The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Are you checking out The Host or In Time soon...because...you shouldn't!

I actually like In Time... and own it.

Wait, why did I admit that?

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Steve46

Roger Ebert (1942-2013)

Great words, Steve. Roger had a way of speaking to us without having to speak for us. It was nice to see just how he affected you.

If I persuade one person to watch a movie because of one of my reviews, it justifies the three or four hours I spent watching the movie and struggling over my wording.

I share that sentiment. Even if sharing what a movie meant to me can slightly enrich a film for just one person, it makes it all worth it. My love for a film is my primary motivation in writing reviews, which is why you don't find many negative reviews of mine on here. It is not as satisfying for me to steal the magic from somebody else just because a film didn't work for me. Or for any reason, for that matter. Like Squidpuppet once said:

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

NO! Ignorance is bliss.

One article that I will never forget has nothing to do with movies at all. Ebert wrote about intelligence, and how many people are afraid to show it. Why do we dumb down what we are saying?

I like Einstein's approach:

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

That always resonated with me because it highlights the importance of being concise.

While we're on a heartfelt subject, I wanted to thank everyone here for contributing to so many hours of my day, and my life. It's fun to butt heads sometimes yet whole-heartedly agree at other times. Each of us brings unique character to the forum yet share the love (or hate) of many movies. Al can always bring the strange, Steve- my fellow Ghibli fanboy, Vince with the daily dose, and all the other great regulars that I will have to stop myself from naming for fear of leaving anyone out, but thank you. You guys have all played a part in expanding my appreciation for film. We each carry our own wisdom and unique insight, and the diversity of this thread is a testament to that. With the same passion that kept Ebert strong through that unbearable illness, I say, cheers to many more great years of movies ahead of us.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Rust and Bone:

3 (out of 4)


DJ, I thought your insight into the film was interesting to read and I agree with a lot of your interpretation.

[Show spoiler]This film was different than I thought it would be, as I also thought it was about two people that lost an ability to do something essential to them, who come together and fall in love due to their mutual anguish. I've heard the film described as a character study regarding the male lead, but I find that to be misplaced; I don't think the film is a character study at all, because an essential aspect of that is for the character to show some growth or change, which I think is absent from the male lead in the film. I think DJ accurately points out that the film isn't about the male lead ultimately changing from bad guy to good guy; it's about how he's a bad guy that has a capability for good and a capability for compassion. Why does he voluntarily decide to help out Cotillard? The film pretty clearly shows that it is NOT for selfish reasons, such as personal gratification or sex. The film never explains his reasons and I think that's why DJ's interpretation is correct--the male lead simply has a capability for good.

Thanks for the feedback. His character, although frustrating, definitely had depth, and the film merits reflection.

One last note is that many critics thought this film should've been France's entry into consideration for the Oscars and that Cotillard should have gotten an Oscar nod. I can't comment about the former, but in regards to the latter, I'm not sure I agree. I don't think Cotillard's role was a leading one and if it was, I don't think it matches up with those nominated (in a very strong year) even thought she was great. I think her role was much more a supporting one and she certainly couldn've been nominated for that (cough Jackie Weaver cough).

I also believe she could have done more with the material, but I think it is Audiard who may have restrained her, since he normally demands subtle performances--which often depend on the filmmaker to properly exhibit them (Aronofsky).

Edit: Thank you! What was up with that?? Weaver's nomination felt like they ran out of options and chose someone at random There was nothing special about her role.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Thanks for the feedback. His character, although frustrating, definitely had depth, and the film merits reflection.

I also believe she could have done more with the material, but I think it is Audiard who may have restrained her, since he normally demands subtle performances--which often depend on the filmmaker to properly exhibit them (Aronofsky).

I think she should have been nominated. I can't think of a scene she could have done "more" with. However, I can see how it might be frustrating for a viewer to not have enough of an emotional through line with her, but again I think that's what 1) Audiard wanted and 2) what was on the page.

