free counter with statistics Mighty Heart, A | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

amightyheart3.jpg

Full Heart, Bottomless Lips

A Mighty Heart / Agent Bedhead

Film Reviews | June 22, 2007 | Comments (105)


A Mighty Heart is a docudrama about the grim days and weeks that follow the kidnapping of American journalist Daniel Pearl by Islamic militants. Both husband and wife reported on the war in Afghanistan and, in its aftermath, continued their work in the neighboring country of Pakistan. In the film’s opening moments, Daniel (Dan Futterman) and wife Mariane (Angelina Jolie) look forward to the next day, when they are planning to leave the Pakistani city of Karachi, which Jolie’s rather inauspicious voiceover refers to as a place where “there are so many people that they don’t know how to count them.” On that ill-fated morning, Daniel leaves to interview a sketchy source linked to shoe bomber Richard Reid and misses their farewell dinner party. As the film’s audience knows, Daniel would never return, but director Michael Winterbottom still manages to sweep us up within the relatively brisk narrative that carries us toward the very ending we bleakly anticipate.

The film’s story, adapted from Mariane’s journals, offers an engrossing peek at the inner circle working to rescue Pearl. At the time of the kidnapping, the Pearls were staying with friend Asra Nomani (Archie Panjabi) in her heavily guarded home, which later became headquarters for the search. The tedious weeks are filled with dread as whiteboards are quickly crammed and erased with the names of suspected terrorists and phone records are traced ad nauseum, while internet aliases and confidentiality laws repeatedly frustrate the process.

The investigation is led by a local counterterrorism squad helmed by Captain (Irfan Khan) and joined by a few of Daniel’s colleagues from The Wall Street Journal. Throughout the ordeal, the director juxtaposes the ubiquitous presence of modern technology with realistic details of the extreme poverty of Karachi and its surrounding slums. The shots of city streets show an endless swarm of cars, people, and an impending sense of doom. Yet in this sea of unrecognizable faces, technology pulses through the slums filled with muddy concrete blocks and throwaway tents where electricity and internet connections abound. The constant presence and immediacy of technology and the internet aid the investigation, but they also play a role in Daniel’s entrapment.

Although the story of Daniel Pearl’s kidnapping and the subsequent pursuit of his captors could easily have been dismissed as sentimental or overly political, Winterbottom not only fashions a compelling narrative, he extracts power from realism. The film avoids gratuitous detail out of respect for Pearl’s family, but the irony is not lost that the investigation of a journalist’s disappearance is largely undermined by the sensationalism of journalism itself. In addition to roadblocks placed by the terrorists, the inept journalists who covered the story contributed to the search’s sad spectacle — from the unverified anonymous tips taken as fact and reported on an international scale to the jackass television interviewer who asked Mariane whether she had viewed the video of her husband’s decapitation. An endless portrayal of the scene outside Asra’s home shows a thick net of reporters hungry for blood. Through it all, the outwardly collected and startlingly rational Mariane maintains hope until she is told, finally, that her husband is dead.

It’s a damn shame that Mariane’s remarkable character is overshadowed by the presence of Angelina Jolie, who is distracting despite the artfully placed wig of corkscrew curls, slightly darkened skin, and carefully arranged French/Afro-Cuban/Dutch accent. There is some irony in casting the tabloids’ leading lady in a film that seems to deplore sensationalism. It’s not to say that Jolie can’t act (see, e.g., Girl, Interupted, and “Gia”), it’s just that now she’s usually the stuff of big-budget action flicks (Tomb Raider, Mr. and Mrs. Smith) rather than modestly financed films that focus on story instead of her well-padded breasts. Though Jolie recently articulated her desire to be remembered not as a tabloid star but as someone who could affect lives and change the world, despite her best efforts, her stature undermines the film’s power. The focus of A Mighty Heart should’ve been on Daniel Pearl, and while Jolie’s notoriety does bring a few extra eyes to the cause, whether intentioned or not, her stardom and oversized lips distract from the film’s otherwise riveting real-life vision.

Agent Bedhead lives in Tulsa, Oklahoma and tries to avoid reality at all costs. She also insults pop culture daily at agentbedhead.com.


Pajiba's Big Adventure | 1408



Comments

and it's a shame you couldn't review the movie without mentioning those pillowly lips.
unnecessary

Posted by: courtney at June 23, 2007 7:12 PM

I believe you're missing the point that Agent Bedhead was trying to make - that the casting of Angelina Jolie put the focus of the film on other things, such as her lips, boobs, and larger-than-life status, rather than focusing on the tragedy that is Daniel Pearl's murder and the agony that Mariana Pearl had to suffer. It's great that Angelina Jolie wants to help people who are in need and focus world attention on the horrible things that are going on in some places on the planet, but her status as a tabloid fixture to some exent undermines those efforts.

Posted by: stardust savant at June 23, 2007 7:24 PM

You know, I adore Angelina Jolie and her talent. But IMO, I feel she was really miscast. Even in the picture above, she looks like a mannequin: blank and vacant. Her accent is muddled (from what I've heard of it) and this just felt like another case of casting a big name for the sake of having a big name.

Posted by: Brie at June 23, 2007 7:32 PM

"Pillowly"? That's not a word.

Anyway, I saw the trailer for this, and though it looked good, it didn't really make me want to see it. Have to say- Jolie looks the part, and I agree, it is too easy to forget she can actually act.

What I want to know is, who chose the title "A Mighty Heart"? It made me think "Mighty Joe Young", which is so inappropriate...

Posted by: fran at June 23, 2007 7:38 PM

According to what I've read so far, Mariane Pearl actually "specifically" wanted Jolie to play her in the movie. Moreover, reviews by the New Yorker and NY Times say that Jolie did a damn fine job. I don't know why then she should be criticized just for being a celebrity!

Posted by: FN at June 23, 2007 7:47 PM

I'd like to ask -- what exactly about A.J. was distracting? Were paps following her around, or a gossip blog featuring her and boyfriend open on every available screen in the film? You talk about the cult of her celebrity, but how was her acting? Your being distracted by her fame isn't a result or her ability or inability to act, it seems to me more an inability on your part to watch the movie as opposed to see Angelina Jolie on screen. (I don't mean to be rude, but you completely fail to discuss her performance and instead focus on her -- and I really don't think it's her fault you can't stop thinking about Brad and the kids when she's on screen...) This reads more like a report than a review.

Posted by: Catherine at June 23, 2007 7:56 PM

Mariane Pearl actually "specifically" wanted Jolie to play her in the movie

I don't know if that's true or not, but I sure as hell hope the first concern of a grieving widow wasn't "who's gonna play me in the goddamn movie." If Jolie's intentions were as noble as she'd like to have us all believe, I think they would have come off more honorable had she chosen a role behind the camera.

Also? Showing up to the premiere with her publicist-statemented 27 motherfucking dollar dress? Either this is all very carefully orchestrated or she's just that fucking stupid.

Posted by: litelysalted at June 23, 2007 8:03 PM

I think Angelia was cast due to her understanding of international issues through her job at the UN and her relationship with Marianne Pearl...or are they only friends after the movie?

I just remember when the casting news was announced, some people were upset that they didn't cast an actor of African American descent to play Marianne, who's response was "But I like her and I trust her."

Anyway, I can see how it could detract from a film, but I doubt anyone would go to see this movie b/c of Angelina's star status without any regard to the topic at hand.

Posted by: Kate at June 23, 2007 8:05 PM

While I agree that Jolie's notoriety is distracting - not just in this role, but in all her roles, frankly - what actually gets me more here, and the only thing I think of when I see trailers for and stills of this film, is Jim Crow.

It's just so offensive to me. Pearl did ask her to take the role (she didn't just approve of it, she requested it, by her own admission in this week's TIME), and so I suppose if it doesn't bother her it shouldn't bother me, but it does. For multiple reasons.

