MichaelDN

I always liked Tarantino, but found him a little overrated. I always relied on him to make thoroughly entertaining movies, but they were never really emotionally profound or thought provoking. The Hateful Eight is all of those things. The story and dialogue are incredibly sharp, creating a brilliantly satirical portrait of human psychology in response to societal manipulation, particularly in regards to hatred and racial discrimination. The dynamics of the relationships in Minnie's Haberdashery (the setting of the film) serve as a microcosm of that of the society we live in today. The Hateful Eight is as layered and complex as it needs to be to tackle issues this serious. It is quite unsettling to hear the characters say things about racism, or anything that indicates one of society's flaws, and to be reminded of how far we still have to come. There are conversations in this movie about progress that sound optimistic, until you realize they are scarily familiar to conversations we still have today. Yet, there is still a tone of hope to this movie. It is the way the movie conveys all of these emotions and ideas that make it one of Tarantino's two best films along with Pulp Fiction.

Possibly one of the most criminally underrated series of all time. I think it's because of the stigma of being a teen series, and being a major Hollywood blockbuster, but it is far more complex and thought provoking than those labels would imply. This is one of the most moving films of the year, and a fantastic conclusion to the series. The themes explored in the first three grow to even greater intricacies, solidifying the series' status as a near masterpiece.

Like with Bridesmaids, Paul Feig managed to make a great comedy that would still be a great movie even if there were no funny moments in it. What really makes this movie work is that it is just as much of a spy thriller as it is a comedy. It is thoroughly entertaining in both aspects. Another reviewer said she just randomly turns into a competent agent, but I don't think that is the case. I think she was competent from the beginning. The problem was just that they didn't believe in her. There's often talk of badass females in action movies and this is one of them. The story in my opinion is intelligent and layered, which makes for an exciting movie going experience. Definitely one of the most entertaining movies I've seen this year.

Everybody who dislikes this movie seems to feel as if they need to make an excuse as to why it is so well received as if it is impossible that somebody disagrees with their opinion. I'm curious what the people who claim that the reviews are solely based on the 12 years concept think about Linklater's Before series. Those movies were not filmed over 12 years but are written very similarly to Boyhood and were extremely well received. The truth is that the 12 years adds a real and compelling vibe to an already well written movie. This movie is about how life is made up of little, meaningless moments that go by before we even know it. Every scene is so carefully made, as to capture every detail as realistically and compellingly as possible. The movie is simultaneously beautifully nostalgic, and utterly depressing. I've watched it three times and I can't wait to watch it again.

Pretentious. Combine a controversial topic with somewhat of a message, and everyone thinks you've created the next Citizen Kane. Dull throughout, and not worth waiting for the message.

People are judging this movie for the wrong reasons. I usually hate when people say something like, "If you didn't like this movie, you didn't understand it," but I'm actually reading the reasons people don't like, and they seem to indicate just that. They say the message is obvious, and then they go on to say the message is that racism is bad. That's not the message. It's already assumed that racism is bad. The movie is pointing out where it exists in seemingly normal circumstances. It challenges the viewer to question how they would've handled certain situations; if they would've been as prejudiced as the characters. The dialogue is thought provoking and interesting. Some say it isn't natural, but neither is Shakespearean dialogue, or the characters singing conversations in movies. It's used to challenge the viewer, and to make them think about important issues that we don't think about. It's not just racism, it's the details of racism's effect on various different people. The discussions may not be natural, but they're based on very real issues. The movie is also, as Ebert said as well, more about ideas than people. For those who want more character depth, it's not really about the people themselves, but about how people in general are conditioned by society to handle certain situations. It's better that the people be as generic as possible, to show that the way they're acting isn't because of their specific personalities, it's because they are normal people, acting as an average person would. It challenges you to question yourself, instead of showing you a person who has a specific personality that is nothing like yours. Basically, this movie is good in a way that doesn't follow the formula of what traditionally makes a movie good. That's why people have a problem with it. The use of connecting the storylines is not just made for poignancy, it's to show how closely we are connected to each other; how our thoughts and actions have effects on people, and we don't even realize it. It's about how society's views creep so easily into our minds and become our own views, without us thinking anything of it. And to the person who said this writer is in high school, no. He's actually a three time nominee for writing. Two of his movies one Best Picture, another was nominated, and two others got rave reviews and made a ton of critics' lists. He knows what he's doing, even if some people don't understand it.