At best, these are broken characters stumbling to realize so. Both are drawn to dangerous behavior and I think their relationship provided security, yes, but it also stifled them. The coda to the film (gladly) didn't resolve anything for me, but rather gave me the sense that they may continue to make the same mistakes.

God, I hope I can acquire this film for a decent price during U&S.

And as for Aronofsky, that's another can of worms

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I think she should have been nominated. I can't think of a scene she could have done "more" with. However, I can see how it might be frustrating for a viewer to not have enough of an emotional through line with her, but again I think that's what 1) Audiard wanted and 2) what was on the page.

Spot on. I think that's more of what I was trying to say, but didn't emphasize. It was the way Audiard held the spotlight. My favorite scene of hers was when Ali took her back to the club.

[Show spoiler]Revisiting the whale and the "Firework" scene were poignant moments as well.

At best, these are broken characters stumbling to realize so. Both are drawn to dangerous behavior and I think their relationship provided security, yes, but it also stifled them. The coda to the film (gladly) didn't resolve anything for me, but rather gave me the sense that they may continue to make the same mistakes.

I think the internal conflict was resolved to a degree.

[Show spoiler]I get that they are inherently flawed characters, but to keep the conflict entirely unresolved would have been a bad move imo. If the message is hopelessness, then why give us a Hollywood ending? A darker or more ambiguous ending would have been far more fitting if he wanted to convey an unresolved conflict. It ended too quickly and neatly, almost like it was a different film.

I did partially justify a means to that type of ending in my interpretation though.

God, I hope I can acquire this film for a decent price during U&S.

You should jump on the Fry's price match, or order from their website.

[Abdrewes]

This is the "second rough draft" of the Miami Vice review I forgot to post a week ago.



After reaching the pinnacle of commercial and critical success in 1995 with Heat, Michael Mann's next two features found difficulty garnering an audience: The Insider (1999), although warmly received by critics and Ali (2001), whose reception was more mixed. His subsequent film, Collateral (2004) finally broke ground with audiences. More importantly, it's groundbreaking cinematography by Dion Beebe paved the way for the innovation of Miami Vice. Filmed on the Viper FilmStream High-Definition Camera, it was the first major Hollywood film to embrace the digital look. Los Angeles nightlife had never looked more dangerous.

Loosely based on the innocuous 80's TV series, Miami Vice (2006) was a critical and commercial disappointment. Promotional trailers, set to "Numb/Encore" by Linkin Park & Jay-Z promised audiences a taught, twisty, colorful thriller dripping with sex appeal. Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx were expected to embody the great cop duo of the 2000's. Upon release, audiences reacted with indifference and hate, labeling the film a boring, muddled and risable affair. What could have gone so wrong?

The opening scenes of Miami Vice give the audience little set up as it thrusts the viewer straight into an undercover prostitution ring investigation. As police detectives "Sonny" Crocket and "Rico" Tubbs close in on Neptune, the pimp, they receive a call from a former informant on a concurrent case, Alonzo Stevens. His identity has been compromised and he believes his family to be in danger. Upon meeting with him, he appears destitute and distraught, "Sonny" and "Rico" try to calm him down, and discretely inform him of his wife's murder. Alonzo then sacrifices himself into the oncoming interstate traffic. The blood stained skid marks of the eighteen wheeler is a haunting illustration of the fragility of existence. This pained encounter complicates and foreshadows the moral stakes to come.

The plot setup above seems to suggest a nailbiting thriller, but that would be misleading. The plot, though functional, if a bit incoherent at times, is merely the entry point into some of Michael Mann's most thought provoking and indelible images. Characters are shot in wide angle close up, reminiscent of Wong Kar Wai. The medium wide shots, often takes inspiration from the work of Terrence Malick (especially through some of the expressionistic cutting), Michelangelo Antonioni (through contrast and mood) and Andrei Tarkovsky (through movement). In the second act, detailing "Sonny" and "Rico's" infiltration into the drug cartel, their subsequent operation as drug runners and Crocket's affair with Isabella (Gong Li), Mann eschews nimble plotting in favor of expressionistic, high contrast images of bodies reacting to each other against an open canvas. The open Colombian beaches provide the overwhelming backdrop for their tryst. Dion Beebe's expressionistic cinematography engages our senses as they seek sensual relief. The confident compositions magnify the surrounding space and their temporary dislocation from the drug running business. It might as well be a romance set in the lobby of a panoramic space station.

