comment #1

JB Moore says ...

I remember EIGHT LEGGED FREAKS. A group of us were at the theater after work, trying to decide what to see. When I asked about it one of my friends referred to it as "the new David Arquette movie". Then I punched him in the stomach. The End.

comment #2

PanTheFaun says ...

"Eight Legged Freaks" is no great shakes, but it's a pretty fun movie, and is much more successful at what "Snakes on a Plane" was trying to do.

comment #3

Ponderer says ...

Frankly, if you walked out on a movie that I worked on for 16-18 hours a day, that you got to see for free - no, ixnay, that you get PAID to see - I'd spend the rest of my life ensuring you spent the rest of yours dragging your entrails along Sunset Blvd.

Part of the reason we put up with your shallowness, and superficiality, and occasional quasi-racist diatribes, and pre-ordained snap judgments, and vindictiveness, and tirades, and grudges, and paucity of imagination, and self-righteous crusades, is to get reasonably intelligent feedback on a new movie. Not how it might have been if you hadn't walked out 20 minutes into it.

Do your fuckin' job, man.

comment #4

fnt says ...

Amen. When your job is watching movies... well, that's your job, right?

comment #5

NYCritic says ...

I've only walked out of one film in my reviewing career and that was because I wasn't feeling well and didn't think the people sitting around me wanted to get puked on.

Have sat through plenty of other films that have made me want to vomit, but no dice.

comment #6

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Ponderer: Judging by the current cultural curve, I'm fairly thoughtful and knowledgable. You can't seriously be proposing that my past decisions to bolt out of this or that film are inconsiderate of you and yours because you happened to work long hours on the shoot, can you? I know what deserves my respect and what doesn't (I know if a film has its act together within five minutes), and my time is very, very valuable to me. Noticing that a woman who decided to expose her 15 month old daughter to a showing of "Hostel Part II" was Hispanic is quasi-racist, eh? Or that all the fat kids standing around a Carls, Jr. were Hispanic...that's quasi-racist too? Get this straight -- if I see something or hear something that I know to be true and factual, I will say it in this space and that's that. Snap judgments are part of anyone's mentality. Tirades are dull if boorish, but interesting if written well. Grudges are sometimes based on reasonable criteria. I do my job 14, 15 hours a day every day, and if I happen to be watching something that is contemptibly bad, I may not stay for the entire length...end of story. I know what's what and what I'm doing and I will not piss my time away on a truly worthless movie just because you or one of your homies worked on it.

comment #7

Dzayson says ...

Gotta agree with Wells on this one-- who fuckin cares how long the cast and crew worked every day on Gigli or Charlie's Angels 2? How many hours a day did Hitler and his buddies work? I had the displeasure of working three long weeks on the upcoming Get Smart remake. It was clear to me, every day, that we were all wasting our time working on lowbrow, uninspiring garbage. Crap is crap, and I could care less how long it took to create it.

comment #8

erniesouchak says ...

I'm with Wells on this one, even though I have lots of friends who work long hours in the industry. (Believe me, they recognize shit as well as I do, maybe better.) I see 60-80 movies a year, most of them free, and if something really doesn't grab me in the first 30 min. I vote with my feet. Life's too short. As Sam Jackson rants so effectively in "Changing Lanes": "Can you give me back my TIME?!"

comment #9

sandekat says ...

Nice try, Ponderer. I agree with you 100%.

But, see, Wells has got everything all figured out. He's a self-fulfilling prophesy.

One thing that has come out of all his self-revelation. I know I loathe him and his opinion; for me, he's only useful for information.

comment #10

parttimesaint says ...

"I know if a film has its act together within five minutes." Horseshit, Jeff. The first five minutes aren't necessarily reflective of an entire movie and you know it. If you think otherwise you're delusional and a pretty pathetic journalist.

