![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thehefnerWell now. I'd heard some people say that the new Seth Rogan film OBSERVE AND REPORT wasn't accurately marketed, but that's a massive understatement.
Good lord, that was an excellent but deeply unsettling movie.
It's not at all surprising that it's gotten such mixed reviews, but my favorite joyless bastard, Devin from CHUD.com gave it a rare 10 out of 10, saying, "This is classic smuggling: taking a buzzed about filmmaker and a very popular, mainstream star and teaming them up to make something uncompromising, strange, uncomfortable and dark."*
Devin adds, "OBSERVE AND REPORT is an amazing movie... for the right audience. I'm not dumb enough to think that this movie is for everyone; there will be people who simply won't understand why other folks are so desperately in love with it. There will be people who don't quite see why many of the jokes are funny (such as the ending - shocking, violent, sick and in my opinion one of the funniest things I've seen in a movie in years), and who wonder how anybody can stomach these characters. But if you're that special kind of viewer, the kind who likes to be challenged, who likes to go places sane people avoid, who thinks transgression isn't just desirable but also kind of hilarious, Observe and Report might be your favorite movie of the year."
He sums up my thoughts pretty well (although more pompously than I would, but that's Devin for you), but the major difference between how he saw and how I saw it was that I didn't find it that funny. I laughed maybe... five times. I wonder if I'd seen it with a full house of people who got it, as opposed to the matinee showing with six other people (man, this movie is gonna flop so hard), would I have laughed? Even cheered in places?
Because that's what the film wants. It wants you to root for this character, to cheer for him, like he's just another delusional loser usually played by Will Ferrell or Kevin James... and then, it pulls the rug out right from under you. Because Rogan's character isn't like Ron Burgundy or Paul Blart, a pumped-up jackass who has no actual abilities or talent to back up his arrogance.
Rogan's character has those. And he's a racist bipolar sociopath. Oh, and a date rapist too, but we'll get to that in a minute.
Several people keep bringing up comparisons to TAXI DRIVER (director Jody Hill reportedly considers Scorsese's THE KING OF COMEDY--which I have yet to see--as the bigger inspiration, but it's impossible to ignore the Bickleness of Ronnie), but at various points I was reminded of other proto-fascist characters in films like FALLING DOWN, DEATH WISH, STRAW DOGS, and especially EDMOND, based on the David Mamet play of the same name.
In fact, it was evocative of several modern plays, particularly the everyday sociopaths of Neil Labute, plus the dark comedy and shocking violence of Martin McDonough. If OBSERVE AND REPORT were on stage, it might be hailed as a modern masterpiece, with students at the Studio Theatre conservatory fighting to play Ronnie scenes for class.
I'm sick of seeing such stories dominating the modern stage, presumably in the name of being anti-Hollywood sensibilities. But as such, seeing it on the screen--pushed by a major studio into multiplexes--is damn well exhilarating, even though I'm sure many will reject it outright. Some will be pissed that it isn't a wacky farce or a big-hearted Apatow comedy, while others will avoid seeing it in the first place because that's exactly what the film's going to be. Not to mention those who'll boycott the film because they've heard that it makes light of date rape.
I'm not gonna really try to defend that scene, because it's impossible to do out of context. If there's a laugh to be had in that scene, it's only a laugh of nervous relief, and even that sounds horrible to say. Trust me, it's ALL about context, because this is not a character with whom we're ever asked to sympathize. Even if he fools other people into thinking that he's the hero he thinks he is, we the audience know better.
Because this film sees him for what he is, a power-tripping everyday fascist representative of too many real-life police officers (some might argue most or even all cops, by their nature), and the fact that he may or may not get his comeuppance--even being rewarded for his actions--raises many troubling questions. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE comes to mind ("I was cured all right."), as does AMERICAN PSYCHO, which raised the question of how much was reality and how much was a sick fantasy from a sick mind.
Many critics are struggling with that question, bringing up the jarring shifts in tone. From farce comedy one minute to brutal and disturbing darkness the next. From bumbling guy to superhuman fighting machine and back again. Non-white characters are looked down upon or are criminals. The sexually active girl is demonized, while the (born-again) virginal pure one is the "redemptive" girl.
