Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Moriarty Asks What Happens When You Hate A Film You Want To Love! DIARY And BE KIND Reviewed!

Rewind made $4 million at the box office last week. by leobloom	Mar 1st, 2008 03:36:48 AM
Just sayin.
I love how you expressed yourself so elegantly . . . by CockyPop	Mar 1st, 2008 03:41:50 AM
. . . without resorting to the hyperbole/indulgence of negative reviews. I know what you mean. I don't like them either, and there's definitely a hierarchy to "negative reviews".
Darn I wanted to be first, just this once.... by Specktron	Mar 1st, 2008 03:42:45 AM

well... by damagedinc	Mar 1st, 2008 03:44:35 AM
I wanted "Be Kind Rewind" to work but I think I'll just say pass. i think i'll continue to be happy with the idea of the movie as i was when i heard about it back in pre-production. It really sucks to get into the geek element of a film, follow it for a year or two, and then find out that it sucks. I didn't know that Spiderman 3 could even possibly suck until the week or so before the movie was released worldwide and the negative reviews started pouring in. I was grateful because it really did end up being a colossal and expensive waste of time that tainted the other 2 movies. The new Star Wars movies had the same problem and what I like can't hide the fact that there's some serious issues there. I thought Be Kind Rewind would be bulletproof and I thought Gondry was more than competent. Now I'm between being let down with this movie that I was really stoked about and just letting the dream die.
I knew there was a reason I kept reading this site. by acorvey25	Mar 1st, 2008 03:46:29 AM
Well done. I still plan on giving both films a look. I'll tread lightly though...
...also, why does it seem.... by damagedinc	Mar 1st, 2008 03:52:06 AM
...that there's a pre-reflective bias to reviewing movies? I feel you can work out the psyche of someone like Peter Travers based on how he reviews movies. I thought that when Rolling Stone (worst. magazine. ever.) moved from the 5-star to the 4-star review system for movies (4 is a classic, 3 1/2 is equivalent to "4 stars" everywhere else), that it was was the most pretentious move in the history of film criticism. I feel like Travers, in a way not unlike RS's album reviews, bases his reviews on partly his insight but also partly what he anticipates the critical consensus will be and whether he will act similarly or react against it to stand out, all in line with his disposition. I know this idea is out there, but I don't think it's totally wrong.
I think the idea by Varakor	Mar 1st, 2008 03:56:47 AM
behind Be Kind Rewind, was sorta lame. Then again I don't really care for Jack Black's work except for Shallow Hal.
Moriarty: the reason I still read AICN by alfiemoon	Mar 1st, 2008 04:00:37 AM
Nice review of BE KIND, Mori. I felt completely differently about the movie - it really won me over with its charm and gentle humour, and I didn't find the whimsy to be forced at all - but it's nice to read the thoughts of somebody who holds a different opinion, and who can articulate it so well. And I completely agree with you about how difficult it is to write a negative review, too - I'd much rather talk about what I enjoy than what I don't enjoy. I wish there were more reviewers like you on the site.
You liked land of the dead... tells me all i need to know... by bongo123	Mar 1st, 2008 04:04:13 AM
that abomination was laughed off my Tv by someone who cant get enough Zombie movies, zombie books and the brilliant Walking Dead graphic novels and that complete and utter piss of a movie you liked!!???!? wtf!?!? Diary looks exactly the same, straight to bottom shelf video to be rented by teenagers looking to get laid... fucking thinking zombies... over the fucking top social commentary even for monnkeys... horrible fucking acting... "maybe there tryng to find there place" I MEAN WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT!!!! they just ate half your fucking city and you leave em alone cause they have a right to exist!!!!! i was fuming after that piece of shite movie, literally fuming... the dudes lost it, he made some classic movies, they've aged a heck of a lot but lets face it Zack Snyder/Danny boyle have shown on the way zombies should be in the 21st century and how to make, class scary as fuck zombie movies, time for george to kick back put up his feet and just revel in the glory from past classics and leave the new kids to give us entertaining zombie flicks... fucking land of the dead... jeeze mate, sort that one out
You're right, damagedinc by acorvey25	Mar 1st, 2008 04:18:06 AM
It seems that most critics of Travers' stature are completely and utterly disingenuous, reviewing based solely on what they think the prevailing consensus will be (unless, as you pointed out, they're trying to distinguish themselves). Which is why I only pay attention to critics like Moriarty because I know they're sincere and aren't just trying to get their fucking quotes on a poster or T.V. spot. What happened to the Lester Bangs school of criticism? I visit both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritc often (and enjoy them), but it seems to me that websites like these are directly responsible for the death of legitimate film criticism. These day, everything is about a combined percentage for easy consumption. It's all numbers, stars, thumbs, etc. It's fast food, man. There's no passion, no discussion. It's just so hollow. I guess for a lot of people that's fine... they just want to make sure they're money is well spent. Anyway, I'm ranting. Keep up the good work, Moriarty!
Would watch Be Kind if Mos Def wasnt in it. by worldofwarcraft	Mar 1st, 2008 04:22:46 AM
Mos Def is absolutely horrific. He is such a phony, he's acting all the time. He's that black kid who's smart and lives in a house with a two car garage, who starts talking all street and figures he can get away with it cuz the color of his skin.
"absolutely not a screenwriter" by Vern	Mar 1st, 2008 04:24:48 AM
I see Moriarty's point and part of me agrees with it but I also think it would be kind of a shame for somebody like Gondry not to just go hog wild in a movie and follow his whims. I guess when it comes down to it I like his Charlie Kaufman movies better (and I don't care what anybody says about HUMAN NATURE, that movie still cracks me up) but there is something more pure and honest about the two that he wrote. They're sloppier and more random but they're also clearly coming from his heart and from his imagination without as many filters. So maybe you sacrifice precision but you get something in trade. Moriarty brought up MARGOT AT THE WEDDING because of Jack Black being in both. It's true, Jack Black's performance is better in that movie. It's a better made movie. The photography is great, the performances are great, alot of care goes into the characterization. And at the end you realize wow, a bunch of petty, despicable people were just cruel to each other for two hours. I knew about assholes already, I'm not sure I learned much new about them. I liked BE KIND REWIND better because it had a heart in there, and it had something more interesting and worthwhile to say, and it didn't leave me thinking "wow, that guy must be a real prick to write a movie like that." In fact it's the opposite. I hate to be taking this stance, actually, because I am all in favor of better filmatism. I'd rather have the heart AND the polished surface. But sometimes a movie can still be worthwhile even with many flaws. I think I just convinced myself that DAVE CHAPPELLE'S BLOCK PARTY is Gondry's best movie. I like all of them, though.
One more thing... by acorvey25	Mar 1st, 2008 04:27:09 AM
That recent story about Maxim magazine randomly assigning a star-rating to an album they hadn't even heard is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I wouldn't be surprised if fuck-sticks like Travers did the same damned thing. Apparently educated-guess criticism is the way of the future.
Peter Travers by kwisatzhaderach	Mar 1st, 2008 04:28:21 AM
raved about THE ABYSS when it was released and then never mentioned it in his end of year round-up. Twat.
Vern... by TheRealMoriarty	Mar 1st, 2008 04:33:21 AM
... I'm with you on BLOCK PARTY. And I was intrigued by what you wrote in your review of the film, saying how you thought this might have been an extension of that experience. I can see that. I can see the intent. I just don't like the end result at all.
BE KIND REWIND by TiPPiDa	Mar 1st, 2008 04:41:08 AM
Even though I haven't seen it yet, I'm pretty sure I'll like Black better in BE KIND than I did in King Kong (he took me right out of the movie), and I'll probably like MOS DEF more in BE KIND than I did as Ford Prefect... oh well... its Michael Fucking Gondry.. its already got my money.
I'm beginning to think SUNSHINE was an anomaly by BenBraddock	Mar 1st, 2008 04:51:08 AM
And who keeps casting Jack Black in lead roles? He's OK in small doses but his 'thing' gets pretty tiresome pretty quickly. Imho, natch...
Reviews on AICN = worthless shit by quantize	Mar 1st, 2008 04:51:28 AM
really Mory, if you dont get how fucking lame and retarded those characters are in Cloverfield..even the wanker camera dude - who people seem to find endearing, then your opinion means shit to this one commenter.
Moriarty, if writer's block.... by Boba Fat	Mar 1st, 2008 04:53:58 AM
ends with a splurge of superb writing like that then I'm hoping it continues! Not really but I'm prepared to stick my neck out in cyberspace and kiss your ass over a piece of writing that affirms my love of this site. Thanks
Quantize... by TheRealMoriarty	Mar 1st, 2008 05:06:56 AM
... they just seemed sort of young and dumb to me. Not the worst people in the world. I certainly don't feel any venom towards them. Have you seen DIARY OF THE DEAD by comparison? You'll start to love the CLOVERFIELD kids like they're your own family.
That's why I like Mori... by Napolean Solo	Mar 1st, 2008 05:25:12 AM
Quantize just hailed down a couple insults and Mori gave him what is commonly known as "The Obama Response". Laid back and dignified.
Quantize... by LordPorkington	Mar 1st, 2008 05:33:09 AM
'Reviews on AICN = worthless shit'? Then why do you come here? Why are you using the Talkback? Just fuck off somewhere else for your movie news then. I wouldn't take my car to a garage who did a bad job and then keep returning there, whilst bitching and moaning about their bad service. Don't like the reviews? Go somewhere else, simple as that. I'm sick and tired of whiny little bitches like this kid, they're almost as bad as the stupid cunts who revel in getting a 'First!' post and then don't actually say anything about the article. What the hell is happening to our society? Makes me weep...
I still liked it. by hamslime	Mar 1st, 2008 05:33:33 AM
Be Kind Rewind hit home for me. It reminded me of making random movies with my friends. Try making a movie with your friends, however terrible, and look how they react to all their hard work and passion. To come together and make art is a special and rewarding thing to behold, and that ending reflected it perfectly in my eyes. Have you ever put together a home movie, recorded an album with your first band, even built a hot rod from the ground up. That's what I felt this movie was ultimately about, and I have to disagree with you, it earned it's ending. Jack Black was over-the-top at times though, but to be fair, I've known many spazzes in real life that acted just like him.