And noticing that someone is Hispanic isn't a problem. It's pointlessly adding it to the description that's the problem. If I were at a restaurant and got terrible service from a waiter (who happened to be black) and then went out of my way to note his race when describing to you what happened, would you think that's inappropriate? Who cares if she was Hispanic? Can you not grasp that?

comment #11

MickTravis says ...

I think if you plan to review a movie, you should stay.

If you can't stand to sit there, you should at least give it more than 5 minutes.

And if you walk out, and you're a critic who's reviewing it, you really owe it to your readers to say, "I walked out __ minutes into the picture."

If it's done like that, I have no problem with a walk-out.

I've certainly seen my share of movies that you know aren't going to get any better and don't.

But every now and then, a bad movie will turn around and surprise you and you'll think, "Shit, I almost gave up on that one." And, I promise you, you will feel better about yourself.

comment #12

Ponderer says ...

You defend rigidity and grudges and snap judgments. Great. That's what got this country into fucking Iraq.

On your recent Carl's Jr. rants: well, it's nice to think those things sprang to mind when I said quasi-racist, but I was actually thinking of this gem from about four years ago:

"But if people in your family are this primitive and offensive, isn't it better to repress all recollections of them and live in total denial, even to the point of taking drugs or alcohol to suppress their memory?"

That, my friend, was vicious, sick, petty and unnecessary, and you know what? I never forgot it. Especially since it was a slap at my particular ethnic group. But whatever. I would love to have seen you write that about an African-American family instead of Greeks.

Wells, I think you're a good and often interesting writer. I like you a lot when you let yourself be surprised and positive: when that comes out, it's your biggest, most appealing strength.

But you confuse your opinion with the truth, and it calcifies you. It's like the Harry Potter tirades you keep hawing at: okay, you don't like them. Fine. But what a incurious nature - why not seriously explore what someone else loves about the books, what you don't get? Why not ask del Toro and Cuaron, two genuine artists, why they lionize the stories? You may never agree, but at least you may attain some kind of greater understanding.

In other words, why not ask the hard questions? The ones that challenge your own notions in a sincere and fearless way?

I know my point's been drifting, but here's what I'm getting at: when you walk out of movies, you put your ego in the spotlight. Everything I've brought up before stems from ego.

And really, it's just frigging rude.

comment #13

Ogami Itto says ...

"I'm with Wells on this one, even though I have lots of friends who work long hours in the industry."

But are you GETTING PAID to see these movies? The issue isn't the long hours people in the industry work -- the issue is professionalism.

I've had friends (some of whom were Hispanic) who worked at movie theatres who would frequently let me in for free, and sometimes I would walk out of a movie I hated (like Batman and Robin or Godzilla), but the thing is I wasn't GETTING PAID to watch them; watching them and offering commentary wasn't my job.

And if you don't do your job you shouldn't get paid, Wells.

comment #14

munson says ...

Ponderer:

"I'd spend the rest of my life ensuring you spent the rest of yours dragging your entrails along Sunset Blvd." Nice. Easy to make threats from behind a fake name and a computer, huh? At least you calmed down a little in your second post.

And, c'mon man, you gotta tell us more about that quote: "But if people in your family are this primitive..." Give us some context - was that aimed at you specifically? Emailed to you? Written in a column? If it's in one of his web columns, give us an URL? Ahhh, it's a private matter between you and Wells, I guess. Oh, that's right, you posted it as public comment on a public web site...

And what kind of world are you living in where everyone has the time to delve deeper into the reasons why they don't like something, where everyone has a "curious nature"? I agree with you, it would be great if we could all dig deeper into things we don't like or understand. It is a shame that people don't question ideas, rules, works of art, etc., more deeply. (Seriously)

One problem - time. If people didn't have jobs (sometimes more than one), families, and other, I don't know, more immediate things to worry about, maybe they could call up Guillermo del Toro and ask him to explain the finer, more subtler points of the ending of Pan's Labyrinth.

And to get back on topic, to everyone who keeps insisting that it's Well's JOB, and he's getting PAID for it: He's getting paid? Really? Have you ever thought how? If his walking out of movies bothers you so much, don't visit this website. You're only increasing his page views. Don't click on the movie ads. Simple.

