Alexander Payne has frequently been compared in recent years to my favorite filmmaker, Billy Wilder. He certainly has a knack for blending bitter humor and pathos, and like Wilder is often accused of contempt toward his characters. I've never agreed with the latter characterization when it comes to either director, and find that both of them hold reluctant empathy for their protagonists, loving them specifically for their quirks and flaws.

I suppose that Payne's latest might be his weakest for me (in a virtual dead heat with About Schmidt). That's faint condemnation in such heady company though. With the help of Phedon Papamichael, he's really grown as a visual filmmaker, with some great 2.35 compositions and the best evocation of place that I can recall this year. Clooney seems like a shoo-in for Best Actor. It's not a showy performance, but he gets to play a complicated range of emotions, internalizing many of them, and never relying on the eyebrow acting of his early roles. It was Shailene Woodley's performance as the take-charge older daughter that was the most winning for me. Robert Forester is great in his tiny role too. The weaknesses in the film all stem from the by-the-numbers script by former Groundlings Nat Faxon and Jim "Dean Pelton" Rash. Payne did a rewrite, and while he's made the characters his own, it doesn't have the same meandering narrative charm of Sideways or Election, the best films he wrote with his own Izzy Diamond, Jim Taylor.

It's quite predictable and doesn't really have much new to say, but I suppose it's still among the better films this released this year. That says more about the quality of its competition than anything else, but old-fashioned, well-crafted, expertly-acted stories for grownups are rare enough that it's still worth appreciating.

Not that big on Payne, but I thought this was very good. Not as good as Sideways and my favorite, Election, but I think Richard Brody was spot-on with his assessment of the parental dynamics in the film.

Whuck? Could it be possible that I mildly disagree with Jeff on something? This feels feels weird and unsettling.

I should probably state that I'm a huge fan of Election and consider it to be one of the strongest movies created during the 90s (so Jeff and I are on the same page on that one, which reassures me I'm not insane). Meanwhile, I'm not that big a a fan of About Schmidt or Sideways, mostly because I thought the former was kind of mundane at times, while the latter was kind of heavy-handed at key moments.

Oddly, The Descendants succeeded for me largely because it's so relaxed and at ease with itself. Perhaps I enjoyed the film due to my fairly low expectations, but I guess I enjoyed it because it's so incredibly lazy (a characteristic that former??? forum member Leo over at NotComing sort of derides the film for - again it's mildly unsettling that I disagree with him), which I thought was completely fitting for a film that's largely about an inert man that has become comfortable with being inactive within his own life. That's due mostly to the relative-comfort of his lifestyle, which basically allows him to delay important decisions and avoid confronting the problematic elements of his existence.

As Leo points out in his review, the film is littered with a number of typical filmmaking methods normally associated to "lazy" or conventional filmmaking, which I admit were kind of disconcerting at first, but as the film progresses, these same filmmaking "crutches" seem to fit the subject matter perfectly, since Clooney's character really needs all the support he can get to finally take some decisive actions, no matter how clumsily he executes them. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Payne is making some sort of meta-comment on the nature of filmmaking (though I do often make that assumption), because he's really not that type of filmmaker, but he's certainly figured out what's suitable for his central subject.

Truthfully, a great deal of the film dwells in what a lot of observers might label as "white-people-problems", but it's treatment of it's characters and conflicts still feels organic and generally respectful towards the characters and their community. Of course, what I do agree completely with Jeff on is that I really think the film succeeds mostly due to its humor and the performances of it's major cast, particularly Clooney and Woodley (warning: unsolicited details of minor encounter with a minor celebrity ahead - she is surprising tall in person, which I figured out since she stood beside me in line for Martha Macy May Marlene at TIFF). I know Leo also had some issues with the humor derived from the sexuality of the daughters within the film, but I thought Payne found the humor in a way that remained respectful of the actresses and characters involved, mostly because it feels fairly natural for kids that age and in those circumstances (absentee parents or lack of supervision from the remaining parental figure).