Aren't there stock phrases in Hollywood by V'Shael	Mar 1st, 2008 05:40:50 AM
that people use to say they hate a movie? Like, "Well, I didn't get it." or "I don't think it spoke to me" or some such nonsense? Mori, you're not related to these people... they're used to critics. They probably aren't used to critics being so polite in their criticism. Relax, it's a grand post. While I don't agree with a lot of your movie opinions, you're the only reviewer on this site who seems to take what he does remotely seriously.
FUCKED BEFORE IT STARTED. by Greigy Just Wanted To Say	Mar 1st, 2008 05:49:39 AM
The concept is just not believable which is hampered by the fact that it's shot in real world reality... if it were dayglo sitcom with the colours dialed all the way up you might just suspend disbelief... but here you keep just scratching your head saying no not buying it...! Gondry is just too precious... loved by people who like precious films.. all him films have GIMMICKS... or as his fans would call them HOOKS... but it takes REAL TALENT to take a conventional story told in a conventional way and still hold the audience spellbound... that why we love Wilder, Sturges, Hawks, Capra...etc... SOONER OR LATER YOU RUN OUT OF GIMMICKS...
Moriarty, damn it. by Yosh	Mar 1st, 2008 06:58:48 AM
You ass. I was forced to go to all the intense, endless trouble of creating a user account here on AICN (something I've been considering for months but never actually followed through on) because I physically couldn't read that review/those reviews and not tell you that you're simply the best and fairest reviewer on this site. Not that I want to shit on all the other guys, who I love, but this is such an incredibly mature review. The way you deal with the difficult nut of a negative review is just so impressive. It gets me. Damn it. Damn you.
LAST! by Sparhawk38	Mar 1st, 2008 06:58:59 AM
I agree with Lord P. I do not get all the love for hate on this site. It is fun to disagree with a review or debate an issue about a film, but I don't get the All-Star Wrestling level of animosity and the effort it takes to come to the site, read a review by someone you don't like apparently, register, and respond. Thats a lot of effort..BROTHER! Huk smash
I wanted to like Be Kind Rewind so much by O_Goncho	Mar 1st, 2008 07:05:06 AM
And ashamedly I kept quiet about how awful I thought it was whilst leaving the cinema with my two friends. They both loved it but I felt so let down. The two(ish) decent sweding sequences were magic, but the rest was so... flat. Best encapsulated by the walking weetabix that is Mos Def.
"but the rest was so... by O_Goncho	Mar 1st, 2008 07:06:52 AM
... flat, forced, unconvincing, p--" Okay, no, no more.
yeah, i had this experience with Goblet of Fire by newc0253	Mar 1st, 2008 07:08:28 AM
the established Brit director of Donnie Brasco and Four Weddings takes on one of the biggest and brightest Harry Potter books? Especially after Cuaron had done such a magnificent job with Prisoner of Azkahban. same tone, same cast, same effects crew, should have been a cert, huh? except i was really disappointed in it. found it muddled and generally lacking. had an almost allergic reaction to it, in fact, and it threw me. you wonder if yours is a bizarre idiosyncratic take on the film, that there's something you missed that everyone else got. then you figure that, sadly, the film just didn't deliver. which is a shame.
Att: newc0253 by Yosh	Mar 1st, 2008 07:16:53 AM
I know the exact feeling that you mean. It's so hard to separate your expectations of the film, not to mention how everyone else around you reacts to it, and the critical reaction, from your honest perception of what you saw. Of course, the audience does have an actual impact on the viewing experience itself, as well. Anyway, I'm rambling. My point was going to be that it took me ages to acknowledge that GoF was a pretty mediocre film because I'd been expecting it to be so good, and PoA was so brilliant. I'm right there with ya.
Douchebags by SutterCane	Mar 1st, 2008 07:21:05 AM
I think the douchebag tag applies pretty readily to Cloverfield's characters. When you're in the middle of a catastrophe that surely is making worldwide news coverage and your brother has just been killed, wouldn't it occur to you to put in a call to your family? Rob is so intent on getting back to a girl that he kind of/sort of has a crush on that his mother has to call him to find out whether he and his brother are alive. I mean, yeah, you've got a lot on your mind running from a monster and all but at some point you'd want to give your family a heads-up as to what's happening. So that kind of general thoughtlessness goes under the "douchebag" banner for me.
For all its faults... by lagomorph	Mar 1st, 2008 07:26:59 AM
I thought Be Kind Rewind worked but the concept of low budget triumph came off much more smoothly and with more humor and heart in the movie Bowfinger. I think the pacing of Be Kind Rewind was the real killer. It was cute, but it never seemed to want to go anywhere, and when it finally started moving it was easily distracted. The movie was made by a cat. All that out in the open, I still thoroughly enjoyed it and find it impossible to hate. Even surreal scenes like Black pissing magnetic pee down the road, were oddly charming. I feel like this criticism of "too whimsical" was built into some critics kit they gave you at the door. I've heard it too much and it's a criticism which doesn't land in my opinion. The show Pushing Daisies is perhaps too whimsical, but this stays solidly in the "just whimsical enough" category. Again, this is Michel Gondry's most restrained effort to date.
Oh thank God! by Monster Ham	Mar 1st, 2008 08:04:41 AM
I saw Diary of the Dead last October at the LA premiere, and I felt like I was the only one paying attention to the movie. Everything Moriarty said was true, but he forgot to add that on top of boring, unlikable characters, a tepid plot, and an overabundance of heavy handed, far-left leaning commentary (the Katrina bit was just fucking ridiculous), the most important aspect of the movie, the actual zombies, look like shit. I’m assuming that Savini did the work, and if so, it is by far the weakest effort I have ever seen from him. My wife thinks that it was all intentional, the poorly made up zombies lend the film a more amateurish, “student” feel, but I just think it sucked. I have watched the fans and media eat this flick up for the past 5 months and watching all this, I started to feel like I saw the wrong damn movie. I love all the other flicks in the Dead series (even Land, but not quite as much), and I just felt like Diary was like watching a train wreck. One of the best horror directors of the last century took his most familiar, trusted topic and smeared it in shit and set it on a plate for us, not even fully cooked. And, by the looks of things, we ate it up. Don’t believe the hype. We deserve a better zombie film from Romero – hell, Romero deserves a better zombie film from Romero. It’s funny, I’ve heard a lot of people compare this flick to Cloverfield, but I thought that Cloverfield was actually a much better movie. It had its share of problems, sure, but it was still fun. Diary was not fun, and that is probably the most accurate and depressing thing I can say about it.
HOW CAN ANYONE ENJOY LAND OF THE DEAD??! by Wilclas	Mar 1st, 2008 08:33:30 AM
My God...
Ignore the whining by Internet Thug	Mar 1st, 2008 08:41:21 AM
in the first few paragraphs and skip to the review.
Felt the same way about Be Kind, Rewind. by CreasyBear	Mar 1st, 2008 09:03:11 AM
Like a lot of bored idiots, my friends and I did some homemade "movies" back in the day that we enjoyed in the same way the neighborhood in Be Kind, Rewind enjoyed seeing themselves on screen. Just a complete, so-bad-it's-funny (to us) goof. Those friends and I saw it together, but even I felt the movie reach and stretch a little awkwardly for the meaningful climax. Disappointing, but Jack Black as Robocop, the inventiveness of the mass-produced Sweding montage -- as well as a stream of highly magnetized urine -- means at least it was unusual enough to make me glad I hadn't spent the same ticket-money on Jumper.
I LOVE zombie films however... by zombiemaster	Mar 1st, 2008 09:56:17 AM
I had expected much more from Romero and Diary, boy was I disappointed. I have to agree, the acting and script were just bad. I though Land was also bad. It felt like a Hollywood version of a Zombie film, whne it should have been a Grindhouse version. As for CLoverfield, I think the characters were exactly as there were supposed to be. Have you ever met and big city hipster types? Dead on.
Mori + Writer's Block = Hope for Hollywood by Lenny8	Mar 1st, 2008 10:02:31 AM
At least we can put the nail in the coffin that is Mori's "screenwriting" career.
Wait, what? by RainJacket	Mar 1st, 2008 10:03:12 AM
People didn't like Bratz? This is absolutely news to me.
A response to Moriarty... (spoiler) by Err	Mar 1st, 2008 10:17:07 AM
And I love how you people absolutely loved The Fountain but hated Be Kind Rewind. The Fountain blew. I expected more from Aronofsky. At least, BKR was consistent with Gondry's work. The only real problem I had with the film was all the people clapping and laughing at the end. Even in a state of suspended belief, that felt like too much. Other than that, the film worked. A lot of people think that this was Gondry's foray into mainstream comedy. It wasn't. If you think that a movie released on less than 1000 screens in the US starring Jack fucking Black is his foray into mainstream, then people are sadly mistaken. Secondly, Gondry does his stuff. Obviously, this world he created doesn't really exist. But the point behind the film is one of community. It's not about remaking Ghostbusters or Robocop or Lion King in 20 minutes, it is about the community finally coming together. The town of Passaic was in a state of paralysis (to be Joyce-ian about it). They were stuck. These condos were going to bring them into the future. The community came together one last time in celebration of itself before it was upgraded by the developers. Sure Farrow's acting was lacking but this film was genuine. How many films can claim that? Of course it feels like community theater. IT IS! I hope you didn't come to the film looking for Jack Black to make you die laughing in the aisles. That then scares me for how you thought Jim Carrey was going to be in Eternal Sunshine. I grant you the ending being contrived but to not understand how a community can come together for one last hurrah and celebrate it's history before it is "upgraded" is something that maybe you need to live in a small town to appreciate. I reject your notion that the film is bad. To suggest bad is to put it on par with films like Be Cool and THe Hottie and the Nottie and Special Ops.