Coming to bear here is mostly and possibly unfairly my intense dislike of Jolie - I've always found her affected and phony. To see her performing in blackface is just more than my brain can stand.

And as much as I hear how well she can act, it seems to me that she mostly plays the same person over and over and over, just like Tom Cruise, and yes, I include Gia and Girl, Interrupted. Jolie has just the right amount of soullessness to slip into complicated characters, and that's not so much acting, in my opinion, as simply being an empty vessel into which substance is poured. I see this role no differently, save the blackface.

Apologies in advance to all of those whom my comment is going to enrage.

Posted by: juliagulia at June 23, 2007 8:37 PM

thank you catherine, you conveyed that better than i was able

Posted by: courtney at June 23, 2007 8:50 PM

"...thing I think of when I see trailers for and stills of this film, is Jim Crow."

I really think it makes more sense to try and get someone for this role based on their involvement in and knowledge of international relations than based on their race. That's just petty.

Posted by: Kate at June 23, 2007 8:50 PM

I really think it makes more sense to try and get someone for this role based on their involvement in and knowledge of international relations than based on their race.

With all due respect, this makes no sense to me - when is it required for an actor to have experience in a certain area to be cast? If Jolie pinned the script or maybe even directed the film, I could understand it, but Jolie's experience doesn't really have a bearing on her ability to play the part effectively, IMO, unless that experience includes losing a significant other in a way similar to Daniel Pearl. Last time I checked, Brad Pitt was alive and kicking. A biracial actress worth her mettle could have been just as affecting.

I understand the sentiment that a biracial actress should have been cast to play the part, but I really can't blame the Hollywood machine if Marianne herself requested Jolie to play the part. I don't know what motivated Marianne to make that decision, but I respectfully disagree that this case is in any way reminiscent of Jim Crow. Also, in general, Hollywood has a bad habit of casting actors whose ethnicity is completely different from the character being portrayed, and it's certainly not limited to black or biracial characters.

Posted by: Daphne at June 23, 2007 9:13 PM

"With all due respect, this makes no sense to me - when is it required for an actor to have experience in a certain area to be cast"

As an actor, you have to focus on everything about the character to make it be believable. As an actor, if I'm playing a woman whose husband died, I'm not only going to try and nail the emotional toil of that situation, I'm going to try and nail everything about that woman to deliver a good performance. Losing someone you love is easy to imagine and transfer to a part. How doing humanitarian work abroad feels and affects your life and the decisions you make...not so easy to imagine if you haven't experienced it.

Marianne's life was not only about her husband. She was doing humanitarian work--was also a journalist?--and experienced many different things during her stay there before her husband was kidnapped. All this should be taken into consideration when adjusting to a role.

Method Actors go after this stuff all the time to play a role. Because there are some things that you can't fake without having done it yourself.

Posted by: Kate at June 23, 2007 9:23 PM

Thandie Newton is an actress with more resemblance to Mariane Pearl, french accent included, but she can't draw so much attention for a movie as Jolie does.

Posted by: goldend at June 23, 2007 9:45 PM

Agent Bedhead, just stop writing reviews please.

Posted by: markus at June 23, 2007 10:05 PM

I don't know if that's true or not, but I sure as hell hope the first concern of a grieving widow wasn't "who's gonna play me in the goddamn movie."

I'm fairly certain that concern only came up.. say, oh, when the movie idea became a reality. Don't be so intentionally dense.


If Jolie's intentions were as noble as she'd like to have us all believe, I think they would have come off more honorable had she chosen a role behind the camera.

...why? Her intentions were to play this character as truly and honestly as she could. And she's always maintained that if she was going to be a followed celebrity, she'd lead prying eyes to look at issues she cares about.


Also? Showing up to the premiere with her publicist-statemented 27 motherfucking dollar dress? Either this is all very carefully orchestrated or she's just that fucking stupid.


What bugs you so much about her publicist noting that her dress cost 27 bucks? Did it make her suck in the movie? Did it change what was in the movie? I don't understand the vitriol being spewed in this lady's direction. This review and some of the comments reminds me of a review I read of a Pumpkins CD like ten years back, where the entire review discussed how much the author thought Corgan was a total fucking asshole who was self involved, and acually failed to mention a damn song on the disc. Like her or don't, but judge the work on the film and not on how tired you are of seeing her on tv/the internet.

I'd also like to state that I don't particularly like her all that much, but it annoys me that a reviewer so obviously doesn't like her to the point where it allows him/her to write a shitty biased review on an otherwise good biased site.


juliagulia -- I didn't find your comments enraging (well, save for the fact that every time I read your comments I have "I wanna grow old with you" stuck in my head for the rest of the day ;), but I don't think A.J. had any makeup on her during the filming -- at least that was the statement. Believe at own risk.

Posted by: Catherine at June 23, 2007 10:43 PM

Not only would Thandie Newton not be able to draw ao much attention for a movie, she is also a horrible horrible actress. In my opinion, at least.

Agent Bedhead, I have to agree; I really do wish you would have said *something* abot AJ's performance other than "it's too bad I couldn't forget who I was looking at." Is that because you have a hard time doing that in general? Is that because AJ didn't do a good job of it? If so, then why do you feel that's the case? You know, an actual espousing of your opinion.

Posted by: boobaloob at June 23, 2007 10:52 PM

So, not a word about the actors and how they performed other than to say you were distracted by Ms. Jolie's lips. Frankly, I come to this site to read reviews of a film and performances, not the personal dislikes of a reviewer. Frankly, Agent Bedhead's inability to deal with Ms. Jolie's fame is unrelated to the quality, or lack thereof, of her perfomance. Based on the majority of positive reviews I have read, I still plan on seeing the film.

Posted by: teresam at June 23, 2007 11:15 PM

The focus of A Mighty Heart should've been on Daniel Pearl, and while Jolie's notoriety does bring a few extra eyes to the cause, whether intentioned or not, her stardom and oversized lips distract from the film's otherwise riveting real-life vision.

Agent Bedhead -- I think the commenters are reinforcing your point. They don't mention Pearl, they only talk about you talking about how AJ distracts from the story Pearl's death. Isn't that ironic (don't ya think?)

Posted by: Frank at June 24, 2007 12:13 AM

For those of you who don't know, Marianne Pearl and Angelina Jolie are very close friends in real life. There have been some interesting joint interviews with them that spefically focus on their close bond and how it formed.

Posted by: Squarah at June 24, 2007 12:28 AM

you don't hyphenate when an adverb ends in "-ly."
i found that almost as distracting as her lips.

Posted by: sarah at June 24, 2007 12:46 AM

"Agent Bedhead -- I think the commenters are reinforcing your point. They don't mention Pearl, they only talk about you talking about how AJ distracts from the story Pearl's death. Isn't that ironic (don't ya think?)"

Considering that most of the commenters probably haven't seen the movie, what could they talk about? This is a movie review site, albeit one that strays frequently into politics, but it's still not necessarily a forum for a deep discussion of Daniel Pearl's death. They are commenting on the efficacy of the review, not on the efficacy of the movie or Jolie's performance, because they haven't experienced either yet.

Posted by: Geetch at June 24, 2007 1:31 AM

this is a shabby review.your personal view on jolie has affected your sense of judgement-oh come'on,just shut up and review the damn film without going on & on about how jolie's offscreen popularity.

i demand you to rewrite this review.

Excuse me, but who the hell are you to demand a rewrite? This was a difficult and complex movie to review, and obviously I am not yet as skilled as the seasoned gentlemen who write here. However, without overstepping any lines here, I will say that in my submitted review, I did elaborate more on certain topics. My original review was edited for style and clarity's sake, and perhaps my meaning was interpreted in the process, or perhaps what I wrote didn't make enough sense. Whatever the case, that is not my call to make, and despite assholes like you walking all over me, I will respect the decisions made by the editor. 'Nuff said. - AB

Posted by: al at June 24, 2007 6:30 AM

I disagree, I think this review shows accurately how casting certain stars can distract from the overall quality of certain films. It's not always true, but it happens often enough for Agent Bedhead's response to be valid.

