you lost me at bad santa, but I absolutely agree with wonder boys being up there and so under-rated – in terms of comedy, i think it blows 40-year-old virgin and all that stuff out of the water. i would also have to include wes anderson and spike jones on the list. brilliant film-making, acting, everything – and terribly influential. there are personal favorites that i don’t expect to see on other people’s top ten lists, too: there’s la cienaga (2001) by lucrecia martel… holy jesus…
hm… the pixar stuff has to be the best filmmaking of the 2000s… hands down. and if i had to pick ONE movie for best of the 2000s it might just be “amelie” — for every other movie in the world, no matter how popular, you’re likely to find people (people you know) who didn’t get it or didn’t like it. but if someone (anyone) didn’t like amelie, they’re probably a piece of S%#T and you should stay away from them.
I normally don’t bother criticizing movies I don’t like and actually dislike reading bad reviews. If someone is interested in going to see a movie, the critics should really be a resource for insight and whatever “criteria” might make the viewing experience more fulfilling. But in this case, I’m lashing out against the movie HURT LOCKER because (a) I don’t expect anyone reading this is going to be dissuaded form going to see it because of me, and (b) I am merely reacting to the unbelievable HYPE and undeserved PRAISE being poured on this really mediocre picture. The Boston Phoenix, traditionally an excellent source of movie thrashing, actually described it as “the first work of art to come out of the Iraq conclict” or something to that effect. It also won BEST FILM at the Venice Film Festival. In fact, I can’t remember having seen any other movie get such rave reviews — EVER. The movie is no more than a bunch of stereotypes and cliches portrayed in a stereotyiping and cliched way — from the brute of a protagonist’s W. Bush style swagger to the wimpy portrayal of the counselor who gets (spoiler alert) blown up for trying to be (annoyingly) gentle with the natives — Don’t you know, you just can’t do that? They’re animals these people… A more fitting title would probably be AMERICAN HERO WORSHIP IN THE XXI CENTURY. I won’t deny that the suspense in the early part of the movie is nail-bitingly executed, but that is it. The ending was actually OFFENSIVE to me, it rubbed me as a (perhaps unwitting) perpetuation, if not celebration of the unfeeling, super macho model of MASCULINITY that continues to traumatize boys and men in America.
i appreciate all of your comments and, in fact, agree with most of them. especially the suspense at the beginning and the whole part with the little boy. i remember making/hearing similar comments as my wife and i discussed the movie on our way home. i, too, work with veterans dealing with ptsd and traumatic brain injuries (tbi) and addiction, so i’m not saying it felt totally made up — most of what’s portrayed rang a bell. many combat veterans say being back home just feels all wrong and they can’t explain it. but the treatment just rubbed me as propaganda. case in point, if the ending was supposed to be a sad commentary, they sure made it feel like a music video, or a commercial for joining the military: a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do — a real man, that is. perhaps i came at it with some personal baggage… but the incredible hype, which is what i’m trying to get at, certainly didn’t help.
a few days ago, talking with someone who LOVED this movie made me see a few things differently. for one thing, i had felt that the handling of the music was manipulative and heavy-handed, especially (again) in the ending, like it was saying: yeah, this guy ROCKS, he’s INVINCIBLE. but this person boiled down the character and the story to one simple thing: this a story of addiction — this guy is addicted to adrenaline — but truly addicted. from that perspective, most of the things that made me scratch my head and even dismiss them as laughable or outrageous start to make sense. still, in my view, the hype is simply out of proportion. there, i’ve beat this dead horse to a pulp.
yes, the ending really ruined it for me. it left me with a pro-war feeling that reeked of “be all you can be” and “army of one” propaganda. in response to the comment about it being an anti-war film dressed up as pro-war… hm… what makes it that and not the exact opposite? and, in either case, what difference does it make? the question is: are you along for the ride, hanging tight, or does it lose you somehwere along the way? in my case, it was the latter. though i do think it handled the tension masterfully — at the beginning, then with the showdown in the desert where (SPOILER ALERT) ralph fiennes gets got, then with the whole kid thing and then with the pursuit in the night — the device of a bomb about to go off is about as easy an out, as cliche, as you can come up with in movies. in terms of believability, from the start i couldn’t help asking myself why the man who (SPOILER ALERT) sets off the bomb that kills guy pierce has to step outside his store, where the soldiers can see him, just to press a button. in any case, it just lost me more and more as it went along.