Most reviewers love to write negative shit by Agent Blue	Mar 1st, 2008 10:25:10 AM
And not just for movies like Bratz. For all movies. Maybe the reviews aren't lunchroom nasty 100% of the time, but giving a movie a shitty review helps keep their illusion of superiority of opinions over the rest of us non-reviewer folk, whether they know it or not. I often question their true love of film. My main example of this is Devin from CHUD.com. Devin seems to hate almost every movie he sees, yet he works for a movie website. What the fuck? I wouldn't work at Steak-&-Potatoes-R-Us if I was a vegetarian. Morarity says he doesn't enjoy giving negative reviews for flicks he expected to love, and I believe that. But does he like giving negative reviews for all the other movies? Maybe. I just think there is a stark contrast in the tone of reviews between Harry and Morarity. One man seems to love movies, and one man seems to love that he knows a lot about movies. Guess which one is which. I could be wrong though. I've been known to be an asshole before.
Most reviewers love to write negative shit by Agent Blue	Mar 1st, 2008 10:25:12 AM
And not just for movies like Bratz. For all movies. Maybe the reviews aren't lunchroom nasty 100% of the time, but giving a movie a shitty review helps keep their illusion of superiority of opinions over the rest of us non-reviewer folk, whether they know it or not. I often question their true love of film. My main example of this is Devin from CHUD.com. Devin seems to hate almost every movie he sees, yet he works for a movie website. What the fuck? I wouldn't work at Steak-&-Potatoes-R-Us if I was a vegetarian. Morarity says he doesn't enjoy giving negative reviews for flicks he expected to love, and I believe that. But does he like giving negative reviews for all the other movies? Maybe. I just think there is a stark contrast in the tone of reviews between Harry and Morarity. One man seems to love movies, and one man seems to love that he knows a lot about movies. Guess which one is which. I could be wrong though. I've been known to be an asshole before.
LordPorkington by Err	Mar 1st, 2008 10:25:26 AM
I'm guessing he comes on here because there are other things on here besides reviews. I'm also guessing he uses the talkbacks to provide his feedback and comments which he is entitled to and shouldn't have to feel chastized because a self-righteous TBer feels the need to assert some power or authority which they don't have. I don't agree with Moriarty's review of Be Kind Rewind and I think Massawyrm is one of the most worthless reviewers on the planet and has never put out anything that could be remotely considered a review or a piece of journalism, yet I still come on here.
Zombie Films a Genre? by Thunderbolt Ross	Mar 1st, 2008 10:40:44 AM
Really?
Errrr... by LordPorkington	Mar 1st, 2008 10:56:29 AM
Well that's me told good and proper, isn't it?!
The Dead is Dead by rudimus maximus	Mar 1st, 2008 10:59:50 AM
I hated LAND and hated DAY even more. If not for the Romero brand name, everyone would. In my opinion, Romero's run not out of things to say, but in creative ways to say them. LAND was amateurishly written and made little sense. The notion that a collapsed society would be run by weak guys with worthless paper money is high school play material. DAY was so poorly acted but its hard to blame the man given budget restraints. This film which was at sundance, is just not good. It's t.v. movie preachy and frankly, dull. We all love Romero and rightfully so. But just like Eyes Wide Shut blew even though Kubrick did it, this blows too. Bravo to Mori for having the fortitude to call it straight. George should do a couple of non-dead films to get his chops back. He seems, well, lazy with people's love of the zombies.
hmmm by Jarek	Mar 1st, 2008 11:21:11 AM
I still really stand by liking DIARY OF THE DEAD. I've seen it twice, once at TIFF and once with it's release now... and even with the nearly 5 month break between viewings, it still holds up. People criticizing it for it's obviousness and heavyhandedness just make me shake my head. Lets say this all together: "WE ARE NOT WATCHING A ROMERO FILM". Got it? We're watching a film made a pretentious film student.. and guess what? It holds true to her character. Simple as that. There's a lot to like in it. As for Gondry.... I like Science of Sleep for what it is, but it's not great. Eternal Sunshine was great, and I really liked HUMAN NATURE, his other collaboration with Kaufman. Yet I have no interest in Be Kind, Rewind.
Bravo Mori by CarmillaVonDoom	Mar 1st, 2008 11:50:04 AM
2 negative reviews written properly. I don't think anyone deserves a career-long pass for previous outstanding work.
Diary by gotilk	Mar 1st, 2008 12:06:40 PM
You really had me there. I thought for sure that not only had someone adapted that wonderful little Palahniuk book without my hearing about it, but that had also managed to screw it up somehow. That'd be a hard one to adapt, eh? Thank goodness that I was wrong in both cases. That said, I really had high hopes for Diary of the Dead. I'll still watch it, but with dread. But in the case of Be Kind, I just always got a really cheap vibe from it. Not in the sense of the subject being what made it seem cheap, that was obviously on purpose. I mean that it seemed like it was rushed, or maybe hasty. Like they all thought it would work and really had faith in the project. Then when everyone showed up, nothing worked but they kept going anyway. Like a rock reunion. Everyone feels that old spark, everyone is enthused and in the end you just have a really bad new Genesis album. Nothing will change that no matter how much fun they look like they're having.
Moriarty, re: your comment Danny Glover by Shut the Fuck up Donny	Mar 1st, 2008 12:15:36 PM
You said that "Danny Glover [is] sort of shockingly bad in it...." I disagree with the "shockingly" part, as Danny has a spotty past with some of his work. Off the top of my head, I point everybody to his performance in Saw (along with aatrocious Carey Elwes) to show you that he may not be as fantastic an actor as we would like to believe him to be. I think Danny is only as good as his director (i.e. Donnor, Spielberg), and if he's not propertly motivated, he stumbles. That being said, maybe the poor performances of this film show that Gondry has his shortcomings as a director, and they are now coming to light. Blasphemous statement, I know, but just a thought.
"Most critics act like a sports car owner who finally got to dri by Sakurai	Mar 1st, 2008 12:22:13 PM
Mori, you have been "the sports car owner" at times. Remember your "Lady in the Water" Review? You laid the hate on Shyamalan pretty thick and barely referenced the faults of the movie. Must have been a bad week for you. Just saying...
I liked BE KIND REWIND in spite of itself by Harry Weinstein	Mar 1st, 2008 12:33:43 PM
Sloppy. Random. Barely written at all. Cheap-looking. Questionably acted. Utterly unbelievable. These are its strengths. It felt a bit like a Sweded version of itself a lot of the time, and that ending seemed entirely appropriate in such a context.
Jarek... by TheRealMoriarty	Mar 1st, 2008 12:50:54 PM
... in the last 11 years, I've seen plenty of shitty pretentious student films, and it's a horseshit excuse to say that we should let Romero off the hook because that's the device. Let's all say this together: Romero directed the fucking movie. Not a fictional character. And it's rotten, no matter what the excuse.
G.A.R needs too stop making Zombie Film's- EOS! by ThePilgrim	Mar 1st, 2008 12:51:41 PM
We need more films from him that intelligently explore new themes. Films like Martin and Season OF the With and Bruiser. Also just hoping to save Mr. G I read "IT" ages ago and "The Diamond Dead" script sucks ass!!! I love your films your mind your no bullshit ways, please!!! Do not waste whatever life you still have with you making this piece of shit!!! It will not be this generations Rocky Horror, and once you compare or combine genres in hopes of making something fresh and new- Well your already wasting your time. Make a new film George- That doesn't have a Zombie Theme too it. I beg of you to give us one last "WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT!!!" film. Do something with Ghost's, Wild Rabid Dog's, Sea Monster's, Alien's- Anything not Us and Undead!!!!!
Sakurai... by TheRealMoriarty	Mar 1st, 2008 12:52:12 PM
... it's impossible to do this for eleven years and not give in to it occasionally. I'm as guilty as anyone, certainly.
I think it's just about buying into the conceit of DIARY by Jawa 007	Mar 1st, 2008 12:54:59 PM
if you do that, the film is swell. A decent entry into the Romero legacy. If you can't get past the Cloverfield "we're gonna film everything" device, it's going to be problematic for you. But let it go! Enjoy the flick! As for it being heavy handed, I seem to recall that the movie pokes fun at itself more than once - i think it's smart enough to know it's inherently a little dumb...
I hated Rewind's trailer, but LOVED the movie. by Kid Idioteque	Mar 1st, 2008 01:03:24 PM
I do understand your point. It was hard to stomach at times. My opinion kept changing, one minute I adored it, the next minute it was so candy-coated that I wanted to puke, but it won me over by the end. The "lack of competency" you speak of is totally amiss from the point. Placing this film in any sort of reality is just wrong. I found Jack's performance to be nuanced in ways that I hadn't seen from him before. He allows himself not steal every scene. He lingers in the background quite often. The film is so innocently sweet and naive (and remarkably goofy) that I don't hold it against anyone for hating it. I will agree that the trailer is very different from the film, which in my case was a good thing. Also, the film is just really pleasant to look at. I would expect no leass from Gondry.
Mori, you are "dead"-on with that review... by Kirbymanly	Mar 1st, 2008 01:10:46 PM
Just saw it myself the other day. It's as if you tapped into my brain and typed out my exact thoughts on the film. The acting is HORRIBLE, it's the first time Romero has ever been so heavy-handed in his "message", and you don't give a shit about any of the characters because all they do is bitch at one another about the exact same thing over and over and over. I understand that this was not supposed to be "A George Romero" film... it's supposed to be a film student's documentary. Sure that explains how cheesy the voice-over is and some of the heavy-handedness... but the only way to get that to work is to make this seem like an actual documentary through the dialogue and acting. And that just wasn't there. Some of the performances were painful to sit through. Such a shame because whenever people were not talking...the movie was fun.
Regardless, I'm glad Romero is still working.. by Anti-fanboy	Mar 1st, 2008 01:12:35 PM
I like the guy so much, I don't care if his movies aren't as good as they used to be. Ring rust? I don't know. Land disappointed me. It had some good stuff in it, but the more civilized the zombies become, the less scary they are. It kind of nullified that background dread that all of his Dead movies instill, when you know outside the farm house, the mall, the bunker, there are the zombies and their primordial hunger.