If you're making a movie like this, you need actors that get behind their roles and disappear seamlessly into the film, making the issues the main focus. The Pearl story deseves no less than that.

Cast actors that enjoy making spectacles of themselves in movies that are SUPPOSED to be about the spectacle of watching the actors (Mr. & Mrs. Smith, Tomb Raider, etc.). Cast actors that can disappear into the roles in movies that reqire it.

Jolie doesn't "deserve" the role just because she's a "humanitarian" (which I find questionable anyway). And WTF? Do peole truly not think there are ANY non-white actors with humanitarian knowledge? Is that, like, the province of white actors only??

Posted by: Vi at June 24, 2007 7:11 AM

whoa, such vitriol!
although i really feel we shouldn't stray into rage (it is, after all, only a movie), i do think that some people have a point about this review having strayed a bit from the "review" aspect. I really like the way agent bedhead points out the way the film maximizes the juxtaposition of the squalor of Pakistan with the advanced technology and whatnot used in the search, but i really was looking for more out of this review. as it is, it just feels...lacking.
that said, can we stop with the angelina jolie love/hate here? until we actually see the movie, that is? (i personally think angelina's not fake about all her humanitarian work and whatnot, but that certainly doesn't entitle me to actually comment on whether or not she was good in this movie.)

Posted by: bloodsugar at June 24, 2007 7:13 AM

Leave Bedhead alone. I thought her analysis of the film is reasonable and the tone was right. How the fuck can you not be distracted by Angelina Jolie? I like her as an actress too, guys, and I respect her humanitarian work tremendously, but the fact is that sometimes an actor's marquee wattage IS distracting - especially in a film that is so rooted in realities that are still tangible...now.

I think Bedhead would have been making a misstep in not addressing the issue of AJ's overwhelming presence as an actress. And all this stuff about "method" experience - I'm sorry, that's crap. A good actor can plumb the depths of any role and find relatable meaning within it. Otherwise, what's the point of actors being actors? It's AJ's job to portray a woman whose husband has been murdered. That's the emotional core of the film. That's the point here. And this would be regardless of her experience as a humanitarian. If people's associations of her as a tabloid face get in the way of that - I'm sorry, but that's problematic. That's the reason none of us can take Lohan seriously in a movie too, right? Sometimes it doesn't hurt to take a bit of a lower profile.

And overall, the movie still sounds good. I'm still gonna see it.

Posted by: AL at June 24, 2007 9:06 AM

I am surprised by the hate directed towards Angelina Jolie. From what I can tell, she isn't actively courting the publicity and is intelligent and dedicated to the issues she is championing.

I don't think it was wrong to point out that her casting was distracting but failing to evaluate her performance was a complete disappointment.

Posted by: Tuck at June 24, 2007 9:22 AM

What AL said.

Posted by: Ranylt at June 24, 2007 10:08 AM

a bit silly, but:
What AL said.
Amen.

Posted by: bloodsugar at June 24, 2007 10:11 AM

I'm seriously surprised at the criticism aimed at the review. I don't know if you've been around here enough to know that Pajiba reviewers often eschew doing a play-by-play description of the movie in favor of describing the impression it made on them personally, or in other words: why do they think it sucks (Shrek the Tird, anybody?).

Just take a look at the reviews of Mission: Impossible III, or anything by Mel Gibson or Linsay Lohan. They all start with a couple of paragraphs reflecting on how [insert super-celebrity here]'s public persona and fame affects judging the film.

But we're talking about Saint Angelina here, and if Agent Bedhead gets thrown out of the movie by her lips is surely because she's just a jealous bitch.

Posted by: MJ at June 24, 2007 10:56 AM

Vi:

Didn't you know? Only rich white people who are capable of mentioning more than five places in the world in which there is famine are allowed into the "expert humanitarian" crowd.

Posted by: MJ at June 24, 2007 11:01 AM

I have to agree with FN's comments and some of the others here....she shouldn't be criticized for having a recognizable face.

By and large, her public personna has been pretty demure. If paps and tabloids follow her every move that's one thing, but...IMO, she's not exactly asking for it like the Lohans and Spears of the world, dining at the Ivy every chance they get.

Just because she's a recognizable face doesn't mean we should forget about her acting chops. I found her performance engrosing and I loved every minute of it.

Posted by: danae at June 24, 2007 11:04 AM

boo to this review. i expect more from this website....a bit of a let-down.

also upsetting? the way AB responded to his/her criticism. take a breath and respond. by swearing and name calling you don't elevate yourself much above the people slinging mud at you.

Posted by: jill at June 24, 2007 11:15 AM

..I don't think Angelina is that talented of an actress. She generally plays the same role over and over, and it puts me off me that she seems to take herself SOOOO seriously. It just seems like Jolie is in this constant struggle to feel like she is a "good person".

I didnt see this movie and I wont because I'm disgusted that Jolie is in blackface.

Also I don't care for this review, it wasn't that great but I'd say that in general Bedhead's reviews aren't very memorable.

Posted by: soda at June 24, 2007 12:42 PM

"Jolie has just the right amount of soullessness to slip into complicated characters, and that's not so much acting, in my opinion, as simply being an empty vessel into which substance is poured. I see this role no differently, save the blackface."

juliagulia's comment is poorly argued, and also shows that she doesn't understand a thing about acting. the actor acts. you can't "pour substance" into an "empty vessel" when talking about actors. just like the best driver can't drive a neon like she can drive a lamborghini and get the same performance out of it.

Posted by: ! at June 24, 2007 12:50 PM

I think AB makes an interesting point about casting a tabloid favorite in a movie that, in part, criticizes that kind of "journalism," but I wish she had written "...that Mariane's remarkable character was overshadowed -- for me -- by the presence of Angelina Jolie." I appreciate that Pajiba reviewers let us in on their biases; this leaves readers to decide whether they might have similar reactions.

The last paragraph of the review, however, seems to imply that Jolie will have the same impact on everyone who sees the film, or that there is no hope for the portrayal with Jolie in the role. For those of us who avoid tabloid journalism, it might be possible to appreciate what I'm hearing is an excellent performance.

Posted by: Louise at June 24, 2007 1:07 PM

Didn't you know? Only rich white people who are capable of mentioning more than five places in the world in which there is famine are allowed into the "expert humanitarian" crowd.

Touché! How the fuck is AJ an expert at "international relations," anyway? Please!

To those bitching about the review, let's see yours. I also found it strange that such a high-profile actress would be cast in the role of such a strong character, and more to the point, in such an important REAL story. Such films are always better suited to lesser-known actors and actresses, so as not to make the protagonists seem fictional; to make them more "human," so to speak. It matters. Furthermore, AB *did* allude to Jolie's acting ability ["It's not to say that Jolie can't act (see, e.g., Girl, Interupted, and "Gia")"] and made no criticism of her portrayal of Mariane Pearl. That says to me that while she did act the part well, it was still difficult to separate Jolie from her role.

I personally find AB's reviews and other work a refreshing departure from the usual brainless celebrity/movie review chatter. Maybe some of y'all were expecting a big dumb smack-down saying Jolie is a talentless hack, like the kind of talk you'd get on most gossip blogs? Maybe not, but I don't understand the f'ing point in some of the comments here.

Posted by: Beth at June 24, 2007 1:11 PM

Touché! How the fuck is AJ an expert at "international relations," anyway? Please!

It's called sarcasm stupid.