The success of Miami Vice, lies in its refusal to flesh out characters in a traditional sense: a few back stories are haphazardly laid on us in an expository fashion, process and movement are favored over traditional drama. Mere details that never coalesce into a whole. In the world Mann creates, sporadically just as cynical as the future Alfonso Cuaron detailed for us in Children of Men (also 2006), we can only hope his aimless characters inadvertently stumble upon any semblance of functional humanity.

Mann isn't seeking to duplicate the high drama or genre thrills of his mid to late nineties masterworks, Heat and The Insider, (though there is plenty of awesome blockbuster stimuli to be found in the form of plane flights to and from South Florida, speeding boats, stash house raids & Mexican standoffs) but rather he focuses our attention on the systems at play, international crime and an ethically compromised law enforcement, that threaten to rob us of our humanity and identity. Both just as ruthless, demanding and fractured as Mann composes encounters with both the mob bosses and Federal superiors in a detached and impersonal way hinting at brooding docu-realism. They don't display colorful personalities Die Hard style nor does their speech contain elements of the theatrical. As they negotiate, third world countries lie stripped of their luster. The sole image of dozens of Colombian commoners occupying a street littered with trash, specifically styrofoam, is telling. These are the byproducts of hyper-capitalism and international commerce. The intended buyers of the drugs are never seen, only the harrowing byproducts on the other side of the equator.

The simplest images convey the moral complexity at the heart of the film. Textured environs threaten to engulf the characters, Maroon night skies and resplendent day skies wrestle, with Crocket in particular, over dominance of the frame. The film begs us to consider our role in this data centric and globally interconnected age. Can our intrinsic link to the prevailing winds be broken, at least for a moment, to exist on our own terms? As Isabella asks Crocket, during the cold, abstract realist final shootout, "who are you?," it seems fate has claimed another victim.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Spot on. I think that's more of what I was trying to say, but didn't emphasize. It was the way Audiard held the spotlight. My favorite scene of hers was when Ali took her back to the club.

[Show spoiler]Revisiting the whale and the "Firework" scene were poignant moments as well.

I think the internal conflict was resolved to a degree.

[Show spoiler]I get that they are inherently flawed characters, but to keep the conflict entirely unresolved would have been a bad move imo. If the message is hopelessness, then why give us a Hollywood ending? A darker or more ambiguous ending would have been far more fitting if he wanted to convey an unresolved conflict. It ended too quickly and neatly, almost like it was a different film.

I did partially justify a means to that type of ending in my interpretation though.

You should jump on the Fry's price match, or order from their website.

Okay, I just read your first post. I think I'll have to wait for a second viewing to come up with fair analysis. Maybe I'll post something as extensive as the Miami Vice post above

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

I share that sentiment. Even if sharing what a movie meant to me can slightly enrich a film for just one person, it makes it all worth it. My love for a film is my primary motivation in writing reviews, which is why you don't find many negative reviews of mine on here. It is not as satisfying for me to steal the magic from somebody else just because a film didn't work for me. Or for any reason, for that matter.

Yep, mine are largely positive too. Nobody pays me to review anything, so I will never go to see things I expect to dislike. I review things I own, and new films by my favorite directors, or starring actors I like.

The few negative scores are for things I expect to like, which don't work for me for whatever reason. The Hobbit and The Master are two examples of that. Even then, I try to stay objective and give the reasons those movies failed for me.

[jvince]

My Favorite Picture of You (2013)
dir. TJ Martin, Dan Lindsay

The Good: The idea of pairing an audio interview with photographs and home movies. The interview itself; Just hearing co-director Martin's dying grandmother struggle to remember things from the past is heartbreaking. Nice score.

The Bad: Not as well-executed and moving as it could've been.

