Reviews

Many people have commented that Anakin seems like such a good boy, yet he becomes the insidious Darth Vader, so it just doesn't fit. I just wanted to pint out that there is a reason Lucas went out of his way to make Anakin the perfect little boy. He's not supposed to be Hitler in a child's body. He does not become Darth Vader because of evil intentions, as I understand it from the rabid Star Wars fans I am surrounded by.

As far as being the Savior, analogous to Jesus Christ: the characters in the movie seem to think Anakin is the Chosen One, but as I understand it, also from being surrounded by rabid Star Wars fans, it is Luke that is the Chosen One, not Anakin. Also, even if the story is based on Christian mythology, that doesn't mean every aspect of the story and character development has to be; the story of Jesus may just have served as inspiration for a starting point.

In any case, the point was to make Anakin completely uncorrupted, so that we realise the contrast between Anakin and Darth Vader and how far Anakin had to go to become the villain of episodes IV-VI. At the age of 10 or whatever, he has not yet begun his descent to the Dark Side; that's for the next movies. I thought the movie did a decent job of showing us who Anakin is at this point, even if the character development was not extensive. However, I would also like to point out, as there has been much criticism of the character development in this movie, that the character development was somewhat lacking in the original Star Wars as well. It was not until Empire that it was shown that Luke was not just whiny, for example. The purpose of this movie was to introduce us to the major players and settings, and to the catalysts for the formation of the evil Empire. I thought the movie accomplished this quite well, and, while I liked it a lot, I am sure I will like it even more after the next 2 movies come out to complete the story.

I did not think this movie was great, but I did like it. However, I do not feel the characters in this movie are unrealistic, as some have complained. I felt the character of Will Hunting, who seems to be the most maligned, was very real. Maybe the problem is that people have gotten so used to seeing characters who are one-dimensional and non-contradictory, even though this is not what people are like in real life. Will Hunting is a mathematical genius, but this in no way means that he should behave intelligently in all domains of his life. Hence, it is not unrealistic for him to behave stupidly when it comes to women. Nor is it unrealistic for him to work as a janitor. In my experience, people often do things that could not be predicted from their intelligence or abilities alone. I myself have done things that I intellectually knew were stupid or detrimental; I'm sure most people have, and a mathematical genius should be no exception. The character of Hunting struck me very much as a guy who has a problem with sabotaging his own happiness and success, maybe out of fear of greater failure should he put himself on the line. His amazing abilities do not necessitate that he have a good job and a university degree, because it is not just intelligence that determines these things. In school, perhaps he skipped all his classes and never did his assignments, and thus got poor grades. That being the case, he would not have been accepted to a prestigious university, and in fact no one might have noticed his affinity for math. It is also possible he simply didn't apply to university, even though he might have been accepted, either to stay with his friends or to prevent academic failure. I think one of the points of this movie is that being gifted does not by itself make you happy and successful. Being gifted does not make you immune to psychological problems, or make you behave in an intelligent manner in all situations. If his character had been written this way- well, first off, there wouldn't be a movie. Secondly, that would have made his character completely unbelievable. I do concede that the likelihood of a genius being a janitor is not that great, but it is not impossible, and I'm sure it happens. There are historical figures that we now recognise as great, even though in their time they were ignored or ridiculed for their beliefs. There are also nutty geniuses, who cut off their ears and what not. In light of such things and of my own personal experiences, I don't see any reason why Hunting can't be as screwed up as the rest of us.

Pleasantville was easily one of the best movies I saw all year, and this was a good year for movies. Yet this movie was overlooked in the best picture category, not only at the Oscars, but also at the Golden Globes, which has TWO best picture categories. Virtually every review I saw for this movie placed it ahead of The Thin Red Line (including the ratings here on the IMDB), yet it got nominated and Pleasantville got shelved.

This movie was original, and NOT a carbon copy of the Truman Show, as some have suggested. I found it a clever approach to exploring such issues as racism, and I found most of the characters to be rich and diverse. It was funny and yet poignant at the same time- a combination of comedy and drama that I believe tends to make the best movies. And I never thought someone saying "Where's my dinner?" could be so funny. William H. Macy was also robbed of an Oscar, once again. The rest of the cast was good, too.

As far as the comment that Joan Allen turning into colour didn't make her radiant: what movie were you watching? We were not supposed to view her as the next supermodel. Attaining colour was not about physical attractiveness. This movie was about discovering yourself, which is what she did, and as far as I am concerned, that was all that was supposed to make her radiant. Her beauty laid inside her. If this is not the message a person took away, I could understand them not liking the movie, just as I have not liked movies that I did not get the point of. If you did not get the point, maybe it would be worthwhile to watch the movie again, because it really is excellent.

I also found the notion of the people in Pleasantville only becoming real throughout the course of the movie intriguing. It is interesting to think of an entire world being created right before your very eyes, to watch the townspeople evolve and develop and mature, a miniature version of our own world, plagued by the same problems and enriched with the same joys. I've found it interesting to imagine what might happen if such a world were to be created- how quickly would that world become like our own, or would it become that way at all? I don't think the goal of this movie was to instill such thoughts in people, but it did so in me nonetheless, and that is one thing I enjoy in a movie, for it to be thought-provoking. And Pleasantville, being the intelligent and complex-yet-simple film it is, accomplishes this nicely. And this is why it deserved an Oscar nomination, aside for for best costume design. I am not saying it should have won (I haven't seen Shakespeare in Love yet), but it certainly deserved the honour of a nomination.

When I say I don't get it, I don't mean to imply that I didn't understand the movie. What I don't get is why we are supposed to care about such unsympathetic, flat characters. And I also don't get how this movie could possibly have won best picture; it is boring, overdone, and pretentious, and nice scenery does not make up for a lack of substance. I did not care what happened to either Ralph Fiennes or Kristin Scott Thomas; neither one gave me any reason to care. I agree with the comments that there is no indication that there was any real love here. It looked like a case of raging hormones to me. Are we given any reason why we should not despise KST for cheating on her husband over a prolonged period of time? No. Are we given any reason why we should not despise Fiennes for sleeping with his best friend's wife over a prolonged period of time? No. Are we given any reason why we should believe their relationship is based on anything more than lust? That scene at the Christmas dinner or whatever it was is a good example of how completely unlikable these characters were. I did like the character played by Binoche, and I did care what happened to her and Andrews' character, but this relationship was barely touched on in the movie, though I understand it is more important in the book. These characters were not despicable and showed more depth, and as far as I am concerned, they are the only reasons that this movie wasn't intolerable and completely without merit- other than the wonderful scenery, of course, which we are shown again and again and again.

I am not American (though I'm not sure if being Canadian is considered by many others to be more American-like or more European-like, or just different) and I am not male, and I don't see what these qualities have to do with anything anyway; a bad movie is a bad movie, and this was indeed a bad movie. I don't need massive explosions or shoot-outs, nor do I need lots of sex (though this movie had plenty of that) in order to enjoy a movie. I like a good story. I prefer talking to action. But none of this means anything if the characters are not likable. Likewise, likable characters can make a bad movie passable. In this case, Binoche's character keeps this movie from being downright horrible, instead bringing it up into the low end of mediocrity.