Worth Seeing

Rating: 6/10 (6 June 2007)

Some good bits, and some people come out of this film with immense credit. What I am asking myself, though, is why the writers didn't think into their story a little further. We are unfortunately left with no credible reason why Elijah Wood would even give these prannies time of day - there is no reason at all for his cowardice. I don't want to critically savage this film, because that would be to hurt some very fine people, along with the people who should stick to spot-welding or internet poker or shark-taming. The brightest spin I can put on this film is, "It raises a debate."
Then, perhaps this film isn't for me. Perhaps I am not its "target audience." But then, sometimes it is quite a convincing comedy, and sometimes it tries ever so hard to be a morality play. There may be some merit in confusing the weak-minded, and if this film does social good, as it surely must, it deserves a plaudit. Sometimes, even, the dialogue seems excellent at giving over the self-delusions of the characters.
Isn't it true throughout the history of film, moreover, that sometimes the greatest innovations come couched in the most detestable rubbish? The violence in this film is astonishingly good in its execution. It'd be gratuitous of me to give it lower than a six, because words like piffle and baloney taint some very fine acting performances, and a director who just needs some good material to deal with.
Why, though, does it happen, that innovation often comes couched in mediocrity? Bandwagons, I'm afraid. "Excitement" clouds judgment, and emotion backs up excitement. That's when people start saying, "No debate, we do it my way." After that, a project is sunk sunk sunk. Eventually a film does have to get made, whatever quality it proves to be. Maybe I'm too nice: maybe it really doesn't have to get made like this, and, yes, I'd like to take several scenes and several performances out of this film and put them into a film that goes somewhere, does something, isn't hopelessly confused and doesn't embarrass its screenwriter quite so comprehensively. I note the director got three awards. She, EW, and a couple of the other actors should have got more awards for putting up with the unremitting tripe of this screenplay, - but there I go again - I *want* to like the way this film was made. Will someone please help me?
Cheers,
Fernsy
Critical Breakdown: Violence 9/10 - not overdone, perhaps too much quick-fire camera-work, (overegged pudding, anyone?) but realistic. Camera-work - 7/10 - striving for effect too much. Soundtrack - 4/10 - Why do you need a soundtrack? If so, why do you need such a boring soundtrack? Where's the heavy metal? I doubt these people would give the Stone Roses time of day, to be honest. Acting - 9/10 - What they do with this script has to be seen to be believed, and the tragedy is, because the script (qv) is so appalling, they won't get recognition. Script - 2/10. Er... Story - i/10 (sic) - Who didn't finish their job, then???
ps 'i' is a Mathematical concept. i * i = -1.