'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

[MichaelB]

Replace worldly with commercial and I guess I at least see his point. It costs a lot of money to make a film and so it's easier to find the money/investors if the film is expected to be popular/commercial/make money. But why commercial and BO should dominate or be seen as the preferred/sole "aesthetic" over any artistic aspirations is really hard to justify. But why does Schickel believe films can't be art or artistic?

If Béla Tarr had spent $100 million making Sátántangó, his backers might be understandably miffed that he delivered something so wilfully uncommercial that even a conventional cinema run presented a significant logistical challenge (realistically, one show a day and the choice between either paying overtime to cinema staff or starting the "evening" show at about 3.30pm).

But he didn't, and one assumes that his investors had at least some inkling of what they were supporting.

[knives]

Dictionary.com gives contradictory meanings to "pretension". It's described as "the laying of a claim to something" and "a claim or title to something", but then there's "a false or unsupportable claim, esp to merit, worth, or importance". Do 2001 and Gerry deserve to have all those long and artistic shots? That's an opinion. You don't think one or both deserve to because you don't like those shots. They're overly avant-garde, arguably whether you think you understand them or not. So, you would most likely rather the films not have them or have them between, say, two to six seconds long on average, which I believe is normal for modern mainstream films. I think "pretentious" is much better defined in Dictionary.com, though I admit it's still flawed. To be fair, I rarely use it and when I do, I mean it as an undeserved "claim to distinction or importance". I have no problem with filmmakers having "established importance" and "indulgences" in films, which is normal, but if one thinks those things are generally overblown and smug of the filmmakers, what would be an even better word or two, according to you? I can see why avant-garde films are vulnerable to the criticism because they arguably have a greater amount of "established importance" and "indulgences".

[knives]

This is one in a million. Maybe Barmy is posting on other boards now.

Warning: I did watch this movie in full - all 30 hours or so. I wish I hadn't. I don't like Brad Pitt. I'm still opinionated. Beware falling rocks.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (hereby shortened to The Assassination of Jesse James) is one of those movies that follows the formula:

dark + gritty = realistic = interesting


And you can't argue against this movie being realistic. Even the James and Ford families apparently called it the most realistic depiction of Jesse James' final days. Usually I firmly believe that real life is more interesting than anything a writer can come up with. There are of course exceptions. The story of the James-Younger gang has been filmed many times. It has everything a movie needs – action, adventure, romance and interesting characters. But The Assassination of Jesse James focuses on the second James gang, which wasn't nearly as colorful as the first one. And it starts with the last train robbery of the James brothers. So you get a movie about one of the most famous train robbers, who doesn't do any robbing.
'Cause they're the robbers who don't do anything. They just stay at home and lie around. For almost three hours running time! The movie covers about 2.5 years from the train robbery to Jesse's death and it feels like real time.
After the robbery the gang splits up and goes into hiding. Frank James – easily the most interesting character – leaves the movie early on. The other minor gang members are mostly forgettable, Sam Rockwell trying his best, with what little material he is given.
So Jesse James and Bob Ford have to carry the whole weight of the movie on their shoulders. In Germany this would be called a Kammerspiel (chamber play) – a play with a limited cast performed on a small stage. A director needs very good and strong actors to pull this off. And here the movie breaks down completely.
Brad Pitt. I have never understood, what people see in him – except the obvious of course. Brad Pitt graduated from the famous School of No-Method-Acting. He doesn't act, he doesn't play himself. He just is himself. It is always the same – in every movie. He is charming, brooding and depressive. When he isn't the good guy, he adds a touch of violent insanity to the mix. That's how he does Jesse James. And I have seen the exact same performance in Interview with the Vampire, 12 Monkeys, Fight Club and Troy. In a certain way his presence is even surprisingly effective. For the whole running time I had to wonder if Brad Pitt is insane in real life (no offense, maybe he is really that good).
Casey Affleck is a much better actor than Pitt. It's reassuring that at least one Affleck can act. He plays Bob Ford as a fanboy with an unhealthy fixation on his heroes. He collects dime novels of the James brothers exploits, like a modern teenager collects comics. And he wants to be just like Jesse James. He is visibly devastated, when both brothers blow him off in the most unpleasant way. We see him go from hero worshiping to hate and fear in excruciating detail. Bob Ford also gets more screen time and the only character development. In contrast Jesse is more of a catalyst than a protagonist. Sadly for me Afflecks performance gets impaired, by who Affleck seems to have chosen as a model for his interpretation of Bob Ford. I will come back to this later.
The Assassination of Jesse James insinuates heavily, that Jesse engineered his own murder by systematically manipulating Bob. Jesse and Bob are involved in a series of conversations, in which Jesse constantly taunts and humiliates the teenager. This would be really interesting, if it weren't disrupted with endless montages of Jess brooding, riding, brooding, riding, brooding, walking and so on. If they had cut out half of the running time, we would have ended up with a good psychological thriller. But like this it is just dreary. It is more boring than watching paint dry. It is like watching people watching paint dry.
Honorable mention has to go to Sam Rockwell as Charley Ford. In the latter half of the movie he is mostly alone with Brad Pitt. He is very convincing as man who is tip-toeing around a mad man with a gun.
When Bob Ford finally shot Jesse James, I let out a sigh of relieve. The movie could have just ended there. But then they had to tag on the final days of Bob Ford. When that was over, I was thoroughly frustrated with The Assassination of Jesse James. There is such a thing as too much realism.
But as mentioned before there is something else, that made it impossible for me to take this movie seriously. As you might know, in Germany every movie is dubbed. Dubbing was developed into a minor art form. Special care is given to casting the right voice actor often based on similarity in voice and/or appearance.
Somewhere into the movie I realized that Bob Ford was voiced by the same voice actor, who voiced J.D. on Scrubs. After that I noticed a distinct resemblance in the mannerisms of Bob Ford and J.D. Over time the illusion became so compelling, that I had to consult Wikipedia to confirm that Ford was not played by Zach Braff. I'm not sure if Affleck did this consciously or subconsciously, but in my eyes he is clearly imitating Braff. Especially watch for a scene, where Bob Ford has a meeting with the Governor of Missouri. He does this side-glance with a small smile, that usually indicates one of J.D.'s daydreams. When the Governor glares at him, he says, he had thought of something else. I haven't laughed so hard in some time. Imagining J.D. and Turk interacting with Jesse James was the only source of amusement I got out this movie.