It should be More about the Insight and Less about the Reviewer by ThePilgrim	Mar 1st, 2008 01:13:00 PM
And the Reviewer should never be concerned with the readers opinions of those reviews unless that Reviewer is just saying what he/she says to redirect the focus of attention off of the film and onto his/hers so called "Amazing Insight, Superior Pallet"- Basically a Reverse Attention Whore.
And I think and even better way to look at this is by ThePilgrim	Mar 1st, 2008 01:23:56 PM
The fact that one Critic looks down at other Critic's and Film Fans because this initial Critic likes or dislikes something the other Fan's and Critic's don't. What's even worse is when that Critic talks down about another persons taste in film. Going so far as to judge that person intellect and worldly abilities. It's hard to tell people whats worth their time. Cause no one person is the same and the respect- The shivery is dead. We treat each other so unkindly today over the dumbest things. Death should be your biggest issue, and life and being human your greatest joy. Death is the last Real Issue your gonna face. Film's are great ways to kill boredom, they can change a mind open one up but in truth real life has a much more profound effect that a celluloid contained PSA.
And if your using anything other than your heart and your mind a by ThePilgrim	Mar 1st, 2008 01:27:22 PM
Then you my freind are a Tool, A Puppet, A Follower. Rethink it all before it's too late!
I wish I had wrote a Be Kind review last March by IndustryKiller!	Mar 1st, 2008 01:38:53 PM
When I first saw the film at a test screening. honestly though, after sitting through it i had no idea what I had just seen. I disliked the movie quite a bit but the ending was so good I think it convinced me that, somewhere int he wackiness, I had missed something. between Vern and mori's review I now can see that that is not the case. It's really as shambolic and formless as I thought. BTW I said in the talkback for Verns review that I thought his review was incredible. I still think so, but I like Mori's review even move.
I enjoyed the GHOSTBUSTERS bit a lot. by Mike_D	Mar 1st, 2008 01:39:04 PM
The rest of the film? eh...
heart and mind and life as a guide on how to live by ThePilgrim	Mar 1st, 2008 01:39:17 PM

HEY MORI by BringingSexyBack	Mar 1st, 2008 01:39:31 PM
kajagoogoo!
The Cloverfield Kids were what they were for a reason by chromedome	Mar 1st, 2008 01:59:48 PM
They HAD to be fairly young, inexperienced, easy-street folks who had never really been challenged in any serious way. It was their utter helplessness, confusion, and general WTF is going on and WTF do we do now that was the foundation for the story: this WTF thing happens, what do ordinary folks do? Run around more or less randomly trying to get away, find safety from a threat they don't even understand (remember the tunnel?). The one guy grabbed on to one thing to focus on--getting to his girl--because there was nothing else to grab onto--and because it was the only way the story could be told: otherwise, they would not have wandered all over (so we could see the action) and would have locked themselves in a room and just sat there... We weren't supposed to love those kids, we were supposed to feel how completely ordinary and unprepared they were for something like that (as we would be ourselves). It was not intended to be a Bruce Willis/Keifer "Jack" Sutherland kinda hero flick, and if we had liked the kids too much, well, the outcome would have been harder to take.....
Sorry Mori, but I agree with Jarek... by Messiahman	Mar 1st, 2008 03:09:24 PM
It's not a horseshit excuse whatsoever. Indeed, the entire conceit of the film is that it IS directed by a fictional character, so to deny that is to blatantly toss your arms into the air and flatly say "I REFUSE to understand this!" Fuck that. Go check out some internet blogs or even that wacko LOOSE CHANGE documentary, and you'll see just how smart and dead-on Romero's satire really was. Sorry, but this is Romero's smartest film in ages, and those complaining about the "message" are simply proving that they never got Romero in the first place.
I've said it before, George A Romero is a terrible director by smackfu	Mar 1st, 2008 03:44:47 PM
Absolutely terrible. He always has been, and how bad he is has only been disguised cleverly by the ages. Night was a revolutionary film, there's no doubt, he deserves full credit and praise. Dawn of the dead, likewise, was a great idea for a film, and it's uniqueness made it fun to watch. But from all the criteria we use to judge quality, it was a terrible, terrible film. Day was so bad I can't even find words for it. But once again, it had that smart zombie, which redeemed it just enough. Land again, was torment to watch. They should play this film at Guantanamo, over and over and over again on giant screens 24/7. The only reason his terrible film making skills were not apparent, is that in the 60s all the horror movies were cheesy and poorly acted. Likewise, in the late 70s and especially the mid 80s, cheese was prevailant especially in horror films. You didn't have to be a good director to make a good horror film that met par. The problem is now, in this era the bar for directing is a lot higher, and George Romero is still making 1985-quality movies in 2008. And it stands out like crazy. People will kill me for saying it, but it's the same with John Carpenter. The man has a very specific style and skillset that was perfect for the 80s, but the movie industry moved on without him, and he never changed, and he still makes cheesy 80's films that no longer work because it's no longer the 80's.
Thanks for the honest reviewing, man by Aethyrr	Mar 1st, 2008 03:51:00 PM
And such a nicely written article
Why doe Be Kind get a free pass by skywalkerfamily	Mar 1st, 2008 04:05:48 PM
It looks like shit, and Jack Black is terrible like he always is. Please tell people the truth.
So long New Line - You deserve it by joeelliott	Mar 1st, 2008 04:07:56 PM
Bye Bye birdie.
Be Kind Rewind - New Line's last desperate by skywalkerfamily	Mar 1st, 2008 04:11:08 PM
attempt to get an audience.
I'm with you, Diary was just awful by Trazadone	Mar 1st, 2008 04:15:03 PM
I caught it in San Francisco with 4 of my nerdy friends and we all couldn't believe how awful it was. It's almost like Romero wants to ruin his zombie franchise. Low budget, bad acting, weak story, and no ending makes this the shit-fest of the year.
King Leer by TinkerTIW	Mar 1st, 2008 04:23:00 PM
Personally, I'm Jack Blacked out. A little of him goes a lonnnnnnnnnnnnng way.
Jack was good in Kong. Nacho Libre was pretty by skywalkerfamily	Mar 1st, 2008 04:40:08 PM
good.
Messiahman... by TheRealMoriarty	Mar 1st, 2008 05:04:16 PM
... I get it. I still think it's a lazy, obvious target, and there's nothing in Romero's execution that elevates this from an imitation of a shitty student film to a comment that somehow illuminates. It's just... a shitty student film. And I hardly need George Romero involved if that's what I feel like watching.
I guess we won't agree on this, Mori... by Messiahman	Mar 1st, 2008 05:23:26 PM
Because I thoroughly dug Romero's execution the entire way through. And yes, I liked the characters and found them about a thousand times more nuanced and intriguing than any of the hipster models in CLOVERFIELD. As for calling this out as a "lazy, obvious target," that may be the case -- but if it's so obvious, then how come Romero's the ONLY person going after it so far? Seems to me that the people who are crying about his soapbox the loudest are the ones that he's so perfectly skewering in the film. Regardless, I appreciate the attempt to put a message out there infinitely more than an empty, forgettable roller coaster ride any day. Heavy handed or not, Romero actually has a valid social message, which is more than most directors working today. That alone elevates DIARY far above hollow tripe like CLOVERFIELD in my book.
movie I wanted to love by spacechampion	Mar 1st, 2008 05:23:34 PM
No Country for Old Men was a movie I wanted to love... Coen brothers movies are ones where I enjoy most of the characters and dialogue but always come away underwhelmed by the story. I can't believe this won the Oscar, and perhaps they couldn't either, which is why they had a problem even speaking during their thank you speeches. If this won, Kill Bill should have won each year for 5 years in a row to make up for the karma of this disappointment taking the top prize.
I wanted to love Be Kind Rewind... by Tourist	Mar 1st, 2008 05:37:35 PM
...But then the trailers came out. They sucked. Hard. The sweded versions of the films, they sucked hard too. Harder than hard. I mean, they were about on par with what most doofi could throw together in a weekend. I kind of expected more creativity from Gondry. I can't even be bothered going to watch it now. I'll watch Diary though, cause I love horror, shit or not. And lets face it, Romero has been borderline shit for over 20 years.
Messiahman... by TheRealMoriarty	Mar 1st, 2008 05:54:53 PM
... I get the target, but I want you to explain to me what his "valid social message is." Because I disagree with you on that. I don't think he says anything about the target he's chosen beyond "Student filmmakers often suck." I would love for you to change my mind and convince me that Romero actually said something new here, something interesting, and that he wasn't just stuttering back over ground he's covered much better before.
Messiahman by Vern	Mar 1st, 2008 05:57:19 PM
So are you saying that, for example, at the end when the narrator asks "But do we deserve to be saved?" that Romero wants you to groan at how corny and unearned that is? Because I'm not sure I buy that. And even if that was his intent I don't think it was a good tactic because it makes the movie so uncomfortable to watch. Why not a good Romero movie instead of Romero showing what a bad student movie is like? What about the scene where she's being chased by the zombie-mummy, and you think "oh, this is like their movie at the beginning, that's kind of cool" and then about 1 or 2 minutes later the character actually says "This is just like your stupid movie!" That is one example of talking down to the audience that doesn't fit the "it's supposed to be a bad documentary made by obnoxious idiot film students" theory. I didn't hate it as much as Moriarty, there was plenty in the movie I liked, but it's definitely very, very flawed. Maybe the biggest place I agree with Moriarty is that there are points in the movie, like the Amish guy and the guys in the warehouse, when it's impossible not to think "wait a minute, why isn't the movie about these interesting characters that I like?" At least they got a bow and arrow in there though, that was cool. By the way, anybody notice IMDb claiming Michael Jai White will be in a DIARY OF THE DEAD sequel? I wonder where that came from?
Mori doesn't like how the sweeded flicks look crappy? by TallBoy66	Mar 1st, 2008 06:15:24 PM
"I hate that we’re asked to just buy these things that are the very texture of great filmmaking. We’re asked to accept whimsy and a sort of native crudity as a substitute for competence in places, and that’s what bothers me." That's kind of the point. The community made these movies, it looks like ass, but it is thier own and they come together with it. Downright heartwarming, really.