This is not a political satire. It is a satire on the media. It is about how the media appeals to our emotions to get us to feel a certain way about certain things. It is about how our opinions on certain events are mainly driven by how the media portrays them. This is a recurring idea throughout the movie, and it takes many forms. It criticizes the United States a lot more than you would think as well. The movie's screenplay deserves credit for its shrewd observations of the media and human emotions, and for its exciting story line. The opening scene, a song, is simultaneously hilarious for its lyrical content, and chilling for its disturbing social implication. In terms of comedy, there are a few clever jokes written, but the comedy, while there is a lot of it, mainly comes from the performances, especially from James Franco and Randall Park, who also both perform well in their dramatic scenes. The scene with the actual interview is one of my favorite scenes of the year. The movie deserves Oscar nominations for Franco, Park, and for the screenplay, but of course that will not happen, because the movie will be scoffed at by people who will never give it the credit it deserves simply because they will never be able to see past the fact that it is a James Franco / Seth Rogen comedy.

This can be sort of heartwarming in parts, but it is mostly generic. The kid befriends a dragon, dragons and humans hate each other, the kid brings the two groups together. Also, there's a scene where they think the dragon's dead, but he's really not. Yeah, you've seen it all before.

Oh. My. God. I was prepared for this movie to be bad, but the enjoyable type of bad, that you can still laugh at. I could've written this script, and I have the comic wit of a paper towel. It starts off with Marlon's character humping two stuffed animals for probably over a minute straight. Then, there is a series of fart jokes followed by a maid going crazy and hitting people, and a grown man screaming like a little girl. Basically, it's all the things people under the age of five think is funny, except this is for adults. Nick Swardson comes in to unintentionally mock the entire homosexual community, in a way that is more offensive than if it were intentional. I wish I were making this up. I mean, they don't even make the effort to use cliche jokes that have used in every single sitcom since the 50's, like most bad comedies do. It's just a series of people doing stupid, over-the-top, things for a laugh; things that have all been done before, and weren't funny then either. I do have to say that the performances are generally pretty good. The actors do their best to revive a horrible script, but the best comedic actors of all time could not have saved this movie. Not good. Not good.

I'm going to make this very simple for you. If you like the book, you'll like the movie. Why? It encompasses everything that makes the novel great. The script basically is the book, from the narration, to the dialogue, the the plot line. The magic of the book is brought to life by Baz Lurhmann's direction, and by the performances. We really get to see this fantastic world the same way we imagined Nick saw it, when we were reading the book. People complain about the style, and how it's too shallow, and goes out of its way to look good, but that's the point. Gatsby's fantastic life was completely shallow, but Nick didn't see that initially. I'm interested in hearing the opinion of someone who liked the book, but didn't like the movie, because I'd like to know what they were expecting. They must've read a different book than I did.

You will either walk out of this movie being incredibly thankful for the life that you have, or you will see the world as completely messed up and pointless. This is not a happy movie. It makes Blue Valentine look like Singin' in the Rain. The script is fascinating, but it reveals truths about some aspects of life that are hard to even mention, let alone sit through two and a half hours of, during a movie. The cast is overall very strong, especially Dane Dehaan, who deserves an Oscar nomination for his performance. This is a very frustrating movie, probably because it is so realistic. It is absolutely my favorite movie of the year so far, and another resounding success on the director's part.

Not one character in this movie came off as anything other than a contrived caricature, with the exception of maybe Selena Gomez. The directing was very showy, and very style over substance. The dialogue didn't give any depth to the characters, nor did it allow any sort of connection between the audience, and the situations the characters were going through. Some of the writing was pretentious, without any sort reason to be so based on merit. People who want to see it for mindless fun and partying will be disappointed, and people who want to see a psychological depiction of the demise into a life of crime will be disappointed as well. It attempts to be both, and the attempts are very obvious. I don't want to see a director or a writer trying. It was like something you'd see in a high school's literary magazine, trying to be deeper than it actually is.

