Site Presented By
Saturday, Jul 4, 2009
How I long for the days when I could count on SZ to trash movies that deserved it. Apparently the cranks, who all these years have complained that she was too harsh, have succeeded in convincing either her or Salon that she is in fact too hard to please. This is a disaster.
Now she writes lukewarm reviews that neither cheer nor jeer. After rereading her review of the "TBU" I still can't tell if she really liked it. Reading between the lines of her review, we can draw the following conclusions:
a. The movie is all action and little or no plot.
b. It follows the exact same formula as it's two predecessors, though perhaps is done slightly better.
c. The entire premise is nonsense, but we're not supposed to notice.
In the old days, as I remember them, Steph Zach would have said this explicitly, then closed with a biting paragraph concerning Hollywood's wholesale waste of talent, film, and perfectly good automobiles. And I would have confidently ignored requests from friends and family to accompany them to see this movie because they had "heard it was good."
Alas for the old days.
I'd imagine you're not the only one who relies on critics to decide whether or not to see a movie (I hope you never relied on Ms. Zacharek, alone), and criticism is wholly subjective. I'd also imagine your friends and family who "heard it was good" heard from a critic or two since, criticism being wholly subjective, critics often disagree with each others' tastes.
That said, according to Rotten Tomatoes, 92% of critics liked "The Bourne Ultimatum." Of course, that doesn't mean that it's any good (though I suspect it is, based on the talent behind it), but it certainly indicates that Ms. Zacharek hasn't been gotten to.
I've always found SZ to be far better than other critics. More honest, more observant, more analytical, and more reliable, but resulting in many negative or even biting reviews. I am suspicious that this has changed though, perhaps an attempt to placate the readers.
And yes, I'm perfectly happy to admit that I have long avoided movies that SZ has panned. Most of what Hollywood puts out is not worth seeing, and Stephanie has been the best filter I have ever found.
Most other movie critics (on the payroll of some media conglomerate, if you trace the money back far enough), cannot be trusted. So the 92% rating on Rotten Tomatoes means nothing, at least not to me.
I'm interested why Stephanie has a problem with the existence of "United 93". Would she also have a problem with the existence of "Hotel Rwanda", "The Killing Fields", or "Welcome to Sarajevo", for example? If it's legitimate to make films about terrible tragedies, why should American tragedies not be treated in the same way as others?
True2Blue,
There's a good chance Stephanie Zacharek is praising the movie because it's worth seeing.
Here's an idea: Go see the movie and make up your own mind about it, instead of trying to second guess SZ's motivations.
If the 92% rating on RT means nothing to you, why do you read critics at all? Unless it's just a cheaper way for you to pretend you know what you're talking about than spending a few bucks on a ticket.
But no, it's apparently more fun for you to criticize critics than it is for you to go to movies. Kinda sad.
After rereading her review of the "TBU" I still can't tell if she really liked it.
-- True2Blue
Keep working on those reading skills, True2Blue. You might not be ready for movies.
When I first saw Matt Damon on-screen about twenty years ago, my first thought was "light-weight pretty-boy"; I was a little hasty in that assessment. Hell, I was a LOT hasty!
He has gone from "pretty" to ruggedly handsome and from a "light-weight" to an actor of gravitas and seriousness. His Jason Bourne character is menacing without being menacing...if that makes sense. He can give multiple nuances with a single look. He was chilling in "Mr. Ripley", amusing in "Oceans" but absolutely deft as Jason Bourne. Strike that: he IS Jason Bourne.
Matt's future? I see him maturing into another Robert Redford-level character-actor of amazing dimensions. His future films should be multi-dimensional, as well.
That bodes well for those of us who appreciate actors who are masters of their craft.
All I can say is that I leave these movies wanting to learn to to fight, climb, and take up parkour just for fun. What a rip roarin' good time it is to see Matt in this entertaining trip across an unforgiving worldly landscape the rest of us wouldn't even attempt!
Hmm, now where did I put that number for the "Jumping off buildings and cars while looking sexy 101" course?
If they are worth a damn, critics hardly ever tell you if they "liked" or "disliked" a work. Critics' job is to describe in such detail that you know what the film (or book, or television show, or and-so-on) is about and how the artist approaches the topic aesthetically. If you need a consumer guide, you can use criticism, but you have to put in some effort of your own when you approach the critics.
BUT, if you are looking for a thumbs-up, thumbs-down reduction and learn that 92% (92%!) of reviewers approve, you might want to give the movie a chance.
(How can you mistake Zacharek's review for anything less than kudos?)
Like so many of the other movie reviews here. Hey I appreciate as much as anyone the eloquence of that Serbo Croatian film festival next door to Salon's offices in SF and that 5 hour movie about the 75 year history of some Balkan dairy farmers. I bet it got gold palm leaves and everything. For the 17 people who saw it, 9 of whom are Berkeley film students, it was great I'm sure.
I couldn't disagree with Ms. Zacharek more.
I loved "The Bourne Identity" but hate both sequels largely because of the Greengrass formula. The directing, editing and shooting are from the MTV school of film making. The result indicates a mediocre director trying to compensate by throwing in every music video trick in the book. Character development and plot are secondary to technique.
For example, in the first sequel by Greengrass, 75% or more of the film is comprised of cuts that are 1 second or less. There is no shot longer than 7 seconds. (I actually sat through it a second time with a stop watch.) This, combined with the excessive camera shake, persistent dim lighting and extreme closeups of action sequences, is disorienting, disconcerting and "motion" sickening.
The flashbacks include all of the above with the added annoyance of a distorted lens. Both sequels are very hard to watch in one sitting because of the mind numbing pace.
Imagine trying to watch Fred Astaire dance with the entire screen filled with a closeup of his pocket, in dim light, with a hand held, shaking camera, in one second bites, and no wide shots for context and you'll get an idea of how visually confusing both sequels are. One wouldn't even be able to know who Astair was dancing with. Likewise with Greengrass, you can't tell who's fighting whom, who's chasing whom and all you can remember are short visual images that don't connect; which is an apt description of the movie itself.
Within the first 10 minutes of this second effort, it becomes apparent that Greengrass sticks to the same formula, which is why I had to get out of the theater ASAP. I prefer digestion to heartburn. Give me Stanley Kubrick's or Robert Altman's long langourous scenes that encourage reflection rather than the adolescent, addictive adrenaline rush.
The fact that most critics are praising Greengrass' latest effort sadly indicates how the "nano-second attention span" has been fully integrated into our culture.
It's not only a sad commentary on the movie itself but our culture in general.
The Wasilla soap opera just gets weirder as Palin complains critics are "picking apart a good point guard"
The media outlet's use of Bush euphemisms sparks a much-needed debate on journalistic standards.
And so are his Fox News pals, who lambasted Sen. Al Franken's "stolen election"
An inflexible right wing is allowing the Golden State to drown in debt. But it's not alone
Thanks for sharing, Governor. Now please take a cue from Norm Coleman, and go away
Salon headlines in your mailbox
