Total Film's 50 Most Hated Films of All Time # 32 - Crash

Did anyone see the Academy Awards for the year 2004?  Just wondering.  Because if you had seen these awards, you would have seen the movie that won BEST PICTURE for 2004.


Crash.


Yup, apparently Total Film has decided that the film that won BEST PICTURE in the year 2004 is one of the most hated movies of all time.  I cannot even begin to explain the rationale. 


On a personal front, I never watched Crash.  J-Man and Decepitsean both came back from viewing the movie with less than stellar reviews of the film and quite frankly, I was not surprised.  I saw the trailer and it did not grab me.  Now, when this happens, one of two outcomes take place: 


1) Someone sees it, tells me it was better than the trailer, at which point I catch it in some manner or form.
2) Someone sees it, tells me it's as bland or garbage as I thought it would be and I never watch it. 


You can file Crash in slot 2.  Nevertheless, I do not agree that this film should be on the 50 Most Hated Films of All Time list.  This viewpoint may shock you, but you should probably hear me out before you start protesting how utterly over-hyped the film is. 


Quite simply, Crash cannot be hated.  If it is overrated, then it must have been highly thought of to begin with.  Nowadays, more than ever in fact, the Academy Awards are a popularity contest.  That is not to say that I think all the films that win awards are garbage.  All I'm saying is that the film that gets the most campaigning from the studios wins.  So, it is enough to say that at the time that Crash won, it was the most popular choice amongst the movers and shakers in the film industry to win the Academy Award.  You can't win the BEST PICTURE award and then seven or eight years later proclaim that the movie is suddenly hated.  Like it or not, this film won Best Picture in a popularity contest in Hollywood.  That alone shows this movie is not hated and this inclusion on Total Film's list is a result of bias on the part of the person who produced the list, not an actual census. 


Rating: Worth the hate?  The little gold statue in Paul Haggis' room proves it's not hated. 


- Stephenstein

It's all in the money

I haven't read the book that this was based on.  Nevertheless, I know most of the story behind it.  Moneyball was a way for teams in smaller markets with lesser payrolls to compete with the New York's, the Boston's and the Los Angeles' of the world.  It was a way to make your team competitive without spending 100 million on the payroll like the Yankees and Boston do every year.  It's an innovative way of building a sport's team in this day and age, a strategy used by almost everyone to this day.  So, how did it stack up?


First, all these "based on a true story" stuff has one natural flaw: some of the stuff didn't really happen.  I'm not just talking about minor details like so-and-so didn't ask for cookies from this other person.  I'm talking about this major character who does all this stuff in the movie doesn't actually exist.  In this movie's case, Jonah Hill's character never existed, at least not as one person.  He is actually a composite of several people, who were the real-life Billy Beane's (Brad Pitt's character) assistants and lieutenants.  Well who cares, as long as what he did was done by someone in real life, right?  However, the movie really goes out its way to show Hill's isolation from the rest of the traditional baseball people in the organization.  It endears his character quickly to the viewer, as the underdog nerdy smart kid in the room full of people who think they know better.  However, if Hill's character doesn't really exist, then that scene probably never happened, so based on what true story?


The other thing people should be aware of is that Pitt's character is not the person who actually came up with Moneyball.  That's Hill's character.  The only thing is, Pitt has just lost 3 of his best players to teams with higher payrolls, so he has no alternative but to do something drastic.  Pitt's character should be credited with giving Hill's character the platform and opportunity to put his plans into action, but that's it.  However, the movie delves into Billy Beane's personal life, the reason behind his philosophy and what not.  However, that's like going into the life of the guy who got the scientists together for the Manhattan Project.  He didn't really do anything but assemble the guys, they're the ones who did the breakthrough.  So, these scenes are really unnecessary, as Pitt's character did nothing really but recognize the guy who changed the way baseball's business was done and only then it was done out of pure desperation, it wasn't like he had a big vision or anything.


That being said, I really did enjoy the movie.  Pitt's portrayal of Beane is spot-on (from what I understand about the real man) and the interplay between Pitt and Hill is really good and often funny as well.  The scene with the trade conversations at the deadline was hilarious!  If that stuff is how it's actually done, then I would love to be a baseball GM, just to involved in such sheer lunacy.  This is a movie that can really be viewed by baseball fans and non-fans, though my feeling is baseball fans will probably get more enjoyment out of the movie. 


Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars.