my wife and i just watched DOUBT on dvd and, to tell you the truth, we were both very pleasantly surprised — the choice to avoid it at the theaters had been bilateral: though fans of streep, hoffman and adams, something about the trailer didn’t appeal to us… now i’m wishing we had gone to see it on the big screen. the movie really worked for us, which is to say we were hooked and in suspense (perhaps tense is a better description) up until the very last frame (not including the credits). the story, which is very good, the characters, the music, the pace, the mood, were all handled incredibly well. a long post-film discussion ensued, which was another really good sign. one minor point that we both felt perhaps needed clarification was whether (SPOILER ALERT) sister aloysius was referring to her faith or her actions at the end, when she confided in sister james that she had “doubts.” we felt she must have been referring to the former. but maybe one can forgive that because the whole premise (and its treatment) is supposed to be about not being absolutely sure. how did others feel about that? what are your interpretations?
absolutely LOVED the movie — not crazy about the book. though i am a big fan of chabon, especially his short stories (incredible), his novels don’t bowl me over. i liked yiddish policemen’s union and kavalier & clay, but preferred the amazing adventures of the escapist (another short one). back ot the movie, however, i just finished reading the screenplay by steve kloves, who adapts the harry potter books for the screen… INCREDIBLE. it’s all there: the stoned-out tone in every turn of phrase, the house-of-cards comedy of errors structure, the slapstick moments. only two scenes aren’t in the movie and i think leaving them out was the right decision. there’s also a (very minor) character named jeff who was left out, and the ending is different. but i cannot understand why more people don’t LOVE this picture. my wife, for one, didn’t love it — nor can she understand why i’m so crazy about it… ebert’s review captured most of what i think is great about it, but i guess some people get it and some just don’t.
i have not seen it – nor do i intend to, especially now that i see the response from all of you. the only part of me that was tempted to go see this is the one that likes to give directors i like the benefit of the doubt (in this case, sam raimi), though another tempting thing was the fact that i’m gaga for alison lohman.
Wonder Boys and The Best Films of the 2000's over 2 years ago
you lost me at bad santa, but I absolutely agree with wonder boys being up there and so under-rated – in terms of comedy, i think it blows 40-year-old virgin and all that stuff out of the water. i would also have to include wes anderson and spike jones on the list. brilliant film-making, acting, everything – and terribly influential. there are personal favorites that i don’t expect to see on other people’s top ten lists, too: there’s la cienaga (2001) by lucrecia martel… holy jesus…
Go to Comment
Favourite film of the decade (so far)? over 2 years ago
hm… the pixar stuff has to be the best filmmaking of the 2000s… hands down. and if i had to pick ONE movie for best of the 2000s it might just be “amelie” — for every other movie in the world, no matter how popular, you’re likely to find people (people you know) who didn’t get it or didn’t like it. but if someone (anyone) didn’t like amelie, they’re probably a piece of S%#T and you should stay away from them.
Go to Comment
HYPE MY ASS WITH IT over 2 years ago
I normally don’t bother criticizing movies I don’t like and actually dislike reading bad reviews. If someone is interested in going to see a movie, the critics should really be a resource for insight and whatever “criteria” might make the viewing experience more fulfilling. But in this case, I’m lashing out against the movie HURT LOCKER because (a) I don’t expect anyone reading this is going to be dissuaded form going to see it because of me, and (b) I am merely reacting to the unbelievable HYPE and undeserved PRAISE being poured on this really mediocre picture. The Boston Phoenix, traditionally an excellent source of movie thrashing, actually described it as “the first work of art to come out of the Iraq conclict” or something to that effect. It also won BEST FILM at the Venice Film Festival. In fact, I can’t remember having seen any other movie get such rave reviews — EVER. The movie is no more than a bunch of stereotypes and cliches portrayed in a stereotyiping and cliched way — from the brute of a protagonist’s W. Bush style swagger to the wimpy portrayal of the counselor who gets (spoiler alert) blown up for trying to be (annoyingly) gentle with the natives — Don’t you know, you just can’t do that? They’re animals these people… A more fitting title would probably be AMERICAN HERO WORSHIP IN THE XXI CENTURY. I won’t deny that the suspense in the early part of the movie is nail-bitingly executed, but that is it. The ending was actually OFFENSIVE to me, it rubbed me as a (perhaps unwitting) perpetuation, if not celebration of the unfeeling, super macho model of MASCULINITY that continues to traumatize boys and men in America.