Posted by: Bah at June 24, 2007 1:29 PM

Listen, Pitts' production company originally had Jennifer Aniston (his then wife for you under-a-rock dwellers) cast in this role.
Suck it up.
This could have been a huge disaster

Posted by: SParker at June 24, 2007 2:13 PM

Bah:

And I'm afraid you're the one who doesn't get it.

SParker:

If that is true, it proves that it wasn't so much Mariane Pearl who chose Angelina Jolie to play her while being guided by the spirit of Martin Luther King and Mother Theresa combined, as much as Mariane being lucky enough for an actress she admired to be romantically involved with the movie producer at that point.

Posted by: MJ at June 24, 2007 3:08 PM

If that is true, it proves that it wasn't so much Mariane Pearl who chose Angelina Jolie to play her while being guided by the spirit of Martin Luther King and Mother Theresa combined, as much as Mariane being lucky enough for an actress she admired to be romantically involved with the movie producer at that point.

Hee. MJ, you crack me up.

Posted by: Daphne at June 24, 2007 3:16 PM

I think that The Agent makes a valid point regarding AJ's celebrity status having a negative impact on her viewing of a film. Seems like with the prolific gossip machine churning out images and stories about certain celebrities 24/7, it's impossible now not to remove certain actors from their public persona's when watching them on the big screen.

Someone brought up LaLohan in a earlier post; she's is flushing her "career" in film down the toilet with her overexposure. Her party girl image is so pervasive that no matter how good of an actress she is people are starting to see her in movies and not think of the character she's portraying but of Lindsay Lohan.

Sure, AJ is a competent actor, but her public image and life has gotten overexposed that I feel like I can't watch her films anymore without sacrificing some of the suspension of disbelief needed to enjoy a movie. This has become true of so many actors, not just the ones who are constantly in the tabloids.

Older actors, like Harrison Ford and Al Pacino, whose acting style has become reduced to a reliable schtick have marred films for me. Harrison Ford seems to always be the Stoic Everyman who rises to the occasion to kick ass and save the day. Al Pacino now barks and hollers his way through roles.

Anyway, I thought the review made good sense to me, and The Agent's points were all valid.

Posted by: Alabamapink at June 24, 2007 3:26 PM

I'm going to have to echo MJ here. Pajiba reviews have a bit of an MO for not being objective, in that the reviewers often do mention their biases regarding certain actors and directors, and then they explain if those biases were reinforced during the course of the film.

This usually doesn't garner a lot of flak from commenters because usually the folks mentioned earn the same disgust from the comment board as they do from the reviewer. Angelina is a touchy subject because though she is frequent tabloid fodder, she doesn't have the kind of negative notoriety that others of her overexposed ilk do. I'm personally rather indifferent to her, but I can't help but notice from reading the comments that AB is catching the shit that she is because there exists a certain reverence for Jolie, or at the very least, for the work that she does.

Look at Dustin's review of Bobby, with the ensemble cast including Ms. Lohan. He explicitly mentions that casting her detracts from the film because of her overexposure, and as I recall, he doesn't really remark on her acting ability at all. I realize that Jolie and Lohan aren't particularly comparable in their acting abilities or in the reasons for their being tabloid targets, but isn't it just so much easier to agree with the review when it comments on the overexposure of someone we don't like, than with a review that has the same treatment of someone we do like?

I'm not even really suggesting that I disagree with the opinion that a person's celebrity shouldn't be taken into account, but why should AB receive criticism for being affected by star power when other reviewers don't earn such criticism under similar circumstances? I believe that it kind of proves that we do believe what we read: it's easy to hate Lindsay Lohan the alcoholic, and love Angelina Jolie the humanitarian. We're just allowing our own biases to color our opinion of the review.

Posted by: Amanda at June 24, 2007 5:16 PM

someone mentioned that in order to experience the suspension of disbelief required when watching a film adaptation of someone's life, it's a good idea to have a lower-profile, less known actor to play the role.

i think this does make some sense, but then again, i think of philip seymour hoffman's portrayal of truman capote. granted, he's nowhere near as exposed as AJ but he is a star in his own right. his transformation was pretty evident, and though i didn't always forget that this was hoffman in front me, i still thought he did an excellent job.

Posted by: lena at June 24, 2007 5:23 PM

You know, I don't think there's any other actor out there who generates as much controversy as AJ! Geez. I like her as an actress and quite frankly I don't care what her motivations are, her work with the UNHCR has at least made people think about refugees for 5 min. I still don't know what her crimes against humanity are that warrant such bile, but in danger of repeating what's already been said, it would have been nice to know how her performance was. What's so distracting about a famous face? So it's hard to watch Marylin Monroe films as well?

Posted by: joker at June 24, 2007 5:35 PM

I enjoy Bedhead's reviews and am quite shocked by the reactions over this.

The review felt like a general comment on the film and was not specifically about performances or whatever else some readers thought they should expect from one.

I hope she won't refrain from reviewing more films in the future.

Posted by: Macbeth at June 24, 2007 5:53 PM

It's rather ironic that the majority of writers here showing disdain for AJ's approach are arguing about the same thing: Angelina Jolie. She was hand-picked by Mariane (sp?) Pearl herself, but only after she and Brad hooked up (remember the controversy over whether Aniston was to originally play the role about 2 years ago?), so they had plenty of time to muse over her role. Ultimately, however, the film's quiet demise (it pulled in little dough its opening weekend) is not only contributed to AJ's reasoning (her stature and beauty is just all too encompassing for the contrived indie flick), but the fact that, let's face it: unless it's role that parallels her own personality (*in her past: drugs, sex, outrage, see "Foxfire," "Gia," and "Girl, Interrupted), she is simply not that caliber of actress demanded of such roles. Last, however, I think that many who seek distractions from this "war" (biting my tongue), aren't looking to spend money on being re-reminded of horrible events that are truly unfolding at present. Not that the journalist's job is easy and Pearl doesn't deserve to have his story told; it's just possible that whether Jolie was cast or no, that could be reasoning behind it's rather flaccid acceptance by the public.

Posted by: Mizz Thang at June 24, 2007 6:12 PM

Oops. By "AJ" I actually meant "AB" (Agent Bedhead).

Posted by: Mizz Thang at June 24, 2007 6:16 PM

I also enjoy Bedhead's reviews and I am indifferent to Angelina as an actress. I haven't seen Girl Interupted or Gia for some reason. But we all agree she can act, whether it is because she is "soulless" as someone put it or actually gifted thats to debate. What I am horrified about here is the anger dierected at Bedhead over this review. I don't get it. Did you expect her to fill this review with snarky pop culture references? This is a very serious movie which everyone has a strong opinion about the situation over there and what these people went through. People that demanded a rewrite, piss off! You juts get used to coming to Pajiba for your daily chuckle but not every movie is a Harold and Kumar-esque flick that you get to enjoy Daniel or Dustin raking it over the coals. You are making this into some boys club that you wont let Bedhead in. She is obviously skilled and talented or she never would have been asked to join the other Pajiba folk. I am a little disgusted with some of the comments made. I like to think of Pajiba readers as a cut above and a little bit smarter than others but maybe not. Maybe they got too populat and now we old school Pajiba readers are going to have to put up with people not watching a movie because of "Angelina's blackface" WTF? Actors wear makeup in every movie, idiot. Following that logic you wouldnt watch Memoirs of a Geisha because Ziyi Zhang is Chinese but with makeup, played a Japanese person. Hmmm. Just my thoughts. I hope Bedhead carries on with the Pajiba folks for a while yet!

Posted by: Cookie at June 24, 2007 7:33 PM

The vitriol directed against this Jolie woman is very simple to explain (and this is in no way an attack on those who legitimately and objectively critique Jolie's numerous flaws as an actor.) There is a very vocal and psychotic group of of people who are up in arms because they feel that Jolie "stole" Brad Pitt from "Rachel" from Friends.