Spacechampion ... by Yosh	Mar 1st, 2008 06:21:41 PM
Not that this should really be a forum for a discussion of NCFOM, but I find your strong, unjustified opinion hard to take. What was it about NC you hated so much? Are you saying you liked it less than other Coen films? Seriously, you have to back that shit up.
TallBoy... by TheRealMoriarty	Mar 1st, 2008 06:35:40 PM
... I'm not talking about the sweded films. BE KIND REWIND itself is what I was talking about. It's barely a movie. As much as I like Gondry's boundless sense of play, it just feels slapdash and half-assed here. And I wish the trailer hadn't given away every single fun moment from the sweded films. That made the other 88 minutes or so nearly unbearable.
The sweded flicks are a small part in the grand scheme by TallBoy66	Mar 1st, 2008 06:45:35 PM
'Cause at the end it becomes about them making thier own movie. True, it did bug me how all of the sweded flicks were given away in the trailer, HOWEVER, check out the way Gondry stages it. Esp. the latter part when they do the "batches" of films at once, in a single take or in fast forward. In fact, there are so many little moments of Gondry's visual imagination (even check out the subtle ways that he shoots the video store - that one shot of the chick simply giving a smile through the stacks of videos is downright jaw dropping) that I'm willing to give a pass on the "lets save the rec centre!" 80s movie vibe of the plot. Besides, in an awards season chock full of murderous murderers, why the hell not can't we just roll with a flick about people comming together to watch movies. What the hell is wrong with that?
You Can Certainly... by TheRealMoriarty	Mar 1st, 2008 08:01:15 PM
... roll with it if you want. And as I've said... I wish I liked it. I just think it's full of badly written characters, I think the Glover subplot is ridiculous, and I think the sweding wears its limited charm out early. If you enjoyed it, that's cool. I wish I agreed.
Black was great in KONG. by Err	Mar 1st, 2008 09:07:22 PM
His character was that of an unsuccessful Orson Wells. It was well done and a well casted choice. King Kong didn't do as well as hoped because of how long it was. However, I'd rather sit through 3 hours of a well acted, well written, well directed, well produced film, than a film that is utter crap and only an hour and a half long.
Transformers is ten times better than Be Kind Rewind by skywalkerfamily	Mar 1st, 2008 09:34:44 PM
Eat that shitheads.
Mori and Vern... by Messiahman	Mar 1st, 2008 09:54:23 PM
Okay guys, you’ll have to forgive, as I don’t know how to do the whole “separate paragraph” thing in a talkback, so this will be a nice, big block of text? Lovely, eh? Tell you what, I’ll make up for it by having plenty of pertinent things to say. MORIARTY: First you say that Romero targeted the Youtube generation and the idea that they can’t put the camera down no matter what tragedy might be occurring in front of them, that the “truth” of events is only “true” if its documented, and then you follow it up by saying his only message is that “student filmmakers suck.” Make up your mind, man – pick an argument and stay with it. Otherwise, you just end up contradicting yourself. It’s clear that Romero is attacking the very mindset of this generation, from their egocentric need point themselves out as being at the center of any earth-shattering event as well as the need to overly exposit everything they’re seeing. Further, there’s a basic questioning of whether or not it’s information or opinion we’re seeing, based on shifting perspective. It’s an attack on people who, in Romero’s own words, “would rather have someone tell them how to think than do their homework and figure out what they really think about whatever the topic is.” And he’s right – any lunatic can throw up a videoblog, and if he sounds halfway reasonable, it’s sadly much easier for a lazy viewer to say “yeah, I agree with that guy” than it is to come to an educated opinion on their own. That’s some pretty heady stuff, and any astute viewer realizes that Romero has long been unconcerned with the zombies themselves(he’s said many, many times that they’re merely macguffins that exists to put forth his themes). In his best work, the statement is almost always at the forefront. Everyone trashed Joe Dante's brilliantly funny zombie political satire “Homecoming” for a lot of the same reasons. When most genre films have zero to say about anything, people complain about getting too much message in their entertainment. I'll take it where and when I can find it. I get far too much of the empty-headed nonsense variety to complain about movies that treat the genre intelligently. Some people complained that “Land of the Dead” had too little subtext. Now some think this has too much. I think they'd make one hell of a great double feature. I think that would show proof of Romero's wide range. I think Diary is a terrific edition to his epic. On top of the satire and message, it's loaded with memorable set-pieces and zombie mayhem as only Romero can provide (you seem to give Nicotero sole credit, forgetting that he’s working in service of a director with a very clear vision). It's scary at times, thoughtful at others. Plus, the ending rocks. VERN: Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. The voiceover has been the primary complaint from most viewers who don’t seem to get its plainly ironic intent. These are egotistical, self-important characters we’re dealing with here; furthermore, they’re young, passionate college students (remember college, when every issue seemed SO dramatic? I do) I don’t find the film uncomfortable to watch in that aspect; if anything, I find a large degree of truth in it. Though it may be disguised as a student film (an arch and theatrical one) it’s never for one moment NOT a Romero film. As for talking down to the audience, Romero is on record as saying just how much he hates the younger Hollywood generation’s constant need for exposition, and the scene you reference explicitly calls that out. It’s not talking down to the audience at all – it’s just him snarkily mocking a certain segment of the audience.
And a little more... by Messiahman	Mar 1st, 2008 10:32:15 PM
One of the things I love about Diary is the way it differs from the rest of the films in Romero's zombie cycle. I enjoy "Land" for the same reason. Instead of each film being a carbon copy of the previous, like the "Resident Evil" films or the "28 Days/Weeks" films, Romero keeps throwing curve balls, keeps genuinely reinventing himself and his subgenre. He's still experimenting, still growing, still trying new ways to make images, tell stories, and deliver messages. Diary reminds me a lot of David Lynch's "Inland Empire." Both films are done in a new style by an acclaimed master. Both films utilize video in new ways. Both films are ambitious works of art, the kind of work that we could always use more of. Both films are made up of memorable set-pieces that truly deliver the goods to the core audience. Both travel a bit too far into their creator's head, and lose a certain element of their core audience in the process. Both are challenging, vital work, the kind that promises even better things in the future. That's why I think multiple viewings will only improve this films reputation. There's so much there, there! How rare! What luck! Usually, it's just the opposite. Usually we try to find the one or two decent things that help push a mediocre film into a guilty pleasure. Not here, apparently. When it comes to "Diary," it feels like a few people ran out, saw it, and came right back to post about it without letting it settle. "Hated the voiceover, hated the movie, worst ever." I have a feeling a lot of opinions are going to change about this film as time goes by.
Messiahman... by TheRealMoriarty	Mar 1st, 2008 10:40:53 PM
... I think you make cogent points. I think the way Romero handled this material resonated with you. I just had a polar opposite reaction to his choices here. My points are all over the place because the film is all over the place. Which is part of why it didn't work for me as well as his earlier films. And I didn't post right after seeing it. Not at all. In fact, I really wrestled with this since seeing it a few weeks ago, and I've been thinking about why it bothered me. For what it's worth, we could hang out and watch INLAND EMPIRE sometime, because I love the shit out of that movie. If you want to argue with someone about it, bring it up to Massawyrm in one of his talkbacks. I don't want carbon copies of Romero's earlier films. Far from it. One of the things that pollutes and devalues horror as a genre is repetition and imitation. I think you and I probably would agree more than disagree on the intent of this film, and it sounds like it's the execution where we differ. Vern, on the other hand, I will fistfight. ANYTIME! ANYWHERE! BRING IT ON, PRISON BOY!
Oh... by TheRealMoriarty	Mar 1st, 2008 10:44:21 PM
... and the biggest failing for me personally can be summed up in a two word that is inarguable: not scary. If a horror movie doesn't scare you, then it really doesn't matter if the social message is effective, in my opinion. And vice versa... if it does scare you, you'll forgive it many other failings. Or at least I will. If the film scared you, then of course you had a better overall reaction to it than I did. That was the thing that disappointed me on the most basic level. It just didn't scare me. Not once.
Why review it now when it's too late by joeelliott	Mar 1st, 2008 11:22:49 PM
Reviews should be a warning not a monday morning blood test after the fact.
Why review late? by hamslime	Mar 2nd, 2008 12:14:44 AM
I think it just gives people a chance to weigh in on movies we've seen. The magority of people on this site I'm sure are well aware of what to expect of a movie going in, but it's still fun to read what the writer's takes are on a certain movie. Also, unlike a movie that won't be released for another year, ones that are already released make for better conversation because we've all had a chance to see it and can contribute in a less ignorant fashion. Now, about that paragraph separation thing...
Review the movie after we all decided NOT to see it? by YackBacker	Mar 2nd, 2008 01:00:28 AM
I'm speaking of BE KIND to be specific. The vast majority of us saw this for the mess that it was early on and made the choice to pass. Mori, Jack Black is actually pretty terrible in the acting dept. I hope you see that more clearly now.
"heavy-handed attempt at social commentary" by duchuvney_post_x	Mar 2nd, 2008 02:09:28 AM
huh. i never noticed that before.
some actors are only as good as their directors by THE KNIGHT	Mar 2nd, 2008 02:35:11 AM
and jack black is one of them yack.
