2002: Movies Sorted By Tier (Part 2)
Submitted by jim on Fri, 01/07/2005 - 13:20
Tags:
Could Have Missed
About Schmidt
... I preferred this to director Payne's other well-known work, Election, largely because I could see the truth in the story of an empty shell of a man who isn't quite able to turn the corner. For the most part the realism of this sad, small man helps temper the snide misanthropy that generally mars Payne's work for me (at least in the two movies of his I've seen). Nicholson does a great job playing against type and he's to be commended for it, although I was constantly aware of his self-restraint, so I have to wonder if I would have enjoyed the movie more if it had been cast differently.Adaptation
... I know I'll be in the vast minority on this one, but I feel about this movie much the same way as I did about Being John Malkovich. In short, unclever rhyme-form: "very smart, but lacking in heart" (I toyed with rewriting that as a haiku, but decided that would be even more unclever). Both movies kept me interested throughout, featured excellent performances, and left me feeling... well... not very much. If I had to describe my nondescript feeling after both these movies, I'd have to say I was "clinically impressed", which in the end just doesn't cut it for me.Below
... WWII: A US submarine, crewed by little-known actors, picks up three shipwrecked British little-known actors. The best known of the lot is probably Bruce Greenwood. In a cast full of red shirts, it's very hard to know who's going to live to tell the tale as malevolent forces go to work. As a submarine movie, it's not as good as Das Boot, but it's reams better than U-571. As an underwater horror movie, it may be as good as it gets (The Abyss is not horror, Deep Blue Sea is an action movie, and Jaws takes place above the surface).Better Luck Tomorrow
... Kinda like Goodfellas, complete with Liottaesque voice-over, but set in high school and populated by over-achieving Asian-Americans. While the story moves along at a pretty good clip, and I understand that the kids are long on ambition but short on values, I really couldn't buy into the culminating act of our narrator's fall from grace. This is a pretty big misstep in what is otherwise a better-than-average downward spiral, and sadly somewhat tarnishes a nice emotionally-ambiguous closing scene reminiscent of The Graduate. I was still too busy being preoccupied with my "WTF" feelings lingering from the big culminating act of 15 minutes ago to properly enjoy it.Cinemania
... Follows five cinemaniacs of prodigious proportions (one guy did a thousand movies in eight months!). On the one hand I think it's safe to say that once you get to the point where you're eating constipating food so the bathroom won't interfere with your grueling film schedule, your hobby has become unhealthy. On the other hand, whatever gets you through the night is fine by me. But aside from being impressed by their appetites, I didn't really feel the movie had much to offer me.The Count of Monte Cristo
... You'd think this would get shelved with the action movies (my Welterweights lists), but there's really very little action in this swashbuckler. I once heard the show Friends referred to as "time porn." Bastardizing that witticism, I'd have to classify this movie as "revenge porn." Our hero is greatly wronged, and watching him exact his revenge is quite a bit of fun (although I believe all my favorite moments of the movie occur when James Caviezel and Richard Harris share the screen, pre-revenge-taking). As for the action, I was discouraged by the opening skirmish (my incorrect snap judgement was that it didn't bode well for the rest of the movie), but the final duel is quite good, and I found myself wondering if it was possible that the fight choreographer was influenced by the guy that did the 70s Musketeers movies. Same guy, it turns out.Dirty Pretty Things
... Someday I will be able to achieve a Zen-like expectation-free zone, where I enter any and all movies a blank receptacle, ready for whatever the filmmakers intend for me, and regardless of what false gods the marketing priests try to get me to worship. Until that day though, those marketing bastards will keep ruining movies for me. Case in point: this movie is not a thriller. More of a gritty urban drama about illegal refugees and black market organ trade. This was probably better than I found it to be, but my head had been filled with lies. Even so, I'm very happy to have heard the quote, "good at chess, bad at life", which I intend to roll out at any and all future drubbings I receive playing that game.Drumline
... A modestly entertaining formula picture. There's enough flashy energy invested in the finale to make it genuinely thrilling, and I was pleasantly surprised at the role our hero was relegated to in said finale, but I won't say more than that. Will I remember what I mean by that in a couple weeks? Probably not.Hart's War
