Customer Reviews

For Your Consideration

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(31)
3 star:		(25)
2 star:		(21)
1 star:		(18)

 

 

It can be easy to review a film (or any media) based on what you've expected from an artist's previous work. To do so can cause one to miss out on what makes a work of art unique. To pan "For Your Consideration" beacuse it's not like Guest's other work is to miss the point of why he (or anyone) makes films.

"For Your Consideration" does move away from the pure comedy we're used to in Guest's previous stories (although he hints at some pathos in "A Mighty WInd"). There's plenty to laugh at here, but I'm in no way disappointed that he made me stop and take a hard look at myself and at the culture I'm a part of in this film. He doesn't owe me a bucket of chuckles in every minute of every film he makes. I was quite surprised at where this film takes the viewer emotionally. However, it only works if said viewer is willing to go there...

Having stated that, what I enjoy and revel in in his films are the deep characters portrayed in them. They make us cringe because we know people like these in our own lives. These rich characters are here in plenty in this film, and my wife and I found ourselves grinning as we recognized faces of actors we thought we knew portraying NEW people that we both loved and wanted to mock but couldn't because they were too real, and yes, a bit sad. A bit of American Idol auditions without the glitz, packaging and over-the-top commentary from the judges.

I dunno. Decide for yourself. Let the movie, not your expectation, speak for itself.

Bad news, good news. Bad news first: this is probably Christopher Guest's weakest film to date. Good news: it is still one of the funniest films of the year. If you are a fan of WAITING FOR GUFFMAN, BEST IN SHOW, and A MIGHTY WIND, you will find many things in this movie to love and even more to laugh at, though it almost certainly won't rival any of those for your affection. Part of the reason is the dropping of the documentary style of the earlier films. Here the camera has to assume a more detached, less ironic pose, and something is lost as a result. Still, Guest's touch is definitely still present throughout mot of the film, and although it is definitely a step below his other films, it is by no means a deep disappointment.

FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION tells the story of the filming of the Hollywood movie HOME FOR PURIM, a period film set during WW II telling the story of the dying mother in a Jewish family living in the deep South. One of the first truly funny, weird moments comes when this Southern film-family, with their deep drawls, start dropping Yiddish words into their conversation. While filming the buzz that one or more of the actors might get Oscar nominations -- perhaps sparked by a random comment in an Internet chat room (or as John Michael Higgins's character puts it: the World Wide Interweb) -- and upper level studio execs step in and change the film from the ethnic HOME FOR PURIM and turn it into HOME FOR THANKSGIVING. The latter part of the film deals with the nervous anticipation of the rumored Oscar nominations.

If you have seen any of Christopher Guest's other films, you pretty much know who stars in this. They are all the usual suspects: Catherine O'Hara plays the aging actress who portrays the dying mother in the fictitious film. She is as wonderful as always and some of her funniest moments come after filming is complete and she gets excessive botox injections to give her a younger look. Harry Shearer plays veteran voice over artist and sometimes stage actor Victor Allen Miller, who wonders if his role in the film is finally his big break (the voice over artist aspect of his character is interesting since Shearer is one of the great voice over artists of his generation due to his work on THE SIMPSONS). The always-marvelous Parker Posey plays in the film within the film the estranged lesbian daughter (I had never before noticed what a striking resemblance she and Kristen Bell bear to one another, hair color aside). Eugene Levy was not only the co-author of the script but plays Victor Allen Miller's agent. Then there are simply a vast number of familiar faces such as Jennifer Coolidge, Jane Lynch, Michael McKean, Ed Begley Jr., the aforementioned John Michael Higgins, Bob Balaban, Larry Miller, Michael Hitchcock, Don Lake, and probably a half dozen other performers I'm missing. Christopher Guest interesting both directed the film and plays the director of the film with the film. And what would any Christopher Guest project be without occasions for a host of opportunities for scene stealing by Fred Willard, who here plays an entertainment show co-host (along with Jane Lynch) and sports a most bizarre hair cut. There are also some welcome guest stars who are not familiar faces in the Guest universe. In fact, two of them provide a double tie-in to THE OFFICE, though to two different versions. In a fake movie review show, a clip from a truly awful looking cop show features John Krasinki, Jim in the NBC version of THE OFFICE, as a cop who is accused of doing a poor job with his paperwork. But in a much larger role, Ricky Gervais, creator and star of the BBC original version, is outstanding as an oily studio exec. He fits in perfectly with the rest of the performers. There is also a very small and more or less wasted appearance by the always-lovely Sandra Oh.


