free counter with statistics Harsh Times | Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

harsh1.jpg
I Guess I’m a Pretty Sick Guy

Harsh Times / Daniel Carlson

Film Reviews | November 10, 2006 | Comments (102)


For a man who got his start in Newsies, Christian Bale has come a long way and matured into one of the finest actors of his generation. Sure, he may have technically gotten his start with Empire of the Sun and Henry V, but he’ll forever be branded in the minds of many as the kid who shouted “Let’s soak ‘em for Crutchy!” and leaped around a soundstage trading duets with Bill Pullman. And then, goodness, there was the horror that was Swing Kids. It wasn’t until he came screaming out of the dark with 2000’s American Psycho that his name began to convey a sense of power, of gravitas, and he further cemented that persona — the one of the layered and gifted actor, not chainsaw-wielding maniac — with Batman Begins, one of the best superhero films ever made. Bale was able to bring humanity and believability to the role of Bruce Wayne, which is no small feat, since he spent most of the movie making weird rubber suits for himself and hanging upside-down from rooftops. But not even Bale’s considerable charisma can save Harsh Times, a sweaty, stupid, pointless film written and directed by David Ayer, who penned Training Day (good) and The Fast and the Furious (uh oh). Ayer makes his directorial debut with Harsh Times, and it’s enough to make me think he should call it a day and go back to writing. Or maybe just leave Hollywood altogether.

Jim David (Bale), an ex-Army Ranger, can’t shake his memories of serving in Iraq, specifically of brutal firefights and the multiple kills he racked up. He awakens from his latest nightmare in Mexico, where he’s visiting Marta (Tammy Trull), the girl he loves. Bale oscillates easily between raw force and surprising tenderness, as he shares a few quiet moments of genuine love with Marta before driving back to L.A. and his other life. The next morning, newly clad in a suit and striding up to the door of a house before pounding on the door for entry, it becomes clear that Jim functions most of the time as an overly aggressive alpha male, just waiting for the chance to snap and assert his manhood on an unsuspecting civilian. The house he’s at belongs to his buddy, Mike (Freddy Rodriguez), and Mike’s girlfriend, Sylvia (Eva Longoria). Sylvia’s a lawyer; you can tell because she carries a briefcase and uses words like “deposition.” Mike’s recently unemployed, and Jim is there to drive him around town and help him drop off résumés. There’s no love lost between Jim and Sylvia: He attempts to flirt with her, and she warns Mike about not getting into trouble or partying. “No drinking,” she tells him, and it’s an emasculating moment for Mike, not least because he’s the kind of guy who can always get himself talked into a blind rage by friends like Jim, and Jim knows it. Mike also knows Jim can get him into bad situations and maybe even ruin his life, but he loves him anyway. Ayer attempts to persuade the viewer that this kind of relationship is friendship, albeit a poisoned one, but it doesn’t work. For whatever reason, Mike has a blind spot for Jim, and instead of feeling sympathetic for a man edging closer to the abyss, I just wound up not caring. For all Mike and Jim’s talk of what it is to be a man, neither one was willing to accept the consequences of their actions. That’s weakness.

Jim chauffeurs Mike around L.A. and swings by the police station to find out if he’s been accepted to start training at the academy. Finding only a rejection letter, Jim explodes with rage once he’s back on the road, punching the steering wheel and attempting to pick fights with other motorists. Mike coaxes him back into the car, but when Jim finally calms down, he sets out to get pretty smashed. Soon enough, he and Mike are cruising aimlessly around town, drunk and high, and Jim takes a detour to visit his ex and hopefully get a little tail. Unfortunately, her new boyfriend and a gang of cholos roll up and jump Jim, at which point Mike comes to his aid and they rip off the gang.

Mike starts to be pulled along in Jim’s wake, following him down a dead-end path of driving around and getting high and selling guns and running weed across the border and in general making some shoddy career choices. However, Ayer’s focus isn’t what it was in Training Day, in which he maintained dramatic tension by restricting all the action to one long, hellish day in the life of a rookie undercover cop. Harsh Times unfolds over a period of two to three days, but that’s all the leeway Ayer needs to abandon any pretense of dramatic build; the taut focus of his earlier work falls by the wayside as Jim and Mike just keep driving in circles, doing nothing and learning less.

Rodriguez, so engaging on “Six Feet Under,” does his best with the flat script he’s been given, but there’s only so much he can do. He and Bale share a few — a very few — brief moments of genuine camaraderie, relaxing in each other’s presence the way only old friends do, but Ayer never gives them any chances to really bring out the history that’s kept these characters together for so long. Longoria, meanwhile, isn’t terrible, but that’s because she’s largely offscreen. It’s almost unfair to criticize her, since she’s never shown any kind of depth or range in the past, so to expect her to bring an unseen A-game is a little unrealistic. Still, her wooden deliveries and vacant eyes are more suited to the soap operas where she got her start. Bale outguns her every step of the way, bringing touches of humanity to an increasingly inhuman role.

It’s that inhumanity, though, that ultimately kills the film. Harsh Times suffers from generational loss, as if Ayer is just ripping off his own worst ideas. There’s nothing to recommend in Harsh Times, but oddly, almost nothing original to condemn. The half-cocked redemption angle, the emotional trauma, the sorry ending: It’s all been done before, and better. It’s like Bale himself has said: This confession has meant nothing.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba and a low-level employee at a Hollywood industry magazine. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.


Pajiba Love 11/10/06 | Good Year, A



Comments

Due to the presence of one Eva Longoria, it's physically and mentally impossible for me to watch this film.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at November 10, 2006 9:02 PM

I'm just so sick of those commercials with Eva in her unbearable voice saying "my biggest nightmare is YOUwithabadge." Ugh.

Posted by: No Nickname For Me at November 10, 2006 9:58 PM

As a kid who first learned to love Bale in his role as the inimitable Patrick Bateman, I'm terribly sad to hear the bad news. And this IS news - I trust Pajiba. Any awful movie I've seen (or never will) has been viewed as equally awful by the lovely critics here. Every movie I've enjoyed (since discovering this site) has also been reviewed favourably here. It's unfortunate to have to accept Bale's been in a bad film - that something he's in could be unenjoyable. I'll wait for this to come out on DVD, because...who really knows. I liked Equilibrium, a film I think Bale elevated above it's potential schlocky-cheesiness. I do get the feeling though, that he couldn't rescue Harsh Times. You had to confirm it. Aghhhh.