I actually think we're more or less on the same page, Andre (surprise!). I think a few of the film's weaknesses just irked me more than they did you. Election is easily my favorite Payne, and one of my favorites of the 90s too. My fondness for Sideways stems mostly from my identification with Giamatti's character, rather than any sort of objective criticism.

I like the generally laconic nature of Clooney's character (and how Woodley has to kickstart him into action from time to time), and agree that the style of the narrative fits the character. My only complaints stem from the fact that I found The Descendents a little more predictable and routine than what I've come to expect from Payne. It feels more like a filmmaking exercise, and the kind of thing that Payne could do in his sleep. It all felt very familiar. As I alluded to though, Payne's weaker efforts are better than most American directors best efforts these days. I'll take a pretty good character-driven comedy that has a heart but isn't cloying any time.

I completely disagree. The situations might have been predictable, but the behaviour of the characters within them was unexpected and realistic. The "confrontation" between Clooney and Lillard, and the scenes between Clooney and Judy Greer, in particular, were little masterworks in the way they completely sidestepped cliche. The Nick Krause character too, which again seems familiar in the outset, developed in a way that was surprisingly complex. Overall perhaps The Descendants isn't quite as sharp as Election or Sideways, mostly because of a slightly soft and sentimental streak that creeps in towards the end, but it's still a moving and altogether pleasurable movie.

True enough, though I really thought this was Payne's strongest filmmaking effort since Election in terms of how he handled his characters (or at least as strong as his handling of Margo Martindale's character, Carol, is his Paris Je T'aime segment - his was the only segment that had any real impact) and his ability to synchronize his filmmaking methods with the subject matter. I didn't get the sense it was an exercise to Payne, but rather an honest attempt to accurately portray his characters and their ability to overcome their comforting stasis.

I think the aspects that most people are labeling as the film's weaknesses are actually what I find so interesting about the film. The pedestrian nature of the story and casual filmmaking are kind of what feels so engaging (if that makes any sense), because though the methods seem mundane, Payne sort of finds very natural ways to make the conflicts and conclusions within scenes repeatedly defy my expectations of the how the scene would work in any other standard movie. Truthfully, while the ultimate conclusions arrived at within each scene are fairly routine, the paths used to achieve the resolutions within each scene and the interaction between the characters were surprisingly inventive, even if they often really just function as a delay tactic for Clooney's character. I'm likely overestimating the tactics being used, but I was constantly and pleasantly surprised at the unexpected dynamics that Payne set up with his characters.

I guess I'm kind of in the same boat as rs98762001 (though I think The Descendants is actually a stronger movie than Sideways), especially on the how Payne deftly handles the interactions with supporting characters. Honestly, based on his introductory appearance, I thought Nick Krause's character, Sid, would just function as some one-dimensional comedic relief, with an obligatory scene devoted to making him sympathetic, but Payne extracts some pretty awesome stuff from him, which - while fairly predictable - still feels earnest and earned. In fact, I think it's almost a minor miracle that Payne was able to make me forget how annoying I usually find Matthew Lillard.

So, while I agree that the movie isn't exactly any sort of revelation requiring exuberant praise, I do hope its understated and entirely appropriate modesty is appreciated rather than disparaged.

This film has one of the most overbearing soundtracks I've ever had to sit through. Payne's success in making me feel like an emotional voyeurist on a hackneyed tourist trip is not an unadmirable feat. It's television.

Glad it wasn't just me. I was quite fond of the film myself, but the score tested my patience. I feel like most movies that take place in Hawaii use that sort of soundtrack, but this time it felt overbearing.