Many people seem to want to write the film off as being partially or wholly a fantasy, whereas people like Devin believe that to do so would rob the movie of its punchline. But if it isn't all in Ronnie's head, then we're faced with the possibility that the film itself is as fascist as he is. I strongly doubt that's the case, but I do wonder and worry about what others might take away from this film.
Me, I need to see it again, and with other people with whom I can dissect the movie for an hour or two (and maybe with them, I might actually find it as laugh-out-loud funny as others have). Because this is not a forgettable little movie for the mall crowds, as it's marketed to be. It's film that stays with you and lends itself to lots, lots of discussion.
OBSERVE AND REPORT is very worthwhile movie, and essential viewing for anyone interested in challenging films. See it before it flops. Or worse, gets totally misunderstood and held up as a heroic masterpiece by scary people, just as TAXI DRIVER and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE were.
*Not for the first time, I'm reminded of THE CABLE GUY, which flopped just as I'm sure O&R will flop, but is now considered by many to be an excellent black comedy.
Good lord, that was an excellent but deeply unsettling movie.
It's not at all surprising that it's gotten such mixed reviews, but my favorite joyless bastard, Devin from CHUD.com gave it a rare 10 out of 10, saying, "This is classic smuggling: taking a buzzed about filmmaker and a very popular, mainstream star and teaming them up to make something uncompromising, strange, uncomfortable and dark."*
Devin adds, "OBSERVE AND REPORT is an amazing movie... for the right audience. I'm not dumb enough to think that this movie is for everyone; there will be people who simply won't understand why other folks are so desperately in love with it. There will be people who don't quite see why many of the jokes are funny (such as the ending - shocking, violent, sick and in my opinion one of the funniest things I've seen in a movie in years), and who wonder how anybody can stomach these characters. But if you're that special kind of viewer, the kind who likes to be challenged, who likes to go places sane people avoid, who thinks transgression isn't just desirable but also kind of hilarious, Observe and Report might be your favorite movie of the year."
He sums up my thoughts pretty well (although more pompously than I would, but that's Devin for you), but the major difference between how he saw and how I saw it was that I didn't find it that funny. I laughed maybe... five times. I wonder if I'd seen it with a full house of people who got it, as opposed to the matinee showing with six other people (man, this movie is gonna flop so hard), would I have laughed? Even cheered in places?
Because that's what the film wants. It wants you to root for this character, to cheer for him, like he's just another delusional loser usually played by Will Ferrell or Kevin James... and then, it pulls the rug out right from under you. Because Rogan's character isn't like Ron Burgundy or Paul Blart, a pumped-up jackass who has no actual abilities or talent to back up his arrogance.
Rogan's character has those. And he's a racist bipolar sociopath. Oh, and a date rapist too, but we'll get to that in a minute.
Several people keep bringing up comparisons to TAXI DRIVER (director Jody Hill reportedly considers Scorsese's THE KING OF COMEDY--which I have yet to see--as the bigger inspiration, but it's impossible to ignore the Bickleness of Ronnie), but at various points I was reminded of other proto-fascist characters in films like FALLING DOWN, DEATH WISH, STRAW DOGS, and especially EDMOND, based on the David Mamet play of the same name.
In fact, it was evocative of several modern plays, particularly the everyday sociopaths of Neil Labute, plus the dark comedy and shocking violence of Martin McDonough. If OBSERVE AND REPORT were on stage, it might be hailed as a modern masterpiece, with students at the Studio Theatre conservatory fighting to play Ronnie scenes for class.
I'm sick of seeing such stories dominating the modern stage, presumably in the name of being anti-Hollywood sensibilities. But as such, seeing it on the screen--pushed by a major studio into multiplexes--is damn well exhilarating, even though I'm sure many will reject it outright. Some will be pissed that it isn't a wacky farce or a big-hearted Apatow comedy, while others will avoid seeing it in the first place because that's exactly what the film's going to be. Not to mention those who'll boycott the film because they've heard that it makes light of date rape.
I'm not gonna really try to defend that scene, because it's impossible to do out of context. If there's a laugh to be had in that scene, it's only a laugh of nervous relief, and even that sounds horrible to say. Trust me, it's ALL about context, because this is not a character with whom we're ever asked to sympathize. Even if he fools other people into thinking that he's the hero he thinks he is, we the audience know better.