If you are expecting this intense, exciting adventure, you will be disappointed. If you are expecting a hilarious comedy, you will also be disappointed, just as you would be if you were expecting this emotional powerhouse, or a thought provoking masterpiece. What this is is a very mild version of each of those, which by no means should be taken as a serious movie. This is actually pretty similar to recent story adaptations such as Snow White and the Huntsman and Alice in Wonderland, neither of which I really liked. It's not very original at all, it drags in spots, but it has a few laughs, some mildly emotional moments, and a small bit of exciting action. What separates this from those movies is James Franco's performance. He is so intentionally over the top, that it gives the impression that the movie doesn't take itself too seriously. James might be the only person involved in the whole movie who realizes how hokey and corny it is, but he owns it, and that makes it enjoyable. He basically hams up the screen as if he is making a mockery of the script. The movie would be pretty terrible if this quest to defeat the witch were taken as seriously as the script seems to take it, but James has fun with it, and doesn't take the movie seriously at all, which becomes contagious. I guess you have to go into it with that same attitude for it to work. It works for little kids anyway, but James makes it work for adults too. Of course it looks great, and there are some genuinely good moments too, like how they reveal the witches. I do like the references to the original movie, like how it starts out in black and white (basically things they could get away with without having the rights). Kids will like it, and adults will like it if you like the original, and you go into it taking it very lightly.

As a die hard fan of the musical, I feel like my opinion will be most helpful to other die hard fans. What I can say is that it does change a lot of minor things, like the order of some songs, some of the lines, and even cuts some musical portions out. Everything that is absolutely essential is there, but they cut out Valjean's final stanza in The Confrontation, so Javert just sings his part solo, they cut out the end part of that song, they cut out Dog Eats Dog altogether, and they cut out most of Turning, for example. However, it's all minor, and everything works out extremely well. The changes they make, for the most part, help uphold a structure more suited for a movie than a stage production. Russell Crowe as Javert is emotionless, yet the background music and the directing help make his scenes as good as they can be despite his weak performance. Everybody else is great though. Anne Hathaway as Fantine better win an Oscar, otherwise I will be boycotting the entire ceremony for years to come. I never had the type of reaction in any movie as I had during I Dreamed A Dream. I was involuntarily breathing heavily enough for the people two rows behind me to hear, and I noticed that my heart was pounding. I was too numb to even clap. She sang it in such a way that I had never heard before, and I've heard many versions that I've loved. Still, when I heard Anne's, it was like a lightbulb went off, and someone finally figured out how you're really supposed to sing it. Eddie Redmayne as Marius also gave a pretty beautiful performance, and Hugh Jackman held up his role very well, and brought a lot of emotion to What Have I Done?, Who Am I?, and Bring Him Home. Helena Bohnam Carter isn't nearly as enjoyable as some of the Broadway performers I've seen in that role, but the Thenardiers hold their roles up very nicely. Amanda Seyfried has an unexpectedly good voice, which blends well with Eddie's and Samantha Barks's, who is great as Eponine. The directing is very intimate and passionate, which I thought was a fantastic choice for a story this much based on human thoughts and emotions. The one change I really didn't like was that Eponine wasn't included with Fantine in the finale. It was just Fantine, which I didn't like, because the harmonies they did in the stage production were absolutely beautiful, in my opinion. All in all, there were some changes I didn't like, and Russell Crowe's performance fell flat. For me though, as amazing as I think the musical is, it would take a whole lot of unnecessary changes, more than just one weak (although not even particularly bad) performance, for me to not be absolutely blown away by Les Miserables. If you find the musical to be an absolute knockout, for other reasons than just Javert's character alone, you will probably love this movie as I did.

The subplots are unbelievably generic, and not even done in an original way. Jackie Earle Haley's plotline is the most interesting, but as the movie progresses, it becomes sympathetic to the pedophile, and the movie's overall message seems to be about acceptance, even for someone like that. Apart from that, the acting is very overrated, even from Kate Winslet, who I usually love. Normally, I would just think this is an ordinary, annoyingly generic movie, worthy of maybe a three or a four. However, the idea of the pedophile being portrayed as a sympathetic character, and that those who deride him are considered villains, cause this movie to be an easy zero for me.