Along with PT Anderson, Payne is perhaps my favorite American filmmaker, so obviously I saw the midnight screening of this and had been anticipating it for years (even with Clooney as the lead!). That said, I found nothing to really take away from this film that hadn't already been said to me in Payne's previous efforts. It was enjoyable, well written, everything you'd expect from Payne, save for a strong central theme that didn't feel recycled from his earlier films. I really can't see why critics are praising it to this extent thus far, honestly. I haven't met or heard from anyone that "loved it," mostly just the same reactions as me... even the reviews I've read have yet to give it lofty praise, but at the same time they'll still give it a 4.5/5 or whatever their barometers for grading are (nearly perfect reviews). It almost feels like everyone gave Payne a pass before even seeing this.

Oh well, I'm sure I'll see it again and perhaps get a different take.

edit: I should add that I thought Shailene Woodley's performance was amazing. And I guess Clooney annoyed me less than he ever had before, but I still found him distracting at times.

Far from perfect, I thought it still had a lot going for it. FWIW, I'm not that big on Payne's films. I like Election quite a bit, but I thought About Schmidt and Sideways were, despite some excellent performances, fairly overrated, particularly the former, which seemed pretty patchy to me.

I could say the same about The Descendants, but I actually enjoyed it more in light of those other films. I saw Sideways with a friend who absolutely despised it, and I thought The Descendants could've been a response to that reaction.



I will admit that some moments felt a little saccharine for my tastes. A bit disappointing because there were a number of other scenes where the film could've easily sunk into the same gooey sentimentality - like most of the scenes with Matt's comatose wife - only to drive off in the opposite direction, thanks to Payne's wicked sense of humor.

Also, I actually like Clooney quite a bit and thought he gave a very fine performance here. He knows he has a fairly limited range, but like the best star performers, he usually does well working within that range, exploring what he can do within his capabilities.

But did he annoy you as much as he usually does, or less?

Clooney's range is certainly limited, but frankly, how many actors actually have significant range? So many of whom we think of as our great actors simply cultivated a persona, stuck to it, and sought out quality material that would put it to good use. It's fascinating to see whose persona gets enshrined and whose gets dismissed. For instance, Jack Nicholson and Clint Eastwood are thought of as monotonous performers, whereas John Cazale is a great actor--yet all three effectively stuck within their type and did it well. Even De Niro in his heyday had a certain formula.

Now, there are a few actors with an obvious versatility. But even that can become stale. The Sean Penn in Carlito's Way is totally unique from the Penn in Sweet and Lowdown, who is completely different from the Penn in Milk. Yet then there are his turns in Mystic River and I Am Sam, in which Penn fails to convey an authentic character. Instead, he gives the impression that delivering a tour de force performance is as easy for him as it is for Jack Nicholson to come off like a wired maniac.

Of course. "Stars" have always been limited in their range, regardless of their ability, that's how it's always worked in Hollywood. But I do get the impression that a lot of people will knock a great leading man/woman if they don't expand their comfort zone like Dustin Hoffman or Meryl Streep. "Oh, it's just Cary Grant doing Cary Grant." Yeah, but who the hell else can "do Cary Grant"?

FWIW, Penn's performance in Milk is probably my favorite because it's one of the rare instances where he completely erases his star persona, but by the same token, he did that in I Am Sam...one of the worst Oscar nominations in recent memory.

I think, in addition to that, he's attached himself to fine directors who have capitalized on his persona or altered our perceptions of the traditional Clooney character. I think Matt Damon and Brad Pitt have also taken advantage of their limited ranges in recent years by avoiding vanity projects, taking supporting or less glamorous roles, and putting their faith in strong directors instead of someone they can push around.

And of course the one connection between all three is being schooled by Steven Soderbergh.

Funny, I consider "Election" overrated, and I loved both "About Schmidt" and (especially) "Sideways." Payne, like Wes Anderson, seems to get better with each film. Haven't seen this yet, but hopefully it'll get a wider release in my neck of the woods eventually (welcome to the 2010's, where movies with even the slightest hint of substance have to jump through a ton of hoops just to get more than a limited release ).

On a side note, whoever thought Matthew Lillard would be in a decent movie?

