CAYOM Festival - Year 7 - Three-Month Funeral triumphs

[4815162342]

Boss Tweed is finished screening. How did the panel react to this OOC entry?

 

 

The Fall of Boss Tweed

 

A Numbers Review

 

Tweed Isn't the Only Thing That Falls Short

 

 

The most important rule when making a period biopic is that simply painting by the numbers for a broad stretch of time usually makes for a dull, langorous film. Boss Tweed falls into the trap, covering over 20 years of time in the broadest strokes possible. Though Scott and Monahan pad the film out to 2 Hours and 40 Minutes, the actual plot is so cursory and rote that it feels an hour longer. Everything is reduced to the simplest form possible and fed into the film's gears to churn out a standardized, abridged version of Tweed's political career. The best way to describe the film is that it's a Greatest Hits Album with sizable damage to the disc.

 

When you're tackling a guy like Boss Tweed, simply throwing everything he did onto the screen doesn't make the film compelling. You want to tackle the how and the why, but the film reduces it to: Tweed wants power and uses money to get things done. The film then swerves into the third act with the sudden appearance of Thomas Nast who singlehandedly destroys Tweed's career. While generally true to history, the film doesn't set up Tweed's downfall at all earlier in the film, it doesn't give any depth to Nast at all, Nast is just a cardboard cut-out of a character who's job is to draw cartoon and say no to a bribe, that's it. Jack Nicholson has a cameo and must have decided to film it on a lounging day because he's just there, and Jennifer Garner has a thankless role as Tweed's wife who pretty much disappears after the first hour with no thought given to her.

 

Tweed is a great example of how you don't make a biopic. I think Scott was either lazy or exhausted when he made this film, since it's the only explanation for how uninvolved it is with its own history material. The film does nothing to humanize Tweed or make him interesting. It could have depicted him as a 19th-Century Daniel Plainview, it could have shown him as a guy who did good things for New York City while ensuring his own success as well. It did neither of those things, and when a biopic fails to make the subject engaging or worth bothering with, then it's dead before even being born. Hugh Jackman gives the mustache-twirling villain he's stuck with his all, which keeps the film watchable and his performance at least is good, but it's a futile effort in the end.

 

The period details in sets and costumes were nice too.

 

C

 

The Fall of Boss Tweed

 

A Riczhang Review

 

The Fall of Boss Tweed is certainly a good movie. There’s no doubt about that. It may be lesser Ridley Scott just like Shutter Island was lesser Scorsese. But does that make The Fall of Boss Tweed a bad movie? No. Is it boring? No. Is it Oscar worthy? Probably not, but that doesn’t matter.

 

The Fall of Boss Tweed benefits for its simple and straightforward storyline. It knows that it’s got a pretty decent story, and it stuck with it. They could’ve easily tried to make the story “more engaging” or “more compelling” but that would’ve run the huge risk of making the plot convoluted, contrived, and just plain bad. While it may have been disappointing that they didn’t try to improve on the story, it’s also refreshing to see a movie so simple and clean, a movie that doesn’t try to do too much and then fall flat on its face after toppling under its own weight. We’ve seen too many sad casualties due to that, Extremely Long and Incredibly Condescending, and Nine being some of the more notable exemplars of that malady. It’s story is essentially one about the corrupting qualities of greed, and while it isn’t the best movie to tell that story in CAYOM 2.0 it tells the story well and it tells it clearly.

 

The acting in this movie was superb. Hugh Jackman was amazing; he inhabited the role like he was really Boss Tweed. His ability to act physically imposing also really helped him achieve the demeanour and air that someone like Boss Tweed should have. It would’ve definitely been interesting to see how someone not very physically intimidating would have portrayed him as. However, the highlight of the cast has to be Chris Pine. He’s amazing, and perfect for the role of Thomas Nast. He’s got the right hint of stubbornness, but also the right bit of winsome naivety to pull off the role of Nast. Jennifer Garner is nothing special in the movie, but the role’s basically nothing and not even Meryl Streep could’ve done a substantially better job than Jennifer Garner. You can’t improve upon what’s practically not there in the first place. However, it would’ve been interesting to see Mary Jane Tweed more fleshed out, because one can’t help but feel that there’s more to Tweed’s downfall and descent into greed than just the man himself.