It wouldn't be fair for me to give this a negative review, or even an average one. It was well constructed, and well acted. What got me to see this movie, as I was originally on the fence, was the fact that people were comparing it to Drive, one of my favorite movies of last year. Upon seeing it, I can understand the comparisons, but I don't agree. It is setup in a similar way to Drive. It's a slow building, slow paced movie, with a few scenes that are sure to create excitement. I think if you just liked Drive out of sheer entertainment and nothing else, you might like this movie for the same reasons, although it is not as strong in that area as Drive. What it didn't have at all, which Drive did have, was brilliant character development, a thought provoking theme, and beautiful emotional power throughout. If that's the kind of thing you liked from Drive, I would say this movie doesn't cut it. We don't learn enough about the characters to care about them, and while the story line is somewhat entertaining, if you like movies that are a bit slow, it doesn't have a brilliant script artistically, and so if you were expecting this to be this powerful art house movie, you might be disappointed. I'd say overall, it's a movie well constructed to achieve entertainment only, and that's only if you don't mind the pacing.

I don't give many tens, but this deserves it. Aside from being beautifully directed, with great technical aspects, as well as great acting, this is one of the most beautiful scripts of the 21st century so far. It didn't surprise me when I found out Annie Proulx was a finalist for a Pulitzer for the short story, which is translated very well by the two screen writers. The movie starts out very innocent and sweet, and then it starts to turn into a gradual downward spiral of devastation until you're just left emotional knocked out by the end of the movie. The themes of society's influence on human behavior, the desire for happiness, and demise caused by obsession, are all subtly, yet powerfully, conveyed in this movie. Calling this a gay love story is like calling Lord Of The Rings a movie about hiking. This is one of the most torturous, psychological portrayals of two people's lives I've ever seen in a movie. It's so well calculated, without coming off the least bit unnatural. I've seen it several times, and I still pick up on things that I hadn't caught onto before. I heard it was a groundbreaking movie about a gay romance, and I didn't get how that was, since there had been many movies about gay romances before. I figured it was probably an overrated movie. When I saw it, I realized I couldn't have been more wrong. Your emotional connection will be irrelevant to your sexual orientation. What is really going to connect you to the movie are your ideas about the pressure to conform to society, compared to your desire to live a life of happiness. One man chooses conformity, and the other chooses happiness, and it doesn't necessarily end up how you might expect. I'm actually getting emotional writing this, thinking about the movie. I really hope everyone who watches it is able to pick up on the subtle themes, the hidden meanings behind specific lines, and the inner thoughts of particular characters who might not be ready to say those thoughts out loud, or even admit them to themselves. Those kind of things are extremely difficult to incorporate into a script without losing its realistic feel, but this movie does it. Of course, it might take a few views to pick up on everything. Whether you're judging this movie on its intelligent, calculated writing, its technical achievements, its performances, of which Heath Ledger's is one of the best of the 21st century, or its overall directing, or if you judge a movie on its emotional appeal, and its powerful, thought provoking themes, I can't see how you objectively give this movie anything less than a strong review.

Way to take a fantastic actress and put her in a cliche romance movie with no depth to it. I give this movie one point for Michelle Williams's performance, but the story was annoyingly generic. It's the kind of script you'd expect to see for an episode of Hannah Montana, without the cute, catchy songs, and the self awareness as to what its real merits, or lack thereof, are. The thing is, it's a romance story that I can only see appealing to young kids, but it's geared towards adults, and features adult content, so I really can't see it appealing to anyone. Michelle Williams gives the movie more credit than it deserves with her performance. It's still far from one of the best performances she's given, but in this movie, and with this script, it's like hearing Frank Sinatra sing a song written by Justin Bieber, if Justin Bieber tried to write adult lyrics.

