I saw the Holdovers the day after I saw the Killer and expected to like the latter much more than the former. I was wrong.
It’s a cliche to describe a movie as a throwback but sometimes a cliche is a cliche for a reason. The Holdovers feels like a movie from the early 70’s adapted from a popular early 70’s novel.
The Holdovers is delightful in a way few movies are today. It is a prestige movie, I guess, but it is not about Big, Important Events™️ or a Searing Issue™️ (not that those things are inherently bad). It is about people and the connections we make.
It’s not a movie that will inspire endless think pieces and it doesn’t feel like a vain appeal to Boomer nostalgia. I assume it’s set in the 1970’s because that’s the last time a boarding school student could be likable.
This might seem like I’m damning the movie with faint praise but it’s the first movie I’ve walked out of in a long, long time that made me say, “I wish they made movies like this more often.”
I thought your explanation above was great and I also definitely felt the same way trying to explain to people why to see this around Thanksgiving. For the folks older than me, it was pretty easy to say its 'Paul Giamatti and its good' and they more than likely will see it based on that but for people younger than me it was a little difficult and even for people my age (late 30's).
Lot of broken brains out there on what a movie in a movie theatre is 'supposed' to be.
It was so 70s accurate it's how I realized Queens of the Stone Age's "Rated R" album cover is actually based on what the old "Rated R" screens used to look like.
Just the font used for the opening credits was a nice li'l touch. Made me feel nostalgic for other movies that're older than I am.
Something Ebert said in his review of Sideways that really stuck with me is "all the characters are necessary." True again here. Not every movie needs to have top-to-bottom three-dimensional characters with arcs, but so many indie dramas and award season contenders hire great actors to play people who are only there to serve plot functions. Even Carrie Preston, who's the closest thing this one has to a character like that, immediately and perfectly establishes the kind of person she is, and gets a couple of good scenes.
Great movie, fully cried when Da'Vine opened the hat box. My husband and I were the youngest people in the audience by 20 years. At least three phone alarms went off, and a lady down the aisle REALLY wanted to sing along to the songs she knew.
I really liked that the Kountz kid was both fully fledged but didn't get some redemption arc. He was just an asshole and stayed an asshole, because some people are like that!
I saw the Holdovers the day after I saw the Killer and expected to like the latter much more than the former. I was wrong.
It’s a cliche to describe a movie as a throwback but sometimes a cliche is a cliche for a reason. The Holdovers feels like a movie from the early 70’s adapted from a popular early 70’s novel.
The Holdovers is delightful in a way few movies are today. It is a prestige movie, I guess, but it is not about Big, Important Events™️ or a Searing Issue™️ (not that those things are inherently bad). It is about people and the connections we make.
It’s not a movie that will inspire endless think pieces and it doesn’t feel like a vain appeal to Boomer nostalgia. I assume it’s set in the 1970’s because that’s the last time a boarding school student could be likable.
This might seem like I’m damning the movie with faint praise but it’s the first movie I’ve walked out of in a long, long time that made me say, “I wish they made movies like this more often.”
Payne does say he was deliberately trying to make a 70s movie, and I agree with everything else here.
I feel like an idiot when I try to explain to people why they should see it.
I thought your explanation above was great and I also definitely felt the same way trying to explain to people why to see this around Thanksgiving. For the folks older than me, it was pretty easy to say its 'Paul Giamatti and its good' and they more than likely will see it based on that but for people younger than me it was a little difficult and even for people my age (late 30's).
Lot of broken brains out there on what a movie in a movie theatre is 'supposed' to be.
Whelp, you movie nerds have convinced me. I'm in.
It was so 70s accurate it's how I realized Queens of the Stone Age's "Rated R" album cover is actually based on what the old "Rated R" screens used to look like.
Just the font used for the opening credits was a nice li'l touch. Made me feel nostalgic for other movies that're older than I am.
Something Ebert said in his review of Sideways that really stuck with me is "all the characters are necessary." True again here. Not every movie needs to have top-to-bottom three-dimensional characters with arcs, but so many indie dramas and award season contenders hire great actors to play people who are only there to serve plot functions. Even Carrie Preston, who's the closest thing this one has to a character like that, immediately and perfectly establishes the kind of person she is, and gets a couple of good scenes.
Great movie, fully cried when Da'Vine opened the hat box. My husband and I were the youngest people in the audience by 20 years. At least three phone alarms went off, and a lady down the aisle REALLY wanted to sing along to the songs she knew.
I really liked that the Kountz kid was both fully fledged but didn't get some redemption arc. He was just an asshole and stayed an asshole, because some people are like that!
Sounds a lot like the Wonder Boys and that's a good thing?