Because this film sees him for what he is, a power-tripping everyday fascist representative of too many real-life police officers (some might argue most or even all cops, by their nature), and the fact that he may or may not get his comeuppance--even being rewarded for his actions--raises many troubling questions. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE comes to mind ("I was cured all right."), as does AMERICAN PSYCHO, which raised the question of how much was reality and how much was a sick fantasy from a sick mind.
Many critics are struggling with that question, bringing up the jarring shifts in tone. From farce comedy one minute to brutal and disturbing darkness the next. From bumbling guy to superhuman fighting machine and back again. Non-white characters are looked down upon or are criminals. The sexually active girl is demonized, while the (born-again) virginal pure one is the "redemptive" girl.
Many people seem to want to write the film off as being partially or wholly a fantasy, whereas people like Devin believe that to do so would rob the movie of its punchline. But if it isn't all in Ronnie's head, then we're faced with the possibility that the film itself is as fascist as he is. I strongly doubt that's the case, but I do wonder and worry about what others might take away from this film.
Me, I need to see it again, and with other people with whom I can dissect the movie for an hour or two (and maybe with them, I might actually find it as laugh-out-loud funny as others have). Because this is not a forgettable little movie for the mall crowds, as it's marketed to be. It's film that stays with you and lends itself to lots, lots of discussion.
OBSERVE AND REPORT is very worthwhile movie, and essential viewing for anyone interested in challenging films. See it before it flops. Or worse, gets totally misunderstood and held up as a heroic masterpiece by scary people, just as TAXI DRIVER and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE were.
*Not for the first time, I'm reminded of THE CABLE GUY, which flopped just as I'm sure O&R will flop, but is now considered by many to be an excellent black comedy.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-04-12 12:40 am (UTC)If you are still looking for co-viewers, I might be up for it next weekend depending on how much I get done this weekend.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-12 01:10 am (UTC)Man, I'm gonna be thinking about it all night, I just know it. The film refuses to get out of my head. Just wait, I'll watch it with you guys and I'll be like, "Really? I was all a-tizzy over that?" But we'll see if that happens.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-12 03:54 am (UTC)At the moment, I'm stacked up on Film Theory DVDs. Getting ready for Nosferatu and got Dog Day Afternoon and Perseopolis in the queue. Also, got Barbarella in there just for fun.
While I'm on the topic of random movies of merit, if you've never seen the Merian C. Cooper version of The Most Dangerous Game from the 1930s, you really should. It's the most delightful crack.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-12 03:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-12 04:01 am (UTC)No, the Merian C. Cooper one is crack, extremely art deco crack, and very, very, very gay. AND IT'S NOT JUST ME. I had to read a book on homoerotic subtext in film for my thesis, and I discovered (after watching it, mind you) that it's got its own whole chapter.
I was determined to read Persepolis (en version originale) before seeing the film, but I don't have a French copy and am not likely to have the time before we get to it in class.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-12 04:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-12 02:47 am (UTC)Oh! Well, that makes it totally fine to laugh at a woman being raped, then. After all, rape is all about context. And the punchline is that she really wanted it anyway, she was asking for it. What a relief!
Perhaps I'm being overly harsh - okay, I know I am - but every positive review I've read of this movie smacks either of rationalization (people who know that the scene trivializes rape, but don't want to really confront it or their reaction to it because it makes them too uncomfortable) or outright misogyny ("she wanted it! She's a messed up slut who was asking for it!").
Either way, I'm getting tired of people asserting that if you don't want to see a woman getting raped in a movie that's supposed to be funny, then that reflects solely on you and your shortcomings - you OBVIOUSLY just don't understand x type of humor and aren't up to being "challenged". It's not that I don't like to be challenged by movies. It's that I don't like to be triggered, mocked, belittled and degraded by a movie for the sake of a cheap laugh and the poor taste of a director. I don't think that says anything about my sense of humor, and I'll thank you not to judge me or anyone who doesn't think rape is hilarious for wanting to avoid the shit out a movie that even approaches making that point.