Yup, it's as tacky as that, they WORSHIP Jennifer Aniston because they THINK she's "rachel" and "rachel" has been wronged. They are lunatics, rabid and quite insane. They troll sites for the sole purpose of raising and planting their flag to bash this woman, I call them Rachelgoons.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at June 24, 2007 7:49 PM

Oh, and I forgot, I will NEVER watch this, without a doubt all of these star vanity projects suck immense amounts of ass. Apart from the fact that, sorry, just like with gangster rappers; once they start living a high profile hi-life it's impossible to buy them as "average joes" puuuuleeeaaaaze.

They should take a cue from Brando, McQueen et. al. (even DeNiro before he started making a fool of himself), low profile = mystique.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at June 24, 2007 8:03 PM

B-Slim, your Aniston theory makes me freaking love you even more. We missed you on Yeeeah! last week, btw! :(

Posted by: litelysalted at June 24, 2007 8:42 PM

There's no such thing as "mystique" anymore, internet makes that impossible.

Building a "mystique" takes two things: very private celebrities and people's interest in their lives, currently the only actors with low profiles are the ones people doesn't care about.

By the way, please people, can we be nice to each other despite our differences in opinion? I will hate to see just a permalink at the end of each review as in other sites.

Posted by: goldend at June 24, 2007 8:43 PM

B-Slim, your Aniston theory makes me freaking love you even more. We missed you on Yeeeah! last week, btw! :(

Posted by: litelysalted at June 24, 2007 8:42 PM

***********************************************

I'm back baby!!!!

*********************************************

Regarding "mystique", Oooooh I don't know Depp seems to pull it off, and Streep, so does Theron etc... It's doable. They still care about them, don't they?

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at June 24, 2007 8:56 PM

Oh AB, you should know you cannot even mildly criticize Angelina Jolie. Her fans are brainwashed cultists (really!) who attack anyone they perceive to be threatening to her perfect image. (This has nothing at all to do with Jennifer Anniston, Barbadoslim. The hateful posts are entirely defensive of AJ)It is truly amazing, and not a little frightening, how the fan(atics)swarm onto any post, anywhere, which mentions Ms. Jolie just in order to uphold her mythology. In their minds, nothing must be allowed to besmirch her; any fact or assertion which contradicts their certain knowledge of her nobility, courage, benevolence, generosity, and "mighty heart" must.be.destroyed.

A cursory glance at most gossip sites will confirm this. I do not hate Ms. Jolie, but I am sure as hell starting to hate her fans. They scare me.

Posted by: Serenade at June 24, 2007 10:03 PM

B-Slim, all that's missing from your theory is "and they're all just JEALOUS!"

Jolie is a fake and a phony with zero integrity and the 'acting chops' of a dishrag. Period. Being the crazy one in a couple of well-written films doesn't make one a good actress.

Let's not forget, we are talking about Lara Croft here.

Posted by: ohindeed. at June 24, 2007 10:34 PM

The tabloid elements of Jolie's life are irrelevant to my view of her as a pretty damned good actress after her performances in the cable films "Gia" and the one about George Wallace, plus "Girl, Interrupted" & "The Bone Collector". I think her biggest life/career mistake was getting involved with Billy Bob Thornton and all the attendant blood-letting and tattooing. The Lara Croft flicks made her famous for unimportant reasons and she began to get typecast as 'gorgeous supergirl'. In the meantime, she grew up exponentially as a citizen of the world, adopting those kids and getting involved with similarly-concerned Brad Pitt. It was high time that she go back to making the 'little' films that first gave her a positive name in Hollywood.

Posted by: matt at June 25, 2007 12:04 AM

Haven't seen it yet, but I don't see anything out of line in this review. If AB felt this way about the movie, he (she? it?) has a right to say so. That's why it's called a review. It's not like AB is writing documentaries here.

Posted by: Alice H at June 25, 2007 12:19 AM

"I think Angelia was cast due to her understanding of international issues through her job at the UN "
What a fucking joke.
I actually have a job at the UN. Travelling around looking moviestarish is not a job. Stealing babies in Africa is not understanding international issues.

Posted by: UNAIDS guy at June 25, 2007 12:27 AM

AB,seriously-stop writing.

i beg you.you undermine the quality of this site,and you're obviously not cut up for this.somewhere else you'll fit perfectly fine.thanks.now,go away and review silly films like shrek the 3rd which most of us wouldn't see anyways.leave heavier stuff like a mighty heart for the better reviewers to handle.

Posted by: amy at June 25, 2007 6:36 AM

amy,that was a bit too harsh don't you think?but i do get your point.no offence agent b,but your review has some serious flaws that need some working.

everyone else,check out her personal site-and you'll see WHY she wrote it that way.a natural gossip addict writing a review featuring angelina jolie-how could THIS disaster (the review) NOT happen?

Posted by: allison at June 25, 2007 6:44 AM

Okay, I'm going to echo what someone else wrote earlier, then. To all of you ladies calling for Bedhead's resignation...would YOU care to start submitting reviews in her stead?

My point being: his site needs more chick reviewers. No offense to Dustin and the other boys, who are all fantastic, but I personally like hearing a female voice once in awhile. Bedhead is funny. I would be quite aghast to see her leave because people are pissed off about her views on Angelina Jolie.
If other ladies and gents out there think they can do better, then perhaps you could point out the specific things that you take issue with in her review - as opposed to just making vague comments about how her reviews are "flawed". I'm not trying to be combative here - I'd be genuinely interested in hearing what the problem is with the writing in this review, because frankly, I don't see much of one.

Posted by: AL at June 25, 2007 7:07 AM

and I meant "this site," not "his site"...haha. Whoops.

Posted by: AL at June 25, 2007 7:09 AM

The focus of A Mighty Heart should've been on Daniel Pearl, and while Jolie's notoriety does bring a few extra eyes to the cause, whether intentioned or not, her stardom and oversized lips distract from the film's otherwise riveting real-life vision.



Actually, that is not true. If you read the book then you will find that the focus of the story is Marianne Pearl and the people who helped search for him. This is Marianne's story about her struggle to find her husband and to maintain her hope and faith that he would return (even as it became more and more apparent that he would not be found alive). Daniel Pearl is really a backstory running throughout the book. I'm sure her reasons for writing Daniel this way were complicated, but not the least of which were her desire to keep from further sensationalizing his death and adding to the rampant fear and hatred that some people in the West have for people from this part of the world. In some ways this was her way of not only documenting the experience, but also to pay tribute to the men and women (mostly of Pakistan) who shared that horrific time with her and worked (in vain) to help try to find her husband. It is therefore unfair to criticize Jolie or the scriptwriters for the fact that Daniel Pearl was not in the forefront of the story, as that was never the intent.

Posted by: Sparkle at June 25, 2007 7:23 AM

Posted by: ohindeed. at June 24, 2007 10:34 PM
Posted by: UNAIDS guy at June 25, 2007 12:27 AM
Posted by: amy at June 25, 2007 6:36 AM
Posted by: allison at June 25, 2007 6:44 AM

***********************************************

Thank you ALL, you've made my point better than I ever could have imagined.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at June 25, 2007 7:25 AM

Agent Bedhead, A really inept review. It reads more as a statement of personal problems than a critique of a movie. Maybe you should not review movies if you are so easily distracted by an actor's physical characteristics, e.g., "pillowly" lips. You negate your insights about the cannibalistic press with inane comments about your personal response to Angelina Jolie. You compound the inappropriate tangent by abandoning any effort to comment on the quality of the movie as a movie.

I was priviledged to work with Danny Pearl and believe that this movie goes a long way to show why he was so revered by his wife and fellow journalists. You, however, cannot even get past the personal life of an actor to comment on whether the intent of the director to inform and entertain was successful.