- Stephenstein

Not your father's Robin Hood

Robin Hood.

The name itself ellicts all sorts of different iconography. Sherwood Forest. Merry Men. A noble archer. A dastardly Sheriff of Nottingham. A pompous Prince John. An archery tournament for a golden arrow. There have been several adaptations of the legend of the outlaw from Sherwood who robs the rich to feed the poor. The latest (and probably the best) was a BBC series which ran for 3 seasons. It was on the heels of this that they originally announced "Nottingham", which was supposed to be a twist on the famous legend, told from the Sheriff's point of view, where the Sheriff was the good guy, and Robin was the villain.

Interesting concept. Of course, it never would have flew, but nice idea, nevertheless.

So instead, we got this version of Robin Hood (or as I refer to it, the version that never should have been), and oh boy, does it fall flat. Robin Hood is not really Robin Hood in this movie. He's an archer in the King's employ (and Richard is a jerk, let me tell you), and when the king dies, he takes the opportunity to run. By chance, he comes across a dying knight (Robert Locksley), and the crown, and uses the identity of the dead man, and the crown to get safe passage back to England (p.s., he's in France, not the Middle East), and then returns Locksley's sword to his father, where he then meets Maid Marian, and instantly becomes married to her.

Umm...where do I begin?

First of all, I am not impressed that Robin does not really earn any of his good fortune. He happens to find the crown, happens to find Robert (conveniently when he's dying), happens to luck into a marriage with Marian. Wow, how lucky is this guy? Luckier than good. Then there's the famous supporting characters. His Merry Men (Little John, Will, Alan) are all bland and pointless, the Sheriff of Nottingham is non-existent, Richard's a bit of an ass, and Guy of Gisbourne is nowhere to be found. Instead, we have Mark Strong as "Sir Godfrey", and he's the main villain (he's a traitor to England, and an ally of France). Oh yeah, France are the bad guys in this film, not Prince John (who becomes King John, and at least has a semblance of a character here).

That being said, this movie is epic in length, but not in scope. They try and throw Robin's courtship of Marian in there, the disapproval of the Queen and William Marshal with King John, the French invaders plans, Robin wandering around with his Merry Men...there's no real flow to this film, it's a bunch of jumbled scenes together. You can tell where the different writers stepped in, and took over, and I'm shocked there weren't a hundred writers credited for this film, because it felt like it. It's just an utter mess, and if you want to see a Robin Hood movie, see the Errol Flynn one, the BBC series, the Prince of Thieves, hell watch Men in Tights or the Disney one, just don't bother with this one, it's a waste of your time.

Rating: as a movie - 2.5 out of 5.

as a Robin Hood movie - 0 out of 5.

- Stephenstein

500 days of anger

I watched this movie, because of a serious attraction I have for Zooey Deschanel. Hey, I can admit it, I'm weak...I think she's really beautiful, I love those big blue eyes of hers. Oh yeah, and up to this point, I've been searching for a film of hers I've liked. This one, I did not know much about, and generally when I come across one of those, I end up being pleasantly surprised. Was I here? Let's put it this way...I'm still searching for a film she's done that I've liked.

500 days of Summer is not a love story. The movie goes to great lengths, and great pains to point this out. In this way, it is ususual, because it is not a romantic comedy, the two leads do not end up together (oh there I've gone and spoiled the movie, so everyone will now not see this picture...not that they were going to, anyway). I would commend a film for being honest about how much finding love sucks nowadays (spoken like a true bitter single man...but then again, I am a bitter single man, so who better to say it?), but the problem is, it's just too realistic, and makes me pissed off, just thinking about it.

Surprise, surprise, I have major problems with the Summer character (Deschanel). She starts out with this big soapbox speech about how she doesn't want a boyfriend, doesn't think that people should have labels, etc, etc. Okay. However, she calls Gordon Joseph-Levitt a "friend." Okay, class, any questions? Yes, you in the back! The guy with his hand up! "Isn't that a label?" Shut up! You're making sense! We can't have that in this movie.

Okay, so calling someone a friend isn't a label, but calling someone a "boyfriend" is. Fine. As long as you aren't, you know, trying to initiate a kiss in the photocopier room, or jumping into bed with him, or suggesting that they have shower sex, based on a scene you've seen in a porno you've both rented. Oh wait, she does all that. So...wouldn't that make him your boyfriend. "I'm not sure." Okay...are you doing this with your other friends? No. WELL THEN, HE'S YOUR BOYFRIEND, ISN'T HE? It's like, I think this attitude actually exists with some girls, but I dont' need to be reminded of this.

