Never, EVER, watch the Tarkovsky version of Solaris then. (Oddly, Clooney was in the Soderbergh version of Solaris but there were no long driving scenes in that one…)
I loved this movie. It was one of my favorites from last year.
That is all.
I like long driving scenes, Hitchcock’s best movies had them as wel
I saw this movie for the first time a couple of weeks ago and I loved it. I don’t really mind slow movies, the cliches didn’t really bother me, and I think I’ve found a new celebrity crush in Violante Placido. She’s like Audrey Tautou but strangely hotter.
Just saw the movie On Demand…
Do you think the prostitute assasinations were designed to throw Clooney (who was the target all along) off the trail?
No one shot her. George Clooney designed the weapon in a way that it would backfire. She likely dies from the fall after the backfire.
So she got shot in the brains?
Welcome to the dope.
Question: According to the rules, shouldn’t this be in the Pit? I’m sure that, if I started a thread in “Elections” with, “Fuck you, Donald Trump”, I’d get a warning. Maybe the rules were different 8 years ago.
I liked the movie. It had kind of a tragic end to it, though.
I thought it was a pretty good movie. The sense of estrangement and isolation for the Clooney characters was intense.
Most of the “plot holes” people are whining about are due to the fact they weren’t paying attention.
He’s in that town because his handler – a man he has to trust implicitly told him to go there. Clooney doesn’t know his handler is setting him up, and, thinking he’ll be protected, he goes to work on his gun. He believes that if he leaves, he won’t be safe and has to make do with the assignment with what he has on hand.
It isn’t until toward the end that he begins to understand he’s being set up, so starts working on that basis.
It’s an excellent film about character and double crosses, not a shoot-em-up.
I didn’t like it either.
Not because it was slow - slow can be good. Because it was such a cliched middle-aged male fantasy.
It’s basically the story of a guy who hates his job, fears that his bosses are trying to get rid of him and replace him with a younger woman, and whose solution to this is to hook up with a prostitute young enough to be his daughter - who then, of course, quits sex-work so she can devote herself to him. He dies in the end, but not before outwitting and defeating his younger rival and having a victorious confrontation with his boss. The last thing he sees is the beautiful, sexy younger woman who loves him waiting eagerly for him.
I mean, I was going along with it for a while. The first notable thing we see Jack do is kill an innocent woman who trusts him. He’s an appalling human being. That’s fine: redemption is a great story. But redemption has to be earned. Remorse. Penitence. Atonement. You have to confront and overcome your demons, and cleanse your soul, before you can earn redemption. This is not a film about someone doing either. There was remorse - Jack felt bad about that time he shot his girlfriend in the back. But there was no penitence. There was no atonement. Jack didn’t confront the fact that he was a murderer, he tried to run away from it.
The point where I lost patience was the point where Jack started forging a new human connection and learning gradually to build trust. Not because of that! That’s what I was waiting for. It should have been his route to redemption. But I was hoping (perhaps foolishly, given that was a George Clooney film) that his new love interest would be something other than an adoring young woman. Someone around Jack’s age, with the maturity and experience to take a long look at a deeply flawed man and find the good inside. A relationship between equals, in which Jack was challenged and found he had to work to be the man she deserved. But no. Sexy hooker who falls so hard she quits being a hooker so she can be both sexy and pure. It’s a fantasy reward, not a real relationship.
The American would like to be a sophisticated study of isolation and connection, death and love. But it’s lazy, self-indulgent and cheap.
I agree this movie is terrible. Complete waste of time. I suspect the people who claim to like it are trying to justify spending money on it. Honestly, how many long scenes do we need of Clooney setting on a bed, alone, staring off into space. It looks like he is waiting for someone to yell “action!”.
And building a movie around a guy building a gun out of car parts? Complete rubbish. There are plenty of breakdown gun that fit in suitcases - every one of them with FAR greater accuracy than could ever be gotten from car parts.
It’s a ridiculous and hackneyed premise. Trust me on this, your time would be better spent doing anything else.
Awesome.
Oh, you suspect Roger Ebert gave it a 4/4 rating to justify spending money on it?
While redemption arcs can be as boring an cliched as any other arcs, the movie Stanislaus described would have been a better movie. However, a good movie can be made about bad people doing bad things with no redemptive arc. One handy example won the best picture and two other Oscars in 1973.
it’s lazy to say “people didn’t like it because it didn’t have enough EXPLOSIONS”. People didn’t like it because it was a bad film. It lives in a fantasy world of honorable hitmen. It’s a film written by someone who has no idea about crime thinks the criminal world works.
I wanted to like it. I can handle French film philosophy, but this was a bad example of it. Ghost Dog was better, but it, too, got corrupted by its own cleverness.
Roger Ebert:
Usual Suspects - 1.5 stars
Fight Club - 2 stars
Dead Poets Society - 2 stars
Butch Cassidy and Sundance Kid - 2.5
Donnie Darko - 2 stars
Fear and Loathing - 1 star
Full Metal Jacket - 2.5
Harold and Maude - 1 star
And so on. Sorry, Ebert is not my go to guy.
This. The OP has also pointed out that she didn’t originally criticize it for being slow but people keep harping on that as well. It was just bad. Not for lack of explosions or because it was slow, it was just bad.
I just realised that of course it was: they called it Grosse Point Blank.
Weary hit-man, isolated and nearly crippled with anomie is sent to small community, builds romantic relationship while pursued by antagonistic forces. Learns to reconnect with people.
Except GPB had a much stronger central relationship. Debbie is excited to see Martin, but she isn’t taking any of his shit and by demonstrating a strong moral core, forces him to confront the truth of what he does. (“It’s not me.”) This leads Martin to confront the emptiness in his soul and seek atonement by saving, not killing, the person he was sent to eliminate at great personal risk. Remorse, penitence, atonement, redemption.
So? I don’t agree with all his reviews either but I doubt a single one of them was lying to himself to justify having bought a ticket.
There are a few, but only a few, cases where I would say that Ebert got a rating definitely wrong; he generally knows what he is talking about. Unquestionably vastly more than I do, when it comes to cinema. In any case, he explained himself that the “stars” are on a relative, not an absolute, scale.
Oh yea, a much better movie! And a good redemption arc.
Mr. Grocer: [following in van] That punk is either in love with that guy’s daughter or he has a newfound respect for life.
He’s still a stone killer, though.
Which counts for exactly zero. Whether a person, “critics” included, likes or doesn’t like a movie, in the end, is personal preference and opinion. The point of movies is to entertain. If a critic gives a movie 5 stars and I hate it, I don’t think it’s me that wrong.
(Bolding mine)