The Bottom Line: A solid, 3-minute documentary about life, love, and memories. The short film can be viewed here.

[SquidPuppet]

HOME



Warning: If you dont have Green beliefs, stay far away from this movie. It doesnt just preach, it wraps its message around the heavy end of a sledge hammer and bashes you in the skull with it. For two hours. And thats exactly why I like it.

The entire film is awe inspiring aerial footage of the planet. Forests, oceans, cities, rivers, jungles, deserts, the Poles, and extreme agriculture. It demonstrates how much we have changed Earth in such a short time.

It juxtaposes hauntingly beautiful music with alarming images and statistics.

I changed my behavior long before seeing this film for the first time in 2009, but I made even more changes after seeing it.

Highly recommended.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Steve46

Roger Ebert (1942-2013)

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

I'm not going to give you a summary of everything that Roger Ebert achieved in his life. Instead, I'll try to put into words what he meant to me.

I never met the man, or received any comments or emails from him. I sincerely doubt that he ever read a single word that I wrote, but I still feel like I lost a friend. I heard the news on the radio while I was at work, and it felt like someone had punched me in the stomach. I knew that he had been ill for a long time, but I didn't expect him to die for a few more years.

My blog has only been around for about two years, and I have only been a serious fan of film for five or six years. Sure, I've watched movies all my life, but it's only recently that I really started to take notice of what I was seeing on the screen, and what was being said below the surface. Instead of choosing whatever was popular, such as the latest comic book adaptation or dumb comedy, I started to think about the things that matter in life. Sometimes it was enough to be thrilled or see impressive special effects, but the films that will stay with me forever are those which impact me on an emotional level. I'm not sure whether I would ever have explored so many films that I missed if it were not for Roger Ebert.

Ebert's style was to get right to the heart of a movie. He hinted at the plot, of course, but he had a knack of seeing why a movie worked, or why it didn't work. He sometimes compared the events to things he had experienced in his own life, and that helped me understand why a scene might have been powerful to him.

What I probably admire the most is that Ebert was always honest. He didn't praise something just because he was a fan, or a friend of the director. If you look at his 4-star review of my personal favorite, Mulholland Dr., you might think that he's likely to wax lyrical about anything David Lynch ever gave us. But that's not the case. Blue Velvet earned a 1-star review, and I respect his reasons for giving it such a poor score. I respect all of his opinions because he wrote about the subject for 45 years, and was surely a student of the medium long before that. I can't make similar claims.

Another admirable quality was the way Ebert reacted to setbacks in his own life. He dealt with his illness without complaining, and contributed a huge amount despite eventually losing the ability to speak. He openly admitted his weakness for alcohol, and didn't shy away from showing the world what he looked like after part of his jaw was removed. I smile when I think about the way he talked about his wife, Chaz, and the obvious love they had for each other.

A surprising thing about Ebert is that he was open to any genre, and could recognize the genius in anything. I wouldn't have expected him to like Tarantino's films, but he passionately endorsed them and understood the humor. He also thought about the intended audience for a movie, and rated it with that in mind. He never pretended that he was unable to be reached by movies intended to have mass appeal. I try to keep that in mind when I voice my own opinions.

I was always happy when Ebert added one of my favorites to his great movies list. I know that his opinion doesn't have any bearing on what I like, but it still gave me pleasure to read his thoughts on such movies as Spirited Away. Ebert's endorsement of my favorite films mattered to me, and I will definitely explore many of those great movies that I haven't had the chance to watch.

Roger Ebert's speaking voice may have been lost a few years ago, but his ability to reach people remained until the day he died. In fact, his influence will always be with me.

I started writing because of my love for the NFL, and the need to voice my ideas and opinions about Fantasy Football. I started a blog because I was encouraged to do just that by my closest friend in the world. But I continue to attempt to write movie reviews because of Roger Ebert. I'm unlikely to affect the world in any significant way, but my best chance is through my writing. If I persuade one person to watch a movie because of one of my reviews, it justifies the three or four hours I spent watching the movie and struggling over my wording.

