A good movie. But slight. HOTEL RWANDA and THE WOODSMEN were my last comparable experiences, and both were stronger and more moving. They kept coming back into my mind the night of the viewing and the day after. Don't think this will.
I don't see what all the fuss was about. Two of three NY Times guys put it on their top 10 of the year list. It truly didn't have much bad about it [though I thought his usual sure touch with soundtracks abandoned him; some of the music in sensitive scenes felt forced and awkward]. Good performances, plenty of folks to root for, and a plot that makes some demands on the viewers. But not rewatchable.
I love his films. He doesn't make bad ones. That's distinction enough. I own and rewatch his genre stuff, like OUTLAW JOSEY WALES. His current work is deep, mature, and persuasive. But maybe not memorable.
1 comment:
I thought it was a solid good movie, probably Recommended Exploration on the Rolston scale. So many nice scenes between Clint and Morgan Freeman.
My main criticism would be that Hilary Swank's character, Maggie, could have used a bit more depth and possibly a flaw or two. She was such the good, simple girl just trying to do right by everyone and I thought that made things a bit simpler than they should have been.
Best Picture? I don't think so, but the only 2004 movie I really loved (that I can remember) was Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and it's not in the running.
Post a Comment