 

6/10

 

The Fall of Boss Tweed

 

An Alfred Rating

 

Concept/Idea: 10/6

Plot/Story/Characterisation: 10/5

Casting: 10/6

Opening: 5/3

Ending: 5/2

Location: 5/3

X Factor Bonus: 5/2

 

Overall: 54%

[4815162342]

And I object to riczhang calling Shutter Island "lesser Scorsese"

[riczhang]

And I object to riczhang calling Shutter Island "lesser Scorsese"

 

It's lesser when compared to things like Hugo, Last Temptation of Christ, Departed, Goodfellas, and etc. And, in my defence I didn't actually come up with that term, I found it a few weeks ago on RT (or maybe it was IMDB....)  and I decided that it was an apt description for it. 

Edited March 20, 2013 by riczhang

[Alpha]

The Fall of Boss Tweed received a 54 Metacritic score, currently the lowest of the festival.

[Ezen Baklattan]

Y7 FESTIVAL - Average Ratings

 

Innocense - 8.4/10

Spark: Ignition - 8/10

The Curious Incident Of The Dog In The Night Time - 7.5/10*

The Adventures Of Tom Sawyer - 5.6/10

The Fall Of Boss Tweed - 5.5/10

 

*Alfred presumed score was 71%, which was less than Innocense by one point.

[Alpha]

Rotten Tomatoes score for Boss Tweed was 66% "Fresh."

[Ezen Baklattan]

So Boss Tweed was 160min, and I know that The Academy is 158min. I hope Riczhang's Haneke film was short, or that the three panelists have bladders of steel.

[riczhang]

You guys are lucky, My Haneke's only 107 minutes long

[4815162342]

Considering Haneke that still may be too long

[Alpha]

Your Haneke film...would basically be 107 min of nothing.

[Blankments]

Boss Tweed is finished screening. How did the panel react to this OOC entry?

 

 

Tweed is a great example of how you don't make a biopic. I think Scott was either lazy or exhausted when he made this film, since it's the only explanation for how uninvolved it is with its own history material. The film does nothing to humanize Tweed or make him interesting. It could have depicted him as a 19th-Century Daniel Plainview, it could have shown him as a guy who did good things for New York City while ensuring his own success as well. It did neither of those things, and when a biopic fails to make the subject engaging or worth bothering with, then it's dead before even being born. Hugh Jackman gives the mustache-twirling villain he's stuck with his all, which keeps the film watchable and his performance at least is good, but it's a futile effort in the end.

 

You guys have no idea how true this is. After writing a 12,000+ word film, I just wanted it to be over. Perhaps ten years down the road, I'll remake this film when I actually want to give effort into it. It was originally envisioned as Nast in the lead role and it being all about him taking down Tweed. Bradley Cooper was going to be Nast then, but when I cut it down, I figured Cooper wouldn't have taken such a small role.

[Blankments]

I'm going to presume Innocense was the shortest film of the festival.

[riczhang]

Considering Haneke that still may be too long

Hey Amour was 121 minutes and 30 something seconds.

[riczhang]

Your Haneke film...would basically be 107 min of nothing.

Ugh, stop insulting Haneke. His films are true works of art. I don't think any of his films bar the English Funny Games has landed outside of top 3 of the year. Most often it's #1.

[Alpha]

Ugh, stop insulting Haneke. His films are true works of art. I don't think any of his films bar the English Funny Games has landed outside of top 3 of the year. Most often it's #1.

 

I think Amour was overrated, and Haneke in general.

 

It gets quite boring after a while seeing people sitting in chairs, getting coffee, sleeping in bed...

[Blankments]

Ugh, stop insulting Haneke. His films are true works of art. I don't think any of his films bar the English Funny Games has landed outside of top 3 of the year. Most often it's #1.

 

 

I think Amour was overrated, and Haneke in general.

 

It gets quite boring after a while seeing people sitting in chairs, getting coffee, sleeping in bed...

 

[The Dark Alfred]

Amour is a masterpiece...

[Blankments]

I'm still upset Amour never came to my area. I didn't even see the movie, and I still rooted for Riva for BA.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Blankments Into Darkness

[riczhang]

I think Amour was overrated, and Haneke in general.

 

It gets quite boring after a while seeing people sitting in chairs, getting coffee, sleeping in bed...

 

Ugh. You have to think of it as more than people sitting in chairs, getting coffee, and sleeping in bed. Haneke tells the story of humanity through the simplicity and sheer animalistic brutality of his films. Every single action, shot, and word in his films serve a purpose. His films are shot exactly the way they're written, and the results is not a single drop of genius wasted. He gets right down to the point and tells it the way it really is. No sugar coating, and while it is hard to swallow at times it's a marvel to behold. 

[The Dark Alfred]

The screening of The Academy had begun. Suprisingly there are a couple of empty seats in the theater, the reason for that could be that Haneke is having a press conference in an hour.