Over the past few years, I avoided reading reviews until I had seen the movie and reviewed it myself. When that was done, I would read Ebert's review and see whether he agreed with me, or if he had noticed something that I hadn't. I'll eventually read everything he ever published, but I'll always miss his presence.

I think that the role of a critic is to give an honest opinion. That's not always as easy as it sounds, especially when you have met some of the people who directed or acted in the movies. I chose Ebert as my go-to reviewer because I knew that I would get his true feelings, but I also found that our tastes are similar. There's no point in reading the words of someone with completely different taste if you want to use the review to decide whether something is worth seeing.

One article that I will never forget has nothing to do with movies at all. Ebert wrote about intelligence, and how many people are afraid to show it. Why do we dumb down what we are saying?

Thanks Roger. The movies won't be quite the same without you. The world has lost an honest, witty, and intelligent man, and a wonderful example of what a human being should be. I hope that you would approve of my amateur efforts.

Lovely...

Originally Posted by DjMethod

[Show spoiler]While we're on a heartfelt subject, I wanted to thank everyone here for contributing to so many hours of my day, and my life. It's fun to butt heads sometimes yet whole-heartedly agree at other times. Each of us brings unique character to the forum yet share the love (or hate) of many movies. Al can always bring the strange, Steve- my fellow Ghibli fanboy, Vince with the daily dose, and all the other great regulars that I will have to stop myself from naming for fear of leaving anyone out, but thank you. You guys have all played a part in expanding my appreciation for film. We each carry our own wisdom and unique insight, and the diversity of this thread is a testament to that. With the same passion that kept Ebert strong through that unbearable illness, I say, cheers to many more great years of movies ahead of us.

As well...

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Also, Squid- curious what your take is on Audiard's Rust and Bone. I'll post my expanded thoughts in a moment. Abdrewes and I briefly discussed it a while ago, but I don't think anyone else has seen it. It just went down to $14.99 at Fry's so I plan on picking it up and rewatching soon.

I cant add too much because the film didnt strike me as very complex or theme heavy.

I saw a straightforward story about a not-so-great guy, a poor father, who was also capable of great compassion and kindness at times. He is like a real person, part good, part bad. He meets a gal with issues of her own. She is self destructive in her social choices and has control issues, but we never learn why. They emotionally gravitate toward one another in a very normal way, as opposites often do (important). Over the course of the film each character begins to morph a little bit, aquiring some of the dominant trait from the other person. He gains compassion and forgiveness, and she gains thicker skin, determination, confidence, and the ability to "let go".

Will they continue to grow and mature together? Dunno. They have the tools to do so. Or will they revert to their old self destructive ways? Dunno.

I would have enjoyed a little more backstory on the two leads.

I dont have en explanation for this bit, but it is something I noticed. I dont kow if I missed something or if the film didnt explain it. When he went to the place where

[Show spoiler]they were all dressed the same, (what was that by the way?) he seemed to already have experienced an awakening of some type. When his Son was dropped off for the visit, he seemed genuinely happy to see the boy. And the time they were spending together felt rich with a real connection. My point is, to me, he seemed to have turned the corner EVEN BEFORE the ice accident.

I agree that the ending

[Show spoiler]came up way too quick and was surprisingly Hollywood.

My 2 cents.

[Al_The_Strange]

Since we've all done some self-reflecting, I'll add that I consider myself a positive reviewer too. Squiddy even called me out on it once:

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

14. Al the Strange likes everything.

Sometimes, it seems true. I think part of it is indeed that it takes a lot for me to really hate a film or down-grade it. Part of it may just be my overall outlook on things; I'm a bit of an optimist and have a positive outlook on most things in life.

It surprises me how easily some people hate things. Somebody recently told me that Cloud Atlas sucked. Still haven't seen it myself, but this was the first negative comment I heard about it. He even went on to say that all his friends thought it sucked too, and he's never heard anything positive about it. It's been the total opposite for me; it goes to show that everything really is subjective, and some of us will see a glass that's half-empty and others will see it as half-full.