/rant
no subject
Date: 2009-04-12 02:53 am (UTC)I never said it was okay. It's no more okay here than it was in, say, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. And those that say it is okay fall into that last category I mention, the idiots who see ORANGE and TAXI DRIVER as role model movies.
I didn't laugh, by the way. But then, I didn't laugh at much anything in the film, because I found it all disturbing.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-12 03:14 am (UTC)What I was responding to:
"But if you're that special kind of viewer, the kind who likes to be challenged, who likes to go places sane people avoid, who thinks transgression isn't just desirable but also kind of hilarious, Observe and Report might be your favorite movie of the year."
He sums up my thoughts pretty well...
The other thing I was responding to I quoted directly from you.
I'm not accusing you of saying anything you didn't say. I'm not even accusing you of trivializing rape (I fully admitted I was being too harsh there - my initial response was purely emotional). Perhaps of being insensitive, and of not really thinking through the implications of what you're saying. To imply that people who don't see redeeming features in a movie that plays rape for laughs (and you can say you didn't laugh, but that doesn't change the fact that countless others DID - the issue here isn't primarily YOUR reaction, but the film itself) are somehow lacking is kind of shitty.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-12 03:37 am (UTC)Well, that's ultimately what I'm also wondering too. How much does the movie ultimately trivialize or even glorify Ronnie's actions? Maybe other people aren't thinking about that, but I certainly am, and responses like this just make me want to dissect this film all the more. Because one way or another, for good or bad, this is a film that gets under one's skin. It's a very troubling film on a number of levels, but I don't know if that's a bad thing.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-12 04:14 am (UTC)What does it say that she's portrayed as a "drunk" but you're not encouraged to empathize with her or wonder what it is that motivates her excessive drinking? A woman who's obviously a mess is portrayed as little more than an easy lay, and her rape is largely dismissed.
Mostly what disturbs me is all the people hailing it as a hilarious masterpiece of comedy. Also, people calling the rape a "sex scene" and saying that it's "edgy" and other bullshit. And again, the implication that if you don't like it or want to see it it's because you just don't "get it", because there's something wrong or missing in your sense of humor, or worse, because you're a bull person who doesn't want to be "challenged" by movies and has no appreciation for the transgressive. I think it's reasonable to feel disturbed by the movie. I just don't see that reaction from most people, and THAT is incredibly fucking disturbing to me.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-12 04:38 am (UTC)But that depiction of Brandi also ties into what I mentioned earlier, the question of how much of it is from Ronnie's sick fascist POV: how much of it is his fantasy, and by extension, how much (if any) does the film itself endorse? And if it doesn't at all, what does it say about the audience members who think that it does? But yeah, I do worry about the messages the film sends to certain people.
I probably shouldn't have co-opted the whole "challenging" bit, or at least been more considerate and careful with it. I get carried away in my zeal to try and get even a handful of people interested in seeing it. Because I think it DOES deserve to be seen, and discussed for what it is, for good or ill.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-12 04:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-12 04:30 am (UTC)Sorry, I'm generally not willing go there for random strangers who decide that they need me to justify my reactions to them.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-12 02:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-12 03:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-12 03:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-12 03:17 am (UTC)It's not just that I don't find rape funny. It's the casualness of which it's being addressed, and the fact that Hill, Rogan, Farris (who should know better) et al are normalizing rape and rape jokes.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-12 03:45 am (UTC)How many of these incendiary blasts have been made by people who've actually seen the film? I'd be interested to read those, rather than, like, all the people at raging
It's definitely not the best movie you've ever seen. But it just might make my top ten list at the end of the year. Depending on whether or not other articles or criticisms cause me to rethink this whole film, which is entirely possible.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-12 04:32 am (UTC)when we’re having sex and she’s unconscious like you can literally feel the audience thinking, like, how the fuck are they going to make this okay? Like, what can possibly be said or done that I’m not going to walk out of the movie theater in the next thirty seconds? . . . And then she says, like, the one thing that makes it all okay.
I haven't seen any interviews with the director. But um, yeah.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-12 04:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-12 04:03 am (UTC)And I'm pulling from sites such as Jezebel, Gawker (read into that what you will) and hubsites such as Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes.