Posted by: Lola at November 10, 2006 11:20 PM

*quietly shoves her copy of 'Newsies' aside*

I'll have to agree with BarbadoSlim up there. I have a natural urge to smack Eva Longoria in the face.

Posted by: Mara at November 10, 2006 11:29 PM

*hides worn out copy of 'Newsies' under the bed*

To Lola, I agree that I am also upset that Bale is in a bad movie as well as that he is probably unable to redeem it. That being said, I was roped into seeing 'The New World' mostly because of Bale's appearance in it (and athough it was a beautiful film, it bored me to tears) and I will probably see 'Harsh Times' for the same reason.

Posted by: Emily at November 11, 2006 1:13 PM

Somehow, I am not surprised by this review. The movie didn't generate any interest for me based on the trailers I watched. And while I would normally watch Christian Bale chew food, I had absolutely no interest in seeing this film. Even with a good review, I probably wouldn't want to see it. Kinda like Babel.

Posted by: Daphne at November 11, 2006 2:21 PM

Wowza: I got to hand it to you there Dan: You just reviewed PEOPLE -- not the elements of the movie: You slam the director as though he has personally offended you. We're going on the path that Ayers wants to take - NOT the one YOU want to take. If you have some other place you'd rather be, why not write YOUR OWN movie? Saw this film and dug it. You know what? They used to make EXACTLY this kind of film back in the 50's and our host Dan up there would be waxing poetic about it today because he stumbled on it on TMC while raiding the fridge at 2 a.m. last night!! Judging by the comments above from this site's perpetual batch of lemmings, I see a solid little film will die a quick death because the "thought police" have declared the film verboten...Good grief ppeople! There's one person above me in this column that basically synchronizes her watch with this site's reviews! Sad...very sad...

Posted by: Joe at November 11, 2006 7:58 PM

Sorry to disagree with you there "joe," but I just refuse to watch ANYTHING even remotely associated with this Longoria person.(I won't even watch ABC)

That's just how I roll.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at November 11, 2006 9:00 PM

Hey Joe,

that's what people read reviews for...someone's OPINION about the movie. if you disagree with it, and this site's "lemmings" why are you here? are you trying to save us?

also, I hoped that Bale could save this movie from itself, but I guess not.

Posted by: Rob at November 11, 2006 10:58 PM

Joe, you wound me. Terribly. If a friend who shared my taste in movies gave me a review similar to Carlson's, I'd take their word for it - especially if I suspected as much beforehand. And I did suspect as much about Harsh Times. I don't know Carlson personally but I believe his judgement is sound.
Anyway, reviews are about reviews. Coming to a movie review site and telling someone who gave a harsh review of a movie to make their own if they're so clever is extraordinarily redundant. Don't have a hissy fit. Calm down. Have a drink, Joe.

Posted by: Lola at November 12, 2006 12:15 AM

"Equilibrium" - loved it, too, Lola. Flawed, but I can't resist a totalitarian premise, and it's the film I point to when the anti-intellekshals start sounding off on the pointlessness of art (it's reductive enough for the A-I's to get the drift.)

The scene with the puppies kills me, too, of course. How can something be so laugh-out-loud ridi and yet so touching-profound?????

Posted by: ranylt at November 12, 2006 9:48 AM

Wonderful: I got one person above who wants to put my name in quotes: Hey dear: It's Joe - as in "A Guy Named Joe": Which you might have heard of if your knowledge of movies dated back to anything PRE "Grease". You don't watch anything with Eva Longeria? That comment is so stupid and so inane that I'll just leave you flailing around on your own...

Next up Rob: "also, I hoped that Bale could save this movie from itself, but I guess not."

Well you'll never know the answer to that will you pal: I mean seeing as how you have given over your proxy to Dan up there, you'll be left to cruise this site until you find a movie Dan has approved of.

Hey Lola: Don't tell me to have a drink - In fact: Don't tell me to do anything. Unlike yourself and others here I don't need a stranger to instruct me or help me with any independent thought or action: While you are apparently quite comfortable having "help" with life's decisions, I - as a functioning adult - don't require it. I just love folks like you and the rest: You post your little "Oh my God I'm so happy you liked this film so I can go see it!" routine or the other: "Oh...guess now I won't see this film because you didn't like it..." spiel...and THEN: You patrol this column like Junior Police Academy Cadets and make certain that all opposing thought is appropriately bashed/mocked and/or stamped out...
Here's an idea: Why don't you and the rest of the lemmings here have a drink together at the next Pajiba Fan Club Meeting...Just be careful that one of Danny's falling head hair follicles doesn't start swirling around in your Appletini!

Posted by: Joe at November 12, 2006 10:58 AM

hmmmmm, lemme see, nope no flailing here "joey"


And guess what, not a damn thing you can do about it...

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at November 12, 2006 11:09 AM

..sounds like someone's got a little sand in their vagina.

Posted by: Mara at November 12, 2006 3:20 PM

Below quote comes courtesy of Rob:
that's what people read reviews for...someone's OPINION about the movie. if you disagree with it, and this site's "lemmings" why are you here? are you trying to save us?

You're free to disagree with the following statement but here you go:
The POINT of film criticism is to critique film as art: You can critique art without personalizing it. Dan Carlson - who claims to want to become a professional film critic - personally went after the director in his "review" and I quote:
"...Ayer makes his directorial debut with Harsh Times, and it's enough to make me think he should call it a day and go back to writing. Or maybe just leave Hollywood altogether..."
That's crap: We can all agree to disagree on what makes art good for the individual but Carlson's comments cross the line and for a budding "film critic" he loses credibility after that slam. It would literally be like someone describing a Jackson Pollock painting and saying: "This sucks! This guy should be a house painter but he sure as heck shouldn't be an artist!"
Look: I don't pretend to be John Ford but films succeed -- or fail -- for a host of reasons I don't think Dan Carlson or any of you actually understand. To personally bash a director because their vision at the end of the day doesn't match YOUR expectation of what the film should contain or leave out or how the emotions of the characters are conveyed is a low blow by any description. Sure there are movies that are made with all the love and care of a guy banging out sausage links and you're welcome to bash them to your heart's content (i.e Santa Clause 3)...HOWEVER: Each and every one of you said you'd watch Christian Bale read the New York City phone directory. I dare say Christian Bale knows more about the art of making a film than Dan Carlson. Don't you at least owe the artist the benefit of the doubt? Especially an artist you claim to admire...?
I especially deplore Carlson's comment that Ayer should leave the business: Dear God: If the artist doesn't reach and fail and is at least mildly rewarded with a kind word then how in the world can we as an audience ever expect film to be audacious and risky and ultimately thrilling and rewarding on a host of levels?

