Reviews

In the first few minutes of the movie, I noticed--and appreciated--some rather witty dialogue. As the movie went on, the cleverness of the dialogue became a distraction that got in the way of the story. Nowhere--not in Ebbing, Missouri--or anywhere else does EVERYONE have a witty retort for EVERYTHING! Perhaps the screenwriters felt a need to show off, but at the expense of real, believable characters.

Also, the moral ambiguity of almost all the characters was presented in a rather heavy-handed, civics lesson sort of way.

I am in full and enthusiastic agreement with most of the ideas presented in this movie. That's why I found it so disappointing.

With the exception of Sam Harris, Juliet Schor and President Carter (clips from the bravest speech ever given by a U.S. President), the talking heads were cloyingly earnest and oh, so good!

And stop all the hugging...please!

This movie is almost three hours long. It is narrated in a dull,flat voice. It uses hundreds of film clips, some for as little time as 5-10 seconds. It ends abruptly, without any sort of wrap-up.

Yet..it works beautifully. A good example of how breaking all the rules can sometimes pay off handsomely.

A documentary on the world of crossword puzzles and their builders and solvers could have been quite interesting.

The scenes in which we watch a puzzle builder begin work on a crossword puzzle were too brief. There was no coverage of cryptic (often British) crosswords, cryptoquotes or other wordplay.

Too bad the movie makers felt that audiences need to see "celebrities" in a documentary of this sort.

Also, there are many sources for word puzzles of various kinds. The movie's worshipful attitude toward the New York Times limited the movie's scope, ultimately leading to its failure.

The plotting was clever and effective, but the lame attempts at humor should put to rest--finally--Allen's reputation as a comic master.

The joke about Rubens painting/Reuben sandwiches was inexcusably childish, and one could see it coming a mile away.

Allen seems to have a base of fans who are ready to love anything he does, and this has made him lazy.

It's quite striking in watching documentaries with newsreel footage from, say the 1960s, 70s, 80s and 90s that the people who look the most outdated (ridiculously so!) are American network television newsmen. With other people in old footage, fashions and haircuts may change over the decades but no individuals appear clownish in outdated somewhat clothes or grooming.

In any given period, though, network television newsmen are always exaggerated comic caricatures of that period's look.

Another documentary I saw recently in which this was apparent was "How to Survive a Plague."

Overall, a pretty good treatment of an important subject for a documentary. Errol Morris does, however, return to his favorite directorial conceits over and over again.

One such tic of his is the sped up view of a skyline (with the clouds racing across the sky, day turning into twilight, then night all in a few seconds). I suppose some directors use this technique to indicate the passage of time, but in this movie most scenes opened with titles on the screen indicating the month, day, year, etc. Hence, no need for the fast-moving clouds.

Also, because Rumsfeld referred to his messages as "snowflakes," Morris over-used the glass ball snowflakes as a bridge between many scenes. Morris is an admirable documentary film maker and shouldn't fall into the habit of pro forma use of such conceits.

This was a highly satisfying thriller, despite employing almost every Hollywood cliché there is.

The heroine is a hot chick who:

(a) is frighteningly smart;

(b) can fight and beat up any woman or man;

(c) can perform surgery; and

(d) even knows sign language.

The movie used standard Hollywood musical cues and most episodes were resolved in predictable fashion.

The whole thing, however, worked quite nicely.

Union Square is an interesting, but artless, documentary; with the subject matter and a colorful cast of main characters it could have been much better.

Viewers who aren't familiar with Union Square in New York City will learn nothing of the neighborhood. Where does Union Square sit in relation to other Manhattan landmarks? What are the immediately surrounding blocks like? Who hangs out in Union Square other than the heroin users? What are relations like between the police and the users? What about neighborhood merchants and the users? Also, the repeated use of five or six talking heads should have been broken up with, perhaps, newsreel footage about the history of drug use in that neighborhood, movie or literary treatments of the subject matter, etc.

This was a reasonably intelligent, adult film. Its aim was to be didactic, and in a couple of speeches the attempt to teach us "what it all means" was a bit overdone and unnatural.

Ridley Scott seems to favor expansive, majestic establishing shots. After the third or fourth time we see titles announcing: "Langley" along with a sweeping (unnecessary) shot of the Pentagon, or "Amman" with a shot of SUVs cruising up to an impressive building, this technique becomes predictable and wearisome.

Of the many movies lately dealing with America's role in the Muslim world, espionage, terrorism, etc., this compares favorably. Nothing from the past few years, however, has improved on Battle of Algiers.