I think I might be more offended by there being two mall cop movies this year. But even in context that clip (of Farris and Rogan) still makes my stomach turn.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-12 04:57 am (UTC)I should actually brave the critics on Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, intimidating as that is. I usually give a quick sweep and leave 'em be, as critics can be an infuriating bunch. I try to find the handful who I trust or at least are entertaining enough to keep me interested and forget the rest. Like, fuck what THE NEW YORKER thinks about IRON MAN, I mean really.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-12 06:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-12 06:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-20 01:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-20 03:49 pm (UTC)http://mightygodking.com/index.php/2009/04/14/a-quick-thing/#comments
MGK didn't like he movie (and also thinks the sex is indeed rape), but particularly at the "edited to add" bit, he helps explain why *I* did (well, that and the CHUD.com review linked above. If you haven't read 'em and are interested in discussing this a wee bit further, I'd like your two cents).
For me, a large part of the appeal is that it takes a lot of the audience's expectations and shoots them in the kneecap, because they were expecting another egotistical idiot movie like Will Ferrell or Sandler or whatever. And while the film was absurd, the things that were wrong with him and his twisted motivations were--unlike those films--rooted in reality. As such, for me, it put that whole genre of comedy in another light.
So yeah, I strongly feel that the shock here was not shock for shock's sake. There was an actual, subversive point being made. It was just made so unpleasantly that many or most people won't see it, won't get it, and/or won't like it (the last two aren't hand-in-hand; MGK didn't like it, but from where I sit, he got it just fine, which is more than I can say for many reviewers).
no subject
Date: 2009-04-20 05:18 pm (UTC)frankly, i was more intrigued by whether ty thought rogen was good or convincing in this, and by why and how rogen even got involved with this project. who turned him onto the script and told him it's a good career move? was it his agent's recommendation or of his own volition? i don't know... i've seen lots of weird and subversive shit, man, and am a fan of shrugging off expectations and flipping things on their heads, but it has to be in exchange for something else, unless you're just doing nihilistic anti-popcorn popcorn, which is cute for about five seconds... i'll go read that link now...
no subject
Date: 2009-04-20 05:32 pm (UTC)what's happening here is there's an element of snake oil salesmanship which dissolves any element of trust. i feel genuinely duped and sore about it because i in particular don't feel deserving; he can be sure i won't pay to see another one of his films. if i'm in the mood for cutting edge postmodern art, i'll just go about my everyday life, or else go to the smithsonian for free. when i want a popcorn escape and pay for it, and you blow that entertainment capital by tricking me, i'm going to turn around and hope that you choke, or see to it that i do my part in seeing you do so.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-20 06:11 pm (UTC)I actually found it very thought-inspiring, if my above long-winded post is any indication, but I can easily understand how it could leave you or others cold. Like I said, definitely not for everybody, which is not meant to be a slam at people who don't like it at all.
But you felt cheated? How so? Did you want more of a... comeuppance for Ronnie? What would you have wanted?
Have you ever seen FUNNY GAMES? Either the original or the shot-for-shot remake with Naomi Watts? Because that is the great "FUCK YOUUUUUUUUUUU" movie, and one I still don't know how I feel about. The point of that film is to aggressively provoke questions in the audience about why they watch these kinds of movies (in their case, violent films), and the movie does a lot to build up audience expectations, waiting for a huge payoff, some kind of relief... and then, FUCK YOUUUUUUUU, we're not gonna give you the satisfaction.
I hear that about the "snake oil salesmanship" aspect, but can you really hold the film responsible for a studio trying to twist it around in marketing to trick people into seeing it? I'm genuinely wondering, because I don't know the answer. They did the same thing with WATCHMEN, SWEENEY TODD, BUG, and from the sounds of things, ADVENTURELAND too, and many people were disgusted and turned away not due to the actual quality of the film, but because people's expectations were disappointed. Is that just cause to dislike a movie?
Do you think you would be up for watching OBSERVE AND REPORT again a bit down the line, now that you know what you're getting into, and perhaps could better appreciate it for what it is (assuming you haven't already, and from the sounds of things, you may well have)? Because as much as I loathed PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE more than any other supposedly-"great" film I have ever seen, I'm planning to do just that one of these days, to watch it again with my previous understanding and see if I can better appreciate it a second time.