... I had no idea Edward Norton was considered for this role until I read jgandcag's comment on his "Damn" list. I too would have loved to see how this one turned out with Norton in the lead. Colin Farrell was fine though, as was Bruce Willis. Not wonderful, but workable. Marcel Iures, the Nazi commandant, was fantastic. If everyone had played up to his level this would have been a real winner. As it was, I liked it pretty well, even if it is a hodgepodge of better war movies and legal dramas.Impostor
... I kinda enjoyed this minor adaptation of a minor Philip K. Dick story, but it makes sense that its theatrical release was pretty much scuttled by the studio. The story would have been better suited to a Twilight Zone-length program, and while the special effects are surprisingly good, the cinematography has a made-for-TV look about it. Finally, there are two huge gaping plot holes that cost the movie big points. Big spoilers:Spoiler: Highlight to viewFirst, there's a test that can prove Sinese's identity, but D'Onofrio won't let him take it?! Second, why didn't Sinese blow up when he first came in contact with D'Onofrio? I thought the whole point was that he's this unaware bomb who only goes off in contact with his target? Well he had plenty of contact with him in the first 15 minutes of the movie, but I guess that would have made it pretty short.Insomnia
... A good drama (not really a thriller) that didn't really grab me. Lots of nice elements come into play, especially the weird symbiotic guilt/fear/rationalization parallels between our hero and our villian. I get the impression lots of folks don't like Robin Williams in *anything*, ranging from schmalty comedies to thrillers. I haven't seen any of his spat of saccharine roles, but I think he makes a decent psycho. Al Pacino does a good job growing increasingly beaten down from fatigue and stress. I don't have insomnia but I have been sleep deprived and the director and cinematographer do a nice job with that. The log chase, while gratuitous, was very well-done. Hilary Swank really deserves to get more work. All that good stuff, and yet it just didn't grab me. Oh well, maybe next time.Lone Star State of Mind
... Two things in this movie brought Raising Arizona to mind: one was the "preparing for a robbery with what should have been pantyhose" scene, and the other was that I'm pretty sure the main villian was played by the same guy that played Glen ("I'm talkin' about wife swappin'!"). Fate brought me this movie. Netflix sent me the sleeve for The Believer, but when I sat down to watch it this was the movie I found inside. I'd never heard of it, but figured I'd give it a whirl. Fate apparently decided I needed a night of idle easily forgettable entertainment. It was considerably better than I thought it would be, given it sliding under my radar undetected during it's theatrical run. I even laughed out loud several times. I'd list it here if I weren't on the verge of scraping the cruft from that list.Mr. Deeds
... A remake of Mr. Deeds Goes to Town that is not destined to make the same mark on cinematic history as its source, but it has some laughs. As an Adam Sandler movie it's unusual. Not Punch-Drunk Love unusual, which was unusual for being critically acclaimed, but unusual for mostly inverting the Sandler model. Here he plays a straight man--more or less--and the baser humor is left to supporting characters. He works pretty well as the straight man, but the supporting characters just can't pull it off (except John Turturro, who can pull anything off).The Quiet American
... I have given Brendan Fraser props for his acting chops in the past (e.g. Gods and Monsters), but here he's a weak link, which is too bad because Michael Caine's performance is forged of the finest stuff. Thus the love triangle, wrought with so much potential, is a bit lopsided. But even if it's flawed as a romance, as a political thriller it has brains to spare, and entertainly illuminates the various vying factions in Vietnam leading up to heavy U.S. involvement and war.Spy Kids 2: Island of Lost Dreams
... Much cutsier than the original, which cost this one several points in my book. I guess the bottom line is that I'd happily rewatch the original on my own, but I'd really only rewatch this one with my kids. If you get the DVD, make sure you check out Rodriguez's 10-minute tutorial on making movies inexpensively. Very interesting. Oh, and watch for the little Raiders joke.Star Trek: Nemesis
... As if I needed further proof that The Next Generation only shines when the Borg are involved.Talk to Her
... I think I'm going to have to pigeonhole Pedro Almodovar right alongside David Mamet as "directors most everybody likes but me." I've tried two other films of his years ago, and I don't remember which they were, but I do remember not finishing them. That said, this one almost worked for me. Marco is a great, strong, honest character and even Benigno is admirable in an entirely wrong-headed obsessive way. Marco's appalled reaction to Benigno's marriage dreams is handled very well - it pins down exactly the wrongness of it, and yet we still feel sympathy for Benigno, as his affection is surely genuine. It is to Almodovar's credit that he made me feel sympathetic towards a character I'd normally find irretrievably creepy. Perhaps this, along with a few other scenes, is why the movie made me uncomfortable. Discomfort can be a good thing, but I wasn't feeling receptive to it last night. Another time, another place, perhaps this would have affected me differently. Still, I think I'm glad to have it in the cinematic landscape of my brain.The Wild Thornberrys Movie
