Comments on: 10 Worst Sundance Sensations

By: Magan

Magan — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:37:53 +0000

The only thing more pretentious then these films is your list. Boo-urns, sir. Though number three truly is horrible.

By: The Playlist

The Playlist — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 00:54:25 +0000

Great list, though i still think Brick is great. However, you almost nullify the entire thing with the exclusion of Clerks which is pretty much worse than anything on this list.

By: Kevin Kelly

Kevin Kelly — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 00:06:11 +0000

Ack! Et tu, Chris? I loved Brick. I saw that at my second ever Sundance and just enjoyed the hell out of it. How could you… how could you. *sniffle*

By: Paul DeBenedetto

Paul DeBenedetto — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:02:10 +0000

What a delightful exercise in futility; reading a list you think is stupid by a writer you dislike on a website you get annoyed by, and then drafting a comment!

“Spoon”, nothing about Brick was “delightful”, least of all the dialogue. The closest thing to a delight I had in that whole movie was when the lights came up and I realized it was over.

And “aaron g” if you’re going to comment I have a few pieces of advice: 1. read the post. no seriously, like beginning to end. 2. Do not end any sentence, paragraph, fucking fragment, ANYTHING with the words “I like Napoleon Dynamite”. You’re only embarrassing yourself and the people who love you.

By: Branden

Branden — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:17:40 +0000

I have seen some of these films. LMS, Blair Witch Project, Garden State. I think that they are overrated. Some are good, but not great.

By: aaron g

aaron g — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 02:07:45 +0000

” . . . but at least the Brick devotees can defend their fandom with more than just shouts of “It’s funny!” Because the thing is, Napoleon Dynamite is not comedy.”

and that’s supposed to be an argument? “it’s not comedy”? seriously? not going to go into *why* it isn’t a comedy, why it’s merely quirky, why it’s “obvious and uninteresting”? just saying it makes it so? that’s it, then? i already know what you’d say in response: “it’s all, like, subjective, man” but at least have an *argument*. say *why* you think what you do about a film; otherwise, you’re no different from any old dullard at imdb.

but hey, is spout in a race w/ reverseshot to see who’s the biggest punk rock renegade? tragically, i think they have you guys beat: they hate slumdog AND the dark knight. OOOOOH, REBELS. YOU GUYS THINK FOR YOURSELVES, MAN!!!!

now, if you’ll excuse me, there’s a line i have to go stand in. like a good sheep, i like napoleon dynamite.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:51:24 +0000

Huh, after reading this post I wanted to respond with an awesome rebuttal to CC’s lame critic of the aforementioned films… but, no need. Bravo everyone!

By: Rudy Mett

Rudy Mett — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:44:00 +0000

I second “Clerks”. That movie is terrible.

By: Christopher Campbell

Christopher Campbell — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:24:26 +0000

Jared, I understand how I may come across as snobbish in this post, but these lists are meant to be more subjective opinion than critical analysis. That said, I feel the only film I really need to defend my inclusion of is Brick, and I stand by my thinking that it does not work as a film because it seems, at least to me, to be a novelty gag that overstays its welcome. I believe the concept might have worked better as a novel or even a short film, but at nearly two hours, it really stretches the single joke (or, let’s say primary objective) very thin.

And Mike, I didn’t like any of these films even as simply Sundance films, as you presume. In fact, I think they’re all disappointing representatives of Sundance.

By: Jared

Jared — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:54:18 +0000

I really like Spout, enjoy listening to the podcast, and usually want to defend the bloggers here from the charges of hipsterism and pretension that occasionally get leveled in their direction. Karina, for instance, is a fine film critic who often reminds me of Pauline Kael and so, even when she comes across as a BIT too cool, I’m interested in her opinion and the reasons that led her to it.

But this list goes above and beyond my ability to defend. I understand the concept and even agree, to an extent, that some of these movies got a bit more love than they deserved on their own merits. But Christopher Campbell comes across like the guy discussing Fellini in Annie Hall, except without even a hint of justification for why some of these films are “really awful” or “really (don’t) work on screen.”

I get the idea that a list doesn’t allow much room for analysis, but there’s enough space to write in a style that doesn’t sound snobbish. You can hide a good deal of undefended opinion with snark and humor, but Campbell doesn’t even do that, instead choosing to come across like that guy at the coffee shop who talks too loudly and makes everyone else want to knock over his mug. If Campbell’s aim was to provoke, bravo. But he’d do well to remember that provoking just for the sake of provocation leads only to a hollow infinite regress, not to sound judgment or critical evaluation.

By: Mike Shea

Mike Shea — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:07:27 +0000

This list really comes across as, “These were fine movies when they were Sundance movies, but when everyone else started to like them, too, now they suck.” But, that’s pretty much the point of view I’m coming to expect from Spout.

By: Derek

Derek — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:29:55 +0000

I think you’re right (to a point) about most of these movies: they generally received more recognition than they deserved. But overly-positive reception in and of itself doesn’t make movies bad. If some of these movies had not gotten the amount of buzz they did end up getting, you’d probably be putting them on lists for “underrated movies that had Sundance premieres.” I think a lot of people’s problem, and maybe yours, is that they spend more time reading what the whole entire world has to say about a movie than actually trying to formulate their own opinion about it. And in your case, this is made very easy, because all these movies are at least three years old: you’ve had plenty of time to see what everyone has said about all of these movies, now you just have to say the exact opposite, and you’re awesome.

By: Erik

Erik — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 05:29:56 +0000

You forgot Clerks. That one was like moving back home and hanging out with the biggest dork in town. Oh GOD the agony . The banality.

By: American Teenie

American Teenie — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 03:27:09 +0000

You left out American Teen… Disgrace, worse than Born into Brothels

By: Spoon

Spoon — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:48:18 +0000

re: Brick
What “doesn’t really work on screen”? The deliriously, delightfully elaborate dialogue or the constant stream of striking compositions and sharp editing? Just trying to understand.

I’m not even gonna get into “The Blair Witch Project” and “Napoleon Dynamite”.

By: mary

mary — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 23:34:12 +0000

I’m afraid that I haven’t seen most of the movies on this list but I just wanted to second that I really loved Brick. I knew nothing about it when I first saw it but it immediately entered the list of my favorite films.

By: Ashley

Ashley — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:44:41 +0000

What makes someone laugh is what’s funny. If quirk gets laughs, the quirk is funny. Napoleon made a lot of people laugh. My guess is that all of those people were philistines since this blogger says the execution was “obvious and uninteresting”.

As for Brick, I went in knowing nothing of the buzz, or much at all about the movie. I loved it. But I must have been wrong because this blogger says it “doesn’t really work on screen, no matter how much you want it to or think it does.” There’s no arguing with airtight logic.

Good call on which picks would be most controversial, Christopher Campbell.