Away We Go (Sam Mendes, 2009)

Message

#1 Post by **Jeff** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:02 am

This has flown under the radar, and looks unlike anything Mendes has done before. The screenplay is co-written by Dave Eggers.

trailer

mogwai · #2 Post by **mogwai** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:05 am

It looks infinitely better than Revolutionary Road, which bored me senseless (and I'm a fan of Mendes). Looks quite good.

Jonny Pasadena · #3 Post by **Jonny Pasadena** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:57 am

Looks to me like Mendes has succumbed to the self-congratulatory McSweeney's bullshit, which is unfortunate, but probably to have been expected.

Antoine Doinel · #4 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:09 am

Who would've thought Eggers would pen a pedestrian, quirky, indie comedy and who would've thought Mendes would direct something so ordinary. The said, I'm really glad to see Maya Rudolph in a lead role.

Cde. · #5 Post by **Cde.** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:50 am

This year's Little Miss Revolutionary Road?

And when did hand drawn (at least in appearance) art come to signify 'quirky' or 'indie' anyway?

Binker · #6 Post by **Binker** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:14 am

Antoine Doinel wrote:The said, I'm really glad to see Maya Rudolph in a lead role.

What the shit

Zumpano · #7 Post by **Zumpano** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:29 pm

Jonny Pasadena wrote:Looks to me like I have succumbed to the self-congratulatory hipster backlash against McSweeney's, which is unfortunate, but probably to have been expected.

Jonny Pasadena · #8 Post by **Jonny Pasadena** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 4:12 pm

Zumpano wrote:
Jonny Pasadena wrote:Looks to me like I have succumbed to the self-congratulatory hipster backlash against McSweeney's, which is unfortunate, but probably to have been expected.

Wow. Standing up for McSweeney's and Eggers, are you, Zumpano? How brave! How earnest! How post-postmodern!

Have another latte and mess with my quotes some more as you re-read A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius yet again. Good times.

Zumpano · #9 Post by **Zumpano** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:03 pm

Jonny Pasadena wrote:Wow. Standing up for McSweeney's and Eggers, are you, Zumpano? How brave! How earnest! How post-postmodern!

You nailed me!

Have another latte

No thanks, I'm lactose intolerant.

as you re-read A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius yet again.

I've never read it. But if you want to continue to generalize me, I eat arugula and read the NY Times. Make of that what you will.

I'm sorry to call you out, but your snarky assumptions about Mr. Mendes are annoying (at best) and add nothing to the conversation about the film; aside from the fact that you hate McSweeney's supposed self-congratulatory attitude. Woo Hoo! Thanks for sharing.

I recognize that snark and hipster backlash are commonplace on the internet. So, if it makes you feel better about yourself to make blanket judgements on working writers and filmmakers, who am I to deny you that joy? Have at it. In fact, there should be some Wes Anderson threads on this board you could go to town in.

Cold Bishop · #10 Post by **Cold Bishop** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:23 pm

In his defense, the movie does look like every bland, self-absorbed, run-of-the mill "indie" (emphasis on the quotations) being cranked out.

I have problems with Mendes, but I don't know if this direction will help out at all.

Then again, I felt the same about Rachel Getting Married when its trailer appeared.

Jonny Pasadena · #11 Post by **Jonny Pasadena** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:09 am

Zumpano, there's something kind of unintentionally hilarious in that your valiant effort against the great snark plague is a snotty, ad hominem attack.

I'd also point out that this is a discussion about a trailer. What do you think trailers are for? What's your notion of how this discussion should go?

"Here's a preview of an upcoming movie. I'm going to reserve judgment until it's released."

"Me too. I'm familiar with the work of the director and the writer, but past performance is no guarantee of future results. See you at the movies!"

Also, it seems like the principal difference between us here (I too eat arugula and read the New York Times) is that unlike you, I *have* read A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius. So my comments are based on something other than a vague displeasure with the tone in the virtual ether. I don't know that you can say the same.

Have fun keepin' it real in those Wes Anderson items you so cherish.

Binker · #12 Post by **Binker** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:17 am

Yeah man have fun not enjoying Wes Andersen man!

Naw man u have fun enjoying Wes Andersen man!

Jonny Pasadena · #13 Post by **Jonny Pasadena** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:59 am

Aww, come on, Mom, he started it.

#14 Post by **Matt** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:34 am

Why does no one get this worked up over Miranda July? Now that's insufferable hipsterism.

