93% on Rotten Tomatoes? Seriously?
Look, I'm not a cynic. I love lame, weepy dramedies. Even those with little depth can be thoroughly touching and entertaining. But what I can't roll with is sh**ty writing and story- telling. Why do I say that, you ask? A few big reasons:
1) See, usually when a movie features a character story, that character must undergo some sort of fundamental change. He or she may learn something from a trial or a difficult experience and come out stronger on the other end. For example, the character might find out that he has cancer and appreciate life more because he's come to terms with his own mortality.
There is absolutely no character arc in this movie. Joseph Gordon Levitt's character Adam DOESN'T CHANGE AT ALL THROUGHOUT THE MOVIE. He starts off as a banal character who just kind of goes through life (who doesn't even have any notable character traits in the first place). He finds out he has cancer, and by the end of the movie...he is still a banal character who just kind of goes through life. Ask yourself this question; what exactly did Adam learn throughout the movie? What kind of wisdom did having cancer impart in him. How exactly was his life different from before his cancer to after? The answer is, NOTHING.
For one thing, I find this a little insulting to cancer victims because, in my opinion, it trivializes the trauma of having cancer. My grandpa has cancer right now. You think his life is different because of it? It sure as hell is. For another thing, this is just poor, crappy storytelling.
2) I have a friend, a PHILOSOPHY MAJOR IN COLLEGE who told me to pay attention to Seth Rogen's character Kyle, because he's "interesting". No he's not. He's not interesting. You know how he came across as a jerk the whole time who took advantage of his friend's horrible situation and didn't seem to care the whole time? And you know how at the end, they show the book on his table or whatever? This isn't depth. It's a CONTRADICTION. It's bad writing. It doesn't make Kyle a deep character at all. It makes Kyle a horribly conceived character who doesn't make any sense. I realize there's a forum thread about this movie on IMDb about whether or not Kyle is a good friend. The answer is: there is no answer. Why? Because the writer of the movie didn't care enough to write a good answer into the script.
Addendum to 2- the characterizations of every supporting character in this movie sucked. Bryce Dallas Howard's character of "the bad girlfriend" is just too simple. I don't like movies where the bad guy is just evil and nothing else. It's too easy that way. It's lazy. Everyone else just basically had one character gimmick. Anna Kendrick- naive. Oh, and messy, don't forget messy. Anjelica Houston- overbearing. Old dying people- cynical.
3) I just get this weird feeling that everybody loves that scene in the car where Joseph Gordon- Levitt cries. It's really emotional, I guess. And I understand that this was a moment of catharsis for the character and maybe the acting was pretty good here. But one single scene out of context doesn't make a movie good.
4) There are a lot of "Juno" moments in this movie. You know what I mean. The kind where they do some random shots of scenery, maybe play some indie music you've never heard of. This is usually done to create some air of deep contemplation. It's a f**king farce. It's a trick to make you think the movie's smarter than it is. Don't be fooled.
Now, I'll be fair. Here are things I liked:
1) Acting- not bad. I find JGL really overrated, and I feel like every single movie he's been in gets way too much credit. But he wasn't bad in this or anything. I happen to like Anna Kendrick. Seth Rogen is okay as well because his job was to be Seth Rogen.
2) Ummm actually that's it. Well, I like criticizing this movie. Maybe that counts.
No one wants to insult the cancer movie. I certainly don't. But just because I hate the movie doesn't mean I'm unsympathetic to cancer victims. A lot of filmmakers get away with creating pure crap just because of the subject matter. Don't let this sway your opinion. A crap movie is a crap movie.
There are a lot of movies like this that, in my opinion, are given way too much credit. By no means am I a film snob, but I think people need to check out more established directors. That way, they'll have higher standards than faux-intellectual, weepy bulls**t like this.
Look, I'm not a cynic. I love lame, weepy dramedies. Even those with little depth can be thoroughly touching and entertaining. But what I can't roll with is sh**ty writing and story- telling. Why do I say that, you ask? A few big reasons:
1) See, usually when a movie features a character story, that character must undergo some sort of fundamental change. He or she may learn something from a trial or a difficult experience and come out stronger on the other end. For example, the character might find out that he has cancer and appreciate life more because he's come to terms with his own mortality.
There is absolutely no character arc in this movie. Joseph Gordon Levitt's character Adam DOESN'T CHANGE AT ALL THROUGHOUT THE MOVIE. He starts off as a banal character who just kind of goes through life (who doesn't even have any notable character traits in the first place). He finds out he has cancer, and by the end of the movie...he is still a banal character who just kind of goes through life. Ask yourself this question; what exactly did Adam learn throughout the movie? What kind of wisdom did having cancer impart in him. How exactly was his life different from before his cancer to after? The answer is, NOTHING.
For one thing, I find this a little insulting to cancer victims because, in my opinion, it trivializes the trauma of having cancer. My grandpa has cancer right now. You think his life is different because of it? It sure as hell is. For another thing, this is just poor, crappy storytelling.
2) I have a friend, a PHILOSOPHY MAJOR IN COLLEGE who told me to pay attention to Seth Rogen's character Kyle, because he's "interesting". No he's not. He's not interesting. You know how he came across as a jerk the whole time who took advantage of his friend's horrible situation and didn't seem to care the whole time? And you know how at the end, they show the book on his table or whatever? This isn't depth. It's a CONTRADICTION. It's bad writing. It doesn't make Kyle a deep character at all. It makes Kyle a horribly conceived character who doesn't make any sense. I realize there's a forum thread about this movie on IMDb about whether or not Kyle is a good friend. The answer is: there is no answer. Why? Because the writer of the movie didn't care enough to write a good answer into the script.
Addendum to 2- the characterizations of every supporting character in this movie sucked. Bryce Dallas Howard's character of "the bad girlfriend" is just too simple. I don't like movies where the bad guy is just evil and nothing else. It's too easy that way. It's lazy. Everyone else just basically had one character gimmick. Anna Kendrick- naive. Oh, and messy, don't forget messy. Anjelica Houston- overbearing. Old dying people- cynical.
3) I just get this weird feeling that everybody loves that scene in the car where Joseph Gordon- Levitt cries. It's really emotional, I guess. And I understand that this was a moment of catharsis for the character and maybe the acting was pretty good here. But one single scene out of context doesn't make a movie good.
4) There are a lot of "Juno" moments in this movie. You know what I mean. The kind where they do some random shots of scenery, maybe play some indie music you've never heard of. This is usually done to create some air of deep contemplation. It's a f**king farce. It's a trick to make you think the movie's smarter than it is. Don't be fooled.
Now, I'll be fair. Here are things I liked:
1) Acting- not bad. I find JGL really overrated, and I feel like every single movie he's been in gets way too much credit. But he wasn't bad in this or anything. I happen to like Anna Kendrick. Seth Rogen is okay as well because his job was to be Seth Rogen.
2) Ummm actually that's it. Well, I like criticizing this movie. Maybe that counts.
No one wants to insult the cancer movie. I certainly don't. But just because I hate the movie doesn't mean I'm unsympathetic to cancer victims. A lot of filmmakers get away with creating pure crap just because of the subject matter. Don't let this sway your opinion. A crap movie is a crap movie.
There are a lot of movies like this that, in my opinion, are given way too much credit. By no means am I a film snob, but I think people need to check out more established directors. That way, they'll have higher standards than faux-intellectual, weepy bulls**t like this.