I really can't fathom why a movie like this is popular. It's just Will Ferrell saying stupid things in a tone he considers to be comedic. If you can shut off your brain for 90 minutes, this might be enjoyable, but if you prefer to laugh at movies that are written with wit and intelligence, you might want to stay away from this one. It is one of the most overrated comedies of the 21st century, as well as one of the worst. I think this sort of act from Will Ferrell was popular when this movie came out, but now I think people are starting to get sick of it, and I can't imagine the sequel getting good reviews. I could find the same level of intelligent humor on Nickelodeon or The Cartoon Network, just not as crude. I wouldn't mind the crudeness if it were actually funny or clever, but this movie was far from that. I didn't laugh one time. I'd like to sit down with someone who found this movie funny, and ask them to explain the humor in every joke. Thinking about the jokes in a great comedy causes those jokes to flourish, and the value of the humor increases. Try to dissect each moment of purported humor in this movie, and you will truly find nobody home.

If I had written this review right after I walked out of the theater, I might've given it somewhere around a 3. The story isn't very coherent, and you get the impression that it takes itself way too seriously. The messages and themes are also not very subtle. However, the longer I think about this movie, the more I appreciate it. It does a very good job at showing how powerful certain decisions can be for the future. It has strong emotional power during several scenes, and it definitely makes you think. As a movie fan, I've been growing tired of seeing so many similar movies, no matter the genre or style. Action movies, emotional dramas, and comedies, mostly seem to each blend in with the other movies of their genre, so it was nice to see something unlike any other movie. It is thoroughly entertaining, and while you might get the immediate impression that it is pretentious, self-indulgent, and not deep or intelligent enough to back that pretentiousness up, just let it gestate it your head, and I think you will come to appreciate it for what it has to offer.

This is the perfect example of how movies can be works of art. What separates this movie from other pretentious, artsy films, is that everything that is incorporated in this movie is instrumental is provoking emotion, developing the storyline, and making the audience think about life. It proposes deep, philosophical questions, and seeks to answer those questions. It does so beautifully, to the point where the viewer is completely satisfied by the ending, and ends up actually feeling more optimistic about the world in general. The script is absolutely perfect. It's a great psychological movie, as well as a great philosophical movie. There are many different themes in this movie, whether they are just barely touched on, or if they are focused on throughout the entire movie, and each one is executed with absolute precision and subtlety, resulting in an unbelievably powerful impact on the viewer. This is the kind of movie you don't easily forget, and the kind of movie that will still be remembered in 50 years.

Although, this isn't the reason I had a problem with it, this movie is very slow moving, and very artsy. There are people who hate movies like this no matter what, and there are people who love movies like this no matter what. I think the former is generally more mindful, and able to think for themselves. For me personally, like with any type of movie, a slow moving artistic movie has to be well made, and be able to achieve what it is intending to accomplish more me to like it. This was not that movie. The premise basically gives you every piece of philosophical insight this movie has to offer. A man is dying, and looks back on his past lives. That's it. It doesn't go anywhere from there. It just shows what happens in this guy's past lives, without any sort of insight into this character's mind, and what he's going through, or any sort of commentary on life and death, which you might have expected from the premise. Usually, if a movie is slow moving, it is to provoke emotion, not to make a two hour movie out of 30 minutes worth of script.

This is a top ten movie of the 21st century so far, and a top 100 movie of all time. Where do I begin? Very rarely have I ever seen three characters so well developed as in this movie. Kate Winslet plays an aging, failing actress, while Leonardo DiCaprio plays a former soldier, now working in an office, just like his father did. The two eventually gather up the courage to realize where their lives are, in comparison to what they thought their lives would've been like. Michael Shannon plays the son of a neighbor of theirs, who is the only person who understands their situation. He is seen as crazy, and even Kate and Leo's characters start to come off that way to their friends. Each scene is so realistic, and the more you can relate to it, the stronger the emotions are. I am envious of the life of the reviewer who said this movie wasn't realistic. I feel like everybody sees themselves as special. After all, we are the stars of our own lives. This movie is about realizing you're not. It's difficult to put into words. The poignancy of the movie should speak for itself. The fact that some people don't appreciate this movie makes the movie even more real to the people who do. Even though this movie takes place in the 50's, and is a commentary to what domesticity was like back then, it is actually timeless. There will always be people who don't understand how the life that might seem ideal to most people, actually can feel like a prison to others. The former are the majority, and the people who are lucky, and will not feel this movie's pain, or the pain of the novel upon which this movie was based, while the latter are the people who could be motivated by this movie to change their own lives.