I actually met Matthew Lillard back in 1999, and I didn't know who he was until a few minutes before he left. Very nice and absolutely polite, he asked me who I was and introduced himself to me even when it was clear that I wasn't in the business (too young to be in it unless I was an actor anyway). I only realized it was "the dude from Scream" when he did something funny.

Anyway, I saw him again at the NYFF when I saw this movie, and during the press conference, he mentioned that he hadn't been in anything in quite a while and was very happy to be in something that he could be proud of. Between him and Robert Forster's responses, it was pretty clear and sobering how difficult it was to work as an actor - unless you're an A-list star, in the long run, it's a huge financial struggle for most.

Funnier (I suppose not) I sometimes feel the opposite to be true. Though I'm probably the only person to feel that (warts aside) Citizen Ruth is still his best film with slight diminishing returns since.

I would disagree with this as well. I think Anderson's best films are Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, and then Bottle Rocket with The Fantastic Mr. Fox as a "late" career uptick.

I can see why a case could be made for both getting better. Anderson's films do get more elaborate, and the production design alone gets more impressive each time out, but I don't really feel like he's grown much in terms of what he has to say. In terms of craft, Payne has become more economical, doing a bit more with a bit less, but like Anderson, I'm not sure he's grown much in terms of what he has to say, either.

I don't see what people have against Mathew Lillard - he was even a surprisingly good Shaggy in those Scooby-Doo films! As for "whoever thought he would be in a decent movie", Scream aside, have we all forgotten the joys of Serial Mom?

And Citizen Ruth still appears to be one of the most underrated Alexander Payne films.

Lillard's never done anything in his career for me to take notice of him, but there was something pleasing about him being given this opportunity to play a key role in a major director's film. My mixed feelings about Payne aside, I admire that here, as well as in Sideways, he's taken a gamble on supposedly washed-up or forgotten actors and made it clear that they still have a lot to offer.

Same here. When The Hurt Locker was building momentum after Oscar nominations were announced, I remember one TV producer going on record that a year ago, she would never have let Kathryn Bigelow direct an episode of her TV show, as if Bigelow needed this nomination to "prove" herself. Absolute bullshit, it only shores up one's cynicism regarding what Hollywood execs know about talent.

Frankly, "Scream" hasn't held up for me; it now seems just as superficial as most of the so-called horror movies since. And I'm not a fan of John Waters... or the whole 'deliberately campy/trashy' entertainment style in general.

While I'll allow that neither Payne nor Anderson really haven't elaborated further on what they have to say as filmmakers, I guess what keeps drawing me back to them is that they've kept making films with premises that I've personally found more intriguing (and, FWIW, just as I think "Election" is Payne's most overrated work, I think "Rushmore" is Anderson's most overrated ).

I don't understand what you mean by so-called, but considering the Scream aesthetic (and Craven's in general) is so similar to Waters it's not a surprise that you'd feel similarly. As to Lillard himself, I'm glad that he's getting any attention since he does come across as one of the most affable actors out there right now and I've always liked him even if I've rarely liked his films. I hope this is a start to some more good roles for him.


Actually I think that at the very least Anderson has elaborated on his ideas and themes (than again how can you not) and that some of the accusations leveled against him are false. Bottle Rocket, Rushmore and Fantastic Mr. Fox are very different films exploring very different things even if they share a few directorial signatures. Where I understand some of the comments is on the central three films, but I think they worked as a very important exercise to Anderson's health so to speak. He's always explored his various concerns through relationships, in particular the negative side of relationships, and those center films seem to be about death, loss and all of that jazz, but what really seems to set them apart from the other three is this sense of murder culminating with the dead boy in Darjeeling Limited that provides a connection only after death. In a certain way all of his films before his children's film are childish in that insecurity over love. After three tests he seems to have purged himself of those concerns and did do a completely different turn with Fantastic Mr. Fox. Not just in cinematic language, but also in concerns and character a very clear evolution and maturation has gone on with Anderson.