Six Years of "Scenic Routes"
July 10, 2015 5:38 AM Subscribe
If you're like me, you're still kinda recovering from the abrupt dissolution of The Dissolve earlier this week. This morning over at the AV Club, they posted a new entry in their series "Scenic Routes", which may be the best Movie-centric feature AV Club runs. And at this moment of recovery for dedicated movie geeks, it's a great opportunity to review some of their more memorable entries over the years.
Kicking off in July of 2009 with the Rahad Jackson scene in "Boogie Nights", the "Scenic Routes" series has covered scenes both famous ("2001: A Space Odyssey", "Reservoir Dogs") and obscure ("The White Gorilla", "Songs From The Second Floor"). The one consistent element has been a great insight into how movies actually work (or, occasionally, don't work). Here's a selection of great "Scenic Routes" over the years:
"Greenberg" and the suspension of disbelief
Why the "Glengarry Glen Ross" Alec Baldwin scene is so unusual
A "Drugstore Cowboy" scene features drug logic at its most inventively deranged
1985’s "Tampopo" kicked off the era of death threats for loud moviegoers
A quiet scene from "The Matrix" demonstrates how to make exposition compelling
In "Heat", Al Pacino and Robert De Niro face off—though not in the way audiences expected
For two unexpected minutes, "Life Of Brian" becomes a chintzy sci-fi epic
Gradually and authentically, "Ghost World" depicts an unraveling friendship
Focus is key to the most subtly powerful moment in "All The President’s Men"
Peter Jackson smoothly transitioned into prestige filmmaking with "Heavenly Creatures"
"Mission To Mars" begins with some of the worst expository dialogue ever
And, finally, today's entry:
Tom Hanks shows how someone might really react to a life-or-death ordeal in "Captain Phillips"
(Note: There were a number of earlier entries I did not list (with exception of the "Boogie Nights" scene) because the AV Club's video links were broken, but these are also well worth seeking out.)
Kicking off in July of 2009 with the Rahad Jackson scene in "Boogie Nights", the "Scenic Routes" series has covered scenes both famous ("2001: A Space Odyssey", "Reservoir Dogs") and obscure ("The White Gorilla", "Songs From The Second Floor"). The one consistent element has been a great insight into how movies actually work (or, occasionally, don't work). Here's a selection of great "Scenic Routes" over the years:
"Greenberg" and the suspension of disbelief
Why the "Glengarry Glen Ross" Alec Baldwin scene is so unusual
A "Drugstore Cowboy" scene features drug logic at its most inventively deranged
1985’s "Tampopo" kicked off the era of death threats for loud moviegoers
A quiet scene from "The Matrix" demonstrates how to make exposition compelling
In "Heat", Al Pacino and Robert De Niro face off—though not in the way audiences expected
For two unexpected minutes, "Life Of Brian" becomes a chintzy sci-fi epic
Gradually and authentically, "Ghost World" depicts an unraveling friendship
Focus is key to the most subtly powerful moment in "All The President’s Men"
Peter Jackson smoothly transitioned into prestige filmmaking with "Heavenly Creatures"
"Mission To Mars" begins with some of the worst expository dialogue ever
And, finally, today's entry:
Tom Hanks shows how someone might really react to a life-or-death ordeal in "Captain Phillips"
(Note: There were a number of earlier entries I did not list (with exception of the "Boogie Nights" scene) because the AV Club's video links were broken, but these are also well worth seeking out.)
Awesome! I just finished reading that entry, click over to metafilter, and bam! There it is! And I just watched Captain Phillips for the first time last week! Mike D'Angelo nails it with this piece! Tom Hanks is amaze-balls! Life is good!
posted by valkane at 6:07 AM on July 10, 2015
posted by valkane at 6:07 AM on July 10, 2015
RE: Captain Phillips and that final scene.
I disliked the majority of that film), but that scene was emotional and riveting to watch. Tom Hanks is a talented actor. Definitely a scene where he draws all your attention and focus.
posted by Fizz at 6:38 AM on July 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
I disliked the majority of that film), but that scene was emotional and riveting to watch. Tom Hanks is a talented actor. Definitely a scene where he draws all your attention and focus.
posted by Fizz at 6:38 AM on July 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
And now I have to watch "Songs From The Second Floor" again. Or maybe all three parts.
posted by effbot at 7:58 AM on July 10, 2015
posted by effbot at 7:58 AM on July 10, 2015
When I was young, I was a voracious reader of film criticism, and would have still described myself as such at the beginning of the decade. A lot has changed in the past several years, with so many professional critics losing their jobs at the hands of the Internet, the re-ascent of television as a serious cultural force, and the death of Roger Ebert. It often feels like critics in this era are there not to provide insight, but to place a black or white marble into the Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic ballot boxes. The days in which I would grab papers or magazines or fire up the browser every Friday and read about the week's offerings are long over, and I've generally resigned myself to just watching whatever I feel like watching.
Yet I still regularly read Mike D'Angelo's columns.
