Monster's Ball is awful too

[JonathanLB]

I have a theory. I believe that critics give every single independent movie 3.5 to 4 stars because they want to drive people to theaters to see the lesser viewed movies, so really it's not a matter of them liking these horrid pieces of trash, they just want to encourage more moviegoing and they figure that they need to give EVERY independent film great reviews so that people get into the habit of seeing the underdogs more.

There is a problem with that, though. The real problem here is that the big boy theaters, i.e. real theaters, do not play lousy independent films for a reason. The reason is not jealousy or bias or because the films were shot on low budgets. Nope, they only care about the financial reasons, the bottom line. The reason they don't play art house trash is because they wouldn't make money playing such obviously bad movies. Now, of course a lot of stuff like Super Troopers and Crossroads and Snow Dogs all really suck, but they have the promotion and star power (in two of those three cases) to bring in audiences.

Now, as for the independent art house films, the sad truth is that most of them just plain suck hard. I mean, why do you think they weren't promoted as much? Why were they not released amidst an avalanche of publicity? It's because most of the time, they simply are no good.

It's like the whole "Diamond in the Rough" type of thing. You will find a few diamonds, but the rest of the time you'll just find absolute trash. So combing through the art houses, you may stumble on the occassional film like Memento, or you may even be so lucky to find the highest grossing foreign film ever, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, or you could get a wonderful film like Brotherhood of the Wolf (which I saw in a mainstream theater...). The other times, though, you get a stupid piece of filth like Amelie, or a really trashy and idiotic nonsensical movie that even many critics HATED like Mulholland Drive, or you get a stupid boring movie like Monster's Ball.

I am beginning to hate Fox Tower 10, which is our local art house theater. The theater itself is great, but they only play trash lately.

Monster's Ball got 4 stars from USA Today, out of four. I assumed it would be good because my reviews were almost all very close to those in USA Today. That didn't make any difference this time, though, they just totally overrated a really awful movie.

It starts out pretty good and it's quite well done at the start, very promising, and it is pretty gripping although I can cite one major flaw, depending on what you think the film was trying to do, that is. If the start was trying to be anti-death penalty, it fails miserably by ignoring a major issue. We are simply shown this guy who is going to be put to death, and we see him with his kid and his wife, but we do not ever even once hear what he did or even close to what he did. For all I know, he went into a school and raped 10 kids and then shot them all and blew the school up as he left. In which case, I would have taken joy in seeing him fry on the electric chair. Instead, they want me to feel awful about the death penalty because some damn criminal is getting executed. No. That just doesn't work. I didn't know why he was there, which was just a major flaw, but I guess the filmmakers thought that wasn't necessary. After all, it would be easier to believe he really is a great guy and didn't do anything to deserve such horrible torture, LOL ;)

The film goes from a strong 2.5 stars and where it could reach 3, to a sorry 1.5 stars by the end. It just started freefalling throughout the movie and was really boring. You know, it really doesn't help when there are 5 sex scenes and a few where a guy just whips his dick out and starts shoving it up this prostitute's poop shoot. Of course, the nude scenes with Halle didn't do a lot to impress me either, they were just idiotic. The dialogue wasn't any good either, except for one line, and the acting was just ok. It wasn't that impressive to me, nothing about the film was impressive. It bears the mark of a low quality film with no direction and no real plot, not very engaging characters, not a compelling purpose or anything, just inane drivel.

I cannot believe I keep wasting my time on these art house releases. I guess I keep hoping I'll find another Memento, but so far I've found crap. Pure crap. Three really awful movies that don't deserve to be playing on TV, let alone in a movie theater.

I gave them all two stars -- combined! As in, Queen of the Damned and Rollerball both got higher ratings (2.5 stars) then all three of those movies put together. The critics must be smoking some really strong weed to like Monster's Ball. I want to know where they get their crack, because that's amazingly powerful. You'd have to be insanely wasted or baked to enjoy any of those movies, lol.

[Shawn]

I've seen quite a few good independt and foreign films. But then, I like to think that I only see good movies. If I even think that a movie won't be worth my time, I don't bother. This may mean that I miss out on some gems, but I hardly ever see a movie I don't like.

[JonathanLB]

Not a bad way to see films really, I can always pick the winners basically, but I'm a critic now so I don't have that luxury.

Still, I enjoy this, it is nice trying to see everything and kind of get a broad perspective on the entire industry, and plus making money with seeing tons of movies and writing reviews is awesome. I will write off all of my tickets and my DVD rentals (a bit of the purchases) for tax purposes as business expenses, which is also tight :)

When I was going only to films I thought looked good, I was very accurate and giving most 3 to 4 star reviews. I'm not an easy critic, I'm actually quite critical, but I appreciate good entertainment (unlike many critics, I guess) and I will give good reviews to good films.