I will be amazed if any fans of Guest's films will be completely disappoint with this film, though I also expect that most will rate this a bit below the other films. Hopefully everyone involved will get together and do this all again.

I really love Christopher Guest's work. This might be a nice effort for someone else, this quirkly little movie falls far short of his other efforts such as Waiting for Guffman, Best in Show, and a Mighty Wind. This film is less a mockumentary, and more of a backstage peek at how actors take the Oscars way too seriously. The same basic zany cast is here for this one, and they do there best with the material. There is some decent satire, and a good joke or two, but for the most part it does not work all that well. It especially pales when put up against his other work. I would say to certainly watch this movie, but put off buying it until you have given it a rental.

I count myself a huge fan of Christopher Guest and his assembly of some of the finest comic actors of our time. When I read on IMBD over a year ago that this movie was coming out, I have to say that it was the only film of 2006 that I anticipating in advance with pleasure. It didn't matter to me that Guest had announced that he was setting aside the mockumentary format, so long as his imagination (along with Eugene Levy's) and the acting of this great ensemble were on display. I even relished some of the digs Guest had planned for those in the industry who survive on Oscar fever.

So here's the deal: the satire isn't that sharp. The bad "movie within a movie" just isn't that funny. The mockumentary format isn't exactly abandoned, since much of the film consists of interviews with the various personalities involved with "Home for Purim," and yet those interviews just don't have the funny bite of the characters in "Waiting for Guffman" or "Best in Show." And despite first class work from his actors as usual, they have created a stable of characters that, for the most part, aren't particularly interesting. As has been stated before, Catherine O'Hara and Harry Shearer are great, and Jane Lynch can read the phone book to me and I will be laughing on the floor. Seeing all these actors on screen is like returning to a wonderfully off-kilter family reunion. Unfortunately, the script they have been given (or scenario, in case much of this is improvised) just doesn't ring funny.

Of course this is disappointing. And of course it doesn't mean squat to my deep admiration for Guest and company. I will even buy the movie because, like someone here said, I consider myself a "completist" of this man's work. There are even a few funny bits, and O'Hara ranks as a great dramatic actress in my book. I would love to see more of her in varied film roles. And while I can't believe that anyone connected with the film will ever read this, I wouldn't want them to think that my disapproval means that I don't encourage them to stretch and change as they want. I have no desire to trap Mr. Guest in a formula. I just have a fervent wish that his next comedy is funnier.

Small budget 'art film' gets Oscar buzz in this Christopher Guest, (Best of Show, Waiting for Guffman), comedy vehicle with Guest's familiar cast of superficial, comic players including Catherine O'Hara, Fred Willard, and Parker Posey. It all gets a little too menial for me; the sharp sarcastic and nasty Hollywood characterizations, the light sitcom-y touch, and lack of emotional depth are affronted by Guest's sudden and genuine picture of decadence in the form of Hollywood players falling to the bottom rungs of stardom. Lots of sly little laughs and keen satirical observations on celebs like Regis Philbin, Charlie Rose, and Anna Nicole Smith, but it's still essentially the same movie as Guest's "Waiting For Guffman", which lampooned community theatre. The deleted scenes seem on par to anything in the final cut, and one; Catherine Ohara's response to Oscar mention on a morning news show, is the comedic jewel of the entire package.