Then she states she doesn't believe in love, or getting married. That's one of things she tells him, and one of the reasons she leaves Joseph-Levitt, later on. He wants a commitment, she doesn't believe in that. However, she does appear to believe in that later on, when she gets married...oh yeah, but not before leading on Joseph-Levitt, that he still has a chance with her, before she ignores him at a party, and shows off her engagement ring to someone else at the party. Later on, when he confronts her about this, she explains that what happened with her decision was "what always happens...life." Okay, can I say something now? Bulls**t. It's a cop-out to say that, and shows the character would rather hide between generic platitudes then own-up to her own deception.

See, it wouldn't anger me so much, but I have to stress, that the Deschanel's character initiated everything...the first kiss, the first night of sex, everything. Then, she just drops him, (saying that favourite bone crusher when she does "Tom, you're still my best friend"), and despite all of her speeches, she ends up falling in love, and pays absolutely not penalty for the damage she inflicted on Tom. That is why I did not like this movie.

I did however like the Gordon Joseph-Levitt character (with his greeting card soliloquy being the highlight of the movie), and that's what saved this movie from being a complete and utter disaster, but nevertheless, I was not impressed.

Rating: 2 stars

I bid thee a fond, angry goodnight.

- Stephenstein

Julie & Julia (& Juliet & Julianne...)

Good friggin' grief, Charlie Brown...Stephenstein went and saw a "chick flick". I must be mad. Well, I am. I'm mad because why did Julie get her name in the title before Julia? I mean, Julia Child was famous, for crying out loud! She's been on television, she's been published, I've at least heard of Julia Child, who in the blue hell is Julie Powell? And why is Amy Adams playing her? And that usher, the guy who comes in right before the movie before it starts, you know, the dork with the hat and the notepad, what is he writing down, while looking at the screen before he leaves? Will somebody please tell me?

Alright, enough about my pet peeves. This movie is about cooking...and making something of yourself through cooking. That's right, no Hell's Kitchen, no Gordon Ramsay shouting and swearing at people (entertaining as that is), we have some serious people here who want to cook. Julia Child is bored, and discovers through her passion of eating, that she should try cooking. She goes to an all-male classroom, the woman who let her into the the program in the first place doesn't like her, and despite these obstacles, becomes a master chef.

Julie Powell, on the other hand, has a dead-end job, her apartment is terrible, and her dreams of becoming a writer have never come to fruition. Her husband suggests that she combine the two things she's good at...cooking (duh), and writing, and write a blog about doing all of Julia Child's recipes. She begins the quest, and gradually, her blog picks up momentum.

So, we now know it is possible for people to care about you through a blog. Great! Now I feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Needless to say, though Amy Adams is terrific as Julie, there are some things about this movie I'm a little iffy on. Firstly, Julie's quest, while noble, is not as noble as Julia's. Julia just wants to do something with her life, not caring about fame and fortune. Julie had the advantage of following Julia's footsteps, and of course, because Julia Child is a brand name (at least in the arena of cooking), you had a built in audience that would be willing to buy whatever you were selling. Julia Child brought French cooking to America...Julie did what?

Added her blog to the galaxy of other blogs out there? Like I said, not saying Julie doesn't deserve her good fortune, because doing over 500 receipes in one year has gotta be tough, but arguably not as tough as going against the norms of an entire society.

Then we have the problem of this movie being too long, and I do mean, too looooong. The movie is over 2 hours, which is problematic when the most exciting thing anyone is doing on screen is...cooking. Of course, there's spats with loved ones, spats with collaborators, a little bit of personal stuff in both women's lives that DON'T involve cooking, but overall, yeah, it's cooking. Not too exciting.

That's not the say the movie was completely boring or anything. Meryl Streep is extremely amusing as Julia Child, and she works well with Stanley Tucci, who plays her husband. Amy Adams has a sweet vulnerability about her that makes her sections of the film tolerable (and no, I didn't buy that she was a self-centred bitch, like the movie tries to imply at one point), and both women are struggling to make something of themselves in the world, so that's good, too. In the end, this movie is decent, not something you want to replay over and over again, but it was a nice little tale of overcoming odds, and making something of one's self, which is always nice to see.

Rating 3 out of 5 stars.

I bid thee a fond (and full) goodnight.

-Stephenstein