Reviews

So many reviews here are written by cynical and, may I say, snotty people who think that their opinion somehow is important and persuasive. Just because a film may not meet the viewer's tastes doesn't mean that it is a "bad" film.

Don't get me wrong, there are "bad" films but as I read the reviews above I was constantly having to jump over political and social views to see if the reviewer could provide some level of objectivity. In my mind, they failed.

Rather than try to match arguments, which is futile because one can't argue with someone whose mind is closed, I will second the findings of someone who has proved that his reviews ARE important and persuasive for nearly 40 years: Roger Ebert.

His review puts it simply "This movie is the work of a man who knows how to direct a thriller. Smooth, calm, confident, it builds suspense instead of depending on shock and action." Ebert continues "The Ghost Writer" is handsome, smooth and persuasive. It is a Well-Made Film. Polanski at 76 provides a reminder of directors of the past who were raised on craft, not gimmicks, and depended on a deliberate rhythm of editing rather than mindless quick cutting." Ebert concludes "The film immerses you in its experience. It's a reminder that you can lose yourself in a story because all a film really wants to do is tell it."

The "Ghost Writer" is a cerebral study of character and circumstance. It's not "Shrek" or "Harry Potter" or "Twilight". It is a grown up movie for mature fans of Hitchcock and suspense thrillers.

I hadn't heard of this film until Redbox e-mailed me and reported it as a new release. I went out and rented it right away, curious to see what Russell Crowe had done as I like to watch him work.

Hats off to Jon Foster and Sophie Traub for telegraphing internal dialogue well enough to keep me nearly interested. There is tension, as you can't tell if Foster's character will act on impulse to bring more grief to the world.

Grief is the common theme. Life as Grief, Actions and Consequences as Grief, Breathing as Grief. Fortunately I took my Welbutrin this morning so I was in a pretty good mood both going in and coming out of the film experience.

All the professional elements are present: acting, directing, lighting, set design, and even a minimal amount of music. There is a story here, but its one that neither added to my life or made me feel better about the human condition.

Skip this one, don't waste the spot in your Netflix queue.

Everything you want in a motion picture is here...except a story. I don't take issue with any of the glowing comments made about the acting, visuals, cinematography, sound, score etc. There is just no story continuity. It has pieces of a story, and the actors are wasted with the words they have to speak, but there is no theme, no meaning to the strife and grief exhibited. If the writer's goal was the glory of nihilism, then he failed miserably. At least nihilism declares existing beliefs are not valid. He owes an apology to those who hold the opinion that life is meaningless and senseless. He didn't even make their argument. I was left wondering if the writer wrote this on a bad acid trip. To make any comparison of this tripe to Kubrick's 2001 is stretching the imagination beyond any conceivable breaking point. Of all the story treatments that are pitched in Hollywood every day, I don't understand how anyone gave this the green light or any fool was willing to finance it. This script belongs in the garbage. Hugh, Rachel, take the money and run.