In the theater where I saw the film (an Atlanta arthouse, FWIW) there was a collective groan when the movie ended. It wasn’t a groan of delight.
(Have you seen it, by the way?)
By the way, I suspect a lot of those good reviews may be politically-fueled. The film is a metaphorical bit of Bush-bashing. And hey, I’m all for Bush-bashing, but I have to wonder if reviewers are letting politics cloud their judgment on a piece of entertainment.
So, for you, the collective ratings of IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes are unreliable, but the audience of that one theater you attended is a solid indicator?
Nope, but that’s irrelevant.
I’m not arguing that i would like the movie. I had never even heard of it until you started this thread. I’m not even arguing that it’s necessarily a great or even a good movie. Nor am i arguing, as i have reiterated more than once, that you are under any obligation to like the movie. If you hate it, that’s completely fine, and i have no interest in changing your mind.
But the assertion in your OP was not only that you disliked the movie. Your assertion was not only that the movie is bad. Your assertion was that the IMDB rating for the mvie is a result of “[s]omeone…obviously stuffing the ballot box.” This implies that the studio or some other entity with an interest in seeing the movie succeed has deliberately and dishonestly been giving it good reviews.
That is the only part of your post i took issue with, and i provided evidence, in the form of ratings by professional film critics, that there are plenty of people who thought it was a good movie, and who are not in any way beholden to the producers of the film.
And let me say this once more, in very simple words so you don’t again mistake my argument:
I’m not saying i like it. I’m not saying it’s a great film. I’m not saying you should like it. I’m merely saying that quite a lot of people outside of one Atlanta arthouse cinema do like it, including professional movie critics, and that complaining about ballot-stuffing is just sour grapes.
Then I guess I don’t understand why you even care if I think they’re stuffing the ballot box. That’s kind of an odd reason for you to enter the thread if you have no other input.
Then I guess I don’t understand why you even care if they’re stuffing the ballot box. That’s kind of an odd reason for you to raise the issue in the first place.
Oh I get it. You’re threadshitting. Well thanks for stopping by.
This thread blows. There’s like four comments that’re actually on topic, and this isn’t one of them either.
Not threadshitting at all. If you don’t want people responding to things you actually say on this message board, then don’t post on this message board.
No he isn’t. He is responding to a point that you brought up in your OP:
Had you not used that accusation to justify your opinion of the movie I doubt the thread would have gone the way it did. Indeed, I’m confused why you felt the need to bash the movie at all. Why not just characterize it as bleak and leave it at that.
Consider it a public service announcement for anyone considering spending money to see it.
Now can we drop the hijack? 
Girls next door - definitely Williams’ physical type, whatever her talent - are highly not-sexy these days in Hollywood. They’re there for things to happen to.
Williams is anodyne. Blonde, white-bread, B flat. She’s not going to be anybody’s casting pick for a gutsy heroine or a passionate love interest, and if you’re making movies by the book, what’s left?
Wtf? Now you’re just…no, sigh, I guess I can’t say it. You’re just insane now. I can’t think if I realized how insane you were before now. But wow, now it’s on my radar.
Meek’s Cutoff is a TRUE STORY! Meek’s Cutoff the movie is based on a historical event. I can’t even think of how it could in any way be even metaphorical Bush-bashing. It’s about a group of pioneers heading west led through the desert of Oregon by a guide who wanted to try a new route. Every route everywhere was traveled for the first time by someone, and sometimes those routes didn’t work out. The movie is about one of those routes, the people who took the route, the guide who led them.
It’s a fucking WESTERN! It’s set in 1845. I’m sure those pioneers would appreciate that their story wasn’t completely forgotten.
Get a grip man.
Well let’s see…
Our group is led by an incompetent loudmouth with a Texas accent.
He leads the group into a trackless desert, where they wander lost, trying to find a way out.
Williams’ character doesn’t blame this guide for not knowing where he was leading them. She blames him for claiming he did know. (Subtle clue there!)
The group is searching for a precious resource without which the group cannot survive.
Incompetent leader decides the best way to get this resource is to attack a brown man.
Incompetent leader spends a lot of time trying to convince the group that this brown man is a subhuman savage who ought to be killed for the safety of the group.
Yeah, it’s really hard to see how that all that could be a metaphor for anything.
Well, hard for some folks, I guess.
And you say you watch a lot of movies? Do you actually understand any of them?
And please stop the hijack. Start another thread if you want to discuss this crappy movie further.
A director who has always delivered fairly downbeat material is Ken Loach. His films are almost entirely in the social realism genre and that tends to add up to depressing films. There are some very, very funny bits in some of his films - the football stuff in* Kes*, for example with Brian Glover but overall, as a body of work, his output is pretty bleak. I rather admire the consistency. He’s been making these films since 1969 and not once in all that time has he gone 'Fuck it - I’m getting sick of this. My next film is going to be a light romantic comedy starring Colin Firth and Julia Roberts or a sci fi special effects extravaganza".
Spoke, Equipoise, both of you need to tone it down. And I agree it’s time to start a Meek’s Cutoff thread if that discussion is going to continue.
As far as directors go, Lars von Trier is, I think, the acknowledged king of bleak. I will admit that I have only seen two of his movies, Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark. After that, I decided to stop torturing myself. I assume Dogville (starring the already-mentioned Nicole Kidman) is more of the same. Anyone seen it?
On Colin Firsh …
… and My Life So Far. I can hardly think of him in a role in which he comes off as unlikable.
Yes and it’s just as strange and depressing as the rest of his stuff and Nicole is just as miserable.
I guess bleak might be a reasonable description, but i like Loach’s respect for the working class, even if it’s leavened with a healthy does of realism. As you note, there’s often humor in his films; there’s also, in places, a real sense of the nobility of the workers.
For funny scenes, i really like the funeral scene in Riff-Raff, with the spreading of the ashes. Cracks me up every time. For bleak, though, you can’t go past Ladybird, Ladybird. Jesus, that’s some depressing stuff. I think my favorite Loach film is Land and Freedom.