"But walking out on movies is RUDE." I hear ya. Would you agree that authors also create works of art at least equal to movies? That authors also spend countless hours perfecting their novels? So I guess the next time I buy a novel, start reading it, decide after a few chapters that I hate it, close it, and put it down, I must be being RUDE also!

comment #15

PhilipGalasso says ...

thing of it is, wells gets paid if we read him. he's freelance. it's not as if he's writing a review for a newspaper or magazine and is getting a salary. if that were the case, then yes, its his job to stay the duration. but, when he is writing a blog that details his movie watching experiences, he's more or less free to do whatever he wants. if you find this contemptible, stop reading the blog.

comment #16

malibugigolo says ...

"he's more or less free to do whatever he wants"

I've busted Wells balls and I can say that he can't really do what he wants. The rise of the publicist and the 1/4 cycle have profit have made the critic have to have the skills of a diplomat in a war zone, yes the consequences for the critic are much less harsh, but just going to an advance screening with a buddy that reviews movies, he had to stand up for me being there, and then the lady gave him shit for a couple comments we shared,..after not even during the movie. I give Wells credit for walking out of Transformers.

You'll never find out who someone is if you just want them to tell you the status quo....and that would be BORING.

Good one Wells.

comment #17

tholl-yung says ...

I actually like watching the second half of movies first and then catching the first half when I have a chance to go to another screening.

comment #18

BurmaShave says ...

Nice to see Wells stand up for himself. I actually almost forgot what the original subject of this thread was. Good job everybody.

The only film I've ever walked out of in the theater is the first FANTASTIC FOUR, when after the Space Station event (worst CGI sequence ever) it became clear I'd just payed for a shoddy SciFi Channel movie.

I have no problem with a critic doing it, unless, may he rest in peace, you pull some shit like Joel Seigel and make a scene about it, thereby ruining other people's experience.

And whoever compared the makers of GIGLI and CHARLIES ANGELS 2 to Hitler and the Nazis needs to get bent.

comment #19

malibugigolo says ...

Once I've paid I walk between theatres at the megatron mulitplex I've seen 4 movies just trying to watch one....the sad thing is that the usher "caught" me and said, "yeah, I know how you feel."

comment #20

malibugigolo says ...

I think my buddy, the critic, I went with was worried about my honest reaction that I sent to the Trib writer:

The Passenger with Jack and Antonioni and Maria Schneider
It wasn't so much a walk out, as Maria Schneider's line readings wanted me to:
1) find out her dealer (what WAS SHE ON?)
2) laugh beyond no end.

And as this was a reissued of the movie in theatres (last year?), all these reverential Babbitt intellectuals were there to fawn over crap, so I had to leave as I was getting nasty looks that reminded me of Catholic school when I laughed as a young boy at the priest that said he was turning wine into blood. Anyway, in the movie I kept coming back after letting out HOWLS of laughter in the hallways outside the theater, I was doubling over; I have never laughed as hard as I did in that movie. So I left FOUR times.

If that is winning, I guess it really isn't everything...

comment #21

tholl-yung says ...

I figure if I like the ending, I'm going to like the beginning, and if not, it's less of a waste of time. The downside is not understanding a certain amount of stuff, but knowing the ending makes the beginning easier to understand. Plus, I never listen to a movie, I only watch. If you have to listen, something's wrong.

comment #22

le corbeau says ...

I'm the complete opposite, T. Holly. I sit with my back to the screen and only "watch" the middle. That's far enough in that it should know what it's about but not so far that it'll spoil its ending for me. And if the dialogue doesn't convey what's going on (or at least sound effects like car crashes and gunshots) then I don't need some bullshit actor making faces and CGI swooping around shit to tell me what the story is. Joe Mankiewicz could have made All About Eve with the lens cap on for the whole movie, fuck visuals.

comment #23

Matthew Lucas says ...