My frustration with this site is that it masquerades as film criticism but too often lapses into a nifty way for the writer to get off on his own perceived wit and you all applaud it and pat yourselves on the back for being "hip" to the joke...Any artist deserves better than that kind of treatment and if you all had even a hint of affection for film you'd understand what it is that is so offensive about a review such as this...
A last comment: Thought Scorsese botched "The Departed" and that it was a poor imitation of the much better Infernal Affairs: Shall we run him out of town, too?

Posted by: Joe at November 12, 2006 5:24 PM

Joe-

A personal slam would be "Ayer is an asshole." However, "Ayer is a shitty filmmaker" is an assessment of the art, not the person.

For instance: "Joe is a giant cocksucker" is a personal attack, whereas "Joe's negative opinions seem to be creating strife in the comment thread" is about the problem itself.

Hope that clears things up.

Posted by: Ray at November 12, 2006 5:37 PM

Joe is really one of the Wayans brothers...

Posted by: Dan at November 12, 2006 5:50 PM

Hey Ray! Nice to meet ya'
Good to see this site employs its own troupe of blithering idiots! You know: I so often fear that great sites like this won't be able to hang on and do their thing. Good to see they're able to afford a minimum wage hack like yourself to add something to the proceedings...

Joe is really one of the Wayans brothers...

Posted by: Dan at November 12, 2006 05:50 PM

Wow! Stunningly unfunny and lacking in the wit you THINK you possess...you should send your resume to Pajiba...

Let me just let you both know right now that you mess with the bull you're going to get the horns: And judging from both of your initial efforts you both better pack your lunch. You're going to need it where this conversation's going...

Posted by: Joe at November 12, 2006 6:56 PM

Joe, calm the fuck down and channel that excess energy into something positive....like basket weaving!!

Posted by: Megan at November 12, 2006 8:01 PM

Oh, and one more thought. Are you so fucking insecure that you are honestly THAT threatened by someone else's opinion? You like the movie. Great. Dan didn't. Great. Have a coke and a smile and chill the fuck out.

Posted by: Megan at November 12, 2006 8:03 PM

Sometimes, Joe, it's good to listen to others. Like when someone suggests you take a step away from the computer and maybe, I don't know, go take a nap or something - it can be helpful to listen. I'm not trying to control you, dear Joe.
Just offering some advice I think you'd benefit from by following - excuse me - implementing. Listening to the input of others and then wisely forming your own opinion on the situation at hand can be very effective when instinct and impulse lead only to you being rudely criticized and/or baby-talked on a small movie review website.
A nap, Joe. That's what I recommend.

Posted by: Lola at November 12, 2006 9:05 PM

Lola-
This is not the first time Bale has been in a bad movie. Reign of Fire.

Carlson-
Bale was great in Batman but I'm not sure I agree with you that it involved him deepening as an actor from the "chainsaw-wielding maniac." Personally, I think his performance in American Psycho was about as good as I've seen from anyone in anything. That doesn't mean I think there was a dropoff afterward--on the contrary I think he's been amazingly consistently good--but I think he was already that good in American Psycho. Small quibble, I know.

Everyone-
This comment thread is hilarious.

Posted by: Eep at November 12, 2006 9:51 PM

Eep-
I agree he was good in American Psycho. The line was an (apparently poor) attempt at humor.

Joe-
Sorry we disagree. But thanks for reading, and be sure to tell people about the site.

I'm leaving now before I get myself in any more trouble.

Posted by: Daniel at November 12, 2006 9:55 PM

F**kin' Stupid Lemmings.

Posted by: Harry at November 12, 2006 11:17 PM

Carlson-
I see now. I mistook a witty segue for a talking point. Like I said it was a minor quibble anyway, and probably more of a personal preference than cold hard fact, even within the context of the subjectivity of acting appraisals.

Cheers.

Posted by: Eep at November 13, 2006 12:15 AM

Each and every one of you said you'd watch Christian Bale read the New York City phone directory. I dare say Christian Bale knows more about the art of making a film than Dan Carlson. Don't you at least owe the artist the benefit of the doubt?

At my own peril, my response to this is....no, not really. I'll watch CB in just about anything (and yes, I watched Reign of Fire - I am not ashamed!), but not this. I'm just not interested in the movie. And just because I love CB doesn't mean that I owe it to him to see everything he's in. He's chosen acting as his job. However, it is not my job as a movie goer to see every one of his films. It's a privilege for him, and any other actor, for any fan of film to watch and enjoy his or her performance. Feel free to bash me for this, but it is my honest perspective.

Posted by: Daphne at November 13, 2006 12:15 AM

"Each and every one of you said you'd watch Christian Bale read the New York City phone directory."

... okay. So. I'd rent that on DVD. Or the audio version. But only if he read it in his actual accent.

Posted by: Mara at November 13, 2006 1:16 AM

Eep-
No worries.

The rest of you-
Sorry I've apparently led you over a cliff like lemmings. I have only myself to blame. Tell others to flee, lest they, too, plunge to their deaths.

Man, this one's gonna get me in trouble. Ah, well, it's been a while. I guess I was due.

Posted by: Daniel at November 13, 2006 1:20 AM

Here's a purely unnecessary side note - I just googled lemmings to see what the little bastards look like....man, they are really freaking cute!

Posted by: Megan at November 13, 2006 2:30 AM

I have to say, for a bunch of Bale fans I find it curious that non of you film "aficionados" (including Dan Carlson) have mentioned his work in The Machinist. The mere lack of this being mentioned leaves one to wonder about how correct this fella Joe might be. Bale's dedication to his craft and his performance as an artist in that film are astounding.

Posted by: -M at November 13, 2006 9:31 AM

Joe,
You remind me of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, as soon as you disagree with them, you're automatically in on the conspiracy or too stupid to see it. I don't see any problem with people liking Carlson's reviews whether or not he directly or indirectly criticizes the director/actor/etc. If they dig his style of film review, they dig it, ok?

He never said anyone should not see the film, he just said it was boring, and apparently so boring that he wishes the director would cease and desist. So you called Carlson on it and criticized him for it and dubbed anyone who agrees with him a lemming. I understand you don't like some of the reviews on the site, but calling someone a sheep just because they agree with a review you think is poorly written is pointless. Perhaps a site that "masquerades as film criticism but too often lapses into a nifty way for the writer to get off on his own perceived wit" is just what people were looking for?