... Not having grown up with it, I'm easily distracted by my general dislike for some Rugratsy Nickleodeanesque animation, but this was actually a decent kids movie, even if it didn't hold my attention the whole time. The voice talent is indeed talented, particularly Tim Curry (no big surprise there).Should Have Missed
The Country Bears
... A completely harmless movie for kids, although it didn't really keep my four-year-old's attention (a little too much plot for her I think). Not much here for the grown-ups, but that's okay.Spoiler: Highlight to viewI did get to see Christopher Walken play the 1812 Overture with his armpit, so that's something.The Good Girl
... I thought I could make out a carrot, dangling before me. The carrot promised something interesting would happen if I kept watching. Stupid, stupid carrot! No matter how hard she tries Jennifer Aniston has a certain gleam of liveliness and wit about her, so watching her play this drab, beaten-down dolt of a character just didn't fly for me. The script takes a bunch of good actors, makes them be moronic and dull, and then puts them on parade. 80% on Rotten Tomatoes. Inconceivable.Like Mike
... Mildly cute, and the kids liked it. The rest of you can watch the trailer and skip the movie though. My wife and I also thought our hero was a girl in the trailer (sorry, Lil Bow Wow), so that was disappointing as well.The Mothman Prophecies
... The movie proclaims it's based on "true events" but all the characters and most of the scenes are so obviously ficticious that I never felt like I was watching anything but a tall tale built on top of a few "sightings." This had the feel of a drawn-out X-Files episode. There were a few good scenes (like when Richard Gere is testing the omniscience of the voice on the phone) but overall a lukewarm effort.Reign of Fire
... I really must start writing down not only what gets on my "to see" list, but how it gets on there. I've seen worse brainless movies, and the dragons look pretty good. Which is fortunate because McConaughey plays it WAY too straight and Christian Bale doesn't have much to do. I liked three things to varying degrees: the creature effects, the highly implausible explanation for mass extinctions and ice ages, and this particular Ebert review.Signs
... I know from checking other lists that this is a polarizing movie, so I guess I'm one of the few that found it merely adequate. It was tense enough, there were some good scares, and a few chuckles thrown in. However, I found the acting ranged from poor to mediocre. This was also more of a message movie than a twist movie, and the message was handled pretty awkwardly. I suppose we're left with the question of whether or not the message was legitimate or if Mel was just reading too much into coincidences, but I don't think we're supposed to have that question; I think we're supposed to have faith. Not a complete miss for M. Night, but a glancing blow at best. Still a fan of The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable though.Maid in Manhattan
... "I'd like a romantic comedy, but hold the comedy and go light on the romance. Actually, hold the romance too. Oh what the hell, just give me a cheeseburger instead." This looks good on paper: take the prostitution angle out of Pretty Woman, and cast Ralph Fiennes and Jennifer Lopez instead of Richard Gere and Julia Roberts. You can never tell who's going to win from the roster though; this one's a dog when you get it on the court.Men in Black II
... If you loved Men in Black (as I did), I expect you'll find this a serviceable enough diversion (as I did). Anything less than love for the original and I'd avoid this sequel. The best part of the DVD was the animated short titled The Chubb Chubbs, which had some genuinely funny moments.The Sum of All Fears
... More of a diplomatic thriller than an action movie, and not quite as dumb as I feared it would be when it was revealed in the first five minutes that the plot would hinge on Israel losing (and not finding! (and forgetting about!!)) a nuclear bomb in the Syrian desert during the Seven Day War. My wife got bored and left after the first hour, which is too bad because while the first hour is pretty slow it picks up a bit in the second half. Not quite enough, but a bit.Undisputed
... Damn, Walter Hill and a strong cast. What a shame. Wesley Snipes plays a prison fighter who is undefeated in 10 years. The boxing program at this maximum security prison (boxing program?) has bouts every six months. He is 68-0. How did nobody catch that?El Sucko Grande
Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever
... Panned here.The Transporter
