"The Anniversary Party" - name your reasons why it is so bad and hated

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I've noticed this film inspires rage and derision in many. Thing is, I really can't even guess why. Is it kneejerk hate toward the SoCal climbers who comprise the cast? Is it the (admitted) predictability of the plot?

To me, the script is colorful and reasonably authentic. Some of the performances are very good. A few faces you haven't seen in years, which is fun. Ultimately it's rather pointless, just a character study, maybe your least favorite Ray Carver story, not great, but by no means bad.

― Aaron A., Friday, 11 March 2005 01:57 (twenty-one years ago)

I was sure there was already a thread on this film, but I was wrong I guess.

― Aaron A., Friday, 11 March 2005 01:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Surely we've had a thread about this piece of crap, no?

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 11 March 2005 02:00 (twenty-one years ago)

In any case, what could be more annoying than self-involved actors, than a movie about self-involved actors being played by self-involved actors. Ugh. It's dire.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 11 March 2005 02:01 (twenty-one years ago)

I searched for threads with the word "party" and no dice, but I still recommend searching "party" it's funny!

― Aaron A., Friday, 11 March 2005 02:02 (twenty-one years ago)

I think I've piped up to recommend it several times. The ecstasy scenes lay it on a bit thick, but everything before that is good.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Friday, 11 March 2005 02:05 (twenty-one years ago)

i found it well written, well composed, well acted, difficult in its emotionally resonace, and haunting.

i really loved it to peices.

but i would, since alex hates it

― anthony easton (anthony), Friday, 11 March 2005 02:11 (twenty-one years ago)

It was OK, but if all those big-deals weren't in it/financing it/writing it it wouldn't be revered at all, I don't think... or would have somehow gotten made, a limited release and not really celebrated (ie. if it was a true "indie" film it would be called garbage... which it pretty much is anyways.) although i do like alan cumming in general.

― scout (scout), Friday, 11 March 2005 02:12 (twenty-one years ago)

My ex-girlfriend's friend's girlfriend is in it.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Friday, 11 March 2005 20:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Phoebe Cates?

If it was just a vanity project funded to appease the 'big-deals,' I'd think they could have afforded a longer shooting budget and film instead of HD (maybe the first great-looking digital film, isn't it?)

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Friday, 11 March 2005 20:40 (twenty-one years ago)

in response to that comment, I just did 5 seconds of research on the matter: JJL had just shot a Dogma film right before and liked the look of DV, which means it wasn't a purely economical choice. They used really high quality cameras (which is why it looks good), and in terms of financing, I was wrong about that, a studio paid for it. But I maintain that it wouldn't have gotten made, or if made it would have received less praise/exposure if it weren't co-written and directed by "stars" and their friends weren't in it.

― scout (scout), Friday, 11 March 2005 21:08 (twenty-one years ago)

it was passable, there were enough funny moments in it (Elliot Gould, the guy imitating Peter Sellers, JJL is always pretty entertaining to me) that I have a good impression of it. I never knew it had a bad reputation.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 11 March 2005 21:24 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.