Josh Z

I guess if you thought that manipulative dreck was profound and meaningful, there's nothing more to say. My thoughts on the film are already on record in the review I wrote some time back. We'll leave it at that.

pro-bassoonist

When someone states an opinion such as this....

"It has subtitles so therefore it must be artistic and meaningful."

...(and sadly this happens to be you) I find absolutely no reason to even read your so-called review. As much as I would like to!!

Regards,
Pro-B

ps
Excentris...feel free to argue about this film if you wish. After seeing the above "statement" I have no desire to.

eXcentris

Nope, some arguments are worth having, some aren't. This one falls in the later category. Anyway this thread is supposed to be about Motorcycle Diaries.

NOTE: I woudn't argue with someone who believes the sky is purple and claims he sees flying pink elephants either.

Jason Bovberg

Normally, I'd just let you guys have it out, but I had to chime in on this one. You've taken that line out of context. Josh is just being satirical there. Do you really believe he'd write a line like that literally?

Josh Z

Thanks, Jason. Of course I didn't.

That's the problem with sarcasm, I guess. It's too easy for people to intentionally misread it to make a point for their own agenda.

eXcentris

It's taken out of context but it's a reflection of that whole first paragraph which is essentially a bash job and intellectually dishonest. It reeks of "people who believe this award winning and critically acclaimed film is good are wrong and I'm right". Now I'm not saying you have to like every critically acclaimed film out there. I think it's a good film but not near the masterpiece some make it out to be. But even if I hated it, I'd never write a review like that. I'd do some reading and even watch it again to find out what others saw in it that I didn't. I might find out that beneath it's apparent simplicity it's a complex and multi-layered film (which it is). I might still hate it for some reason or other and I would still explain why in my review, but I would also mention why others seem to like it. There's a big difference between "like" and "good", and "hate" and "bad".

This review goes no further than "it's simplistic, overly melodramatic drivel". Ok, what about the acting? The cinematography? The directing? Nothing. It's a bash job pure and simple. That's the kind of review I might write for Species 3 or Gigli but for A Son's Room? Give me a break...

It's a matter of nuance and degrees. When you write a review like that it achieves two things:

1. You lose all credibility with more knowledgable film lovers who will not be fooled by that literate version of JoeSixpack's "this movie sucks", and will never read one of your reviews again.

2. You are pushing the average movie-goer away from a film that most people liked. And why? Because you're on some sort of ego trip.

And neither of those are good imho.

Josh Z

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying in the review. I make no apologies for it.

The only one being intellectually dishonest in this conversation is you. Film reviews are about subjective opinion. I have an opinion on the film and I state it clearly. I don't try to couch that opinion in the guise of false objectivity: "Well, everybody else says this movie is good, so I guess it must be. I suppose maybe... uhhh... the acting is OK.... or the lighting.... yeah, I guess it's really a good movie after all."

I saw it twice. There's nothing there. It's a void of pretentious nothingness pretending to have meaning that doesn't actually exist.

I hate this movie because it is bad. The two go hand-in-hand sometimes.

I do understand the difference. There are "good" movies that I nonetheless dislike, and there are "bad" movies that I enjoy, but in cases like The Son's Room the stars align and everything comes into focus. It is a bad movie, therefore I dislike it.

Maybe if you actually read more than the first paragraph. For example:

"Moretti was clearly counting on his likable screen presence to carry him through this more serious, somber melodrama about a psychiatrist adept at analyzing others but incapable of healing his own wounds. Unfortunately, although the characters are sympathetic the story is not engaging. "

Or

"At least a movie like Terms of Endearment manages to achieve some amount of humor and pathos, or on the other end of the spectrum Krzysztof Kieslowski's Blue was pretentious enough to be artfully stylized in its melancholy gloom. The Son's Room, though, is made with no particular sense of artistry and tells us nothing we didn't already know."

And in the video section:

"Considering how blandly photographed and directed the movie is, the picture on disc is sharp, colors are bold, and contrasts are fair with decent shadow detail."

Talk about intellectual dishonesty! I set no such double-standard. If the movie is bad, it gets trashed, no matter how many awards it won. This film is no more deserving of an audience's attention than either of those two crapfests.

eXcentris

I was going to reply in detail but considering the above, I won't bother. Putting A Son's Room in the same "crapfest" category as those two titles is thouroughly idiotic. Personally I believe that the worthless drivel here is your review.

Josh Z

To each their own. I think if more than a dozen people in the country bothered to see the film, more of them would agree with me than with you.

rondo

Well NOW I want to see it!
Thanks for the review and debate.