A non-clinical definition of paranoia: you go right past the simplest explanation and look for one that's the most dangerous. In the case of John Woo's film Paycheck, the simple reason why 89 out of 115 critics hated it could be that it's bad. But let's explore the paranoid one. (Spoilers, but this is the type of movie where they don't matter, right?) Paycheck has a point, and the point is this: Pre-emptive war leads to more war, the nasty kinds where A-bombs explode in US cities. This goes squarely against the party line espoused by our chowderhead-in-chief and his gang. And since the majority of the 89 naysaying critics are media whores, they protect and promote the conventional wisdom, aka the party line (such as "everything changed after 9/11/01"). So they want to make sure you don't see Woo's film, that it dies ignobly at the box office, and only a handful rent it on DVD. Whatever their motives, they're wrong: the movie is much tighter than the chase-padded Face/Off (and the pretentious, incoherent Minority Report). Affleck and Thurman are good, the movie keeps you constantly thinking and guessing. And it's fun. Another reason for the critical slam, I think, is that mainstream critics hate "sci fi," as they call it. Until it succeeds at the box office: then they start analyzing it for political portents. I say, both paranoically and simplistically, see the movie, embrace its wisdom, stop Bush.
Afterthought: the film also shows a couple of "good feds" hiding evidence to prevent the Guantanamo-like incarceration of a man they know is innocent. Deep-six that movie!
I heard Mr. Woo uses pigeons as a metaphor yet again, making that a staggering 17 movies in a row with the same tiresome melodramatic imagery. Maybe he should give bunnies a shot some time. This alone has kept me out of the theatre but Ben I Can't Act-fleck doesn't help matters either.
Are you going to tell us now that Broken Arrow is really full of anti military critique and that the critics missed the subtle subtext? Or that Face Off, a psychological thriller worthy of Hitchcock? Pushaw! You want a conspiracy? How much did Miramax pay you for that innocent little blog entry there? Or was it really the CIA? Ah-ha! Wait, where did I stop making sense? In any case, how can I criticize a movie I haven't seen and you have yet still be so I the right? Easy, I'm just that good.
That last one was me, Joester. That "remember me?" box just mocks me with it's uslessness.
Woo was better in Hong Kong. Period. That being said, I fully support any forum, however tangential, that points out what a mean-spirited, mentally-challenged, little lord fuckleroy that that prick Bush is. That also being said, I think I hate Ben Affleck that much more. That idiot got into Hollywood on a football scholarship. The only film I would willingly see of his would be a snuff fillm, providing he had the lead.
Joester - send me your email address and we'll sort out whatever problem you're having. You have an account on the system.
jimb at digitalmediatree.com
This is the power of the 89 co-opted critics: people who haven't seen the movie are sure it's a turkey. This movie has one--one--gratuitous pigeon, and a couple of parakeets that the plot hinges on. It's the most efficient Woo I've seen, including the Hong Kong ones. Affleck's lighweightness works for him here--the character requires someone clueless to political machinations who is nevertheless smart enough to think his way out of a jam. I'd take Affleck's pretty boy routine over Tom Cruise's any day--the latter, I believe, is deeply stupid, and has no idea how limited he is. Affleck makes his own shallowness work for him, at least in this film (and Chasing Amy, the other film of his I liked).
Joester, your name is in the database here. One of the machines you used to leave a comment has a cookie that will cause the site to recognize you. I'll talk to you about this more when I see you next. [UPDATE: What Jim said.]
And I'll take Cruise. I believe Tom Cruise is a very good actor with tremendous energy and he focuses 100% of it into any given role. Because he comes off like a jock, many sophisticated filmgoers can't stand him.
I can't speak for people with sophisticated film tastes, but when I look at Cruise I see no there there. No argument how dedicated he is, I've read about that--learning all the martial arts moves for the Samurai film, etc--I just honestly feel he has no talent as an actor and compensates by working very hard. I've said this before, he has a huge ego and seems to have convinced everyone around him that he's good through sheer force of will. I can tell he's working hard, trying to be better, and that bothers me, too. Maybe if he stuck to the Risky Business type movies instead of trying to project gravitas I'd cut him more slack.