I don't know by Vern	Mar 2nd, 2008 02:36:05 AM
I can halfway buy that the terrible narration is a comment on terrible narration, but I don't know about "this is just like your stupid movie!" being a commentary on movies talking down to you. If so I just don't see how it works or why I need to see that from Romero. But either way, here's why it's a problem for me: the previous Romero movies make many great criticisms while still letting me like the characters. Even DAY OF THE DEAD, which is the darkest and has many hate-worthy characters, still has heroes you can root for and that I enjoy watching. In DAWN Romero can make his point about the characters living in a mall and protecting it like it's theirs, but you don't look down on them, you side with them. The movie doesn't want you to think they're stupid. Unfortunately DIARY didn't do that for me. I'm kind of glad you mentioned HOMECOMING because it just shows that our taste for political horror is opposite. I hated that fucking thing. I like Joe Dante, I loved the premise, I agree with its politics, but I still think the episode is terrible. It only works as "making a point," and not as a story or as horror or as characters or even as a reflection of real life. How is it that I can agree with what it's saying and think that none of it rings even remotely true? And it's not scary or funny. DEATHDREAM is a better take on a similar premise. DIARY wasn't nearly as bad but it also loses that balance. The balance is what makes so many of Romero's previous movies so great. They're great genre movies that also have something to say, instead of just having something to say. Still, like somebody else said, I'm glad Romero is still making movies and hopefully I'll like the next one better. Also, I did think there were some scares in there. The part with the kid brother was really good, for example.
oh yeah by Vern	Mar 2nd, 2008 02:36:41 AM
and < p > for paragraphs. You've earned it.
I wanted to like be kind rewind soo much, but it sucked by angrykirby.tk	Mar 2nd, 2008 02:54:29 AM
mos def isn't funny, he's playing in a roll written for dave chappel and it seemed the sucess of the movie was supposed to come from chappel and black bouncing off each other like richard prior and gene wilder or some other comedy duo. but instead you have jack black flailing around without any solid material and not being inspired by mos defs mumbling preformance. It wasn't funny and I also didn't buy the ending.
i've always loved your reviews mor... and sadly, i too, must agr by robot_parade	Mar 2nd, 2008 03:08:07 AM
I haven't seen DIARY yet, but from everything I've read, I have to admit, I've been avoiding seeing it. I don't want to see Romero disappoint me again (I know you like LAND, but we'll just have to disagree on that one). But as for BE KIND.... it was just... obvious. Everything about it was obvious. When you were supposed to "laugh" you were given a zany situation or joke (that usually wasn't too good). When you were supposed to "feel", sweet music started to swell. And it's not that any film I've ever liked hasn't done that, but it just seemed so forced for a filmmaker like Gondry. Not even for Gondry, though, just as a film. And I gotta say, that this was one of the most sloppily edited films I've seen in a while. I'm all for artistic expression, and maybe Gondry was "sweding" feel good comedies. Because it did have heart, it did have soul. But it was FORCED heart and FORCED soul. So the end product felt like I was being FORCED to enjoy this movie, but then end result for me, was disappointment and rejection as a fan of Gondry. I don't know, maybe I need to see it again. The filmschool handbook always says to see a movie twice before settling on an opinion. But I'm afraid to. Because I'm afraid it will prove all my disappointment to be valid. It's just sad, really.
Tripping by th1nk	Mar 2nd, 2008 04:21:11 AM
Be Kind Rewind made me feel like sunshine and cotton candy on the inside. But to be honest, I was having a horrible week, watched that flick and it cheered me up. It's not the best flick in the world, but I felt it as genuine. But hey, everything is in the eyes of the beholder.
Respectfully gotta disagree on Be Kind, Mor by TruPhan	Mar 2nd, 2008 08:50:32 AM
I had a great time watching witha few friends of mine and the four of us left deeply touched by the movie. Maybe we just had a better audience or something, I don't know. I'm just glad I got the experience you were looking forward to. Quick question; what did you find so bad about Danny Glover's performance? Watching the movie, I can't think of anything that could've been done differently. Mia Farrow, yeah, there were some weird interpretations there and some not-so-concrete decisions on her part, but never to the point that I felt "uncomfortable," just moreso that I wasn't entirely sure how "in" on it she was until the movie progressed a little further.
"everything turned up to full-throttle . . . " by Nice Marmot	Mar 2nd, 2008 09:36:32 AM
for the entire movie." Sounds like Jack Black in HiFidelity to me, Mori. They needed to cut his spastic lines in half. This could come from my disdain for all the obnoxious self-proclaimed music experts in my life though. Still, Black is a funny dude. And you can hear it one more time, Mori, you're by FAR the best writer on this site and one of the best movie reviewers anywhere.
Great article Moriarty. by The Gospel According to Bastardface	Mar 2nd, 2008 10:48:11 AM
And I feel I'd agree with you, if I had seen either film. I have to say though for a truly hilarious critique of Be Kind, Rewind you should read Roger Ebert's review. It's fun.
Great one2 by 900LBGorilla	Mar 2nd, 2008 12:24:03 PM
Thank you for pointing both those out...I have been meaning to correct the mind numbingly constant stream of dim witted commentary about how dumb it was that the main story involved the “dumb Cloverfield kid going after some chick he just met”… The number of people who failed to even pay attention to what they are bithcing about is mind boggling. And Romero’s views belong back in the 60’s, the funny thing is he seems to hate that the everyman is told what to think, but most of the people who share his views seem to do so…uh….because they are told what to think….his early films still cool on a basic level viewed from an uninformed college kid perspective…but man it’s been time to move on (and maybe even gain some insight) for a couple decades now.
If you honestly couldn't see the resemblence to Wells... by Err	Mar 2nd, 2008 01:45:42 PM
then you have a problem. Wells did what he wanted, didn't care about what the studios wanted as long as he got the money needed to make his film. What did Jack Black's character do in Kong? OH YEAH! He did the exact same thing. Now to contrast him with Wells, Black's character was unsuccessful where as Wells' Citizen Kane is arguably the best film ever made.
Yosh by spacechampion	Mar 2nd, 2008 01:47:04 PM
NCFOM underwhelmed me. The plot summary / theme was, as someone in the forum said, "Shit happens", which I would amend to "Shit happens, and then you die." I didn't think that was original or expanding of any theme worth expanding on. Everyone involved had every right to tell that story the way they wanted to tell it, but like I said, it underwhelmed me. I'm not terribly receptive or impressed by themes of inevitability or fate or hopelessness. Moss struggled to survive the road he put himself on and got his wife killed; Chuegar was a psychopath who tried to justify himself in relation to the seemingly random world he found himself in by becoming a force of chaos and randomness himself. I liked both characters, but I don't think the story used them in a way that led anywhere interesting thematically. In Angel's season finale, there was the awesome line "If nothing we do matters, then the only thing that matters is what we do". Sort of the same theme, different conclusion. NCFOM didn't really have a conclusion. I haven't watched many Coen brothers movies, but I generally like everything except the story - Fargo left me underwhelmed as well, but I liked NCFOM more probably. OBWAT didn't underwhelm me, I haven't analyzed why. I'm planning not to pay too much attention to the story in any past or future Coen brothers movies from now on, and look upon them as character studies in the main so I can enjoy them a lot more.
Messiahman, you can't comment on something... by IndustryKiller!	Mar 2nd, 2008 01:47:29 PM
bad by making something just as bad. If Romero is making a commentary on the poor filmmaking skills of todays young filmmakers is making a film that simply apes that style exactly really the way to do it? The only reason that trick would work is if the audience was familiar with the legend of Romero and were in on the irony of it all. Otherwise it just looks like another bad film that follows the very conventions it claims, on paper not in execution, to condemn. If you want to rest the entire message of the film on irony then go for it, but it's sort of a cop out way to make a statement. Id are say it's right in line with something a student filmmaker would do, so is Romero really any better than they are? My God this whole thing is a vicious circle.
Jack Black can be a good actor but... by Err	Mar 2nd, 2008 01:47:49 PM
I believe that it depends on the director. The director has to know when to reel him in and when to let him loose. School of Rock learned how to do that well as did Jackson in King Kong. Gondry did it effectively but not as well as I'd have liked.
Jack is a great sidekick type character by skywalkerfamily	Mar 2nd, 2008 02:13:03 PM
But as a lead role. he just doesn't have the charisma.
Industrykiller, you misunderstand me... by Messiahman	Mar 2nd, 2008 05:05:16 PM
I’m NOT saying that Diary is in any way a bad film. It’s not – indeed, in most ways, it’s much better than a student film. It’s framed and shot professionally and there are a veritable ton of excellent setpieces (pretty much all the zombie mayhem is fantastic) I don’t think he’s purposely making a bad student film – rather, I think he’s making a commentary about the shallow Youtube culture and using some its conventions (the egocentric voiceover, for example) while simultaneously making a MUCH better film than anyone in that culture. Yeah, it perfectly captures videoblogs and the like, but it also delivers some wonderfully visceral mayhem and scares (yeah, I agree with Vern that there are some very well-handled scares). So it engages in expert mimicry while also elevating the medium and the genre, in my opinion. And if a segment of the audience isn’t aware of the target, that’s not Romero’s problem – indeed, it just proves that he’s more observant than some of his own viewers. Anyway, I’m not saying it’s a perfect film, but it’s damned interesting, well-made, highly thoughtful one that actually has something to say.
bkr by The Real MiraJeff	Mar 2nd, 2008 05:32:11 PM
great review mori, i just saw it last night and was definitely let down with it. the ending was a saving grace though. i found it kind of sweet and charming, but you're right, definitely unearned. and yes the trailer gave away all the good parts which made the rest of the film fairly boring. i could barely understand half of mos def's lines. he just doesnt have the gravitas to play a character like that. the whole movie felt lethargic, not dissimilar to semi-pro. it felt like lazy storytelling. mia farrow's just loony at this point (perfect for gondry though) and i also surprisingly didn't care much for melonie diaz who i normally adore. she just didn't do anything for me. glover felt like he was sleepwalking. the fats waller stuff killed any energy the film was starting to build. it was just a lackluster, mediocre forgettable movie. but i did like the ending, whether i bought it or not. so BKR and Semi-Pro failed to meet my expectation. let's hope stop-loss and funny games measure up. got haneke's original coming thru netflix any day...
Vern and 'Be Kind Rewind' by Lone_Wolf_McQuaalude	Mar 2nd, 2008 06:01:45 PM
Vern, I'm in agreement with you on 'Be Kind'. Despite the flaws, it's the first time in a long time that I walked out of a movie feeling...good.