[matrixschmatrix]

Yes, I too see no difference between Pitt's Jesse James and his character from 12 Monkeys.

[stroszeck]

I know IMDb traditionally is looked down upon on these forums, but I wanted to share some HILARIOUS reviews by, apparently, a Muslim extremist. Start with the recent review of BAD TEACHER and work your way down!

[Napier]

I'm not a Muslim extremist, but I'm kind of inclined to agree with the "reviewer".

[knives]

I'm heard Bad Teacher isn't that bad actually. At the very least Kasdan directing is a sign of hope.

[HistoryProf]

Teachers I know who have seen it were pretty unimpressed, some completely offended. We're by nature a pretty cynical bunch considering all we have to deal with, but the fact that the film practically ignores the presence of the students except as props pretty much dooms the film. They are what make teachers teachers, and just like parents, we sure can hate them sometimes...but having some twit who is just a nasty, selfish, gold digging malingering vacuous human isn't funny. Unfortunately, it's kind of sad given that the profession is littered with bad teachers who just don't give a shit.

I know they were going for Bad Santa - which i love - but all accounts from friends suggest they missed by a wide margin by just making her a horrible person with no redemptive possibilities. Add in the abuse of standardized tests, and it's a bit too real to be funny!

[knives]

But is it good.

[HistoryProf]

haven't seen it, and have no desire to. was just saying that from a cadre of teacher's perspectives, no it is not good. in fact, it kind of sucks and missed a golden opportunity.

[knives]

Well from your descriptions it sounds like they were more miffed at it not properly representing their profession than any of it's actual qualities. Kasdan's done a lot of good work and I trust him to do well with this entertaining premise.

[tarpilot]

entertaining premise.

:-s

[knives]

Asshole torturing children has been an entertaining premise since at least W.C. Fields.

[MichaelB]

Well from your descriptions it sounds like they were more miffed at it not properly representing their profession than any of it's actual qualities.

If I take my wife to anything medical, any technical errors, even/especially ones that most people wouldn't even notice, are magnified by a factor of a million until they completely unbalance the film for her. One of my great regular pleasures was watching Casualty (the BBC's E.R.) with a constant ranting running commentary, until it annoyed her so much that she banned it from our telly altogether.

It says much for the qualities of 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, which could hardly be more squarely within her field of professional expertise (as a midwife-ultrasonographer, not an illegal abortionist) that despite her major objections that...

Spoiler

1. There was no way that Gabita was 20 weeks pregnant, or anywhere close;
2. If it really was a 20-week abortion performed under those conditions, there would have been much more blood;
3. It's pretty close to a physical impossibility that she'd be up and walking an hour later, let alone pretending that nothing had happened.

...she still thought it was a good film. Mind you, it probably helped that:

Spoiler

she thought the fetus was uncannily convincing - and that's from someone who's seen plenty at that stage.

[colinr0380]

Not being medically minded I've never really had a problem with the technical aspects of hospital dramas. My major problem with all those medical shows is that more often than not there is a rather heavy handed moral judgement placed on the patients, which would be easier to take if all the doctors were not also saddled with overly dramatised private lives that are falling apart as well (and no, Nurse Jackie only plays into, rather than subverts, this formula).

There's also the curse of the 'special episode', usually taking place once or twice in a series in which one of the doctors themselves shockingly becomes a patient by getting mangled in an accident/being too indulgent of the knife wielding lunatic patient and insisting that they need medical care too, against the better advice of their colleagues/lets their adultery or drug taking get the better of them. This is the cue for the rest of the doctors to rally around their fallen comrade in a way they never do for their faceless patients (unless their sob story happens to be a really heart tugging one), putting the hypocrisy into the hypocractic oath.