... This shows great promise for about the first three minutes, when Jason Statham is explaining to his hapless clients why they can't alter the deal. Then the overlong car chase begins, and the movie just. Keeps. Getting. Worse. For awhile there I thought the movie would be greatly improved simply by replacing the abysmal soundtrack, but no. We really had some good laughs heckling though, particularly in the home stretch. We just watched the middle act in a browbeaten stupor though. My wife observed our inconsistent heckling in our post-game analysis, "yeah, the middle of that movie was pretty much a Dementor's kiss for us, but we rallied." Another observation: "you know, 240 kilometers isn't that far. I imagine the hard part was getting her in the duffle bag. After you've done that, you may as well just make the delivery yourself." Funniest thing? The sequel is staying in our queue.Spider
... Sometimes you can make a good movie and it can still border on unwatchable. I have no doubt that David Cronenberg and Ralph Fiennes went and crafted themselves an admirably realistic portrait of schizophrenia (or whatever the dementia commonly mislabeled by we laypeople as schizophrenia is), and Fiennes mumbles and shuffles VERY convincingly, disappearing into the role so thoroughly as to make his character completely inpenetrable to we, the hapless audience. The movie unfolds in an interesting flashbackish narrative told by the most unreliable of narrators, and see we how our protagonist progresses from subtly disturbed youth to the wreck of a man Fiennes presents to us. If only it weren't so interminably DULL! For the love of Mike, it's all I can do to stay awake just REMEMBERING the movie. Had Cronenberg trimmed by 50% the shots where Fiennes does one or more of the following [a] mumbles incoherently, [b] shuffles from place to place, or [c] writes unintelligbly in his notebook, the movie would have clocked in at under an hour. Such techniques could have been effective were we given any chance of establishing some kind of emotional rapport with our damaged hero, but he's a closed book to us, and as such his story is uninteresting. I may as well have walked into a hospital, picked out a random unreachable patient, and tried to establish a friendship in 90 minutes. Impossible. Pity me, for my DVD player doesn't show subtitles running at 2X, otherwise I could have blazed through this sucker in 45 minutes and been none the worse for it (and could have gone to bed that much earlier).Star Wars: Attack of the Clones
... Panned here.
Cloned From:
You didn't approach the character limit, did you? If so, that limit is way too small.
Yup, 65,000 characters. Not much I can do about it, unfortunately.
Signs was a message movie? I missed that. What was the message?
Perhaps "message movie" is not quite the right term. There isn't really a lesson along the lines of "it's important to eat plenty of green vegetables." The thing I was referring to (and objected to) was not so much that God exists and we can interpret His signs if we just listen, but that he communicates through such an absurd Rube Goldberg chain of events:
"Geez whiz God, thanks for cutting my wife in half so I could fend off the alien invasion. And I'm not complaining. I'm not! But do you think next time, maybe, perhaps, you could just burn the message onto a slice of toast or something? I'm not being critical of your work, I'm just offering up alternatives. It's all good though! And I'll try to remarry soon in case you want to tell me anything else."
I thought the message was that everything happens for a reason, even the things that seem random or tragic.
That is a much better answer.
Yes, perhaps that's true. I wonder, though, if that's Shyamalan's intent or belief, or if it's simply the 'voice' of his movie, manufactured as a device to incorporate his character-centric subplot(s) and make the movie more than just another alien invasion movie. I think this was my first assumption because I do this all the time in my own writing - giving my pieces 'messages' and 'values' that are not my own at all. An perfect example is my own recent poem (which I won't link to because this post is definitely not a plug for my poetry).
So, perhaps my assumption was incorrect, but it seems highly possible from my point of view.
Hahaha! I see what you're saying, now. I have no idea what Shyamalan's intentions were, but I simply saw the events as devices for more general 'lessons' about re-discovering one's self, one's vitality, one's motivation for living. To me, that was Shyamalan's character development subplot that is usually woven into the main plot (this time, about aliens). But let me get this straight: you were objecting to God using such cruel means to getting his message to Mel's character? I would understand if a known living character was presented as someone he/she was obviously not - that would be objectionable. But because nobody really knows in an authoritative way exactly what God is like, or can predict his actions (either as a popular false concept, or as a real deity), how do you object to his actions in Signs? Are you saying God should be portrayed as He is in other director's movies? Or have I completely missed the thrust of your objection?