Contrary to the intent of this site, your "review" was not bitchy, not scathing, not informative; just really poorly done. Stick to gossip blogs, where no one expects knowledge or judgment.

Posted by: rudy at June 25, 2007 7:26 AM

While I agree that it was more than a little surprising to have Jolie play Mariane Pearl in the film, the two women were indeed friends beforehand and Pearl did hand pick her. I haven't seen it yet, but I will reserve judgement on Jolie's performance until I do... From what I've heard she actually does a great job, accent and everything, so who gives a shit if she's famous/annoying/white? Buuut I must further admit that it is this easy to reserve judgement because I didn't find that Bedhead's review gave me much of an impression of the film. I'm not going to criticize or attack, but I just don't find her writing up to par with the rest of the site.

Posted by: b at June 25, 2007 9:10 AM

Also, sidenote - I found it immature and actually quite unprofessional for Bedhead to go on that little rant in response to a post that insulted her. If you really think your readers don't have the right to demand a re-write, that you are indeed above their insults, then why stoop to defending yourself so aggressively and throwing out swear words? Weird and inappropriate.

Posted by: b at June 25, 2007 9:16 AM

I certainly respect Mariane's wishes to have Jolie play her, but doesn't it smack of amateurism? Since when is a journalist a casting agent? To me it just seemed like, She's my friend so she's going to play me in the movie. And she's banging the producer.

I agree with previous posters that if it were anyone other than Jolie, there wouldn't be such split opinion on the issue.

Also those who despise this review must not read this site very often. At all. If ever before today...

Posted by: Christine at June 25, 2007 9:31 AM

Rudy,you've captured everythin I'm trying to say PERFECTLY.

and also,agent bedhead-that note you posted in response to,uhum,one of your readers' response was completely unecessary,mean and unprofessional.

i'm really sorry to say this.grow up,ab,or go back to school and educate yourself with some manners.you could use some thought maturity too,but manners would be the priority now.

adios!

Posted by: bina at June 25, 2007 9:38 AM

Jesus christ, some of you people are assholes. So thrilled to just jump on the bandwagon and bash the review, many times not offering anything constructive, just saying "Booo!" "Stop wriiiiting." How mature.
If you didn't offer anything beyond that, then I'm going to assume you are barely able to write your own name, but get all excitable at the chance to gang up on someone. Agent B should ignore you too,
and take whatever she wants from the comments of the people that actually put some thought into it.

Posted by: Loob at June 25, 2007 9:39 AM

oh shut up christine,we read this site.certainly more than you do.to say that jolie was cast because pearl was too ignorant and biased to choose someone else?you sound like a four-year old.

look at yourself before you dare comment on others,you nasty shallow twit.

lots of love,

MARY

Posted by: mary at June 25, 2007 9:44 AM

Posted by: Christine at June 25, 2007 9:53 AM

Whoa baby! We who dared comment on Agent Bedhead's putative "review's" lack of journalistic merit and judgment, exacerbated by the utter absence of demonstrable writing ability are now going to be banned from the mean girls' clique. No! Anything but that!

How? How will I ever recover my standing with the Pajiba Soc's? Will I never get to date the Varsity quarterback? (Too late, already happened. Also the homecoming queen, for good measure.)

If AB won't be reading any more comments how will she ever decide what to wear to the end-of-the-year eighth grade promendade? Next thing you know, we may stop caring if she approves of our choice of shoes.

Where will it all end? The social order is crumbling.

On a (barely more) serious note: I thought that Pajiba had a filtering mechanism for petulant little former queen bees who have lost their power to imtimidate. Rise up ye great unwashed! One of them has escaped, infiltrated our ranks and is now puporting to write reviews on this sacred site.

Posted by: rudy at June 25, 2007 10:15 AM

Come on, Bedhead - You know you're still going to be refreshing the comment thread every 30 seconds in your browser. Also, do you really think the guys who did the "heavy rewriting" will appreciate your insinuation that the review was better off before they got their hands on it?

Posted by: b at June 25, 2007 10:22 AM

who gives a shit ?

Posted by: mothy at June 25, 2007 10:28 AM

Wow, who knew so many of you had girl crushes on Angelina Jolie? That's the only reason I can think of for the ridiculous attacks on Agent Bedhead for doing what critics do: writing about the pros and cons of a movie. I agree that the appearance of a mega star is a vehicle such as this is often distracting, especially when so much of the star's recent publicity has been due to her personal life, rather than her professional achievements. And yes, I find the blackface thing and the "corkscrew curl" wig to be distracting and ridiculous.

As for you (willfully?) naive people who like to go on and on about method acting and blind casting: give me a freaking break. This is a Hollywood movie, not an off-Broadway production. In order for me to buy your blind casting rhetoric, I'd have to see Asians and blacks cast as famous white historical figures (and I don't think Forrest Whittaker is going to be playing George Washington in a biopic anytime soon). The bottom line is the Mariane Pearl is light complected for a woman of color, and she's all international and most Americans don't even realize or remember that she's black.

Lastly, it boggles my mind how many of you talk as tohough Mariane Pearl and Angelina Jolie sat you down and personally told you their feelings and motivations behing this film and their involvement with it. Whatever comes out of their mouths in interiews is monitored and mediated by the studios, the people financing the movie. Duh! They may have awesome intentions, they may have lame intentions, but the bottom line is we dont know. So let's stop speculating, OK?

Posted by: Rebecca at June 25, 2007 10:48 AM

I enjoyed Agent Bedhead's review; it was fine. She has every right to note that a larger-than-life offscreen persona can effect ones subjective viewing experience; because it is true duh. I am shocked and frankly a little disgusted at the level of nausiating self-righteous (rudy eh hem) vitroil directed to AB. The comments section sounds like a bunch of sycophantic, self-important a-holes working them self up into a circlejerk frenzy. Calm down you freaks. AB did nothing to warrant this kind of abuse - you're bullies.

Posted by: Elle at June 25, 2007 11:06 AM

Way Cool! We who never aspired to be part of their self-defined "in group" have given the Glory Days Girls one of their own, now powerless to punish crew, to defend.

Glory days well they'll pass you by
Glory days in the wink of a young girl's eye
Glory days, glory days
Repeat Chorus (twice)
-B. Springsteen

Agent Bedhead and her fellow denizens of the used-to-be(in their own minds)-important cabal have so raised the bar that we now have a putative movie critic (whose dereliction in fulfilling her task TO REVIEW THE MOVIE) is abundantly on display yet who cannot take criticism (of her performance).

Girls! Girls! Take a chill pill (followed by a group hug and perhaps a rousing chorus of Kumbaya). I was not engaging in ad hominem attack (cf. your hissy fit laden rants). I was criticizing AB's failure to perform her role as a movie critic. And I will continue to do so, particularly when one fails so spectacularly.

Posted by: rudy at June 25, 2007 12:08 PM

Whoa. Will the real Pajibites please stand up.

AB, girl, I love you. I seriously fucking do. In fact, I think you went to lightly on the ol' homewrecker. She is a shitty actress. I mean, did you see The Good Shepard?? Gah.

I think your review was great, and in fact could have been even more scathing for my tastes. Kisses love!

Posted by: nexus 6 at June 25, 2007 12:30 PM

Angelina Jolie and Mariane Pearl became friends shortly after Daniel Pearl's death when they first started setting up play dates for their sons. Or at least, that's what they said in their Glamour interview.

I will probably go see this movie.

Posted by: jo at June 25, 2007 12:34 PM

What is this "in group" you keep refering to? I've been coming to this site for a long time, mainly because I like each of the contributers, and they seem like normal, nice people who also happen to have extremely sharp writing and observational skills. I have come across sites where there does seem to be an in group who runs the show, but I don't think this is the case for the most part. Those who speak of an in group seem to be speaking more to their own insecurities than any sort of reality.