*Steps off soapbox*

[NABOB OF NOWHERE]

Asshole torturing children has been an entertaining premise since at least W.C. Fields.

No matter how many times I see it in the Tenant, Polanski giving the bawling brat a swipe always gets a guffaw from me.

[knives]

Asshole torturing children has been an entertaining premise since at least W.C. Fields.

No matter how many times I see it in the Tenant, Polanski giving the bawling brat a swipe always gets a guffaw from me.

Best scene on any movie ever.

Well from your descriptions it sounds like they were more miffed at it not properly representing their profession than any of it's actual qualities.

If I take my wife to anything medical, any technical errors, even/especially ones that most people wouldn't even notice, are magnified by a factor of a million until they completely unbalance the film for her. One of my great regular pleasures was watching Casualty (the BBC's E.R.) with a constant ranting running commentary, until it annoyed her so much that she banned it from our telly altogether.

I suppose I'm grandly fortunate I don't care or else my beloved sci-fi wouldn't be so beloved (that said just because I expect better out of the show I was very angry at the misuse of the Banach-Tarski paradox on the most recent episode of Futurama).

[colinr0380]

The best thing I remember about Casualty (though it has been about fifteen years since I last watched it) was the opening 'horrible injury of the week' section where you would see an idyllic family home and then have a really contrived situation occuring in which the father would fall headfirst off the roof, the son would get crushed by a falling tree while showing off their new chainsaw to their friends or the baby could be seen crawling towards a tumble drier, bottle of pills or steam press, and so on. But then the Final Destination series came along and managed to corner the market in the ironic accident stakes and Casualty lost its raison d'etre.

[MichaelB]

Casualty was brilliant in the 1980s and early 1990s, when it was intensely politicised to the point where politicians started complaining about it (which, naturally, was what persuaded me to start watching it in the first place). But then the hospital staff climbed down from their soapboxes and started having affairs with each other, whereupon it got a lot less interesting.

In fact, by the 2000s I only bothered watching it because of the expert running commentary from the other sofa - "What do you mean, you'll deliver the baby in A&E? Holby has a fully equipped maternity unit - I've seen it on Holby City. Don't you dare perform an emergency Caesarean - that's grossly unprofessional, and I'd sue if you weren't a made-up hospital full of pretend doctors. And what's a nurse doing operating the ultrasound equipment? I don't remember her taking time off to study for a diploma. And she can't have been any good if she's still working as a nurse. Oh look, she's taken the probe away and the picture on the monitor hasn't budged - there's obviously some conspiracy going on in the hospital to do with fake scans that we're not going to be told about."

And so on.

[colinr0380]

Those all sound like far more interesting potential plots for the series than any of the real storylines!

[tojoed]

Michael, why don't the BBC get your wife to do commentaries on "Casualty" DVDs?
I'd snap them up.

[matrixschmatrix]

I love when a movie's released with a commentary track from someone who hated it, it doesn't happen often enough. There's one on the Date Movie DVD, which almost justifies picking it up.

[HistoryProf]

curiously enough, my wife is an R.N. and she could not STAND E.R....she really really hated that show. perhaps it just goes with the territory.

Casualty was brilliant in the 1980s and early 1990s, when it was intensely politicised to the point where politicians started complaining about it (which, naturally, was what persuaded me to start watching it in the first place). But then the hospital staff climbed down from their soapboxes and started having affairs with each other, whereupon it got a lot less interesting.

In fact, by the 2000s I only bothered watching it because of the expert running commentary from the other sofa - "What do you mean, you'll deliver the baby in A&E? Holby has a fully equipped maternity unit - I've seen it on Holby City. Don't you dare perform an emergency Caesarean - that's grossly unprofessional, and I'd sue if you weren't a made-up hospital full of pretend doctors. And what's a nurse doing operating the ultrasound equipment? I don't remember her taking time off to study for a diploma. And she can't have been any good if she's still working as a nurse. Oh look, she's taken the probe away and the picture on the monitor hasn't budged - there's obviously some conspiracy going on in the hospital to do with fake scans that we're not going to be told about."

And so on.

I mean this with all sincerity: That is awesome.

Well from your descriptions it sounds like they were more miffed at it not properly representing their profession than any of it's actual qualities. Kasdan's done a lot of good work and I trust him to do well with this entertaining premise.

i'm sure that played a part in it, but they mostly just thought it wasn't very funny. As I said, we're a pretty cynical bunch in general, and frankly relish the idea of a good, SMART comedy with a plot like this that might provide some vicarious joy...but on the whole it just came off as mean and unfunny to those who have mentioned it to me.

[knives]

Different strokes, but I like mean and unfunny.

[Matt]

I can't wait until you can actually see the movie and tell us what you think instead of repeating, ad nauseum, how much you like the idea of the movie.