I have never walked out on a film, and never will. As a critic, I cannot fairly judge a film without having seen the whole thing. You just can't offer a legitimate opinion without seeing the entire film as it was intended.

You never know, even if the film sucks, the filmmaker could always come back and surprise you in the end.

comment #24

tholl-yung says ...

If I have an expectation going in that the movie is top notch, I go for the full-on experience. But nowadays? 10% deserve that, and they're gone from the theatre so fast, I'm going to be watching them at home anyway.

comment #25

malibugigolo says ...

T Holly:

You are SO right!

It is cinema.

Movies have become a radio broadcast. Or like a CSI. Those you can tell what is going on in the other room, not even a glance informs you any more than what you heard. So why film it?
You can tell any good show like The Shield or the Sopranos (seasons 1-4)when you were in the other room and just could hear it, but it made you want to see.

The problem is the people that read script want a good read, like Mamet's new book said, all a script should be is camera angles and dialogue, but the script reading trolls have no idea how to execute it.

In any case that is why I'm so excited about Carlos Reygadas's Silent Light. A true master of cinema.

comment #26

malibugigolo says ...

MGMAX:

"Joe Mankiewicz could have made All About Eve with the lens cap on for the whole movie, fuck visuals"

But the actors played off a subtext that made it visual. I agree it could, but that is why we, well you and I still think of him as being (at least I do) as being a great writer.

comment #27

tholl-yung says ...

Scripts are unbearable to read. There SHOULD be expostion and backstory and no fucking staging or camera angles, or God forbid a "smash cut to."

What gave you the radio idea? I watch, I don't listen.

comment #28

tholl-yung says ...

And yes, good dialogue. But nothing I have to listen to. There should be something there on screen a deaf person could feel.

comment #29

malibugigolo says ...

Scripts are unbearable to read. Well, most suck to read, but so are my doctors for good pain meds. But I never question the outcome if they work.
The audience will never know the back story so who cares? That's casting and acting.
But they are not written for your pleasure.

As for radio broadcasts: just listening to baseball announcers in the south as a youth, this guy for the Braves, you can tell more with the treble of his voice and the crowd ( a movie's sound) than most actors with no vocal training. But I guess that's why Aussie and Brit actors are being hired these days...

comment #30

malibugigolo says ...

yes no smash cut:

be gone the smash cut.

comment #31

Ponderer says ...

Munson:

First of all, here's the link to which I was referring. Wells' comments are even better in context:

http://www.moviepoopshoot.com/elsewhere/10.html

I use an alias here because I don't like getting spammed and I prefer to keep discussions on the boards. Aren't you using an alias, too?

(The entrails thing was a paraphrase from a friend of mine, a camera operator long passed on, who loved film, dearly loved film, sacrificed a lot to commit to it. He never really got the break he wanted, but he was thrilled whenever one of his films actually got on the screen. He believed in the magic of it.

But he would get incensed when critics would walk out or fall asleep during screenings. He was fine with people who paid good money and walked out - it irked him, but he figured, you pay your money and you should get more or less what you paid for. But he always felt that if someone is there as a courtesy from the filmmakers or studios, invited in to be your judge, they should have the slightest bit of decency and stay to the end. He was very, very good at dishing out the bile when that kind of thing came up.)

"And what kind of world are you living in where everyone has the time to delve deeper into the reasons why they don't like something, where everyone has a "curious nature"?"

It's a fair question. I try to do it as much as possible, but the real world intrudes. But Wells has the luxury of living in that world, that's where he is now. One of the things I actually like a lot about him is when he can sit down and chat with people like Lubetski and talk about their art. He's not a wage slave; he works in showbiz.

"You're only increasing his page views. Don't click on the movie ads. Simple."

Sorry, I don't believe in boycotts. I believe in buying into the product and trying to improve it.

"So I guess the next time I buy a novel, start reading it, decide after a few chapters that I hate it, close it, and put it down, I must be being RUDE also!"