I don't think film reviews are the cause of less audacious and risky films, I think it is the studios and their obsession with box office numbers. Asking Ayer to leave the business is overly harsh, but a lot of directors who "reach and fail" don't get another chance to direct anyways.

Lighten up. Arguing isn't going to get you shit... which you seemed to understand with your longer post about film criticism and art, but then you went right back to squabbling. If you're so sure you're right, why the need to answer name calling?

I'm not going to see the film in theatres, but it has nothing to do with this or any other film review. I'm cheap, and I get movie rentals for free. So try not to call me a lemming. (And lemmings don't commit mass suicide on purpose, they're just virtually blind.)

M,
The Machinist is an excellent movie, and Bale's physical transformation alone makes the film worth seeing. I was also surprised it has yet to be mentioned.

This is way too long, my apologies.
-The Stew

Posted by: The Stew at November 13, 2006 10:23 AM

Can I just poke my head out into the fray long enough to admit that I loved "Swing Kids"?

Oh, and I've never understood the need some people have to go somewhere (virtual or physical location) that they don't like and/or respect and mock the people who are there enjoying themselves. I mean, do you really have that much free time on your hands? I sure wish I did...

Posted by: pinkcheese at November 13, 2006 10:56 AM

I just wanted to thank Joe for finally allowing me to see the light!!! Finally, I understand that visiting a site with reviews from like-minded people is completely absurd!!! I don't know what took me so long to come to this conclusion, but of course I should be reading a reviews that are more respectful of movies I'd probably despise. It makes so much sense now. I should start voting Communist, too -- since I have so little in common with the Reds. And get my fashion advice from Jared Leto; I don't wear enough eyeliner, damnit. I wish K-Fed had a marriage advice column -- I don't bang skanky chicks, litter the country with white-trash children, and infect the world with hideous rap songs near enough. I only wish Joe wrote movie reviews and I could be his lemming -- I don't waste enough hours watching crap movies featuring decent actors who make bad career choices. Joe - please be my same-sex lover. Your intolerance for other's opinions is awesome!

Posted by: Joe Rules! at November 13, 2006 11:21 AM

M & The Stew-
My husband and I watched the Machinst and loved it to pieces! We have debated over whether they used a body double or if CB really made himself that thin for the role. I cannot believe he was even able to walk! I've never seen such an amazing transformation of someone's body for film. It was actually horrifying and yet it struck me w/ awe at the same time!

Posted by: Helcat at November 13, 2006 12:35 PM

M & The Stew-
My husband and I watched the Machinst and loved it to pieces! We have debated over whether they used a body double or if CB really made himself that thin for the role. I cannot believe he was even able to walk! I've never seen such an amazing transformation of someone's body for film. It was actually horrifying and yet it struck me w/ awe at the same time!

Posted by: Helcat at November 13, 2006 12:35 PM

So this IS about personalities: Our "host" Daniel at first takes the "high road":

Joe-
Sorry we disagree. But thanks for reading, and be sure to tell people about the site
Posted by: Daniel at November 12, 2006 09:55 PM

Then Daniel thinks better of that remark and now has to pay his respects to his "core audience":
The rest of you-
Sorry I've apparently led you over a cliff like lemmings. I have only myself to blame. Tell others to flee, lest they, too, plunge to their deaths.
Posted by: Daniel at November 13, 2006 01:20 AM

You know, the Internet is an endlessly fascinating place - it opens up a channel of communications for a wide diversity of people - but it also has the unnerving ability to be extremely insular and create communities (such as this one) that would make the Amish blush...

Thanks to the gang here, the column ceases to be about a movie or even how one should appropriately go about critiquing a movie and basically degenerates into a session such as the one you see above you...

As The Stew so brilliantly observed above: Perhaps a site that "masquerades as film criticism but too often lapses into a nifty way for the writer to get off on his own perceived wit" is just what people were looking for?

YES!!! This site proves that point time and time again: The caliber of reader here is astonishing in that virtually every comment I read from folks here is repeated affirmations to Daniel and his peers that they must in fact be brilliant at what they do because people repeatedly take the time to write them and offer kudos for their supposed wit. The level of discourse here is wretched in that it demands that any disagreement with the critic must be couched in terms of: "Hey buddy, don't agree with you but you can really make words sing! You're the best: Keep up the great work!"
The only variety you're likely to see here - unfortunately - is the different approaches the crew takes in its bashing methodology:
You have Lola who takes the role of wise old matron with the calming influence who's going to take the time to teach me the way to inner harmony...
You have Megan (Good grief girl: Do you eat with that mouth?!) who is trying to see how many times she can squeeze in the word "fuck" in a sentence: Hey Megan: Let me save you and those chubby little stubs of yours the effort: Let's just all assume your response to this is: "Fuck off!"
...and then we have the pure poetic genius that is "Joe Rules!" -- Great stuff my man! Perhaps you could guest write at Daniel's blog with that kind of innate talent! (The use of the poster's name as part of the writing assignment? Brilliant!)

Come on folks: This isn't about me, or movies like this one: It is about YOUR own intolerance towards anyone who has the temerity to call out the vast majority of the crew here for their astonishing lack of original thought process and to remind you that dear old Daniel is no more equipped to critique a film than the guy standing next to him who's also making radish ornaments for the cold cut platter in craft services. You should all retire your dial up internet contracts and do something truly worthwhile: Start a quilting club and while away your hours as a group sewing together the pelts of 1000 or so lemmings so as to create a nice toupee for that arid scalp of Daniel's!

Posted by: Joe at November 13, 2006 1:20 PM

Hey, Joe, you forgot to accuse Daniel of being fat and living in his mother's basement. Otherwise you've got the whole Cliche Internet Rage thing down pat! Good job!

Posted by: karenology at November 13, 2006 1:52 PM

I can logically see both sides to this. On the one hand, the people that come here are somewhat smug and self-congratulatory. They seem to be primarily female, probably between the ages of 25-35, I can see them with their Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers, Faint mp3s, horn-rimmed glasses and office jobs. They also type excruciatingly twee things like "I heart this site" or *hides self-esteem under the bed*. My God in heaven that is just too cutesy and annoying.