This is a cute movie, with some witty dialogue, and some mild emotion attached to it. However, like most Wes Anderson movies, it is pretentious, self-indulgent, and tries to be a deep, profound statement, not realizing that it's merely just a cute, quirky comedy. That honestly takes away a lot of its appeal for me, and that's why I docked it a points. I would put this movie in the same boat as something like Crazy, Stupid, Love. It was cute, funny in some parts, and heartfelt in others, yet there was nothing groundbreaking about it. I would have given this movie a slightly higher score if Wes just allowed the movie to just be the cute little movie that it was. When it's reaching to be a profound statement about the lives of these kids, it fails to do so, and it just leaves a bad taste. The most emotional moments have all been done before in many other movies. It does feature a cast of strong, respected actors, like Frances McDormand, Edward Norton, Tilda Swinton, and Bill Murray, although I wouldn't put this in the discussion for being one of the betters performances, or one of the better movies, for any of those people. They were cute and quirky, just like the script. Something both Wes Anderson and his pal Noah Baumbach need to work on is knowing their limits though. That haughtiness they seem to have comes across in their movies, and ruins their appeal.

I believe this is one of the top ten best movies of the first three years of this decade. It's very rare that a movie can be this enjoyable and exciting, have this much of an emotional impact, make a thought provoking statement, be an intelligent story throughout, and even make the viewer reflect on themselves, and question their own character. This movie does all of those things. Just about any criteria that can go into a great movie is very strong with this one. It was a very well thought out story, but it's orchestrated in the script very competently, so that every moment is able to have its full impact. From the very beginning of the movie, you're already questioning things about yourself, and that's only mild compared to the self evaluation you'll be doing towards the middle of the movie, and at the end. If you want a movie that is going to knock you out emotionally, and leave you in chills at the end, this will do it. At the same time, if you just want to be entertained, this will do the job too. This is the rare kind of movie that can be satisfying to watch no matter what mood you're in. There are times when I feel like watching a thought provoking movie, or one with a clever story, or an emotional movie, or just one that's going to entertain me. This would be a good choice for all of those moods. There are a couple of plot holes, but they are mild, and easily forgivable, when the script overall is this brilliant. The choices made by the director are also very clever, and elevate the script even further. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, and Emily Blunt all give strong performances, and add depth to their characters, and dimensions to the story overall. I'm not even worried about raising people's expectations too high. I heard great things about this movie before I saw it, and I expected it to be in contention for my favorite movie of the year, yet it still exceeded my expectations, and blew me away.

While this movie had strong acting, and was beautifully directed, and the storyline could have been extremely compelling, and the movie overall could have had quite a strong impact with all of the components it had, but the way it was handled in the script was atrocious. It was completely unnecessary to have the story out of order. Someone said you have to figure out what scene is where by Gary Oldman's glasses. How are we supposed to figure that out? All it did was make it more confusing, giving the impression that it was actually more intelligent than it was. If there was something they figured out that was contrary to what they thought in another scene, you wouldn't know if the first piece of information was correct, or the second, because you wouldn't know what the real order of the story is. It's not like Pulp Fiction, Memento, or Blue Valentine, where it's out of order, but you can still follow it, or that there's actually some structure or method to it being out of order. This is just random. Not to mention, in those movies, the order they were in added something to the movie. This couldn't have added anything at all, except for confusion. You have to watch it a couple of times and piece it together yourself. If you confuse the audience, it hinders the emotional impact the viewer could have had, should they have understood the story the first time. By the third view, they might understand the story in order to be emotionally effected by it, but by then they already have seen the emotional moments, and they know they're coming. It's a complete waste of a solid storyline, strong directing, and powerful acting. I hope if you see it, and you are confused, as you will be, you don't try to walk out of the theater claiming how brilliant it was, because you really won't know, since you won't really know the story. Maybe after you've seen it enough times to piece it together, so that you can actually understand what the story is, then you can say that. If they did it in order, then the story would've been just as strong, but possible to understand, and therefore it would've had the initial impact it could have had.

