Stephen Paul, Elliott Gould, Michelle Pfeiffer discussed on Optimism Vaccine
Until nineteen ninety-five when he died Other than that again. That the best. I've got i think maybe realize realizes not related to them but i wouldn't rule it out either so we might be back to money laundering that sets long short honoring. Yeah stephen paul. If you're listening who's your mom. We know who is and we know who is dad is we just don't know who is mom was married. To between the years of nineteen seventy in nineteen ninety-five. We even know that it's his his dad couldn't keep it up with his mom. Cry is actually this. This whole story is a great way to introduce the first movie that we're going to talk about because stephen paul and and part of the place where this like. Dorothy koster ives. Paul thing comes from is. There is an article from the new yorker in the nineteen seventies about stephen paul. He was Quite the vindicated and he was a celebrated teen playwright in new york city. And that's kind of how he found his way into hollywood at a young age and he was allowed to direct this hollywood movie with real. Ask people in it and a very young michelle pfeiffer called falling in love again and this is a legitimate. Studio film is scott people in. It's it is now part of the reason he was allowed to make. It is because it was self produced and self funded so he took three and a half million dollars a family money which i don't know what that is in two thousand twenty money but quite a bit and for some fucking reason decided to make falling in love again in Nineteen eighty nine hundred. Eighty right just one thousand nine hundred and the reason. This is odd. Is you gotta remember steven paul. He probably wrote the screenplay when he was like i. Nineteen or twenty years old even the younger rag. This movie released when it was like twelve years. Yeah yeah he was. He was a baby. tiny teenager. heine teens stephen. Paul directing elliott gould susanna work and michelle pfeiffer in falling in love again which is a period piece that partially takes place in the nineteen forties. And then i guess it would be like the nineteen seventies new york bronx and it is about his father played by elliott gould and also stewart paul as a young dad. And it's the story of. It's about how his his dad like he found his dad's memoirs and this is about how his dad like wanted to be someone and be something and then he fucked it all up but maybe not But it's weird because really the whole film centers on elliott gould. Being a loser piece of shit who fox hookers and yeah. I don't know if you've found your dad's secret diary that said boy. It sure was cool. Like boning thousand hookers. This past weekend. Can't wait to not be around my wife. I don't know if i'd make a movie out of that personally. I don't know if you guys have any other thoughts of that jake. How much did you love this movie. Oh my god. I couldn't tell you single thing about s- movie just such a non entity like i was hoping gould would at least carry it because like you said i love elliott gould from his period in the seventies where he was with. He's starting like all these great robert altman films and then he goes and he does this and he's just He's you know he's cast at sea without a liferaft. There's there's nothing year there's wants to be like this multi generational prestige picture that tells. This man's continued story. Valley met this woman and fell in love and we see this goes back and forth between their older years in the younger years. But just not a single thing in this sticks at all. It's just it's so lifeless and it's it's really trying to be something but it's just so. Do a filmmaking. I like my mind just turned to mush. Was watching it. This was insane. Lifeless is a really good word to use. Actually and part of the reason why. I've been kind of like mulling this over in my head. I think stephen paul as director slash writer. He may be my least favorite filmmaker just because like some people. I feel like if you make a movie. That just like looks like shit and his bland and lifeless. But it's almost like at some point. You have to stumble onto something interesting accidentally but i have never seen something more stale in my entire life than the collective works of stephen paul. There's nothing here and he. He works as kind of a cinematic black hole just sucking all the life out of everything anywhere near him. And that's how you get these movies. That have all these incredible people that are just doing the worst. Like least compelling shit. It's it it's phenomenal even michelle pfeiffer who does super early integrated this is like one of if not the first movie she ever did and just seeing her on screen. She's like this radiant beauty. Who is doing the most ridiculous fake british accent. I've ever heard my entire life and somehow the movie makes her a just boring and unsympathetic. So great job. Stephen paul did the business. I mean so as you mentioned. Stephen we're talking basically about a teenager. Apparently gifted teenager which is the worst coined. Frankly not not anything wrong with them but being labeled gifted is is usually not a. It's not a help it leads. You down weird. Pats and this is a weird because this is basically a nineteen year old or whatever making a movie that is about two things. It is a nostalgic recollection of nineteen forties the bronx and about the failing of a forty year marriage on around thirty to forty year marriage. He's nineteen he doesn't know anything about all either of these things he couldn't possibly so he's just cribbing mercilessly from other films putting together thing what would happen. And he is so clearly off zest with the concept of the correct film. Because it's a very kind of well made film in terms of there's no glaring errors. It's not like any scenes edited in a weird way. This jesse was missing coverage or the scenes. The is all for anything. It's all very well made. It is just overly lifeless. There's no there's no artistic inclination or vision here. And i and i think this is the path of stephen polls entire career. All the films discounts. Stephen paul has no cinematic voice whatsoever. I d- i don't know why he makes films. I don't know what compels them to make them. Because he has nothing to offer the medium in a way that and i guess leaving up against that he has enough money to sand down the coroner's that what make someone that alterly- own interesting somewhat interesting. You know most people who are like this who are just making movies for themselves. The it becomes weird 'cause they financial issues and and barriers and they have to. They have to base. They have to compensate me improvise. Stephen paul doesn't appear to have do all those things and the result is just as deadly flash film.