Then again, if Joe finds everything here insufferable... why come here? It's only going to piss you off. I can somewhat relate, as going places on the internet requires no more than a simple touch of a mouse, so the temptation to stalk your enemies, perceived or otherwise, is great. Some of the reviews and opinions here are smart and incisive. Some are just snarky. This site is no better or worse than Ain't It Cool. Except they're nerds for Transformers and the people here are nerds for hip, po-mo celebrity gossip and obscure indie bands.

Posted by: I Am Never Wrong at November 13, 2006 1:56 PM

I totally agree that Daniel is no more equipped to critique a film than the radish guy. If the radish guy wants to critique films, then good on him. I'll read his reviews, and if I enjoy them, I'll come back to the Radish Guy site every week. Sometimes I'll agree with him, sometimes I won't. Perhaps I'll base my decision to spend $10 at the multiplex on his recommendations, but sometimes I'll go see whatever I feel like seeing, regradless of his or anyone's review. Radish Guy has a right to his opinions, and I have a right to mine.

That said, I like Daniel's reviews. I enjoy reading them whether I agree with them or not. I am unwilling to quilt him a lemming toupee, however, because it seems mean to the lemmings, and I don't know that Daniel wants a toupee...lemming-based or otherwise. Plus, I don't think that quilting is an appropriate technique for toupee making. I believe one would need to do some sort of weaving for that.

Daniel, if you really do have your heart set on a lemming toupee, I'll see what I can do, but lemmings aren't in season here in Texas. Would you settle for rabbit? Or deer? Or antelope? How about a coonskin hat like Davey Crockett? I see lots of dead armadillos on the roadside...that wouldn't be very warm or fuzzy, but it would be distinctive and possibly provide cranial protection against any random crap thrown your way. Seems like that happens a lot lately...

Posted by: Mustang Sally at November 13, 2006 2:06 PM

So, Joe are you related to someone who made this movie? I once insulted the father of an artist. The "art" is question was a smoking monkey ironing a fish. While it was crap to me, dad sure didn't appreciate hearing that. Your reaction seems to be a bit emotionally invested. Just a thought.

Posted by: anikitty at November 13, 2006 2:23 PM

Joe,

You used to post as Wynn didn't you? Same rants, same habit of always showing up in the comments section of Daniel's reviews and accusing everyone of drinking the kool aid, same cracks about Daniel losing his hair, seriously, you're him right?

If not, there's this guy Wynn you should meet. Maybe you two can form an alliance and vote Daniel off the website.

Posted by: missmle at November 13, 2006 2:41 PM

What a surprise that the broad that yakkity yakked through "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" built an expressway from her foot to her mouth. Someone should show up to where you work and insult the way you make those Whoppers.

Posted by: antianikitty at November 13, 2006 3:11 PM

I'm amazed at the vitriol that Joe spewed out. I don't always agree with what the reviewers on this site say. For instance, no matter how great a horror movie it is or isn't, I will still hate it. Case in point, I'm going to see this movie, and will probably enjoy it, simply for the presence of CB. I own Reign of Fire (much to my boyfriend's dismay) because I have been in love with CB since Empire of the Sun (I also own Swing Kids for the same reason that I own Reign of Fire).

That said, I do agree with the reviewers on a great many films and usually take their opinions into account when I decide upon which movies I will spend my limited free time.

Posted by: Pam at November 13, 2006 3:17 PM

Certainly I have foot in mouth disease. But apparently no worse than you. I don't make whoppers by the way...but if I did, I'd make a point to spit in yours. Oh--wait--be nice, don't poke crazy with a stick...I've also told actors in terrible plays that I was the one in the audience laughing. You haven't lived until you saw a Hulk Hogan-esque performance of Media. It's part of my charm. Mostly it works for me. Hope the same can be said for you. Thanks for the therapy; it's been nice to get all of this off of my chest.

Posted by: anikitty at November 13, 2006 3:23 PM

Wait, wait...I can see it now: a grudge match softball game of lemming weaver/toupee wearing/armadillo helmeted/film critic loving folks (captained by Davy Crocket) vs Joe and his squad of people all being different together! Because what's the point of being an iconoclast if you can't get a phalanx of sycophants to join you in unison? I bet Eva Longoria would skip the game on account of her manicure.

PS I'll supply the armadillos fo batting helmets.

Posted by: Louise at November 13, 2006 3:26 PM

Spelled Medea wrong. And the spitting was directed at the person who is anti-me.

Posted by: anikitty at November 13, 2006 3:26 PM

Oh man this is the most exciting shitstorm to hit the site since The Prestige!! By the way Joe, I don't agree with you but you can really make words sing! I'm not even being sarcastic - your style of writing is actually, dare I say it, similar to our beloved reviewers, and if your target were a movie we had all agreed to hate rather than a reviewer we all apparently love (why else would we be reading this far into a thread?) then everyone would be laughing with you, not frantically trying to think of an awesomely, witheringly hateful-yet-hip reply (myself included). But I did laugh, really.

Posted by: AM at November 13, 2006 3:40 PM

This has nothing to do with the other postings, except someone mentioned The Machinist.

I don't want to see that movie for one reason only--because I don't want to encourage actors as talented as Christian Bale to kill themselves like that.

He surely lost all that weight for his own reasons, but it sets a scary precedent.

Posted by: ecp at November 13, 2006 4:18 PM

Beware everyone. The thread is starting to again become relevant to the movie review it follows!

Joe! Come back! Anger everyone again!

Seriously though, this reminds me of losers on Fark who can't understand those posting on the Internet are actually other people and not something more like enemies in a game. It is not neccessary to attack every single one of them to succeed in life!

(I agree with the nap suggestion.)

Posted by: BLA at November 13, 2006 4:34 PM

I *heart* Swingkids

Posted by: Jennifer at November 13, 2006 4:36 PM

Hey pinkcheese--
It was years ago, but I remember liking "Swing Kids" too!

Posted by: Lily at November 13, 2006 4:37 PM

As my oh so wise 14 year old likes to say, 'Arguing with people on the internet is like running in the special olympics...'

Posted by: brite at November 13, 2006 4:45 PM

I realize someone else on this site has the screen name M, or -M. The person who brought up 'The Machinist' is different from the person who is writing now. Maybe I'll change my screen name, I'm not particularly attached to it.

Posted by: M at November 13, 2006 4:49 PM

Re: "The Machinist"--I never thought I would cringe while looking at Christian Bale in a film, but man, that did it to me. However, that being said...I thought he still looked pretty decent, despite that fact that he was around my weight in that movie.

And, yes, I still have dreams of dancing with Christian Bale, a la Swing Kids...but I will say Robert Sean Leonard was cute in that movie too. So sue me.