To the person who told AB that she needs to learn some manners based on her response to the criticism, maybe it wasn't the wisest thing for her to do, but what about the manners from some of the commenters? I'm so tired of the annonymity of the web entitling people to be giant assholes toward others, with no accountability.

Since this seems to have become a review of a review, I didn't feel like I gained much knowledge of the movie from AB's account. But, I've also felt this way with some of the other reviews written by the usuals. It happens sometimes, get over it. So many people on this site have become so entitled. Maybe if Pajiba starts charging for their services you have a place to bitch, but otherwise, STFU.

Posted by: katy at June 25, 2007 12:50 PM

Overexposure in the media is a well known hazard to serious actors, and has been for a long time. It is an entirely appropriate criticism to express when reviewing a film.
Many, many reviews of Georgia Rules mentioned how they were unable to separate "Lohan" from her character. I didn't see anybody bitching about that, and just because AJ is more accomplished as an actor does not make the problem go away.
No, this is all about Angelina worship. Demented, irrational, blind, worship. It boggles the mind.

Posted by: Serenade at June 25, 2007 1:52 PM

I cannot figure out why people are attacking the review for not being one when only one paragraph, at the end, mentions Jolie personally.

See what happens when regulars at gossip sites starting coming here? I WARNED YOU ALL.

Let's hope Kelly Clarkson never does another movie.

Posted by: juliagulia at June 25, 2007 2:16 PM

Whoa. Will the real Pajibites please stand up.
Posted by: nexus 6 at June 25, 2007 12:30 PM

I agree with nexus 6. I don't always agree with the reviews posted by the guys on here but I don't jump on to demand they stop writing them. It's a review, everyone step back, breath for a moment and put it in a bit of perspective, shall we? Sheesh.

In other words, keep on keeping on, AB.

Posted by: Jessi at June 25, 2007 2:18 PM

Serenade, you hit the nail on the head. For whatever reason, this actress inspires freakish hate and freakish adoration. Show anything less than adoration, you're toast. Anything less than blind hatred, you're toast. What's a movie reviewer to do?

I'm pretty much in the 1% of the population that feels ambivalence towards Ms. Jolie. I've seen that gone in 60 seconds movie and hackers and mr and mrs smith. I was not impressed by her performance in any of these. Apparently I MUST see gia though.

But I am not so naive not to know that she is TOTALLY overexposed. She's on the today show in the morning and larry king at night. She's on every cover of every magazine when I wait in line to buy my groceries. And I'm pretty sure that the obsession with her will not really do her any favors in terms of being taken seriously as an artiste. I've never seen Meryl Streep or Glenn Close on the cover of US weekly, after a while you have to think she's choosing her life of overexposure.

Posted by: anon at June 25, 2007 2:21 PM

Yeah, please stop talking about "the real Pajibans" or "the in-crowd". We had enough sectarianism when the elitism discussion came about.

And BarbadoSlim: I could spew vitriol about Angelina Jolie if I was bothered enough, but I still wouldn't care about Jennifer Aniston more than I care about my nail clippings.

Posted by: MJ at June 25, 2007 2:41 PM

lol, wow. What a Monday. Pissing rain here in Texas and pissin' vinegar online. Ya'll know that lynching is illegal, right? Please leave off AB, she is a human being behind the gun.

I was ambivalent about the review, but after re-reading it this afternoon, and reading all the comments, I liked the review. If anything, I thought it was a bit short. I would have loved to hear a bit more about Michael Winterbottom and the supporting cast, but I was able to get the point that this was a well-made movie that paid due deference to Danny Pearl's memory.

And, while I actually like AJ, I do find myself unable to watch her on the big screen b/c her persona totally affects my perception of her.
Same goes for Tom Cruise, Mel Gibson, Al Pacino, etc etc. Unfortunately, aside from Mr. Booyah!, I dislike those aforementioned gents. I couldn't watch War of the Worlds, Last Samurai w/o thinking, oh look, Tom Cruise playing "so-and-so", and don't even get me started on Martyr Mel - I have nothing but scathing vitriol for his self-directed movies. Basically, the 'real' world lives of these folks have completely wiped away that which is key to an actor; the ability to disappear into their characters.

Ultimately, though, that's my personal problem. As in, the viewer's problem. My husband, for example, has no trouble suspending disbelief when viewing the above mentioned. So I can relate to AB when she says she is distracted by AJ, since I will most likely be distracted as well.

I can also appreciate the fact that the lowly masses that have so much trouble looking beyond their own cracked windshields to see what's going on in the greater world need someone like the over-hyped AJ to bring a little ADHD-addled attention to these issues. If only to say, "Daniel who?"

Posted by: Stella at June 25, 2007 3:15 PM

Anyone else notice that amy, alison, bina and all those other "people" who write with the same (uneducated) techniques are actually just one person? One person who feels the need to reinforce their very UN-Pajiban nastiness? Please stop criticizing the actual intelligent people on Pajiba (including AB) who know how to put together a paragraph and go away.

Posted by: rachel at June 25, 2007 3:20 PM

Whoa Baby! Once again, I am yanked by the short hairs and cut to the quick (ain't mixed metaphors fun?) by the mystery women behind the (online) curtain.

I was completely unaware that Pajiba had a self-denominated "in crowd". I was snarking on what I imagined was a loss of status from that long ago time when AB and her ilk ruled seventh grade.

Such hissy fits! Such poor grammar! Such needless defense of a critic whose tender feelings were apparently hurt by justified criticism of a poorly written and insufficiently thoughtful review of a movie.

Well, consider me fully chastised. I have no defense but of actually holding an opinion (go ahead, re-read the putative "review") to your rapier wits. I bleed with the lacerations of your jousts and parries. No mas!

Posted by: rudy at June 25, 2007 3:59 PM

Brangeloonies!!! I love that word. It rolls off the tongue. It reminds me of STAND BY ME when the junk yard guy's calling Teddy's dad a loonie. I'll be hearing sing-song Brangeloonie all day long.
Well I said my piece. Viva la Bedhead!

Posted by: Sarahso at June 25, 2007 5:14 PM

Jesus.

Longtime lurker, first time poster.

What the hell happened to the comments?

Agent Bedhead's review had some great, clearly articulated points (e.g. The shots of city streets show an endless swarm of cars, people, and an impending sense of doom. Yet in this sea of unrecognizable faces, technology pulses through the slums filled with muddy concrete blocks and throwaway tents where electricity and internet connections abound. The constant presence and immediacy of technology and the internet aid the investigation, but they also play a role in Daniel's entrapment.
) and ended on a note that said that Jolie's notoriety was unfortunately personally distracting for her.

What exactly is the problem? This is an issue that's been brought up time and time again with other actors. And it's a valid one, because at the end of the day, a review is subjective. I'm thinking many of the naysayers here didn't even read the review, because they're conveniently leaving out the four paragraphs that focus on the film itself, and not Jolie.

I come here for the wit, intelligence and honest opinions. Frankly, I'm embarrassed by the immature vitriol being spouted by so many here, who seem to have an axe to grind. If I didn't know better, I'd think I'd hit a gossip site by accident. Anonymity does not mean it's okay to be an asshole.

Posted by: west at June 25, 2007 5:39 PM

Well, Bedhead, your presence at Pajiba has certainly stirred up a an old-fashioned shit-storm; the debate between those who like your work versus those who hate you for bringing up an extremely valid point about Ms. Jolie's celebrity affecting a viewer's reaction to the film has been great fun. I find most comments on Pajiba fairly amusing and even the vain, venal and incredibly dishonest Rudy is good for an old fashioned larf.
As a repatriated Yank (just back from six months in Auckland, NZ) and a temporary resident of Tulsa (actually, my sister's place in Broken Arrow but close enough) I think I'll stand with you against the goofy types - 'brangeloonies' and pompous twits.
Keep up the good work because (based on comments) there are a good many who look forward to reading it.

