I know old men who thought this was pointless.

Rating: 1/10 (2 September 2008)

Let me start out by giving the number one flaw of this film. It gives boring movies a whole new definition. In reviews, I've said the phrase: "Nothing happens in this movie, and I was so bored I fell asleep" a lot of times, but this time I mean it literally. The only people with the attention span for this movie are either old people or people who have no more liveliness than old people. If there is a more boring movie ever made, I've yet to see it. And I've seen a lot of boring movies. It sacrifices entertainment value for moral, and as far as moral goes . . .
The other huge flaw is the fact that it also gives pretentious a new meaning. It's easy to see the people who made this movie expected it to be praised for accomplishing nothing, a lot like something a little boy does before puberty. And if there is anything to criticize this film on other than the boring factor it's the fact at how ridiculously immature it is. The directors think it is something so deep and intellectual, but in reality it is simply one of the most basic and clichéd "meanings" or "morals" a film could have: people grow old and die. That's it. That's the huge physiological moral this film thinks it's so intelligent for making. Really, guys, can you name how many times you've heard that one? In case you're having a hard time remembering, I've heard it in everything from Disney movies like Pocahontas to pre-teen movies like Holes to teen movies like movies for everyone like Star Wars to action movies like Death Sentence . . . (four hundred movies later) . . . and you'd think people would realize how cliché that "moral" is. We get it. We die. Can't the directors think of anything, anything at all that is a little more original to bank on? But even worse than the fact it banks on such a cliché, the movie expects to be praised for it. It expects to put you in deep thought. It's no different than that 12-year-old boy thinking he can write a book on every bit of philosophy he knows and floor you with how genius he is.
Okay, the other big thing the critics are raving about is the cinematography. Let me say this: it's okay. It's run of the mill. It's decent. It may be a tad above average, but you've seen better. Off the top of my head I can think of several movies with better cinematography that the critics hated, like Wolf Creek, for example. The acting, on the same hand, is pretty average. It was solid. It worked. But it is nothing to get all excited about! Javier Bardem, for example, did okay as your typical cliché 2-demnsional bad guy, but he certainly didn't deserve an Oscar. I can name several scenes where he looked incredibly corny. So, as you can see, where this movie doesn't go bad it just goes typical.
As far as the plot goes . . . well, that's about as far as it goes. It's a plot. It's the basic plot they taught you back in middle school: guy wants something very badly, bad guy tries to stop him, and then in the end there is a confrontation. That's it. And I'm not simplifying itthat is literally the plot.
Overall, the movie is just as typical as the critic-hated Disturbia. But here is something I've come to learn about the critics: they like things safe. They like plots that have been done more frequently than a slutty girl in high school with big boobs. They like typical, safe ideas and cliché morals that they've heard since they were kids. Anything that breaks that mold they trash because it's "punk" and "punk" is bad. As long as it's old, safe, and familiar it's good. If it's new, fresh, or original it's bad.
I'm so glad I have more intelligence than critics like that. Hopefully you do too.
0/10