Stay Classy Mori by Steve Trevor	Mar 2nd, 2008 06:28:06 PM
Nice to see AICN never changes. The copious amounts of cussing in what are supposed to be two well reasoned negative reviews and the appropriates amount of fanboy "great review" gladhanding is always disheartening. I mean I know its not 1952 but "chickenshit" this and "fucking" that. Way to go AICN. And as for BKR, my take is that some people just don't "get" it. In the end, its not about the movie, its about MAKING the movie. The community is the story - wacky and lame as they are, that's the point. This is community filmmaking a la community theatre. I thought that was great. Just my take on it though. And I also hated "The Fountain."
And what did Harry think of BKR? by Steve Trevor	Mar 2nd, 2008 06:29:21 PM
Seems like a film that he would have strong opinions on, one way or another.
So Romero's big hook is "Society is shallow"? by pdennett316	Mar 2nd, 2008 06:57:57 PM
Fucking hell, I'd never have figured that out without him, GOD BLESS ROMERO!!! I'll still see this flick, but I'm not expecting too much. And messiahman, Cloverfield wasn't hollow it just didn't feel the need to overburden itself with themes of the nature of society. It was purely a fight-or-flight movie, how do humans react in a situation they can't understand. Gut instinct and reaction, not sitting in a circle pondering the motivations of the beast. Thats not to criticise Romero though, if he feels the need to comment on something he certainly has the right to do so, that doesn't change the fact however that his chosen topic of discussion this time is barely worth wasting time on. The fact that Romero himself probably inspired a large number of these self-important twats is an irony that may be lost on even him.
No, CLOVERFIELD is definitely hollow... by Messiahman	Mar 2nd, 2008 07:44:44 PM
It's a thrill ride based on a gimmick filled with some of the most cardboard characters to come along in ages. 60 minutes of these dull characters running for cover, and ten minutes of a poorly realized monster. Shit man, it barely qualifies as a movie at all. In fact it's the very definition of hollow -- there's nothing there at all.
Cloverfield should have a unedited cut by skywalkerfamily	Mar 2nd, 2008 07:55:20 PM
where the monster eats the kids.
A director's cut of CLOVERFIELD by Messiahman	Mar 2nd, 2008 08:39:28 PM
That would mean I could see even more of "Dull Guy" trying to save "Hot Girl He Hooked Up With" while running around with "Bitchy Girl" and "Retarded Cameraman" and avoiding The Rancor. Seriously, although some may not have liked the characters in DIARY, at least they, you know, CHARACTERS, each with their own distinct personalities and quirks. The mannequins in CLOVERFIELD are exactly the sort of bland types that are the direct result of execs conducting cross-market studies and testing. Thanks, but no thanks.
Cloverfield should have been Goonies 2 by skywalkerfamily	Mar 2nd, 2008 09:15:55 PM
And Sloth should have been eaten.
Gamerra by Err	Mar 2nd, 2008 10:12:30 PM
Saying he sucked in it doesn't make it so. You feel he sucked. I didn't. People put too much stock in actors and pidgeon hole them. When they break out of that, people don't like it.
Film Comment on Diary of the Dead by CondomWrapper	Mar 2nd, 2008 11:03:53 PM
For what it's worth because I doubt many people here read that magazine since it's not exactly for fanboys, Amy Taubin argued that Diary, while flawed, is one of the best in the Dead series. I'm not sure if I agree or not because I only saw the film once and usually with Romero movies it takes a couple viewings for the film to begin to sink in. But, personally, I loved Diary and so did the audience I saw it with. Yes, the acting sucks but so does the acting in most of Romero's movies. I just attribute that a bit to the B-movie charm of many of them. The acting in Diary is about on par with the acting in Day and Day is a fantastic zombie film IMO. I also didn't think the "social commentary" was as heavy-handed as some have criticized and found it rather interesting. Now, if you're a right winger obviously you're going to hate it since it is more blatent than his other pictures, and that's because the film is a faux documentary of sorts. To me, it makes sense that the politics are more obvious than in Land or Day or Dawn. Give Diary a shot though, if only for some truly inventive gags in there especially the scene with the Amish guy and his reaper.
I don't know if Mori missed the point.... by moviemenace	Mar 3rd, 2008 02:18:36 AM
Or he didn't feel the need to bring it up. I really feel "Be Kind" is not about "the community of movies" but the way gentrification destroys low income urban communities. The final shot is a fairwell; to each other, to the areas history, to a home for the already impoverished.
what's with all the bashing of cloverfield? by robot_parade	Mar 3rd, 2008 02:46:28 AM
how did that even become an issue here? personally, i thought cloverfield was wildly imaginative. there are flaws, to be sure, but you could point out flaws in ANY film you so ever choose if you look for them. the point is, did it entertain you or not? did it make you think, or was your head dulled? was the journey a story or an afterthought? that's how you judge a film. ANY film. i'm not saying any opinion is bullshit (ooh! reference!), but after seeing enough films, there is one underlying current you have to consider.... "will this be remembered?" cloverfield will. be kind rewind and diary of the dead won't. and that's just the way the shit falls... (out of your ass!)
George A. Romero = hack by Motoko Kusanagi	Mar 3rd, 2008 04:29:04 AM
He made one decent movie and that was way back in 1968. After that his "skills" went downhill. I wonder if A. stands for ass?
Motoko by Vern	Mar 3rd, 2008 05:06:37 AM
Come on buddy, you can do better than that old trick. I know how it works - we're supposed to be dazzled by your impossibly high standards. "This'll show 'em. I'll call one of the most distinctive independent horror directors a 'hack.' I'll pretend he doesn't have a long and varied line of classics under his belt. Shit, I'll write off one of the genre's greatest masterpieces as merely 'decent'. And I won't give an explanation of any kind! I WILL CONQUER ALL OF FILM DISCUSSION WITH MY CASUAL DISMISSAL OF BELOVED CLASSICS! I WILL BE UNSTOPPABLE!!" If you wanna cut down DAWN OF THE DEAD, DAY OF THE DEAD, MARTIN and KNIGHTRIDERS though it's gonna take a long fuckin essay. Two sentences of unexplained snobbery won't fly. And I'm just listing his very best there, he's got just as many "decent" movies in his filmography, you gotta explain those too. Or you can just make brief, outrageous claims and not be taken seriously. You should do one for John Carpenter next, those are always dazzling. I don't mean to be harsh but I feel people should strive for excellence, even in talkbacks. Enough of this dumb lazy shit. You can be contrarian, you can be ridiculous, but you gotta put some effort into it. I BELIEVE IN YOU.
Cloverfield is "wildly imaginative??" by Messiahman	Mar 3rd, 2008 05:29:21 AM
Only if that wild imagination extends to Abrams and company saying "Here's an idea - let's do a Godzilla movie on handheld video, but instead of filling it with cool monster mayhem like the Japanese have been doing for decades, we'll just spend sixty minutes with bland hipster stereotypes and then intersperse ten minutes of a blurry monster rendered with poor CGI." Sorry, robot_parade, but the only memory of CLOVERFIELD this time next year will consist of people vaguely recalling that overhyped BWP knockoff that had a seventy percent dropoff during its second weekend, because the prevailing word of mouth was that it was, frankly, an overhyped, hollow thrill ride. The only other folks who might remember it will be those who spent months puzzling through the online "extended experience" only to discover that it had absolutely nothing to do with the film -- suckers. Whereas DIARY, as polarizing as it may be, is already indelibly imprinted on the minds of genre fans. Like it or not, critical reaction to DIARY has been prevailingly positive, and it's a film that is poised to become a cult classic on video.
By the way, Vern... by Messiahman	Mar 3rd, 2008 05:31:12 AM
Thanks for the paragraph separation. Between that and "Seagalogy," I now and forever nurse a non-threatening mancrush on you.
Spacechampion by Yosh	Mar 3rd, 2008 06:08:56 AM
It's a fair cop. We took different things from the film; although I agree that part of the message was "Shit happens", I thought that the film was actually arguing that you still have to keep trying. That life's still worth something, despite the implacability of evil. Why else would they include Ed Tom Bell? The scene between him and Uncle Ellis is the one that really nails that point, for me. "You can't stop what's coming" isn't a call to nihilism, it's a call to rationalism and pragmatism. That's what I got out of it, anyway. And because I felt that way, I didn't find the ending underwhelming at all. Still, I can understand where you're coming from. As for Coen Bros. storylines ... I think you either love them or you don't, because they're always so ridiculously convoluted. I personally find them really compelling, even in something as insane as LEBOWSKI (probably my favourite film ever), but I think it's a pretty subjective thing.
By the way, Messiahman, by Yosh	Mar 3rd, 2008 06:12:05 AM
How can you know that DIARY is poised to become a cult classic any more than robot_parade can know that CLOVERFIELD will be remembered in years to come? I haven't seen either, so can't say either way, I'm just wondering.
I hope you're wrong! by lowmankind	Mar 3rd, 2008 06:24:42 AM
not so much about Diary, cos I'm not one of those zombie freaks out there (why is it that every zombie movie fan is always a RABID fan? why am I the only one in the middle ground?), but for Be Kind Rewind... it sounds awesome, and I just hope to hell that Moriarty sees things so very differently to the way I do... but hey, maybe it sucks... and for the record, since everyone's talking about Cloverfield ... well, I mean, it was done well, and succeeded in everything it set out to achieve... but for everything else it wasn't trying to do, I felt it failed miserably... I know that's a bit rhetorical, but what I mean is that it got so caught up with being a monster movie from a unique perspective that everything else it should have been paying attention to .... was ignored... and I felt the director's presence in it... why am I dissing Cloverfield in this thread? it's a mystery...... ooeeooeeooeeooeeoooo!
Xiphos by Steve Trevor	Mar 3rd, 2008 07:00:24 AM
Intended or not, your post made me laugh my fucking ass off.