One of the things I'd always admired about Roger Ebert was that even when I deeply disagreed with his opinion, I appreciated his analysis, as he would elicit details about films that allowed me to better see the value and artistry of that film - or certain problems with that film. It's the same with Mike. He's almost certainly the best movie critic working today, because even when he's assigned to chaff, he delves deep into the story, performances or formal concerns of a movie in a way that promotes a rich and nuanced understanding of the merits or problems with that work. The Internet is full of movie critics these days, but now that the field has largely splintered into curators and archivists describing deep cuts and obscure auteurs, and with the torrent of fan opinions making up much of the rest of the discourse, Mike is one of the few who really provides a salient and intelligent analysis of recent releases.
I was always surprised that Mike never became a staff writer at The Dissolve. I found that to be disappointing, and I honestly think it was a mistake. Where The Dissolve had a (fairly unique, in this day and age) movie-centric platform to go deep and long-form, the reviews were generally breezy and the editors seemed to prioritize a tone of middlebrow amiability above all else. I'm not sure if Mike's writing just didn't fit in, there were back-room politics involved, or if Mike just prefers to be a free agent, but with the exception of his Cannes reports, I feel like he wasn't given a very large platform, and the site would have benefited from more of his style of criticism and analysis.
As was the case with Roger Ebert, I don't always agree with Mike. His recent admission of his subjective blind spot towards surreal and phantasmagoric cinema came as something of a relief, as my preferences have increasingly leaned in that direction over the past several years. Yet he's left an indelible mark on the way I watch and understand movies, and I'm glad he's still cranking them out at the A.V. Club. Thanks for the post.
[Disclaimer: while I don't know Mike personally, I've voted in his yearly survey of critics, the Skandies, for many years.]
posted by eschatfische at 8:30 AM on July 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
Yet I still regularly read Mike D'Angelo's columns.
One of the things I'd always admired about Roger Ebert was that even when I deeply disagreed with his opinion, I appreciated his analysis, as he would elicit details about films that allowed me to better see the value and artistry of that film - or certain problems with that film. It's the same with Mike. He's almost certainly the best movie critic working today, because even when he's assigned to chaff, he delves deep into the story, performances or formal concerns of a movie in a way that promotes a rich and nuanced understanding of the merits or problems with that work. The Internet is full of movie critics these days, but now that the field has largely splintered into curators and archivists describing deep cuts and obscure auteurs, and with the torrent of fan opinions making up much of the rest of the discourse, Mike is one of the few who really provides a salient and intelligent analysis of recent releases.
I was always surprised that Mike never became a staff writer at The Dissolve. I found that to be disappointing, and I honestly think it was a mistake. Where The Dissolve had a (fairly unique, in this day and age) movie-centric platform to go deep and long-form, the reviews were generally breezy and the editors seemed to prioritize a tone of middlebrow amiability above all else. I'm not sure if Mike's writing just didn't fit in, there were back-room politics involved, or if Mike just prefers to be a free agent, but with the exception of his Cannes reports, I feel like he wasn't given a very large platform, and the site would have benefited from more of his style of criticism and analysis.
As was the case with Roger Ebert, I don't always agree with Mike. His recent admission of his subjective blind spot towards surreal and phantasmagoric cinema came as something of a relief, as my preferences have increasingly leaned in that direction over the past several years. Yet he's left an indelible mark on the way I watch and understand movies, and I'm glad he's still cranking them out at the A.V. Club. Thanks for the post.
[Disclaimer: while I don't know Mike personally, I've voted in his yearly survey of critics, the Skandies, for many years.]
posted by eschatfische at 8:30 AM on July 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
RE: Captain Phillips and that final scene.
It was interesting to learn that the medics weren't actors. But, it definitely makes sense for Greengrass. For United 93, many roles were played by non-actors such as air traffic controllers and military personnel, including some who worked that day.
posted by ALongDecember at 12:10 PM on July 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
It was interesting to learn that the medics weren't actors. But, it definitely makes sense for Greengrass. For United 93, many roles were played by non-actors such as air traffic controllers and military personnel, including some who worked that day.
posted by ALongDecember at 12:10 PM on July 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
Dittoing eschatfische's love of Mike D'Angelo. I fell in love with his festival coverage over at The AV Club back in the day, and have been obsessively reading all his capsule reviews on Letterboxd. I'm assuming the reason he was never officially hired at The Dissolve was either that he wasn't local (I gather much of the staff actually worked together in an office) or that he's a bit too hard to please. The overwhelming majority of his reviews seem to be 3 or 3.5 out of 5, and while his analysis is always fascinating, that tends not to generate a lot of traffic.
(Super jealous of Skandies contributors, I might add.)
posted by Peevish at 7:04 AM on July 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
(Super jealous of Skandies contributors, I might add.)
posted by Peevish at 7:04 AM on July 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
Oh man I had completely forgotten that scene until this post (even having seen but not read the article on the AV club). I had something like a sympathetic panic attack during that scene - nothing like that has ever happened to me watching a movie. It was intensely physically uncomfortable for me; I couldn't breathe. It was profoundly weird and I attribute it to the strength of that performance.
posted by neuromodulator at 10:39 AM on July 12, 2015
posted by neuromodulator at 10:39 AM on July 12, 2015
« Older Ooh ooh a special route master! | No one wants a nutty hypothalamus Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Fizz at 5:48 AM on July 10, 2015 [1 favorite]