Go to Comment
HYPE MY ASS WITH IT over 2 years ago
i appreciate all of your comments and, in fact, agree with most of them. especially the suspense at the beginning and the whole part with the little boy. i remember making/hearing similar comments as my wife and i discussed the movie on our way home. i, too, work with veterans dealing with ptsd and traumatic brain injuries (tbi) and addiction, so i’m not saying it felt totally made up — most of what’s portrayed rang a bell. many combat veterans say being back home just feels all wrong and they can’t explain it. but the treatment just rubbed me as propaganda. case in point, if the ending was supposed to be a sad commentary, they sure made it feel like a music video, or a commercial for joining the military: a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do — a real man, that is. perhaps i came at it with some personal baggage… but the incredible hype, which is what i’m trying to get at, certainly didn’t help.
Go to Comment
HYPE MY ASS WITH IT over 2 years ago
a few days ago, talking with someone who LOVED this movie made me see a few things differently. for one thing, i had felt that the handling of the music was manipulative and heavy-handed, especially (again) in the ending, like it was saying: yeah, this guy ROCKS, he’s INVINCIBLE. but this person boiled down the character and the story to one simple thing: this a story of addiction — this guy is addicted to adrenaline — but truly addicted. from that perspective, most of the things that made me scratch my head and even dismiss them as laughable or outrageous start to make sense. still, in my view, the hype is simply out of proportion. there, i’ve beat this dead horse to a pulp.
Go to Comment
HYPE MY ASS WITH IT over 2 years ago
yes, the ending really ruined it for me. it left me with a pro-war feeling that reeked of “be all you can be” and “army of one” propaganda. in response to the comment about it being an anti-war film dressed up as pro-war… hm… what makes it that and not the exact opposite? and, in either case, what difference does it make? the question is: are you along for the ride, hanging tight, or does it lose you somehwere along the way? in my case, it was the latter. though i do think it handled the tension masterfully — at the beginning, then with the showdown in the desert where (SPOILER ALERT) ralph fiennes gets got, then with the whole kid thing and then with the pursuit in the night — the device of a bomb about to go off is about as easy an out, as cliche, as you can come up with in movies. in terms of believability, from the start i couldn’t help asking myself why the man who (SPOILER ALERT) sets off the bomb that kills guy pierce has to step outside his store, where the soldiers can see him, just to press a button. in any case, it just lost me more and more as it went along.
Go to Comment
any doubts about the ending? over 2 years ago
my wife and i just watched DOUBT on dvd and, to tell you the truth, we were both very pleasantly surprised — the choice to avoid it at the theaters had been bilateral: though fans of streep, hoffman and adams, something about the trailer didn’t appeal to us… now i’m wishing we had gone to see it on the big screen. the movie really worked for us, which is to say we were hooked and in suspense (perhaps tense is a better description) up until the very last frame (not including the credits). the story, which is very good, the characters, the music, the pace, the mood, were all handled incredibly well. a long post-film discussion ensued, which was another really good sign. one minor point that we both felt perhaps needed clarification was whether (SPOILER ALERT) sister aloysius was referring to her faith or her actions at the end, when she confided in sister james that she had “doubts.” we felt she must have been referring to the former. but maybe one can forgive that because the whole premise (and its treatment) is supposed to be about not being absolutely sure. how did others feel about that? what are your interpretations?
Go to Comment
Michael Chabon, his books, and movies over 2 years ago
absolutely LOVED the movie — not crazy about the book. though i am a big fan of chabon, especially his short stories (incredible), his novels don’t bowl me over. i liked yiddish policemen’s union and kavalier & clay, but preferred the amazing adventures of the escapist (another short one). back ot the movie, however, i just finished reading the screenplay by steve kloves, who adapts the harry potter books for the screen… INCREDIBLE. it’s all there: the stoned-out tone in every turn of phrase, the house-of-cards comedy of errors structure, the slapstick moments. only two scenes aren’t in the movie and i think leaving them out was the right decision. there’s also a (very minor) character named jeff who was left out, and the ending is different. but i cannot understand why more people don’t LOVE this picture. my wife, for one, didn’t love it — nor can she understand why i’m so crazy about it… ebert’s review captured most of what i think is great about it, but i guess some people get it and some just don’t.
Go to Comment
how many of you liked the ending of drag me to hell (2009) ? over 2 years ago
i have not seen it – nor do i intend to, especially now that i see the response from all of you. the only part of me that was tempted to go see this is the one that likes to give directors i like the benefit of the doubt (in this case, sam raimi), though another tempting thing was the fact that i’m gaga for alison lohman.
Go to Comment