Posted by: Spender at June 25, 2007 5:55 PM

Y'all. This is not the only source for movie reviews. If the review doesn't tell you what you want to know? Go read another one.

I mean, my God! I'm all for sharing opinions and creating a dialogue about movies and pop culture - and I'm a pretty snarky, mean person myself - that's why I read this site. But there is something to be said for trying to maintain a basic level of respect for our fellow members of this community. Can we all try to move beyond the name-calling and the "shut up" and such? Thanks.

Posted by: alanna at June 25, 2007 6:02 PM

Wow. Some serious fire and brimstone talk here.

Regarding an actor overshadowing a film--we've been down this road before! Let's all go back and read Phillip Stephens' review of Apocalypto, titled "Mel Gibson is Batshit Insane." And hell, that wasn't even someone on screen...that was the director.

Phil got some crap for his review (which primarily focused on the overkill *pun* of mel's latest project) but nothing like what AB is getting here, for one sentence at the end of her review.

Lay off people! Angelina evokes strong reactions from damn near everybody but for a lot of people, she's not fair game. But guess, what kids, this is pajiba. It's all fair game.

Posted by: lawyerjenn at June 25, 2007 6:15 PM

I am one of the first posters who complained about *part* of AB's review of this movie. I did not complain about the entire review; in fact, I found the parts of the review before the paragraph on AJ very well written and informative. I did not tell AB to stop writing reviews or that she sucked. I did not say that I couldn't believe that she dared to insult Jolie when AJ is such a fabulous person.

What I *did* say is that I wished AB had commented about AJ's PERFORMANCE. I don't care that AB mentioned that she had a hard time forgetting that AJ is AJ. Yeah, ok, I can understand that. But that aside, HOW WAS HER PERFORMANCE? Was it hard for AB to forget that it was AJ because AJ's performance sucked? Or simply because AJ is such a prominent figure in the media?

So I am only suggesting to AB that, in the future, she discuss the actual performance. That is all.

Posted by: boobaloob at June 25, 2007 6:15 PM

Boobaloob,
I wished AB had commented about AJ's PERFORMANCE.

I wouldn't presume to speak for AB, but as for me, when I can't separate the actress from the role, it says to me the acting was less than spectacular.

Remember Dustin Hoffman in Rainman? Maybe it's just me, but even a huge star like Hoffman "became" the character he portrayed. Similarly, Jolie did in Girl, Interrupted. Surely you've also seen other films where you couldn't see the actor or actress as the character. Nicolas Cage in ConAir is one that sticks out for me--I hated him and his fake-ass accent with a passion in that film. I thought he was brilliant in Leaving Las Vegas, though.

Angelina Jolie as Lisa in Girl Interrupted: absolutely. As Mariane Pearl: I'm guessing...not so much.

See the difference?

Posted by: Beth at June 25, 2007 6:51 PM

I enjoy AB's posts. I don't see how this particular review is offensive, or lacking. I hope to read more of her here as well as at her own site.

And thanks, AL (June 24, 2007 9:06 AM). You said it all much better than I could.

Posted by: demondoll at June 25, 2007 7:11 PM

What west said. Agent Bedhead's review was well-written and informative, and she's certainly entitled to state her opinion - reviewing films is a very subjective process. It's also okay to disagree with her opinion, but to attack her (or other posters) is unnecessary.

Posted by: DG at June 25, 2007 10:55 PM

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed the incredibly similar (and poor) writing style of several of the negative commenters. I found it very distracting, although it may have just been the dizziness from repeatedly whacking my head against the keyboard in response to some of the comments. I can't be sure.

I, personally, enjoyed AB's review. I think she makes a very valid point about an actor's presence overshadowing a movie. I know I'm probably repeating someone else but the same point has been made about Lohan in the past. Like it or not we live in a culture obsessed with the cult of celebrity and many a good movie has been overshadowed by the casting of a "star" in the lead role. Personally (and I know this may be a rather radical view) I don't care what reasoning there is behind the casting of an actor only that their performance on screen is convincing and allows me to forget that I am essentially watching a grown-up playing pretend. If the media portrayed persona of that actor distracts me to the point where I am constantly aware that I am watching someone act then yes, I also would comment on it.

I am a little baffled by the defense of Jolie from every side. Do any of the people defending her (or attacking AB because of her "negative comments" concerning Jolie) actually know the actress personally? Or do they know her in the same way that I do - PR controlled interviews, idle speculation on gossip blogs and in the tabloids and her performance in scripted films?

But what do I know? I'm a Brit, we hate our celebrities and take great pleasure in tearing them down.

Posted by: Alex the Odd at June 26, 2007 5:14 AM

Let me make one thing clear,

I, for one, don't see how ANYONE thinks they can come to a site, and tell a reviewer to "resign". Who the hell do you think you are? These reviewers do what they do to entertain us THEY DON'T WORK for US. In fact, I wish more reviewers had the cojones to smackdown on uppity asshole commenters, this is not OUR site, douches, we are just visiting.
Way to go AB.

I'm still not seeing this turd though.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at June 26, 2007 8:20 AM

Did AB take her response to these other comments down?

Posted by: AL at June 26, 2007 8:38 AM

"..See what happens when regulars at gossip sites starting coming here? I WARNED YOU ALL...."

Posted by: juliagulia at June 25, 2007 2:16 PM

*************************************************

Hehehehehe, Internet elitism is like having a Sorority for fat chicks. You might think you are cool, but the fact is, you are still a fat chick.

In other words, posting on Pajiba is not transcendental, it's not an "experience" nor is it a "way of life", or Zen. Keep in my mind that probably 75% of your fellow posters might be one dude named George, he's in his underwear and has his other open tabs set to a fisting site and the the Nambla forums.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at June 26, 2007 8:43 AM

Let me say this upfront, I havent seen the movie nor do I plan to. Marianne Pearl is a piece of shit, I say this because she had the nerve to say that she was entitled to the same finacial compensation from our government that the 9-11 families were entitled to, saying that her husband was a victim of 9-11 also. Danny Pearl wasnt a victim of terror, he was a more educated version of the Grizzly Man, just dealing with different animals. Nobody needed a Wall Street Journal piece on these guys to tell us tey were serious, we saw that a few months before hand. He wasnt a hero, he was an idiot, on a mission for personal glory. Anyone who saw Grizzly Man wasnt surprised when the bears ate him, as a matter of fact, I would say most people at the end of that movie thought something along the lines of "That idiot got what he deserved", I said this when I saw the Pearl video. Danny Pearls story although tragic, wasnt shocking, did he really think going out to the middle of the desert to meet with these guys was a good idea and he would be safe because he was a journalist? The idea of this movie putting money in this womans pocket sickens me as much as Bin Ladens niece getting a reality show. To compare his death to those people on 9-11 was insulting, leading me to one conclusion.Fuck Marianne Pearl. As far as Angelina Jolie goes, shes at her best naked grinding against a chain link fence. Hey Angelina, there are plenty of poor people right here in America.

Posted by: Scott at June 26, 2007 8:43 AM

Hey B-Slim, what's happenin?
So, I usually agree with -most- of your comments, but the whole assuming elitism thing, I think, is kind of weird. I mean, I think people are just noting that when celebrity discussions happen in the comments section, the overlying tone changes to seem more like a gossip site. I don't think juliagulia, whom I also recognize and enjoy her posts for the most part, meant that as an elitist comment. I think anyone who visits this site regularly sees the change when one comment thread sticks out so completely.

ANYhoo, this thread is dying a slow death, so let's kill it now folks, eh?

Cheers!

Posted by: nexus 6 at June 26, 2007 9:05 AM