"I can't speak for people with sophisticated film tastes"
No slag on you, almost all of my friends hate him. As for whether he's good or not; you say tomahto I say tomato.
|
A non-clinical definition of paranoia: you go right past the simplest explanation and look for one that's the most dangerous. In the case of John Woo's film Paycheck, the simple reason why 89 out of 115 critics hated it could be that it's bad. But let's explore the paranoid one. (Spoilers, but this is the type of movie where they don't matter, right?) Paycheck has a point, and the point is this: Pre-emptive war leads to more war, the nasty kinds where A-bombs explode in US cities. This goes squarely against the party line espoused by our chowderhead-in-chief and his gang. And since the majority of the 89 naysaying critics are media whores, they protect and promote the conventional wisdom, aka the party line (such as "everything changed after 9/11/01"). So they want to make sure you don't see Woo's film, that it dies ignobly at the box office, and only a handful rent it on DVD. Whatever their motives, they're wrong: the movie is much tighter than the chase-padded Face/Off (and the pretentious, incoherent Minority Report). Affleck and Thurman are good, the movie keeps you constantly thinking and guessing. And it's fun. Another reason for the critical slam, I think, is that mainstream critics hate "sci fi," as they call it. Until it succeeds at the box office: then they start analyzing it for political portents. I say, both paranoically and simplistically, see the movie, embrace its wisdom, stop Bush.
Afterthought: the film also shows a couple of "good feds" hiding evidence to prevent the Guantanamo-like incarceration of a man they know is innocent. Deep-six that movie!
- tom moody 1-16-2004 6:55 pm
I heard Mr. Woo uses pigeons as a metaphor yet again, making that a staggering 17 movies in a row with the same tiresome melodramatic imagery. Maybe he should give bunnies a shot some time. This alone has kept me out of the theatre but Ben I Can't Act-fleck doesn't help matters either.
Are you going to tell us now that Broken Arrow is really full of anti military critique and that the critics missed the subtle subtext? Or that Face Off, a psychological thriller worthy of Hitchcock? Pushaw! You want a conspiracy? How much did Miramax pay you for that innocent little blog entry there? Or was it really the CIA? Ah-ha! Wait, where did I stop making sense? In any case, how can I criticize a movie I haven't seen and you have yet still be so I the right? Easy, I'm just that good.
- anonymous (guest) 1-17-2004 2:21 am
That last one was me, Joester. That "remember me?" box just mocks me with it's uslessness.
- joester (guest) 1-17-2004 2:22 am
Woo was better in Hong Kong. Period. That being said, I fully support any forum, however tangential, that points out what a mean-spirited, mentally-challenged, little lord fuckleroy that that prick Bush is. That also being said, I think I hate Ben Affleck that much more. That idiot got into Hollywood on a football scholarship. The only film I would willingly see of his would be a snuff fillm, providing he had the lead.
- Kevin 1-17-2004 10:33 am
Joester - send me your email address and we'll sort out whatever problem you're having. You have an account on the system.
jimb at digitalmediatree.com
- jim 1-17-2004 6:35 pm
This is the power of the 89 co-opted critics: people who haven't seen the movie are sure it's a turkey. This movie has one--one--gratuitous pigeon, and a couple of parakeets that the plot hinges on. It's the most efficient Woo I've seen, including the Hong Kong ones. Affleck's lighweightness works for him here--the character requires someone clueless to political machinations who is nevertheless smart enough to think his way out of a jam. I'd take Affleck's pretty boy routine over Tom Cruise's any day--the latter, I believe, is deeply stupid, and has no idea how limited he is. Affleck makes his own shallowness work for him, at least in this film (and Chasing Amy, the other film of his I liked).
Joester, your name is in the database here. One of the machines you used to leave a comment has a cookie that will cause the site to recognize you. I'll talk to you about this more when I see you next. [UPDATE: What Jim said.]
- tom moody 1-17-2004 6:54 pm
And I'll take Cruise. I believe Tom Cruise is a very good actor with tremendous energy and he focuses 100% of it into any given role. Because he comes off like a jock, many sophisticated filmgoers can't stand him.
- steve 1-17-2004 7:31 pm
I can't speak for people with sophisticated film tastes, but when I look at Cruise I see no there there. No argument how dedicated he is, I've read about that--learning all the martial arts moves for the Samurai film, etc--I just honestly feel he has no talent as an actor and compensates by working very hard. I've said this before, he has a huge ego and seems to have convinced everyone around him that he's good through sheer force of will. I can tell he's working hard, trying to be better, and that bothers me, too. Maybe if he stuck to the Risky Business type movies instead of trying to project gravitas I'd cut him more slack.
- tom moody 1-17-2004 8:02 pm
"I can't speak for people with sophisticated film tastes"
No slag on you, almost all of my friends hate him. As for whether he's good or not; you say tomahto I say tomato.
- steve 1-17-2004 8:21 pm