Reviews

Some critics here are saying the movie takes itself too seriously - but I believe some people are taking it too literally. ... Saying that the topics that are addressed have no impact on society anymore, clearly misses the point. ... The 50s -- or more specifically, 50s TV -- is used as a metaphor, because of the way 50s TV portrayed life in America. ... Thematically, this movie is about "Living Life" to the fullest, whatever that means. More specifically, to live life to the fullest -- to truly feel "alive" -- you need to take the good with the bad. Sweeping things under the rug and just acting "pleasant" all the time, is no way to live. That's what Tobey McGuire's speech at the end to his "real" mother is all about. Bad things happen, it's part of life. Having passion brings with it positives and negatives -- but suppressing true feelings for the sake of "pleasantness" is an empty life. THAT is the key ... and that "issue" is everlasting to the human condition.

Another point: People fear change. This is universal from the start of time until the end of time. The film suggests that changing and growing as a society and as people -- even if scary -- is good. Just because the 50s were used as a metaphor for that, don't believe for a minute this isn't a universal issue that exists today and forever.

Another issue common for people critical of this film is the sexual issue. They say that Gary Ross is promoting sexual promiscuity, sex out of wedlock, etc... Again, I believe it misses the point. Is Ross suggesting that premarital sex is OK? Yes, and I'd agree - and I'm sure there's plenty of people who don't agree with that, and that's OK too. But, again, the sex is just part of the theme - used as a high-profile example to making the overall point about "openness" - and not suppressing one's feelings. Note that the Reese Witherspoon character was already promiscuous, and her transformation was actually something completely different.

I can't make everyone like this film - I'll just say that, on a personal note, I was so floored by this film, I had to see it again the next day. That had never happened to me before, or since. Ross' commentary goes on to speak of everything I felt about the film when I first saw it. It was great to hear that his reasons for what he did, meshed exactly with how I took it. I had to write him a letter to tell him so - another thing I'd never done before or since.

This is not a perfect film. I liked its subtlety, but then the racism correlation, and the censorship stuff, got a bit more overt. The courtroom scene at the end is a bit cliche ... and I also agree with one poster who said that, to make the point about taking the good with the bad, we should've seen a bit more about the consequences of their actions.

Those are merely nitpicks in the grand scheme of things. This is a 10 out of 10.

Waking Life is not a movie, it's a conversation. Which might be OK if it's "My Dinner With Andre," but not here. It may be a great conversation, and, as conversations go, an entertaining one. But not as movies go.

These conversations are interesting, and I may even agree with a lot of it. I may have even thought and talked about these very same philosophical and abstract ideas. It can be fun. I like big ideas, I love to think in movies. I love Gattaca and Memento and Dark City, to name some recent examples.

And believe me, I agree with the sentiment that it's good to ask questions and feel "alive" instead of some creature that is forced into what to think. And I do, in fact, find myself often longing for those days of yore, where these types of on-campus conversations happened regularly, as opposed to the mundane junk we talk about on a daily basis.

But ultimately, though I might want to read the book, this does not make for a good movie. All of the fantastic and brilliant artistic effects in the world -- which this has -- should not deceive you into thinking otherwise.

One problem is, I've had many of these conversations already, and they are generally fruitless. They may be mentally stimulating and interesting, but they ultimately are nothing more than mental gymnastics.

But that's not really it. Mental gymnastics can be great in and of themselves. Our mind needs to be exercised or it just shrivels up.

The big problem is, even if we're inclined to enjoy conversations and mind puzzles like this, we don't enjoy being passive observers of them. Whatever joy might be derived from this kind of thing comes from actually participating in the conversation, even if that means just writing your own essay.

I believe participation is of the essence, because ultimately these kinds of conversations are an egotistical exercise. Since these big ideas don't really have answers, the conversations are ultimately fruitless and frustrating, so just listening to them gets you nowhere. In fact, you could say these conversations are ultimately pointless to have, except as mental gymnastics ... just as basketball is ultimately a pointless pursuit except for the fun and exercise of it.

I wonder if he's done this creative animation to hide the quasi-acting he made famous in "Slackers." That would be really brilliant, come to think of it, since we tend to forgive bad acting, over-acting, under-acting -- or whatever you want to call it -- in animation. I liked Linklater's "Dazed and Confused" and "Suburbia," but at least those movies had people trying to act.

Of course, it could be argued, these characters aren't even pretending to act. They're just talking. But that would bring us right back to the original point.

Anyone who knocks this movie as being unrealistic, or "dated", is clearly ignorant of the inside of sports. Instead of trashing you for being closed-minded or clueless, I will simply leave it as "ignorant" since not everyone has been in a hockey locker room.

Obviously, this movie is a parody. There is exaggeration for effect. But the film is so otherwise dead-on accurate, it may as well have been a documentary. From the shenanigans of the general manager, and the ownership situation, to the winning at all costs mentality, to the bus trips of the minor leagues, to the hotels and women, and bars, and team comraderie and machismo. It's all there.

I've spent 10 years around hockey, including 5 travelling with minor league hockey teams. Trust me.

Today, the violence is not nearly as pervasive, since the rules have been changed - though I've seen my share of bench clearing brawls in the minor leagues. But all you have to do is listen to the Hanson Brothers commentary on the DVD to get any idea. Listen to them as they say "Hey, remember when that actually happened in Syracuse" - or - "Hey, remember that crazy guy who..."

Of course, none of this necessarily makes this a great movie. I believe it is, though that is just my opinion. I believe it is because it's making a statement about a number of issues that surround sports - the violence and the hero worship and the business side of things - while also being hysterical.

There are so many baseball movies that are pure junk because of how unrealistic they are. This film holds up for even hockey players because of how true it all rings.

This is a 10 - all the way around.

Funny that, as a sports fan, I heavily suspected right away that the movie was a mockumentary. If not for this one fatal tiny flaw, I'm pretty sure I'd have been hooked - because even with the flaw, I wasn't sure. But it gave me instant doubt - and then the other little clues gave it away. Had I not had the original doubt, the other clues wouldn't have been noticed by me.

What I'm referring to is, at the very beginning, when it says Tom was a great ballplayer, etc... It says "By the end of his sophomore year of college, he already had contract offers from the Cubs and Astros" (paraphrasing, maybe I have the teams wrong).

As a sports geek - I know this is impossible. You cannot get a contract offer from two different teams. Baseball players are eligible for the draft just before their freshman year, just after their junior year, and just after their senior year.

College players can only be offered deals by teams that drafted them - and only one team can draft you.

So I knew that was wrong right off the bat.

Always check your facts :-)

The fact that I watched it while channel surfing, I guess, says something. It wasn't so completely terrible as to turn it off. Maybe it was like watching a train wreck.

I suppose as an idea - maybe it was interesting. So I wanted to watch it through to see how bad it really was or wasn't.

Whatever happened to the guy we knew from Bull Durham, Field of Dreams and No Way Out?

Costner reminds me now of Ed Wood with a larger budget. He's just trying to darn hard to make the next great epic film - and failing miserably.