My primary objection is that I found it silly. But from a theological perspective, given Mel's return to the faith, I think we're supposed to be see Shyamalan's God as a loving Christian diety (isn't God supposed to be benevolent?), but what kind of lunatic god cuts a woman in half so Mel knows to tell Joaquin to hit the alien with a bat? Would it have been so hard to just give Mel a little flash of divine insight at the right moment, and just have Mel attribute it to Mel's own quick thinking?
I suppose it's possible God was punishing Mel for losing his faith... Oh, but wait, he didn't lose his faith until his wife got smushed. I suppose such clerical errors are inevitable when you see the past, present, and future simultaneously and with equal clarity. :-)
Sure, God is unknowable. But he's unknowable because we have no data! Once you have data (like "God cut my wife in half so I'd know to tell my brother to hit the alien with the bat") you can start to piece together a psychological profile, and in Signs it ain't a pretty picture.
Then again, perhaps M. Night was trying to suggest God is a psycho, which would be more interesting, but if so he fails to give that impression via the tone of the movie. He wants to have his cake and eat it too, and it just doesn't work.
If I'm hearing you right, then your objection is a theological one, and a very common one.
There are several explanations for God's behavior in Signs and real life. I'll deal with the specific situation presented in Signs, but the ideas can be extrapolated to similar confusing circumstances we all experience in daily life.
There are a few central qualities of God that must be understood first. God loves his creation - humans especially. He is benevolent in that he wants the best for us (from his view, not ours. I may think the 'best' for me is a trillion dollars and 20 sex-starved hotties, but God has a different plan), and that he offers eternal salvation essentially free of charge.
God sees the world from a different perspective than we do. To us, our earthly lives, the earthly lives of those we care about, and the quality of those lives are all extremely important. To God, our earthly lives are the first 0.000000000000000000000001% of our existence, during which He hopes we will love him and love each other. We each have a purpose while we are on earth, and it is important, but it is fleeting. For a great many people, their purpose is to live a while and then move to the next, much larger stage of our lives in heaven. For others, their purpose is to be devastatingly injured, live through faith in God, and use themselves and powerful witnesses of God's power. I've seen this working.
It's also important to note that God is not the only supernatural force at work in the world. Silly as it may seem to we mortals of finite mind, God allows Satan to piss all over his beautiful creation. God could've let his creation be pristine and perfect. We could be robots programmed to always love God and each other, the world could be a perfect place, and evidence of God in our daily lives could be overwhelming (i.e. God visibly appeared over the whole earth, spoke to us, and performed daily, giant, obvious miracles). But God doesn't want a robotic, inescapable creation. He wants us to discover him, to choose to love him when there are extremely obvious alternatives, and choose to serve Him and trust in Him.
Now, into InvisibleLand: So, about Mel's wife being cut in half. To Mel, this is a devastating blow to his existence. To God, this could be that his wife's purpose on life had been fulfilled, and it was her time to move on to the most significant part of her life in heaven. But God decides to kill (sorry) two birds with one stone and use her death as a way of rejuvenating Mel's faith.
Another possibility is that Satan cut Mel's wife in half (God allowed it - he's always in control but he doesn't want RobotLand), and God used this for good by strengthening Mel and rejuvenating his faith (by way of batting the alien and his son's throat closing up to keep out the poison).
Another possibility is that neither of us can conceive of the God's reasons because he's got a totally different perspective - and perception ability - than we do.
I hope that was halfway coherent. Anyway, I really liked the combination of aliens and spirituality - you don't usually see those two together!
Sorry man, I appreciate the thoroughness of your reply, but contemplation of such a worldview sends me into an existential funk faster than outright atheism. The only thing keeping us all from the logical "well let me just kill myself so I can move onto the real deal" conclusion is that darned "no suicide" clause.
I don't reject the idea of God, but I certainly reject the notion of a benevolent God that deliberately kills 200,000 men, women, and children with a single large wave. I much prefer the notion that he just watches. I don't like any of the implications of him being an active participant in the affairs of we wee humans.
The notion of an active, participating God is problematic for theology, and problematic for M. Night. Even giving him the benefit as to his intentions, he does not, to my eye, present an inscruable God who works in mysterious ways. He presents a pretty simplistic cause-and-effect God with a sick sense of humor.
I'd give him more credit, but in the same script he sends water-adverse aliens to a water-covered planet to harvest mostly-water creatures for food. Gah! The movie sinks in my estimation every time I think about it! :-)
It's unfortunate that your perception of truth is subject to what you wish truth would was, but of course I am prey to that as well.