Posted by: em at November 13, 2006 5:06 PM

Aw, Daniel...you sweetie! I can't resist you. I heart you, and although it will take time away from working at my office job and listening to my Faint mp3s (*hides self esteem under bed*), I will get in my car (with the Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker) and go buy my quilting supplies right now.

Lemming toupees for everyone!

Posted by: Mustang Sally at November 13, 2006 5:08 PM

Unfortunately for Joe, I just took this movie off of my Netflix list because the reviews on this site has never led me in the wrong direction in a movie I was interested in seeing. I love me some Christian but I refuse to waste money on a turkey.

Posted by: Candy at November 13, 2006 5:21 PM

Re. Fark. Thank God someone said it. Please don't let this site degenerate into another Fark, I beg of you guys. Isn't there anywhere left we can schmooze adult-to-freaking-adult?* Otherwise I'll have to relegate my virtual interactions to 18th studies moderated academic listservs, and that won't be pretty.

*I harbour no illusions--there really isn't, is there?

Posted by: ranylt at November 13, 2006 5:22 PM

"Lemming toupees for everyone!"

Yay! Can I get one in a kicky plaid pattern?

Posted by: em at November 13, 2006 5:25 PM

Art is very personal. For instance, I would really like to purchase a copy of the above-mentioned "smoking monkey ironing a fish."

Posted by: Felonious Mopery at November 13, 2006 5:35 PM

Hey Joe :)

I'd better start with the disclaimer that I haven't seen Harsh Times, have no personal opinion about it and will probably see it when I get the chance.

However, I thought the review and it's content were pretty valid. I also think most of your arguments, while well-intended, are fallacious. I can see the potential's there, but you won't be presenting structured and logical arguments until you can see the invalid ones. Let's talk about two of yours...

1. Your "personalising" point is a very good one. It's usually known as the "ad hominem" argument and it's completely fallacious, as you rightly point out.

However, "...Ayer makes his directorial debut with Harsh Times, and it's enough to make me think he should call it a day and go back to writing. Or maybe just leave Hollywood altogether..." isn't an Ad Hominem argument. It's entirely about the guy's work and not any personal quality that's being substituted for the work.

Actually, even your example "This sucks! This guy should be a house painter but he sure as heck shouldn't be an artist!" about a Jackson Pollock piece, would it be a real example, isn't an Ad Hominem argument either. For the same reasons I mentioned above.

What you're trying to do is kind of valid. Except that, without a valid example, the argument is entirely content-free and is therefore impotent.

In fact, invoking this argument is a fallacious technique of your own. It's called the "Straw Man" argument and is the process of, avoiding the real issue by inventing an easier one to attack and dealing with it.

Except the one you invented was, I stated above, incorrect and lacking in potency.

Straw Man arguments are fallacious. Incorrect Straw Man arguments are just sad...

2. I find it interesting that you equate your disagreement with the review as a correlative to free and independent thought and action, and that you find concord with this review a sign of low or absent freedom and independence of thought and action.

The obvious flaws with your argument are many. Firstly - freedom and independence of thought and action are pretty much impossible to conclusively prove. Well, maybe not impossible. But the best minds of the last three thousand years have been unable to do it.

If you've developed a revolutionary technique or discovered something new that confirms the possibility of free will, then you definitely have more important things to talk about than some guy's opinion about a movie.

Secondly, I'm sure you'll agree that there are plenty of lemmings who could just as easily follow your opinion if they were truly lacking in indenpendence of thought. And it is possibly that someone might use free will to agree with *either* of you (just as, for instance, Christians explain away evil as exercising free will). This, also would suggest that your argument indicates nothing.

Third, you haven't explained the lemming thing satisfactorily. Is the lack of free thought confirmed by agreeing with all reviews? Or just this one? Why this one? Are you really suggesting that anyone who agree with anyone else's opinion a lemming?

I think you might find that, by examining your own argument properly, you're arguing for conditions that would be ludicrous. You're claiming you have a power nobody can prove. You're describing a situation in which anyone who agree with you is a lemming. You're equating concord with slavery.

I'll leave it there. Your other arguments - like how being old or unemployed enough to recognise some obscure and inconsequential "Joe" reference is a signifier of critical thought and not merely a sign that people might have too much time on their hands, or simply be bad at discerning what matters from what doesn't - are too weak to require explanation of why they're bad.

I will, though, point out that you haven't at any point given us a reason why the film is good or why your opinion is more valid than the other guy's. That one's so big and obvious and right in front of you that someone needs to show it to you before you embarrass yourself by tripping over it.

Posted by: Sean X at November 13, 2006 6:14 PM

Random Thoughts:



1. I want a toupee, too! But in black, so that it goes with everything.



2. I also loved "Swing Kids." *shrug* Is that bad?



3. I voted for Bush and have no bumper stickers on my car (does that mean people are going to stop reading at this point?). But I do knit and, should Mustang Sally require any help filling toupee orders, would be happy to knit my own and help knit anyone else's.



4. I read the reviews on this website because I enjoy the writing. Also, I've found from reading past reviews that the reviewers and I have similar taste in movies, so I trust that they can save me time and money by recommending that I not see the ones they didn't like. That's why I frequent this site and support dudes like Le Carlson, despite our political differences.



Seriously, the ad at the bottom of this page is currently advertising a Pajiba article entitled "Un Maricon Brillante: The Films of Pedro Almodovar." Am I the only reader who finds this hilarious? Methinks not. That's why we're all frequenting this site.



5. I have no idea who Faint is, but I love Lupe Fiasco. Y'all should check him out if you have a minute.

Posted by: Livience at November 13, 2006 6:23 PM

Also: Next time, I promise to heed the li'l bit that says that paragraph breaks are scripted automatically. My bad, y'all. My bad.

Posted by: Livience at November 13, 2006 6:24 PM

Joe-
What on earth makes you think that anyone gives a shit what you think? Here's an idea- if you don't like this site, take it off your list of favorites and stop visiting it. Instead, you try to convince the rest of us of your intellectual and moral superiority. I'm pretty sure that nobody else gives a sweet crap about you or your pompous ideas.

Posted by: groanygirl at November 13, 2006 7:34 PM

SeanX-

The Pollock thing wasn't a straw man, it was an analogy. It would be a straw man if he claimed that people on the site said that about Pollock, or if someone on the site did say that and he used it to claim that everybody on the site were idiots. As it stands he was just using it as an analogue, and a fairly accurate one. I agree that he's wrong to characterize Carlson's words as an ad-hominem attack. Ironically enough it would be an ad-hominem attack if he accused the director of being a bad painter....

