I didn't like the movie, I would feel the same way.

Like I said, the Shins thing was contrived, sure.  THAT stuck out.  But maybe I was paying too much attention to the movie to really be bothered by any of the other music.  

And you actually sat through Heartbreakers, pete?  

I first saw it with my godmother, then I borrowed the DVD from another friend 'cause I really liked the Back in the USSR scene, then I forgot to return it, so I have the DVD right now.

[Raikus]

A good, decent film. The first half is disjointed and it really doesn't start clicking until the last twenty-five minutes or so, but I can see to motivation behind it. I thought it was solidly thought out, the shots (other than the very first couple of him in his bedroom/bathroom and the paisely shirt) weren't unreasonable or destracting, the acting was really, well, surprising. I thought Peter Sarsgaard did the best work and Portman, as everyone has already said, did a great job. Braff was good too, but way outshined by his supporting cast.

I was surprised by how toned down eccentricities were in the characters. I think he separated himself hugely from Anderson and Anderson comparisons by leaving some of the quirk, but still retaining the believeability of charactes in the writing. Wes' characters are usually much larger than life.

I can see problems but the goals aspired too and met far outweigh them. I enjoyed the movie, not my favorite of the year (Before Sunset) but definitely a good experience.