Christopher Guest has vowed not to make any more mockumentaries. Well, that's technically true: "For Your Consideration" has no talking-to-the-camera moments.

But while Guest has abandoned the mockumentary format -- as shown in movies like "Waiting for Guffman" and "A Mighty Wind" -- he hasn't lost his knack for hysterical comedy and intensely quirky characters. It's less intimate than his prior movies, but still skewers the entire entertainment industry, piece by piece.

As the movie opens, several actors are shooting "Home For Purim," a Southern Jewish tearjerker entered on a dying matriarch and her fragmented family. Then a stagehand tells Marilyn Hack (Catherine O'Hara) that there are Web rumors about her receiving an Oscar. Suddenly buzz is building, and everyone is excited about the possibility of their tiny movie getting notice (and though that, their careers).

The Oscar buzz builds higher as the cast does publicity for "Home For Purim," and two more rumored nominations pop up. Two actors break up over potential Oscar stress, another goes on MTV-style shows, and the movie gets its theme changed to make it more "inclusive." The entire cast is on tenterhooks... but on nomination night, who is going to be the star?

Metafictional movies, and movies about makig movies, usually stink to high heaven. But Guest is the exception that proves the rule, as he mercilessly mocks E!-style journalism, critics, MTV, narcissistic producers, and even the Academy itself ("Give us all the awards -- we're FRENCH!").

Admittedly, this is not Guest at his best -- since the characters don't talk to the camera, they feel more distant. However, Guest has a knack for pathos mingled with biting satire. And best of all, these talented actors toss off improvised dialogue as if they were born to ("We don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Because you'll just get a wet and critically injured baby!").

Most of the humor is because of the weird characters -- Eugene, Levy as a slimy agent, Jennifer Coolidge as a blonde bimbo producer, and Fred Willard as an obnoxious E!-style reporter with a silly faux-hawk (Ryan Seacrest, this is you in twenty years!). And keep an eye out for Ricky "The Office" Gervais as an exec determined to water down the movie.

And O'Hara is sublime here. Her portrayal of a resigned, aging actress who gets high on hope is both hilarious and tragic, and she's the one character that you cannot laugh at by the end. That face-lift freaks me out, though.

"For Your Consideration" will never win an Oscar -- the Academy doesn't have a sense of humor about itself. But while not Guest at the best, this is still hilariously funny.

I decided to read the reviews of this film on Amazon before I purchased it. I was very surprised at how many reviews were three stars and below, some with quite negative comments. It made me seriously consider whether to purchase the DVD or not. Then I began to realize that many of the negative comments I was reading were not enough to make me not want to see the film.

I purchased it and am glad I did because I thoroughly enjoyed this film. Why should we expect each film made in this manner by this group of people to be exactly like all the others? Each and every one of the Christopher Guest improv method films has been a complete stand alone. The subject matter has all been loosely related to showmanship, but each has been approached from a different angle. I felt that this movie dealt with a much deeper subject than the others and therefore had many more serious aspects but that just made it different, not bad. Those characters each reacted to their possible huge career change in very different ways. Even if the movie was not hilariously funny I still found it fascinating to watch each character evolve into a completely different person just because of all the hype surrounding an Oscar nomination.

I wanted to own this film and I'm glad I went ahead and bought it. Others may want to rent it first before investing in their own copy. Either way, please consider watching this film. I was absolutely fascinated when I watched it for the second time while listening to Guest and Levy describe each scene and the actors involved. This feature alone gives so very much insight into the inner working of the film. I do volunteer work at a very small community theatre and I can really imagine this scenario playing out within my own tiny sphere of the arts world. An actors ego is always precariously balanced on a razors edge. They want, they crave, recognition for their craft. This film probably had many, many times when the actors were showing us the way they had seen someone in their own art world react. Maybe not full of belly laughs but certainly realistic. Why not five stars? Well, I do work in community theatre and absolutely nothing can ever top Waiting For Guffman!

