The Taste of Others
Everyone’s a critic. Not everyone is quotable.
On “A Beautiful Mind” (2001)
Mark Pittillo:
“That Howard and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman grossly distort the life of John Nash, though I can’t deny it bothers me, is not, in and of itself, why this is a bad movie ... This is the kind of movie in which our loveably eccentric genius scrawls elaborate formulas on the panes of the windows of his dorm room (more photogenic than a notebook, duh), reaches his career-defining epiphany by observing a mundane situation (picking up girls in a bar — way to make the cerebral cinematic, Akiva!), and, as a teacher on the first day of class, slaps a famously unsolved equation on the chalkboard and dares his students to have at it. This is the kind of movie in which an incredibly beautiful gamine (a painter who apparently takes advanced mathematics classes to look for dates) practically throws herself at our hero, for ... well, for no reason at all (though I guess he does look sort of like Russell Crowe). This is the kind of movie where you know every seemingly trivial event and florid line of dialogue in the first act will be repeated with “resonance” in the third — which brings us to the execrable last twenty minutes, which consist of not one, not two, not three, but at least four or five separate “uplifting” emotional climaxes (each with their accompanying musical cues). It’s the unholy spawn of ‘Good Will Hunting,’ ‘Shine’ and ‘Mr. Holland’s Opus.’ Blech.”
On “Dinosaur” (2000)
Theo Panayides:
“I’m a little dinosaur. I made legions of grown men and women work 80-hour weeks for months on end, and cost more than the GNP of a small Third World country. I frolic amid animated backdrops carefully divested of all imagination to appear as ‘real’ as possible. I send out wholesome messages about tolerance and gettin’ along. I star in a film that’s immensely spectacular, sometimes exciting — especially when it cribs from ‘King Kong’ — but perfectly, depressingly joyless from beginning to end. Aren’t I cute?”
On “Eight Legged Freaks” (2002)
Charles Taylor, Salon.com:
“A hyphen isn’t the only thing missing from ‘Eight Legged Freaks.’ (As any copy editor could tell you, this title suggests that the movie is about eight freaks, each of whom possesses at least one leg.) Wit and imagination have joined that AWOL punctuation mark, perhaps in the same place where socks go when they vanish from your dryer.”
On “Road to Perdition” (2002)
A. O. Scott, The New York Times:
“Never for one second does ‘Perdition’ question the primal, archaic code of bloodletting that impels Sullivan. As in ‘Gladiator,’ ‘The Patriot’ and even ‘In the Bedroom,’ the killing of his children confers a moral authority that is inarguable and absolute. More important, it allows a civilized, rational audience (like, say, the members of the Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences) to satisfy their bloodlust without guilt, to sample the visceral satisfactions of violence while pretending, at the same time, to be watching a critique of violence.”
David Denby, The New Yorker:
“In his great essay ‘Style and Medium in the Motion Pictures,’ the art historian Erwin Panofsky wrote of art in the movies that ‘to pre-stylize reality prior to tackling it amounts to dodging the problem. The problem is to manipulate and shoot unstylized reality in such a way that the result has style.’ That’s what Arthur Penn did in ‘Bonnie and Clyde’ and what Curtis Hanson did in ‘L.A. Confidential.’ For all the beauty and power of ‘Road to Perdition,’ there’s not much spontaneity in it, and the movie’s flawless surface puts a stranglehold on meaning. But this may make the movie easier to take: [P]eople who don’t like violence in movies will find the picture so elegantly distanced that all the mayhem won’t disturb them one little bit.”
Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times:
“There is never the sense that any of these characters will tear loose, think laterally, break the chains of fate. Choice, a luxury of the Corleones, is denied to the Sullivans and Rooneys, and choice or its absence is the difference between Sophocles and Shakespeare. I prefer Shakespeare.”
Stephanie Zacharek, Salon.com:
“Sam Mendes’ ‘Road to Perdition’ is a cinematic achievement; it doesn’t deign to be anything as alive as a movie.”
On “Star Wars: Episode II — Attack of the Clones” (2002)
A. O. Scott, The New York Times:
“Already I can hear the equally habitual murmurs of protest: Oh, come on, lighten up! It’s only a movie. Well, for one thing, given the scale and expense (reportedly $140 million) of the enterprise, not to mention its ability to command the money and attention of audiences around the world, there’s nothing ‘only’ about it. And for another, while ‘Attack of the Clones’ is many things — a two-hour-and-12-minute action-figure commercial, a demo reel heralding the latest advances in digital filmmaking, a chance for gifted actors to be handsomely paid for delivering the worst line readings of their careers — it is not really much of a movie at all, if by movie you mean a work of visual storytelling about the dramatic actions of a group of interesting characters.”
“Kelitor,” an uncommonly articulate Ain’t It Cool News poster:
“I realize ‘Star Wars’ isn’t Shakespeare. I’ll give you that. It’s not supposed to be. The writing has always been cheesy and hard to deliver. But, dear God. Either George [Lucas] is socially retarded ... or he’s writing bad on purpose. There have been a lot of negative things said about the performances in this film. I couldn’t disagree more. I think every actor in this film (especially Hayden [Christensen] and Ewan [McGregor]) should be nominated for an Oscar. Do you understand the skill and control it takes to say, ‘I don’t like the sand. It’s coarse and rough and irritating — not like you. You’re soft and smooth’ ... and do it with a straight face? ... I’m angry because George Lucas expects me (as a ‘Star Wars’ fan) to love what he’s created 100 times more then HE DOES. Why else would someone who created a character like Yoda cheapen him like he does in this flick? Many reviews have praised this scene. I thought it was juvenile. R2 can suddenly fly? What the fuck? Hey George! Take ‘Episode III’ and shove it up your ass. I don’t care how the Empire forms, I don’t care how Skywalker becomes Vader. If I do suddenly care I’ll use my imagination. [I]t will be more true to your original vision than you could ever be ... and the dialog[ue] will be better too. As for my son. I’m gonna buy ‘Fellowship of the Ring’ as soon as it comes out and let him watch it at home. He’s probably too young for the violence and emotional content but I want him to see it. Maybe it will give him a glimmer of hope that his future fantasy-film-going experiences won’t suck like this morning.”
David Edelstein, Slate.com:
“Cut it some slack — it’s almost a real movie!”