Well, I would think you were a sucker for not previewing it in the bookstore... But no, I would consider you rude if you ran a site or a column that professed to tell people how a book was, and then only read a couple of chapters. It's like finding out that the New York Times Review of Books reviewed the latest Haruki Murakami novel from the Cliff's Notes. What a bitchslap to everyone concerned!

comment #32

tholl-yung says ...

ok, no backstory. A page is a minute -- it's such a lazy, dumb notion. Book reviewers are very serious people. Adieu.

comment #33

malibugigolo says ...

Munson:

You know the prejudices of both Wells and New York Times Review of Books, take that as information, not as an affront to something will never exist: neutrality.

Say I read a Richard Russo blub for a book, great people that never worked a real day job in their life and that love Carver's banality will love this book. Or maybe people that make salad dressing will film it? who knows?

Take it and make your own decision, don't expect other people to affirm yours. You want that? And you think Wells is arrogant?

my, my...

comment #34

malibugigolo says ...

sorry that was for:Ponderer

comment #35

Dan Revill says ...

I had to google smash cut. Clearly, I'm not on my way to being a screenwriter.

That being said, cinema is a visual medium. I don't read scripts, but I do read books. I don't have a hard time imagining description. And I'm sure if I learned all of the terms etc, I'd probably be able envision a film without too much trouble.
I don't mind wordy films, but if the actor on screen isn't doing something interesting while acting, then the words are in vain.

As for movies I've walked out of...none, but the list I wish I had walked out of is long. And I have no problem with a critic walking out of a film, as long as he/she has no intention of writing a review of it.

comment #36

Terry McCarty says ...

I'm sorry, but Michael Phillips (annoying as hell when he's on THE ROEPER WITHOUT EBERT SHOW) needs to remove the tree branch from his anus. Renata Adler, when she reviewed 10 for THE NEW YORKER in the fall of 1979 when Pauline Kael was at Paramount,
at least used a few dozen less words in explaining her decision to walk out on the film.

comment #37

Terry McCarty says ...

Dzayson wrote:
I had the displeasure of working three long weeks on the upcoming Get Smart remake. It was clear to me, every day, that we were all wasting our time working on lowbrow, uninspiring garbage. Crap is crap, and I could care less how long it took to create it.

So it's going to be even worse than THE NUDE BOMB?

comment #38

christian says ...

i walked out of MEATBALLS 2 because i knew with unwavering conviction based on solid evidence that the film was only going to get worse. was i wrong?

i understand the hard work people do to make a film, but that is a seperate issue from walking out of a bad one. the filmmakers also have a responsibility to the audience.

and pauline kael walked out of the monkee's feature HEAD.
of course she was wrong.

comment #39

Silverscreenvideos says ...

Anyone who pays their $10 to see a movie has the right to walk out any time they want, just the same as I have a right not to finish a meal I ordered in a restaurant or toss a video game I don't like.

Since Jeffrey is a free lance journalist, who is not being paid by the hour or week by an employer, he also has the right to do whatever he wants. If his actions result in people deciding they no longer wish to patronize his site, he's the only one who is going to suffer. And if he feels he is making a statement, or that he has better things to do with his time, that's his perogative. As far as I know, he has always been upfront in commenting about when and why he walked out of a movie, so that we can judge his comments accordingly.

However, if a critic is being paid by a newspaper or TV station to review movies, then that critic has a responsibility to his employer to see what he is being paid to see and comment on it in its entirety. There's a lot of time that readers may glean something from a review that they would miss if a reviewer bolts early, even if it's to alert them to entertaining outtakes during the closing credits or a final scene after the credits.

There's been plenty of times I've been told to do something by my employer that I didn't like. If I said, this is a bunch of crap and I'm leaving, I wouldn't have held a job much longer.

comment #40

Silverscreenvideos says ...

One more note:

A disastrous film is not going to turn into Citizen Kane in the last reel. And I doubt any reviewer will leave a film that he feels is marginal half way through because in all probability, it's the ending that will make in a thumbs up or thumbs down review.