A critic thinks, "Well, Tomb Raider, I enjoyed it, but if I gave this movie a good review, I'd be tarred and feathered! I must give it two stars." lol, kind of sad.

I don't really think critics have an appreciation for good films, they just like to see different films. Different, though, does not mean good. A film that is very similar to many others can still be a masterpiece. The Count of Monte Cristo has been done before, but that film was still one of the best films I've seen in the last six months. I've not heard anyone, except a few critics, who didn't like that movie.

I just don't see the point of a critic that never agrees with audiences. I think they're not doing their jobs, in that case. They are not there to take up space in columns, they are there to tell us, the moviegoers, what we should spend our hard earned money seeing. Now, if they are going to give bad advice all of the time, what good are they?

It's like saying that a doctor who gives bad advice is still a good doctor. Clearly, no.

If the critic is just bashing every film that makes a lot of money and is popular at the box office, then what exactly are they good for? To tell us all to see inferior films like Amelie and Monster's Ball? Ugg.

The real problem is that only the die-hard independent film buffs or the die-hard movie buffs go to see those films, so of course they have high ratings at IMDB! These people are the same as the critics, but if real moviegoers, the normal Joe and Jane, go see these films they won't enjoy what they see at all. I could see Monster's Ball with ten friends and I doubt more than one or two would even like it at all. But if you have a bunch of stuck up independent movie buffs or critics go see it, of course they will like it.

Even when I ran my extremely dinky movie site in 2000, I got a bunch of e-mails from normal moviegoers who said they appreciated my opinions because they actually agreed with what I was saying, for the most part, whereas the critics trashed the same films I liked. For instance, The Art of War. It wasn't perfect, had some really bad acting by that one chick, but it was still a very good action movie. The critics hate Snipes, though, so listening to their reviews is just not very useful.

Oh well, if I find a critic I agree with 65 to 70% of the time, that would be amazing. I hope I can be that critic for some people online, but ultimately you just don't know. I'll just do my best and see how it goes. :huh

For the most part I was in the same ballpark with USA Today, and actually throughout the last five years or so, I agree with them at least 50% of the time, but I guess probably 65%. Not really true with that idiot Peter Travers at Rolling Stone or many other critics, but USA Today is pretty close. Like with Starship Troopers. No other critic gave the film 3 stars, but USA Today gave it 4. I also gave it 4. It's an excellent movie! I'm glad their critic saw it for what it was and had no shame in giving the film what he thought it deserved, even if it wasn't what the rest of the critics thought.

I just don't think critics are reliable with independent or foreign films. They just don't get it. They are often right about the major releases, except they don't understand good blockbusters very well at all, yet they haven't gotten the independent film genre down. I have nothing against foreign or subtitled films, otherwise I wouldn't be such a huge Hong Kong action nut and I wouldn't like Brotherhood of the Wolf so much. I appreciate films like Jean de Florette and Manon of the Springs, because those movies were both excellent, but I don't appreciate pointless French weirdness like Amelie. I loved Memento (who didn't?!) too, and I loved Cube, another smaller independent film from a few years back (the acting is pretty bad in it, though, but I liked what the filmmakers did with what they had), but the percentage of awful foreign/independent films is FAR higher than awful Hollywood films. The more money you spend on a project, the more talent you generally can acquire and the more quality that goes into the film. It's just a simple fact, not to say a high budget guarantees anything. It obviously doesn't. Battlefield Earth sucked, Godzilla was a disappointment with an awful script and terrible acting, Snow Dogs blew, etc. Hollywood makes a ton of crap, but the less the budget, the less likely the film will be good. It's like the movies I make with my friends. By critical standards, they are just amateur nonsense. We have fun and we are learning more, but the films suck. If you gave me $25,000, I could make a good film with that, no question about it (because we have some great ideas), but with no budget, there is only so much we can do.

Even with only a few million, you cannot do much compared to what a film like Episode II can do, or LOTR, or Swordfish even, or Tomb Raider, or whatever else. Spend the money and no matter how bad your script, you can buy talented actors, you can buy a great production designer, you can buy great sets, and great effects, and great costumes. So that means that as a critic reviewing a film with an awful script, at least I have to give props to the film for its visual superiority, and it ends up getting a 2 to 2.5 star rating despite its lousy script. A lousy independent film has no such luxury. If the script sucks, the movie sucks, so it gets 0 to 1.5 stars at most.