This is the most underrated movie in recent years. I won't spoil anything, but I think the reviewers who are angry at this movie don't understand its intent. The ending of the movie is the essence of the movie; the movie's whole point. It's the kind of movie that needed to be made. There have been other movies that have tackled this topic, and very few have had the impact with it that this one had, and its because of its clever execution. Without saying too much, the issue tackled in this movie came across in real life the way it came across in the movie: shocking. By handling the topic in this manner, the viewer was able to feel the same emotions all over again. The movie was an in depth look at the life, struggles, and relationships of someone who experienced what happened at the end of this movie, and how it affected the people around that person, and it was executed in such a way that it came across to the viewers just like how it came across to that person's family. The only reason I didn't give it a higher rating was because of everything leading up to it. It wasn't a very well written script up to that point, although it had its moments. This had the potential to be one of the greatest movies of all time, as the essence of the movie was absolutely brilliant. However, up to that point, it was really just a typical teen romance movie. Had this movie had stronger character development and a more fascinating storyline, it would've been Best Picture worthy. I know that seems like saying if Mrs. Lincoln's husband wouldn't have been shot she would've enjoyed the theater, but the first two hours of the movie really aren't what the movie's about. The movie really is the last few scenes. Those scenes are more emotionally powerful, and make more of a statement than most Best Picture winners. Like I said: this is an idea for a movie that had to happen.

It's basically an hour and a half of porn, and if anybody tried to convince you there is intelligent or emotional depth to it, they are kidding themselves. After seeing Lars Von Trier movies such as Melancholia and Dancer In The Dark, I had high expectations for this one, even after looking at the lackluster reviews. However, the harshest critics are right. It's basically like if the Piranha movies pretended they were good. It's a lot of gruesome images, amidst a plot line that seems like it could be an emotional one, and so people just buy into it. There are also completely pretentious moments, such as when he tells his wife to fade into the grass, and she turns green while laying on the grass. I'm sure fans of this movie think that's the deepest thing ever. Whoever said you have to understand pain and depression is extremely pretentious. I usually go for depressing movies, and that actually describes most of my favorites, hence the fact that I'm a Lars Von Trier fan, but there has to be a solid script for those emotions to come through. Simply coming up with an emotional topic isn't enough. The same goes for whoever chalked up the negative reviews to people who don't like art cinema. The Tree Of Life was my favorite movie of last year, because the story was brilliant, and the emotion was there. That emotion isn't going to come through, just by the topic about a couple dealing with losing a child, especially when the way the script tries to convey those emotions is to just have an hour and a half of sex scenes, before the wife has an emotional breakdown at the end. It's kind of interesting, actually. You can fool people into thinking your movie is good, just by having so many random, ridiculous moments, that no one would possibly think any sane writer or director would do it, without having some type of meaning behind it. They don't understand exactly what that meaning is, but they're sure it's there. Ask anyone who raves about how deep this movie is, what the significance is of the mob at the end, and watch them stare blankly without an answer. Charlotte Gainsbourg gives a strong performance, and the cinematography and music are incorporated beautifully enough to feign real artistry.

Watch this movie for the perfect example of how to trick everybody into thinking your movie is good, without actually having to create an intelligent story. Just make it about a controversial issue, have a shocking proposal from a doctor to two women halfway through, and show a human fetus to freak people out. Then everyone is so blown away that they're convinced it's because of the merits of the film. I wouldn't really call this a pro abortion movie. In fact, the fetus scene is like the videos of slaughterhouses they make to convince people to become vegetarians. Regardless of the stance it takes, it doesn't really go about it in a thought provoking way. The one thing I did appreciate was the idea that the one girl was willing to accept the doctor's offer for her friend. It was an interesting statement about friendships, although it's possible that that just happened by accident, and that the writer wasn't really even thinking of that. I will not reveal my opinion on abortion, but I don't think it matters. A weak script is a weak script. The movie is all about shock value, and people mistake that for decent writing.