However, there are a number of films that do improve or get worse, or change their nature in the later stages (gratuitous sex or violence showing up in a late stage) so that a review based on "I walked out a half hour in..." will not pick up on all those nuances.

A freelance reviewer has the right to walk out, but he does his readers a disservice if he uses the walkout as a means of making a point.

comment #41

malibugigolo says ...

I don't think there is something as a SNOB.
Movie people, critics especially, see many more movies than the person outside of the movie biz, it is all a question of familiarly, I think the movie that turned off critics the most last year, and that I saw them not hating the middle brow because of their dislike, was FUR, the moment in the first 10 minutes of it you got shocking NUDE people. It was such a ploy. Much like when I worked at Subway as a youth and when this one guy served up his sub, badly cut, you knew how it would taste before even one bite, or like a doctor I talked to recently that when I broached the question of familiarity to, he could talk of doctors of who he knew their moves...would Mike Moore of Sicko know those moves? If he wasn't glib he would.....familiarity breeds contempt, but not they way I read that quote as a youth, you see the same patterns to manipulate the neophyte, or put it this way, the patient goes to the doctor to feel well, much like the movie goer goes to see a movie to feel well, they don't really care about craft.

comment #42

Edward Havens says ...

The two things that this discussion keeps forgetting...

1) Wells isn't a critic. He is a feature writer/blogger.
2) Wells doesn't take a salary to be a critic like A.O. Scott or J. Hoberman or Kenneth Turan. Wells hustles his own ads for HE and he gets whatever is left after the cost of running the site is deducted. Critics don't have to beg readers to donate through PayPal to help get them through a slow hump.

With that being said, if Wells wants to walk out of a press screening because he doesn't like what he is seeing, that's his right. Of course, he needs to make sure his feature doesn't read like a review or critique of the film proper.

comment #43

BurmaShave says ...

I don't mean this rhetorically, just wondering, but how many of you liked THE SIXTH SENSE that much before the ending? Was it really all that special before the twist that thereby changed everything that came before?

I can see a good case for walking around about the time that Mischa Barton is the poisoned girl puking under the bed. Imagine how dumb we all would have felt if we'd done that.

comment #44

malibugigolo says ...

BurmaShave:

6th sense goes back to familiarity. Does Blair Witch have the same pull the second time you watch it. Legacy, it is about what the artist says. In that context M. Night's work looks like someone who is afraid to state what he thinks, and doesn't have faith in his message.

Was Mischa in that movie? I don't remember.

comment #45

BurmaShave says ...

malibu I think I get what you're saying, I was just taklking about how walking out on it before the ending would definetly impair your ability to offer an opinion of it. And yes indeed the dead little girl was Mischa Barton.

comment #46

malibugigolo says ...

Burma

Ok. I didn't realize that. But then again I didn't realize I had watched ROCK STAR until I saw PIERREPOINT and realized I remember Timothy Spall, as he was the only guy that I remember watching in Rock Star and thinking that's the only talented actor in this, nothing about the story, just that movie with the friends girl...I guess I should have walked out on that...

comment #47

Josh Massey says ...

Havens is exactly right.

comment #48

sandekat says ...

To give the devil his due, Wells is upfront about his walk outs. I suspect there are a good many reviews written by so called critics who only watched a fraction of the movie then cop an attitude from what they glean from the buzz and write their reviews based upon a story synopsis.

Most film critics today are disgracefully inept, so its small wonder that their opinion is increasingly marginalized and irrelevant.

comment #49

btwnproductions says ...

Why walk out when you can just fall asleep? Half-full screening rooms are ideal places for catching a few zzzz's when the movie's a dog. I see my brethren doing it all the time in NY, when I'm not joining them in slumberland.

comment #50

le corbeau says ...

I'm pretty sure that everything I've ever walked out of was more of the same. The Saint did not become charming and debonair; Being Human did not cease being wimpy and depressed; Charlie's Angels did not become intelligent and respectful of its audience; Love and Other Catastrophes did not suddenly rid itself of the most obvious cliches about relationships; and so on. I feel utterly confident that these movies, having gone down a hole, did not climb back out.