6-5-07 Since writing this review both my daughters have watched this movie and neither cared for it much. Both are Christopher Guest fans but say this one just didn't do anything for them. One even said it seemed that the "formula" has gone on one movie too long. Just wanted to update my review in case it might change someone's mind. I still love it.

In For Your Consideration, Christopher Guest and his always-funny group of improv actors go behind the scenes of a movie set where a struggling director is attempting to make his masterpiece. The film, Home for Purim, is about a 1940's family in the South and their struggles. The big plot of the film, however, comes from the actors' reactions to the news that their performances are generating Oscar buzz. They are unapologetically vain, with the exception of Catherine O'Hara who makes no secret of her desire for a little gold statute but at least has the grace to seem embarrassed whenever it's mentioned, and their frantic reations to the publicity are the funniest parts of the film.

I'm a big fan of Christopher Guest's early stuff (eg, Spinal Tap, Best In Show, Waiting for Guffman), but for some reason his last two efforts have left me disappointed. I fell asleep when I saw A Mighty Wind in the theater and For Your Consideration left me equally underwhelmed. I don't know what it is. It's the same stellar cast that has always worked for me before, and FYC even adds one of my favorite comedians, Ricky Gervais (from the British version of the Office), but it still just didn't do it for me. Don't get me wrong, it definitely had its moments: Parker Posey's monologue to her dying mother where she comes out as a lesbian was hilarious, and Catherine O'Hara's role as an actress who is quite openly in it for the Oscar was honest and amusing. But overall, it just wasn't there. I've never laughed so hard as I do when I watch Best In Show, every single time even though I have to have seen it at least 20 times by now. But with FYC I could count the number of times I laughed out loud (less than 10), and I'm starting to think that Guest just not be one of my go-to funny guys anymore.

This is hardly a skewer folks. This is a mean-spirited snippy and childish attack. I was quite disappointed, for like most of the reviewers here, I had enjoyed Guest's previous films, though to my mind Best in Show was the most enjoyable and Waiting for Guffman a bit malicious and snide. But this just lays a whopper of an egg. Generally unfunny, tedious, and mean, it feels like payback rather than satire.

There is no humor. Sure there's a funny moment here and there, but every one seems to think too much of themselves, with Ricky Gervais especially cocksure and irritating as he plays David Brent all over again. But the expected lampoon of Hollywood and award shows never materialized. There was nothing about Academy Awards, just the intense laughing at feeble and vapid people wishing for recognition in a world where that is the only measure of success. No redeeming characters, just selfish self-absorbed bores. Not worth paying attention to.

The cast performs admirably, with, not Catherine O'Hara, but Harry Shearer most worthy of recognition. He makes the lack of material not quite so noticeable when he is on screen. But this is one of those movies where you see all the things that were supposed to be funny, the former weiner man as a potential award nominee, the sleazy money lady, the "suits" who get the movie's name changed, the creepy little agent who lies and inflates, the ignorant, pompous host, and the ventriloquist weathergal, all these laugh riots in discussion turn into a big yawn on the screen. The longest 80 minute movie I've endured.

To add my thoughts to the other reviews.
I enjoyed parts of this film, but think that prior works of this group are better.

IMO, the greatest weakness of this film is that it is a parody which resembles reality too closely.
Is reality funny or silly / stupid?

My greatest pleasure was seeing these many actors and actresses who I know from other prior films from this group.
I enjoyed the directors comments. I have the impression that the directors and producers enjoyed it perhaps more than I.

I am a little surprised that the technical quality is not better, OK, but for a modernly made film by a group of this caliber, expected better.

I have thought about the question of why this film did not appeal more to me.

Perhaps the directors could not decide if they were making a light drama, a satire, or a farce.
Can a film be all 3?

IMO, too much a drama. IMO, interesting to watch (with DVD controller in hand).