I actually think the film looks mildly interesting, and I have yet to see a Sam Mendes film I like (but I did read and enjoy A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius and, full disclosure, am a former McSweeney's subscriber). It looks kind of like Heartbreaking Work II, as it's clearly autobiographical about Eggers' and Vida's relationship. It is pretty indie/quirky, though, even down to the Randall Poster and Ellen Kuras credits.

Cde. · #15 Post by **Cde.** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:43 am

Matt wrote:Why does no one get this worked up over Miranda July? Now that's insufferable hipsterism.

Have you heard about the script to her new film? The central couple walk across the room towards each other with their eyes closed, synchronised with music, when they make important decisions. They also have a ballet that allows them to prepare for bed at the same time. There's also a cat that speaks LOLCATS, who becomes a central character as it progresses.

I'm not making this up.

Murdoch · #16 Post by **Murdoch** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:32 pm

Do Miranda July and Diablo Cody happen to be the same person by any chance?

Anyway, I like Mendes enough to give this a chance. While I didn't like Road to Perdition or American Beauty, I was a big fan of Jarhead so for me his films can either be hit-or-miss. Although the only thing I've enjoyed by Eggers was a short story he wrote, and I found his other work to be insufferable so... I just hope it isn't this year's Juno.

#17 Post by **domino harvey** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:24 pm

A very compelling defense from Ebert

justeleblanc · #18 Post by **justeleblanc** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:02 pm

I attended a free screening tonight and didn't hate it. The ending is really manipulative, so be prepared for that, but it doesn't fall apart. I also have a thing for Maya Rudolph, that might have played a role.

#19 Post by **domino harvey** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:49 pm

I was having a stressful day and figured this would be some light escapist entertainment and indeed it was. Though Eggers' script does occasionally reveal his McSweeney's-ness (Rudolph's eye-roll-inducing profession comes to mind), he mostly reins in the pomposity and instead lays the groundwork for a sweet film about aging hipster soon-to-be-parents. Mock the subject if you must, but the current hipster climate is ripe for some definitive cultural markers that don't come from a Mumblecorer, and while this film might not be one, it's a closer step in the right direction than anything else that comes to mind. It's very sitcomy at times and like most consciously hip films, it is a little in love with its own cleverness. Somewhat surprisingly though, the most cliched segment, involving the new age "cousin," was also undeniably the funniest-- both stroller scenes rightly brought down the house. Overall it's a very cute little romantic comedy, and sometimes that's something.

kaujot · #20 Post by **kaujot** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:03 pm

What's her profession?

#21 Post by **domino harvey** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:06 pm

SpoilerShow

She draws realistic diagrams of serious injuries for medical textbooks

kaujot · #22 Post by **kaujot** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 1:09 am

That could only come from either Dave Eggers or Chuck Palahniuk.

Ribs · #23 Post by **Ribs** » Wed May 17, 2017 1:33 pm

Has Sam Mendes made a movie ever that was even a little bit supposed to be funny

Werewolf by Night · #24 Post by **Werewolf by Night** » Wed May 17, 2017 1:35 pm

I've heard it alleged that American Beauty has moments of humor in it, but I've never been able to find any. Haven't seen Away We Go, though, which IMDb assures me is a Comedy/Drama/Romance.

#25 Post by **domino harvey** » Wed May 17, 2017 2:01 pm

Away We Go is cute and has its share of laughs, but Jarhead is hilarious

Away We Go (Sam Mendes, 2009)

Away We Go (Sam Mendes, 2009)

Re: Away We Go (Sam Mendes, 2009)

Re: Away We Go (Sam Mendes, 2009)

Re: Away We Go (Sam Mendes, 2009)

Re: Away We Go (Sam Mendes, 2009)

Re: Away We Go (Sam Mendes, 2009)

Re: Away We Go (Sam Mendes, 2009)

Re: Away We Go (Sam Mendes, 2009)

Re: Away We Go (Sam Mendes, 2009)

Re: Away We Go (Sam Mendes, 2009)

Re: Away We Go (Sam Mendes, 2009)

Re: Away We Go (Sam Mendes, 2009)

Re: Away We Go (Sam Mendes, 2009)

Re: Away We Go (Sam Mendes, 2009)

Re: Away We Go (Sam Mendes, 2009)

Re: Away We Go (Sam Mendes, 2009)

Re: Away We Go (Sam Mendes, 2009)

Re: Away We Go (Sam Mendes, 2009)

Re: Away We Go (Sam Mendes, 2009)

Re: Away We Go (Sam Mendes, 2009)

Re: Away We Go (Sam Mendes, 2009)

Re: Away We Go (Sam Mendes, 2009)

Re: 872 Ghost World

Re: 872 Ghost World

Re: 872 Ghost World