I will see this movie, even if it kills me. At this point, I'll probably be predetermined to love it, if for no other reason than to prove these other guys wrong.

Originally Posted by DjMethod

I like Einstein's approach:

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

That always resonated with me because it highlights the importance of being concise.

That is a very interesting and true quotation. I like it. I think I should apply it more to real life. Especially regarding my writing overall; some of my reviews seem to babble too much.

Originally Posted by DjMethod

While we're on a heartfelt subject, I wanted to thank everyone here for contributing to so many hours of my day, and my life. It's fun to butt heads sometimes yet whole-heartedly agree at other times. Each of us brings unique character to the forum yet share the love (or hate) of many movies...We each carry our own wisdom and unique insight, and the diversity of this thread is a testament to that. With the same passion that kept Ebert strong through that unbearable illness, I say, cheers to many more great years of movies ahead of us.

I agree, we all have formed a well-rounded and varied mix of opinions and ideas. We've had lots of interesting and insightful discussions. It's been fun in this thread, and I have all of you to thank for that. Keep it up, gang!

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Al can always bring the strange

Woohoo! This calls for a Ed Wood marathon!

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

HOME



Warning: If you dont have Green beliefs, stay far away from this movie. It doesnt just preach, it wraps its message around the heavy end of a sledge hammer and bashes you in the skull with it. For two hours. And thats exactly why I like it.

The entire film is awe inspiring aerial footage of the planet. Forests, oceans, cities, rivers, jungles, deserts, the Poles, and extreme agriculture. It demonstrates how much we have changed Earth in such a short time.

It juxtaposes hauntingly beautiful music with alarming images and statistics.

I changed my behavior long before seeing this film for the first time in 2009, but I made even more changes after seeing it.

Highly recommended.

Agreed; the message is hammered in, but it's a darn important one. I never understood why people get all fussy about environmental messages.

If nothing else, I also remember this video being gorgeous.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I

[Show spoiler] cant add too much because the film didnt strike me as very complex or theme heavy.

I saw a straightforward story about a not-so-great guy, a poor father, who was also capable of great compassion and kindness at times. He is like a real person, part good, part bad. He meets a gal with issues of her own. She is self destructive in her social choices and has control issues, but we never learn why. They emotionally gravitate toward one another in a very normal way, as opposites often do (important).

Over the course of the film each character begins to morph a little bit, aquiring some of the dominant trait from the other person. He gains compassion and forgiveness, and she gains thicker skin, determination, confidence, and the ability to "let go".

Well said! This is absolutely the backbone of the story--two people that give balance to each other's lives. It's almost shallow in the sense that they are essentially in it for mutual benefit. I think the film goes far deeper than that though. My theories dive more into their inner struggles.

Will they continue to grow and mature together? Dunno. They have the tools to do so. Or will they revert to their old self destructive ways? Dunno.

Right. Their "benefits" from the relationship are nothing more than tools. All we know is they have access to use them, but are not necessarily an integrated part of them. We are not told whether they will be used yet, just that they need those tools there,

[Show spoiler]which is why they ultimately remain together once Ali realizes this.

It is not about change, it is about polishing just a little bit of that rust off.

I would have enjoyed a little more backstory on the two leads.

Personally, I kind of liked the mystery, but I have to agree here because it could have helped me empathize with Ali more.

I dont have en explanation for this bit, but it is something I noticed. I dont kow if I missed something or if the film didnt explain it. When he went to the place where

[Show spoiler]they were all dressed the same, (what was that by the way?) he seemed to already have experienced an awakening of some type. When his Son was dropped off for the visit, he seemed genuinely happy to see the boy. And the time they were spending together felt rich with a real connection. My point is, to me, he seemed to have turned the corner EVEN BEFORE the ice accident.

I can't recall what scene you're referring to. Any more details to jump my memory?

I agree that the ending

[Show spoiler]came up way too quick and was surprisingly Hollywood.