Mostly I've solved this problem by not walking into things I know will suck, which is why all my examples are about 10 years old.

comment #51

thatmovieguy says ...

I haven't walked out on anything I reviewed since 1985 when I was assigned to write up something called SCHOOL SPIRIT, which was a less-than-spellbinding story of a high school geek who dies and comes back as a ghost to haunt the girls' locker room. The entire movie (which looked like it was shot with a Super 8mm camera and blown up to 35mm) was built around one joke: Girls would stand around in towels, the ghost would grab the towel away, the girl would cover herself before you had a chance to see much and everyone would stand around asking, "What's going on here?" Perhaps there was a SIXTH SENSE-style twist at the end, but I guess I'll never know. Even though the film was abysmal, I stayed for a full hour and left primarily because it was a late show on Sunday night in a foul-smelling bargain house and some of the other people in the audience of seven were making suspicious noises. I have since sat through every minute of BATTLEFIELD EARTH, GIGLI, FROM JUSTIN TO KELLY, BOAT TRIP and dozens of other tragedies; even when a movie is terrible, it almost always beats sitting at a desk, making phone calls, doing research and editing other people's stories. Besides, you never know when someone is going to ask you to spoil the ending of some terrible movie and you don't want to disappoint them, right?

comment #52

christian says ...

i think i saw this on cable in the 80's and walked out of the room.

comment #53

zoey says ...

There was a time when I wouldn't walk out of a movie or wouldn't give away a book (especially a hardback) if I lost interest after the first thirty pages. But life is too short. If a movie doesn't grab you by the throat in the first act... maybe by the midpoint... the odds that the third act (which is usually the weakest part of even good movies) will save it is minimal. Same with reading screenplays... the good ones always have a very literate feel and natural rhythm in the exposition and dialogue that the bad ones never do. And you can usually tell by maybe 25 pages in whether it should get tossed.

comment #54

George Prager says ...

I would've walked out of CHILDREN OF MEN, but I rented it, so I took several trips to the kitchen, bathroom, etc. Wound up taking me three days to watch. Man, that movie fucking sucked.

comment #55

malibugigolo says ...

CHILDREN OF MEN sucked it was trying to subvert the whole time when it claimed to be about life....what a JOKE

comment #56

BurmaShave says ...

To each his own, but you're both wrong. Legendarily wrong. As wrong as those in 1967 who dismissed BONNIE AND CLYDE. The beginning of the end of your contribution to film criticism. The train is gone, and you're not on it.

comment #57

sandekat says ...

George and malibu are both allowed to 'walk out' and be wrong, horribly, laughably wrong. Its ironic that two 'critics' prove that to make snap judgements and walk out of a movie is feeble, weak, and wrong.

But if it is one on one, you and the film....its ok, I suppose....but Jeff should be above this lame assed approach....hate it or love it, he should wrestle with it as if wrestling with the devil or angels and he's trying to decide which: why, why not? The future or the past? Does it fit into our national history or mood? For how long? There are so many questions that matter and are revealing. A true critic rises to the greater questions and seeks to answer them.

And then there is Wells, malibugigalo, and George.

comment #58

Craig Kennedy says ...

I'm going to give Wells a free pass on this one because he's not technically a movie critic. He's a movie reporter who occasionally gives his opinions on movies he's seen. However, he'll have to forgive me for mainly ignoring his opinions since he can't be bothered to take the task of movie viewing seriously enough to stay to the end of movies he walks into for free. There are often aspects of my job that are not fulfilling or especially entertaining, but I don't get to choose whether to finish performing them or not. If I only picked and choosed the bits of my job that I enjoyed, I probably wouldn't have a job.

comment #59

Craig Kennedy says ...

"picked and choosed"??? Picked and chose??? Whatever. What am I, an English teacher?