Because I find it interesting that you feel "stupid for trusting." See, I'd read the reviews of OBSERVE AND REPORT to know exactly what kind of film it was going in. I wouldn't have seen it otherwise! As such, that's the mindset I went into it with, and it's what kept me through the hold film. I didn't get to experience the feeling of expecting a wacky comedy and slowly having those expectations betrayed. I expected a dark, TAXI DRIVER style movie, and my expectations were happily fulfilled.
part 1
Date: 2009-04-20 06:48 pm (UTC)first off, it doesn't help that i'd just come from having been preached at all day for wanting to see a free flaming lips show.
after hours spent cold and wet, after weeks on a damned tight budget, i just wanted to spend the last of our date cash on some fun lighthearted humor to soften the edges of a quickly fleeting weekend and to up my spirits for another week of drudgery.
i guess the obvious accusation is that i'm a stupid consumer: that if my time and money were so precious, i should've been more cautious and read more reviews (which sadly i hate to do, because i think knowing as little as possible and having as many surprises as possible is one of the most fun parts of the entire experience)... rather than just blindly trusting the familiar faces. well, diminished experience or not, i won't make that mistake again. it's like when the employees abuse their flex hours privileges and no longer can come in casually and/or work from home. the studios, big budget or not, are all now being very closely monitored.
part 2
Date: 2009-04-20 06:48 pm (UTC)see above re: feeling cheated. as for what i wanted, i was open: either a more typical rogen-esque wacky character and some ridiculous humor (comedy can be new and edgy even when it fits the formula... though i'll admit, i got a little of the chuckle i was seeking)... or better yet, as a trade for the comedy, maybe some characters that i actually cared about, fleshed out in more than a 2D way. if i wanted to hang out with stupid losers all day in their full stupid and delusional unredeemable glory, i wouldn't have gone to college and grad school. i'd have just kept my mall job. (no offense to the mall workers among us. my friends at chick fil a and cookie company kept me going, and for that, i love them always and forever.)
i've never seen Funny Games, but i've been to electronic music shows in a tantra-esque slllooooow building genre that does just that. usually a subtle buildup that usually leads to a great release or two... except, at the one particular show i'm thinking of, lots of almost builds, but but never a release, not a single "wow, just took me there" moment. just the void of an epic orgasm that never came. and why? sure, orgasm is easy and simple, and maybe to delay it awhile is fine, so as to achieve a better one, or to bring it from out of nowhere, a special surprise when least expected... but i mean... never at all? them's just blue balls. why? pay money to? waste time for? um, no thanks, had enough of those to last me a lifetime, and i'd rather not waste the precious limited resources on stuff that maybe doesn't promise but at least strongly suggests something that it has absolutely no intention of delivering. i don't see the profundity of that particular point, especially since such holding out isn't particularly original and truly just seems like a cruel taunt, with no real point other than FUUUUUCK YOOOOUUU. which, ooooooo. pat yrself on the back for a HUGE accomplishment, why don't ya? you can send loyal fans and patrons and paying customers home with blue balls. aren't you so freaking clever and awesome. (sorry, clearly i'm still bitter and twitchy, though more so having thought about it all day. i was relatively happier last night, mostly because ty and i were all "wtf"ing about it together.)
again, with adventureland, there was something given in exchange for what was taken away, so i left happy. i'm okay with being challenged or surprised. i'm not okay with being duped or intellectually insulted. that's the difference.
expectations are key, but only somewhat. i saw Taxi Driver knowing nothing, but not expecting a light comedy. with dinero and the iconic "are you talking to me?" line, one expects some dramatic tension. darkness to that extent, maybe not, but still, not a total surprise. not like i thought i was sitting down for a night with the Fockers. i guess that's the difference. in a way, i feel misled by the marketing. i even saw rogen on the daily show or something and still had no sense that this was a dark, twisted, edgy movie. it seems the official marketing for the film intentionally tried to keep this from us.
that said, i'd watch it again as an intellectual pursuit, especially if just to dissect and discuss it. i don't know why i liked PDL the first time, but i did. i guess it's all about the redeeming characters.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-20 01:42 pm (UTC)