[CMJ]

Geez Jon..I thought "Monster's Ball" was fantastic. Let's see if I can address your opinions.

Performances all around were great. Halle Berry gave the peformance of a lifetime. Thornton was also very memorable...hell even P. Diddy was great as the convict about to die.

Okay...you were mad because they didn't tell you what Diddy's character did. His story was not the essential one it was merely the starting point of the story. Yes you felt sorry for his character...but he had come to a good point in his life. Most death row inmates, no matter how cold blooded they are, get sympathy from their exececutioners...you'd be surprised how many are ant- death penalty.

I thought the dialogue was terrific. It was very "real" to me.

Hmmm, the sex stuff huh? You do seem to have a problem with that in most films. In this one I think it was ESSENTIAL to show those scenes. The first one was the pivotal moment of the film where these two lost soul found each other...it had to be shown.

Anyways...I'm sorry you didn't care for it Jon..but "Monster's Ball" was great.

[ReaperFett]

The good independants like Boondock Saints and (I believe) Way of the Gun normally get pushed under the carpet

[foxdvd]

Two best lines ever Jon..




"For all I know, he went into a school and raped 10 kids and then shot them all and blew the school up as he left."



"You know, it really doesn't help when there are 5 sex scenes and a few where a guy just whips his dick out and starts shoving it up this prostitute's poop shoot. "

[JonathanLB]

Yes Fox, I agree :)

CMJ: you are not thinking of the first sex scene, that was about the fourth sex scene. The first one was only a few minutes into the movie, and, as I said, it's when the dude sticks his wanger up the prostitute's fudge factory.

The dialogue was not good at all, not memorable, just retarded, and neither of the two actors gave the performance of the week even, let alone their lifetimes.

Halle is better in Swordfish and she doesn't even have a major role. I especially like the line, "I didn't come here to suck your dick Stanley." Just about then Hugh Jackman is like, "Goddamnit, I knew I wasn't getting any from this prude."

Tomb Raider has better dialogue by far than Monster's Ball, lol, the movie is also infinitely better. I thought Snow Dogs was about on par with Monster's Ball, although Ball was better than both Crossroads and Super Troopers at least!

The movie sucked. I cannot believe you liked it, but whatever, lol. I'm about to go watch my A.I. DVD, yay! Then Gosford Park tonight, it better not suck again.

[CMJ]

Okay...the sex scenes with the prostitute... I actually think they needed to be shown as well..to contrast with the passion behind Berry and Thornton's later encounter. The prostitute scenes lacked any passion whatsoever...

As far as the performances...sorry you didn't care for them. But both the leads were fantastic.

IMHO "Tomb Raider" was one of the worst films of 2001. ;)

[JMK]

I'll agree to that. I was expecting MUCH more from Tomb Raider, but I don't think I'll ever see Monster's Ball. Not my type I don't think.

[Taylor Millard]

It depends on the critic I think. For all we know, some critics might actually like utter tripe. Maybe they like the alternative films, instead of big budget blockbusters.

I dunno, plus, maybe they just like the crap that's out there.

And I saw 'Memento' which was an indy film and liked it alot.

[Sith Ahnk]

I think they're taking bribes ;)

[JonathanLB]

I think the critics must actually like this absolute tripe too. I saw and LOVED Memento, bought it on DVD, it's a wonderful film. It has a great, great screenplay, a super inventive plot idea, good acting, it's just an awesome movie. I gave it four stars, it was in my top five of 2001. I guess it would be #3 actually, LOTR and A.I. were just above it. I must admit, though, both LOTR and A.I. managed to place higher than Memento because of their visual splendor. Without the budget, Memento couldn't compete with those films. Film is a very visual medium; it started out as just a visual medium, in fact, no talking at all (although you had music I think still). Because film is such a visual art form, the more visually stunning film, all other parts being essentially equal, is going to win out clearly.

Memento was a great movie and couldn't have been any better with what it was, but LOTR was epic and the cinematography was stunning, not to mention the effects, so because I also felt the directing was great and I loved the screenplay and acting, it isn't hard to say it's better than Memento...

"IMHO "Tomb Raider" was one of the worst films of 2001"

LOL, ok whatever. I think it was definitely one of the best films of 2001! I saw it three times in theaters I think actually, well two or three, but I seem to remember getting the third viewing in. I just don't keep as good of track. I can tell if I've seen it once or more than once, but that's about it, haha ;)

Tomb Raider was not at all disappointing. Had quite awesome action and was altogether very entertaining. Jolie saved the film too, she's great as Lara Croft. It would make my top 20 for 2001.