Blah, blah, blah

Rating: 5/10 (27 April 2006)

I am stunned by all the positive reviews and ratings on this sight. It was certainly not a "bad" movie, but the first hour was so bloody boring I couldn't believe there was another hour to come. The last 40 minutes or so certainly picked up the pace, and at long last presented some interesting scenes. Frankly, though, there was nothing original or entertaining enough to warrant the critical praise as well as the good ratings here.
Good dialogue...sure. Good cinematography....O.K. Decent acting....absolutely. I need a story. If not original (god knows this doesn't happen often these days)at least interesting, engaging....ie: something happens over the course of 60 minutes that couldn't be easily covered in 30. If they'd have trimmed this movie down to 90 minutes it probably would have improved my rating by 2.
I have watched and enjoyed many "slow" movies recently. I thoroughly enjoyed the Squid and the Whale and Thumbsucker. They were slow, but the characters were multi-dimensional, and you learned things about them. Here we have cookie cutter cliché stick figures. Thank god for Scarlett.