A couple things I would like to add to the significance of the ending:

[Show spoiler]

1. His experience in fighting ultimately saved his son by giving him the strength to break through the ice.

2. His experience in fighting ultimately provided a life purpose (MMA career).

3. His fighting also hardened Stephanie and instilled the confidence she lacked. Why she chooses to support him I am still uncertain, but I provided a possible explanation in a previous post. (this one does not concern the ending but I wanted to point it out).

4. The near-drowning represented the dramatic amplification of his inner struggle once he left Stephanie, emphasizing his need for her.

Also, check out this case report.

A 3yo boy fell underwater for over 30 minutes before being pulled out by his parents and made a full neurological recovery.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I never understood why people get all fussy about environmental messages.

I think it's because environmentalists/uber-liberals can be douchebags. The kind of people that bang on your window because your car is on in the parking lot. They give a bad rep to the cause. Just like the in-your-face abortion signs with pictures of dead fetuses. If you want the message to be heard, be graceful about it.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

I can't recall what scene you're referring to. Any more details to jump my memory?

At the point in the movie where he just flat out

[Show spoiler]bails on the Steph and his son. He goes MIA. His sister even makes negative comments to Steph about him abandoning his son. Then later, we see him at some type of "Camp" where everyone is dressed the same. I wasnt sure if it was a fighting "Training camp", or a religeous "sanctuary" or a low security prison. Anyway, his brother-in-law delivers his son for a visit and that is when he is playing with his son. Sleding, pic-nic lunch etc. they seem to be bonding fantastically compared to earlier in the movie. He seemed to have experienced his "wake up call" about how valuable his son and love were even before the drowning.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

At the point in the movie where he just flat out

[Show spoiler]bails on the Steph and his son. He goes MIA. His sister even makes negative comments to Steph about him abandoning his son. Then later, we see him at some type of "Camp" where everyone is dressed the same. I wasnt sure if it was a fighting "Training camp", or a religeous "sanctuary" or a low security prison. Anyway, his brother-in-law delivers his son for a visit and that is when he is playing with his son. Sleding, pic-nic lunch etc. they seem to be bonding fantastically compared to earlier in the movie. He seemed to have experienced his "wake up call" about how valuable his son and love were even before the drowning.

I have to see the film again. I don't remember that scene at all...

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

I think it's because environmentalists/uber-liberals can be douchebags. The kind of people that bang on your window because your car is on in the parking lot. They give a bad rep to the cause. Just like the in-your-face abortion signs with pictures of dead fetuses. If you want the message to be heard, be graceful about it.

I think graceful certainly has its place, often, in proper context, and when the mindset (denial/receptiveness) of of the targeted recipient is willing/able to receive a graceful delivery. But there are times where the wall is too high and deep for a gentle delivery to make its way through.

Examples:

1. At a big 4th of July BBQ bash at a neighborhood park I witness a man who has obviously had a few too many beers (clearly drunk) fishing for his car keys on his way to his vehicle. His 7 year old daughter in tow. He may hurt himself or others by driving in this condition. I would approach him and as elegantly as possible offer to call him a cab or give him a ride home. Message received, he agrees, and all ends well.

2. At a big 4th of July BBQ bash at a neighborhood park I witness a man who has obviously had a few too many beers (clearly drunk) fishing for his car keys on his way to his vehicle. His 7 year old daughter in tow. He may hurt himself or others by driving in this condition. I would approach him and as elegantly as possible offer to call him a cab or give him a ride home. He indicates that my meassage has fallen upon deaf ears and insists that he continue on his chosen path. He will NOT be persuaded otherwise. At that point I would do whatever necessary in order to prevent him from proceeding.

Sometimes people are so stuck in a pattern, or a state of denial, that only loud, obnoxious, and physical messages can break through.

Sometimes...

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

I have to see the film again. I don't remember that scene at all...

Yeah, it was weird. They didnt explain why he bailed, just that he did. And they didnt explain (unless I missed it) where/what that place was. It was far away though, sunny beach vs snowy forest. It seemed like some kind of place where he was "Allowed" scheduled visitors. Public phones on the walls, big common cafeteria area.