Posted by: Eep at November 13, 2006 7:49 PM

From what I understand lemmings are very good when marinated in Jack Daniels and Lousiana Hot Sauce.

Posted by: ScarletKnight at November 13, 2006 8:17 PM

Joe, you make me laugh :)
You're the bull and you're gonna "give me the horns"? Love it. I'd guess you were a big, naughty Texan if I didn't still believe you're one of the Wayans brothers. Just so you know, I'm on your side! I thought the Pajibists' reviews of White Chicks and that last masterpiece were way off, too!

Posted by: Dan at November 13, 2006 8:19 PM

Oh ya, and for the rest of you:
Joe is a troll, and should not be fed.

If he isn't a troll, and is actually serious, watch out: he's a shooter.

Posted by: Dan at November 13, 2006 8:21 PM

Whether Joe is a troll or not, I imagine that he is typing his responses on a keyboard stained with Cheetos, Mountain Dew and tears.

Posted by: skelly at November 13, 2006 8:25 PM

I thought this thread was about a Christian Bale movie but it seems to be more about Joe, trolls and lemmings. Pretty ridiculous really. I don't think many of you have much of an idea about film apart from yes, I'll see it or no, I won't. And that's fine but why slam Joe because he makes some valid points about film criticism and art? I like a guy with an strong opinion who's not afraid to state it - makes a change from the usual sycophantic drivel.

Posted by: Suse at November 13, 2006 9:43 PM

I Thought CB losing all that weight for "The Machinist" was similar to Robert Deniro Gaining weight for Raging Bull.....

Posted by: derekthered at November 13, 2006 10:35 PM

Reading this thread made me think of an age old piece of internet wisdom:

"Fighting on the internet is like being in the Special Olympics... even if you win, you're still retarded."

Posted by: Wilma at November 13, 2006 11:05 PM

I only wish I had the time to not only respond to the post, but to also respond to the responses against my original response. And then keep doing it. Funny.

Posted by: Clevegal42 at November 13, 2006 11:45 PM

You know, as smug and typically condescending as everyone is, the fact remains that Joe has had better arguments than anyone else here. Sean X is the only one that seems to approach his arguments head-on, and as Eep pointed out, even he fucked it up a little.

So Joe doesn't like the reviews here. Is that so much worse than liking every review here and tossing Danny's salad? Dan thought "Harsh Times" sucked, and Joe thinks Dan sucks. Both might be right, or wrong. It's all subjective.

And I don't like all this ganging up and pointing out of the different one. Makes me think of the snobs and assholes in junior high. And as quilt-making Mustand Sallying bleeding hearts, you should all be ashamed.

Posted by: I Am Never Wrong at November 14, 2006 12:08 AM

Lemmings don't actually follow each other off of cliffs. That's a myth made popular by Disney. See here:
http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm

What I don't get is saying someone should be able to criticize the movie critic who is saying that the critic should not be able to criticize movies.

To be relevant: I never heard of this movie before seeing the review, I have no interest in what I have read about the plot, and practically didn't even read the review, except I was bored.

Posted by: Cait at November 14, 2006 12:42 AM

Cait, as much as I think Joe may be on a (very successful) mission to twist up some panties, your characterization isn't correct. Unless he changed his viewpoint in the morass that followed, in his original post he said that the critic SHOULD review movies and was upset that he was (as Joe put it) reviewing people instead. And besides that, Daniel said that the director shouldn't be making movies, so wouldn't that make him fair game for Joe saying he shouldn't be reviewing movies?

P.S.: I may have been wrong about my earlier argument against the straw man, but I'll have to think more about that and really it's irrelevant either way because of the prior point about ad-hominem attacks.

Posted by: Eep at November 14, 2006 12:54 AM

Damn, Eep. Props for being independent and respectful. Now that's how you make a motherfucking point, bitches!

Posted by: Es Bueno at November 14, 2006 1:06 AM

Each and every one of you said you'd watch Christian Bale read the New York City phone directory.

I wouldn't. I liked him in Batman Returns, but that doesn't mean I'd watch him in ANYTHING. That said, there are other actors I'll watch in a film I know to be mediocre, just to see the actor.

This whole thread has been LOL funny.

Posted by: Blogchik at November 14, 2006 1:55 AM

I read this review yesterday, it went about as expected. But this morning I read about Joe's antics in my blog feeds. Definitely worth the chuckle.

Posted by: mike at November 14, 2006 7:40 AM

Whether Joe is a troll or not, I imagine that he is typing his responses on a keyboard stained with Cheetos, Mountain Dew and tears.

Oh man, that shit makes me laugh. I normally don't post here....however I do love the writing.

This cat has a fixation with lemmings and someone named Dan....is that why there are tears...?

Get a life loser. So you don't agree with the reviewer....whoop dee fricken do....

Now go ask mother to warm you up some microwave eggrolls....

Posted by: The Real Joe at November 14, 2006 12:19 PM

we are all falling like putty into this troll's hands... of course this guy is lonely and a loser, and gets pure enjoyment of being mentioned and challenged and getting all the attention in the comment thread. It is a short distraction from the computer games and zits that he's been popping the rest of his sad life.

there's one of these guys on every site. what impresses me about the pajiiba writers and site is how the non-trolls outnumber the trolls... i think that in itself is proof of the smart writing here, which attracts smart readers.

the only way to get these trolls go away is by ignoring them. But it's a lot more fun to dissect their complete idiocracy.

Posted by: fiddle faddle at November 14, 2006 12:46 PM

I now hate Eva Longoria even more.


:)

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at November 14, 2006 12:55 PM

But the fact remains, his opposition offers nothing but pithy "he must be one of those sad internet losers... while I remain an internet winner". Folks, if you're such big fans of clever writing, exhibit some of your own for God's sake!

Posted by: I Am Never Wrong at November 14, 2006 1:21 PM

Joe's gone. It's O.K. Everyone slowly put down your guns and back away toward the door . . .
Hey! The TV Whore is running down his TiVo list! Yippeeeeee!!!! Let's go everybody!!! Watch out for that cliff!

Posted by: Kballs at November 14, 2006 1:29 PM

this thread was so freakin' awesomely funny that I didn't even get up to pee just so that I could read it to the end.