My early teenage years (14-16, probably) were dominated by my wrestling with whether or not I should 'just kill myself so I can move onto the real deal' - or, more important to me, the 'pain-free deal.' I very easily dismissed the 'no suicide' clause as bogus, based on no Scripture at all, and clumsily manufactured by the same people who preach that smoking and drinking are wrong to 'keep kids out of trouble.' (Suicide is probably still a sin, but there's no reason to believe it is THE 'unforgiveable sin' in that it will keep you out of heaven.) My body breathes air today because I never had easy access to the quickest, least painful way to do it - a bullet to the brain (my gun training class came before my depressed years).
I also struggle with why God would allow 200,000 people to die in one swoop. But to me, that wave is distant and impersonal. A couple people I know where a dozen miles from the outer limits of the wave's destruction, by they survived without a scratch. So, far more influencing on my own faith are my own highly personal and affecting experience of God in my own life and those very near me - things that theories of athiestic science or an uninvolved God cannot account for. I'll give examples if you're interested, but these are the biggest reasons for my faith in some kind of oft-benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient deity.
"He presents a pretty simplistic cause-and-effect God with a sick sense of humor." I see what you mean with this, and agree to some extent. Shyamalan does seem to say that everything happens for a reason. I don't really think everything happens for a reason, but some things do.
But what makes you think that God was laughing while he was cutting Mel's wife in half? He may be willing for humans to endure pain (of all kinds), but I'm not sure He enjoys watching us suffer, and I'm not sure Shyamalan gives any indication that He does.
I'd love some examples. Perhaps we can take that part of the conversation off-list.
Given that I see M. Night's characterization of God as as a simplistic cause-and-effect God, his manner of communicating seems either grossly sadistic or sickly funny. I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. :-)
If you want to believe everything has a purpose, even tragedies, then its crucial that you not know the purpose. Once you learn the purpose, and it turns out it is so you can know to hit an alien with a bat, or to keep from breathing poison gas, a million other gentler ways of causing the same effect immediately spring to even my puny mortal mind.
Stretchy segue to:
I'm finding this blog extremely interesting.
I wonder if the movie can be appreciated precisely because it does demonstrate the problems with that kind of worldview? If the movie were done more conventionally, the bad things would seem noble, tragic, and necessary, rather than silly and cruel, and I can't help but wonder if that might be intentional. The death of Mel Gibson's wife would be presented as a heroic sacrifice, probably attributed to someone's sin, and it would seem to us the only possible way.
For me, Signs only works as a great argument against religion's tendency to over-explain.
Excellent insights, Penny. Perhaps this is part of what Jim is saying as well; Life is messy and often inexplicable, and Shyamalan tries to wrestle it into a neat little cage, and that's where he fails?
I'm reminded of Pauline Kael's comments about how she prefers Huston to Lean because Lean plays the insane game of life sanely, and Huston works with insanity like a madman (so she says). I'd imagine she wouldn't care for Shyamalan.
That's exactly it. I think Jim explained the problems with the movie's worldview really cogently, but I'm not sure I think that the movie is a failure because of them, even though Shyamalan may have failed in his intent.
That Pauline Kael comment has me intrigued. I can see where she's coming from on some of Lean's films (the literary adaptations, for instance), but I'm not sure how a movie about a complex person like T. E. Lawrence plays life too sanely. Maybe she addresses that?
Alas, no. Her comments seemed to address the director's war-set films specifically, if I remember correctly.
BTW, lukeprog, in case you're interested in reading it, lbangs and I had an endless discussion about Signs here that also continued here.
Ah! Well, Jim and I have obviously re-tread some ground, then, but our discussion has also taken a more theological route than you and lbangs ever explored. Thanks for the links, it was an interesting read. Re: lbang's consternation with the contrivedness of it all - I guess I'm just a sucker for that kind of stuff, and if I enjoy it when I see it, I'm not going to spend time picking it apart until I hate it. That seems silly. But if lbangs didn't like it to begin with, that's fine - though too bad, because that's one more movie he hates and one less movie he really enjoys. Perhaps we should all remain movie dummies like the majority of American audiences (as box office results claim). Would we all have more fun with movies? Do deeper investments really mean better returns if 95% of the movies we'd otherwise enjoy become stupid, worthless trash?