All of you SUCK In San Antonio, we can't even see DOTD by nrn	Mar 3rd, 2008 08:22:15 AM
The movie simply isn't playing here and its pissing me off. I've been wanting to see it for years already it finally comes out, and its not playing anywhere. ITS FRICKING LAME!
jesus, i can't believe i'm about to say this, but... by duanejones	Mar 3rd, 2008 10:51:20 AM
..._diary_ was GOOD. yes...that's the sound of hell freezing over... now, re-read that sentence -- i said, "GOOD". not "GREAT," not "perhaps most incredible achievement of the DEAD series," per robin wood's clinically insane overpraise of _diary_ in the current film comment. i mean -- a good, inventive game-reset of the dead mythos. it hardly has me chomping at the viscera for _diary 2_, but give george credit for delivering on his ideas, however obvious they are to is dead-heads by now. i'm thinking esp. of the opening news report and fasincating incorporation of the katrina footage, _night_ radio reports, &c. awash in media, we see how it can't help, and yet there's the young filmmaker, helpless in the midst of a multimedia apocalypse. i also disagree about the acting; it was average, which for romero is an incredible achievement, indeed. i also didn't think scott wentworth’s was hammy, compared to countless overactors in romero's back catalog (peter stormare in _bruiser_ comes quickly to mind...). in fact, he was romero's stand-in for the old school, i.e. himself, and however self-pitying the old prof was, his emotions came from a real place, unlike so many romero contrivances...like LAND, for land's sake!! for mori to go apeshit over the supposed flaws in _diary_ while admitting he liked _land_ is like a brain surgeon touting his credentials and then having him admit he's a RETARD. for _diary_ to not-suck so well and have romero feel more alive than he has in generation makes for a "good" movie, and if you've read a single comment i've made about romero over the years, you must know i could not have seen that coming. the closing songs sucked, though, we can all agree...but i return to the same refrain i always do, and as seconded by a few on this talkback -- no more DEAD films, mr. romero, sir!!! thanks for the memories! now, move the f*&^ on, already!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GreatOne2, spare us please. by TheLastCleric	Mar 3rd, 2008 11:30:35 AM
This board is actually populated with plenty of successful, well-rounded individuals who have “kissed a girl” and much more so enough with the incredibly cliché and trite stereotypes, okay? Cloverfield is a mediocre Blair Witch rip-off punctuated by an occasionally cool scene (the beasty was actually pretty solid and stole the show in my estimation) and weighted down by some very melodramatic acting and paper-thin characters. Why a certain segment of the population is actually trying to venerate this average film into something seminal is beyond me but please don’t crassly assume that any distain for the movie is somehow tied to interpersonal inexperience. That’s just lame.
Messiahman, regarding critical reaction by TheLastCleric	Mar 3rd, 2008 12:08:33 PM
I’m curious as to which critics are extolling the virtues of Diary because frankly, the mainstream press knows absolutely nothing about horror films as most of them couldn’t recognize a quality entry if it bit them on the ass. I’ve read several reviews by true horror enthusiasts on dedicated horror sites and most of them think Diary is swill. I personally haven’t seen it yet but considering how horrible Land of the Dead was coupled with the incredibly bad word of mouth following this one, I don’t hold out much hope. Lastly, just because something has a cult following doesn’t mean it’s good; plenty of lousy films also have a cult following.
Diary of the Last Omega Legend by rudimus maximus	Mar 3rd, 2008 12:47:57 PM
I by chance caught the original "Last Man on Earth" on the dish over the weekend and noting that the film came on about 4 years before Romero's Night, it was sobering. The shots, the way the zombies moved, the way they looked, it's clear Romero saw this film. I know the short novel "I am Legend" is the Roseatta stone of all things zombie, but this was really almost plagiarism. Romero is like a good novelty song. He's got a niche, but he's not really a musician. The only one of the zombie films that stands up as a real film is Dawn. He doesn't get very good performances from his "actors" and other than the climax Night, I can't remember one shot of his that is remotely iconic other than zombie splatter shots. Day of the dead was boring, poorly conceived and even more poorly acted, featuring what might be the single worst performance ever, the leader of the soldiers. Ironic that his last words were "choke in it" when he probably choked on the scenery, cameras and lighting equipment he chewed up. I actually like Martin by GAR even though the kid was horrible. Anyway, these films are all the same. They are copies of themselves and all of the ones before them. They now even have self-references which is bad. Shaun is the second best zombie film ever because it lampoons this very notion. Jack Black is this generation's Robin Williams. He is talented but is like chewing on tin foil when left to his own. He needs strong material and a strong director or he becomes shitty.
LastCleric by Messiahman	Mar 3rd, 2008 03:00:04 PM
You can find the critical reactions over on Rotten Tomatoes. As far as dedicated horror enthusiasts, you can count me as one, seeing as how I occasionally write for Dread Central, and I saw the film at Scream Fest with several of the guys from the site, as well as the main guys from Bloody Disgusting, all of whom were quite taken with it and gave it pretty exceptional reviews. I don't think you can find more dedicated horror fans than that.
Yosh... by Messiahman	Mar 3rd, 2008 03:05:14 PM
I'm positing the idea that DIARY will be a cult classic based on the fact that, well, pretty much all of Romero's zombie films are now considered cult classics (yes, even LAND) and DIARY falls nicely in line with those.
I can't deny ... by Yosh	Mar 3rd, 2008 03:13:26 PM
... that that's a pretty strong trend, Messiahman. Fair enough.
I felt the same way about BE KIND, Mori. by samsquanch	Mar 3rd, 2008 03:41:52 PM
As I get older I'm realizing that one thing I have very little tolerance for in films is grown men and women acting like children. There seems to be a trend, I think it might have started with Callista Flockheart, waaay back in the '90s, but now it's everywhere. I can't watch Grey's Anatomy or Desperate housewives, not even for a minute, because I fly into a rage. Don't get me wrong, I like quirky, I like silly, and yes, when it's done well, Whimsy is great. Gondry can and has done whimsy very well, but here... for the first half hour I honestly couldn't tell if Mos Def's character was supposed to be mentally challenged or not, and that's not funny. I think Mos Def has the makings of a fine actor, but who's fault is that? Not mine. I think I know why you don't think Gondry has earned the ending; it's because it's not simply a celebration of community, creativity, or even just 'the movies', ultimately it's a celebration of Michel Gondry. He's asking us to reward him with our love and our sappy tears for reminding us of what a brilliant, unique voice he has, and how he understands black people. What a guy! The sad thing is, I do really like his work, even this movie is Gondry-iffic in some ways, startlingly beautiful in places, dreamlike, effortlessly funny and creative, but ultimately hollow. Gondry has made a name for himself for 'Sweding' our lazy acceptance of boring Hollywood fare. This movie was his way of reminding us of just what a wonderful job he's doing. "Sweding, like Sweden?" "Yeah, it's from Europe, so it's expensive, we have to import it". Or something.
"Two sentences of unexplained snobbery won't fly." by Iowa Snot Client	Mar 3rd, 2008 06:58:13 PM
Zombie pie fight.
I happen to like "Diary" too... by moviemenace	Mar 3rd, 2008 08:11:39 PM
even though I agree with a lot of what Mori has to say. The acting is especially terrible and is only amplified by the documentary style of the film. But 30 minutes in, when the side stories began to creep in, I got into the swing of it. There is no new ground broken here. It's fairly rum-of-the-mill as far as zombie flicks go but it's no worse than Romero's last outing. I just read that back. I'm really selling it, ain't I?
who's this by Maniaq	Mar 4th, 2008 12:30:03 AM

who's this "YouTube Generation" you hate so much? by Maniaq	Mar 4th, 2008 12:43:18 AM
seems like we get a new generation every couple of years! what are we SCREAMERS??? I use YouTube all the time - in fact this very site will often embed YouTube videos right into the middle of a schpiel - but last time I checked I was "Gen X" so I guess you don't mean me then?? Could it be, Mori, that you actually hate the AUDIENCE and are actually just projecting this hate onto Romero's film? I totally agree that too many critics just seem to have "SUCKS" as their default setting for a new review. As you point out, just by the sheer NUMBER of movies you process, it's hard NOT to start considering them all the same and unfortunately, the majority of celuloid out there - let's be honest - is RUBBISH so all the same means all BAD... Human nature - totally. Anyhow, I won't be seeing either of these movies because, like Motoko, I think Romero hit his peak with NIGHT and it was all downhill from there - and I CAN'T STAND JACK BLACK! Oh - and I also liked Cloverfield and don't get all the hate for the characters - they seemed just like some real people I know and the only thing I thought was fake was the guy's phone magically getting coverage when his mother called - oh wait, two things - that and surviving the helicopter crash! Really should have ended by that point...
Saw Diary yesterday by Lando Griffin	Mar 4th, 2008 12:57:04 AM
I have to concur with Moriarty. I went in wanting to like it despite the word of mouth and the extreme on both sides reviews but it was terrible. I went with one of my best friends - big horror, big Romero fan - and he walked out in disbelief as well. He is a much more forgiving of shit than I am but even he couldn't believe how bad it was.
Be Kind Rewind looked like ass by mthrndr	Mar 4th, 2008 12:39:00 PM
Remaking movies in the vein of community theater? Please. These kinds of quirky ideas make me exhausted.
mthrndr by samsquanch	Mar 4th, 2008 02:19:33 PM
You know there's a fourth Rambo movie out, right? Of course you do.
DuaneJones by Roger Thornhill	Mar 5th, 2008 01:49:28 AM
I haven't talked to you in years but I completely agree about Diary. And you know we've had our differences over Romero over the years [remember our mudslinging over Day?], but I'm glad we see eye-to-eye on this one. Oh...one more thing...I believe the Film Comment article you read was written by Amy Taubin...
r.o.t. + _night_ at 40 by duanejones	Mar 5th, 2008 09:05:15 AM
what's new, kid? taubin does contribute alot to film comment these days but the article i'm referring to is robin woods'. filmlinc.org, track it down -- he's certainly an intelligent critic and a big romero booster over the years, but is truly off the deep end over _diary_. good, sez, duane, but good lord not THAT frickin' good. another interesting article out today is a cover story in the fairfield weekly on romero, specifically around the 40th anniversary of _night_ and how the rest of romero's career squares with the impact of his original low-budget colossus. spoiler alert: it squares poorly. have a looksee: http://tinyurl.com/2m87qm

Talkbacks

Moriarty Asks What Happens When You Hate A Film You Want To Love! DIARY And BE KIND Reviewed!