Posted by: mela at November 14, 2006 1:43 PM

Folks, if you're such big fans of clever writing, exhibit some of your own for God's sake!

That assumes that we don't write elsewhere. Just because you comment on one site doesn't mean you don't have a thriving career that involves detailed, well-researched and impressive writing. Enjoying the clever writing of someone else while taking a break is hardly something of which one should be ashamed.

Posted by: Reba at November 14, 2006 1:59 PM

Christian Bale got his start in Empire of the Sun, not Newsies.

Posted by: Crystal at November 14, 2006 5:14 PM

Damn I love this site!
And I must admit that I LOVE trolls. They make things funny :) Let's face it, sometimes we all feel like wasting time in a little pointless internet "back and forth"...

Posted by: Dan at November 14, 2006 6:02 PM

Reba- I think you missed the point. "I am never wrong" was exhorting the people of the site to use their clever tongues to lacerate Joe, seeing as they are such fans of clever words. I don't think he was suggesting that you aren't clever writers, just that you aren't using it.

I Am Never Wrong-
I agree. If the people on the site are as smart as they think they are, and Joe is as wrong as they think he is, the arguments should be stronger. I'm not trying to insult anybody, and clearly Joe isn't looking out for people's feelings, but there comes a time in life when you have to separate "this is a person with a bad attitude" from "everything they say is wrong." If you're going to attack anything somebody says just because you don't like them, you're making yourself at least as manipulable as if you agree with everything someone says, probably moreso because you probably feel more strongly about it.

Back on the movie topic-
I don't hate Eva Longoria. I think she did exactly what she should have with her character on Desperate Housewives for at least the better part of the first season. That being said, it sounds like she's largely doing exactly the same thing she did with her Desperate Housewives character. I'm also having difficulty imagining a role Eva Longoria would play in which I wouldn't prefer to see Eva Mendes....

Posted by: Eep at November 14, 2006 8:19 PM

..have we ever stopped to consider that maybe Joe -is- Eva Longoria? I mean, his panties got in a bunch over BarbaroSlim first...

Wow. A Pajiba celebrity endorsement.

Posted by: Mara at November 15, 2006 8:18 AM

Not that it's that important but; I heard once that that whole thing about lemmings following each other off a cliff is not something they do naturally, but that the film makers for this Disney nature show heardered them all off the cliff because they weren't very interesting to begin with. I hope it's not really true, but I always thing of that when people refer to each other as lemmings.

Also, The Machinist was amazing, and Empire of the Sun is one of my favorite movies ever.

Posted by: SLO girl at November 16, 2006 6:24 PM

Bravo Joe,

Finally someone with someone with some guts, and I must say your arguments are most logical.

Posted by: John at November 16, 2006 6:34 PM

Have I mentioned that I find Christian Bale extremely attractive? However, not enough to go see this flick. Sounds bad. But I just put "Swing Kids" on my Netflix queue. Thanks!

Posted by: Viv at November 16, 2006 6:39 PM

glad to see I am not the only one who disagrees with this film rating. In fact, I find myself often at odds with the somewhat totalitarian reviewing style on this site. Harsh Times stayed in my head for many days after viewing. I honestly didn't like training day at all, and I am glad this film avoided the over dramatization of that film - the academy is so fond of mistaking shouting for emotion (see scent of a woman) and rewarding it with an oscar.

Posted by: Ben at November 17, 2006 9:10 AM

Er, I just wanted to ask, why does everyone hate on Eva Longoria so much? I mean, everyone on every website seems to REALLY hate her, and I don't know enough about her to get why. I remember her on the Young and the Restless but never watched Desperate Housewives. I'm honestly just curious.

Posted by: jerkygirl at November 17, 2006 12:08 PM

I love The Fast and the Furious (the original, which had tons of heart underneath the cool cars, not the sequels which only had the cool cars). If the guy who wrote Harsh Times wrote F&F and it has Christian Bale in it, I'm all over it.

Posted by: Snooky at November 20, 2006 3:04 PM

This has to be the best comments in the last six months. LMAO...Thanks everybody, you made my day. Love it!!!!

Posted by: G40 at November 20, 2006 3:30 PM

I think it's funny that a lot of these movie would be completely forgotten by most people on these threads were it not for the um...debate that they inspire. Call it the 'Wicker Man Effect'.

Posted by: M at November 21, 2006 4:42 PM

I refuse to reply to any of that dramatic nonsense above...

That being said, if this didn't have Eva Longoria in it, I would watch it anyway. If I feel bored I may rent it eventually, because it makes me sad to miss a Bale movie.

Grrrr, I'm so irritated by this film!

(although I do have one reply to previous comments:
Yes, I would watch him read a phonebook. :) )

Posted by: AD at November 25, 2006 5:04 AM

I refuse to reply to any of that dramatic nonsense above...

That being said, if this didn't have Eva Longoria in it, I would watch it anyway. If I feel bored I may rent it eventually, because it makes me sad to miss a Bale movie.

Grrrr, I'm so irritated by this film!

(although I do have one reply to previous comments:
Yes, I would watch him read a phonebook. :) )

Posted by: AD at November 25, 2006 5:07 AM

"They used to make EXACTLY this kind of film back in the 50's and our host Dan up there would be waxing poetic about it today because he stumbled on it on TMC while raiding the fridge at 2 a.m. last night!! Judging by the comments above from this site's perpetual batch of lemmings, I see a solid little film will die a quick death because the "thought police" have declared the film verboten...
Posted by: Joe at November 11, 2006 7:58 PM"

Hey Joe? I find it ironic that you charge Dan with reviewing the people and not the movie when you come to a movie review site to blast the critic-- rather than defend the movie. It's funny.
I agree, some people here seem to think it's a credit to their taste that they agree with everything on this site, and I am embarrassed for those people who apologetically say they like a film that Pajiba has criticized, but otherwise, this is a fantastic review site and these guys do a very good job. No one here welcomes some 'joe' off the street to come here and belittle us all or insult the reviewers. If you actually had something to say in -defense- of this movie, then maybe I and the others would give a rat's patoot. But you didn't.
Also, Eva Longoria is hideous and repulsive, and her flinty voice grates on my ears.

Posted by: Ari at March 14, 2007 2:10 PM

Leave it to me to get lost on the internet and not realize I am responding to a many-months old thread. @_@

Posted by: Ari at March 14, 2007 4:08 PM

yeah i saw this movie. it sucked. deal with it joe.

Posted by: JB at May 21, 2007 12:52 AM