Transformers 2 or: How To Tell If Your Brain Has an Off Switch

I saw Transformers 2 at the first midnight show Wednesday. I had hoped to write this review before the weekend. But in true lazy-ass fashion, I neglected to adequately warn you of the impending doom represented by this movie. And because I failed in my duty, Michael Bay sailed to a $200 million opening week. And with that, my hopes of ridding myself of the Cinematic Ambivalence disease were irrevocably damaged.

Now that I've gotten over the melodrama, let's talk about why this movie sucked.

My feelings about TF2 were pretty much summed up in my initial tweet after the viewing.

"That was simultaneously one of the best and one of the worst movies I've ever seen."

I did enjoy parts of the movie. Whenever Optimus Prime started kicking ass, I was on the edge of my seat like everyone else. This movie does deliver on the overabundance of giant robot mayhem that was sorely missing from the first movie. But instead of canceling out the horrible schlock that filled in the rest of this movie, it somehow served to make me revile it even more. Because the simple fact is, if anyone gave a shit about this being a good movie, it could've been amazing.

Instead, what was clear to me is that no one was trying to make a good movie. They were trying to make a movie that would make as much money as possible. And the best way to do that is to make a movie that no one will dislike. That's a pretty important distinction and it's the real reason I would be pretty nervous if I ever get the chance to make movies with Hollywood types. You see my logic goes something like this:

If you make the best movie possible with the best talent you can get, then everyone will like it and it'll make a ton of money.

I know, sounds reasonable right? But here's how the logic actually works in Hollywood when it comes to Summer Blockbusters:

If we get people to turn off their brains and enjoy themselves for a few hours they'll thank us for giving them a diversion. All we have to do is follow the tried and true formulas, put some big spectacles in it and throw in some hot stars. Everyone will think it's awesome because they can't remember anything that they disliked about it!

And Transformers 2 delivers on that idea better than any movie in recent memory. This movie contains more overdone cliches and hackneyed plot devices than anything in my darkest nightmares. And furthermore, it's headlined by 2 of the worst, most throwaway "movie stars" to ever demand multi-million dollar paychecks in exchange for pretending to be likable.

Let's take a walk through this train wreck shall we?

Sam (Shia LeBeouff) and Mikaela (Megan Fox) are still together. Because only a harrowing adventure featuring giant robot aliens could make Megan Fox forget that she is way out of LeBeouff's league. Yep, you've gotta be the savior of mankind to have a shot with this chick. The camera spends so much time on closeups of her cleavage that I had flashbacks of nursing.

Sam's mom is a cutout caricature of the zany mom who goes through split-second mood swings with "hilarious" results. "Oh boo hoo, my wittle boy is off to college." * switch * "I don't care of they are giant space robots, tell them to stop blowing up my flower garden" And that's before she innocently inhales an entire bag of weed-laced brownies. Then things really get "fun." Don't even get me started on the stupid, over-sexed, pseudo-geek roommate, or the fact that even John Turturro buys into this stupid sidekick nonsense. In the late 80's early 90's, this routine would've been pure gold. As it is, it made me pray for Megan Fox to show up again. At least she's nice to look at and doesn't talk half as much.

The super macho marines return in this installment to continue shooting metal aliens with regular bullets like it has any effect whatsoever. At least we didn't have to hear more about Tyrese's left butt cheek. And they're joined by the uptight bureaucrat that knows nothing about what's happening but doesn't let that stop him from making terrible decisions. But what's even more mind-blowing is that Bay and the writers of this film would have us believe that America's leaders are arrogant enough to speak for the entire world! "The President may determine that you're a threat to our national security. And you would then be asked to leave our planet." Hey buddy, can we put it to a democratic vote on whether we'd like to keep the benevolent aliens who have saved our asses once already? As a matter of fact, fuck off and let Optimus and the crew stay in Switzerland or something. Good grief.

The Autobots in the first movie were bland caricatures at best and blatant stereotypes at worst ("What's crackin' little bitches?" Yes, that actually happened) And because we let them get away with that least time, those lovable guys are replaced by the worst robotic minstrel show since, well... ever. Introducing Skids and Mudflap. Along with black stereotypical accents ("Who you talkin' to fool?"), these two bumbling knuckleheads come with gold teeth and big ears to boot (remember they can change their shape at will, they CHOSE to look like this). And they top it off by claiming proudly that they "don't do too much reading." And to add insult to injury, they are extremely incompetent and the most ineffectual at protecting the humans in the movie. Even though that's all they are supposed to do. Even Bumblebee smacks them around and he has always been the runt of the group.


I honestly don't really care about the so-called racism these characters represent. White people won't stop doing this until we stop showing them that we like it (I'm looking at you Tyler Perry). It bothers me more that they chose to go with outdated stereotypes. At least stay current! I can't remember the last time I heard a black person say "I'mma bust a cap in yo ass." Get T.I. to do the voices or something. Oh wait, he's in prison for doing something monumentally stupid. Get Lil Wayne then. At least let him advise on the current state of black slang before making your $200 million movie.

I would comment on the inane plot of this movie. But honestly, I don't even remember it. Apparently there's this old Deceptacon who's more badass than Megatron and the only person who can stop him is Optimus Prime. World hangs in the balance, yada yada yada. I would've been perfectly fine with it except for the fact that they spent waaaay to much time talking about it. This movie was 2 and half hours long. You can cram in all the action, crude humor, slow motion boob shots and sad, over-dramatic death scenes you want. You're still only gonna end up with an hour and a half. And the rest of it is spent explaining in great detail why Sam has been chosen to revive Optimus Prime and save the world. Only it's the worst excuse for a coherent plot you can imagine.

• Optimus Prime is a descendant of the ancient Primes who once ruled their entire race. How do giant robots have kids? How come there's only one left? Meh, whatever.
• One of the pyramids in Egypt contains an ancient alien death machine. How did the decades of study by scientists miss this fun factoid? Meh, whatever.
• There is a special key that activates the machine and it was sealed away long ago. Why seal it? Why not destroy it and the machine? Meh, whatever.
  
• If the Autobots are the good guys and knew about all this, how come they didn't give us a heads up? That's an easy one. Cause then there wouldn't be a sequel! Oh, and because they smartly crammed all of their historical knowledge in the magic cube that was destroyed in the first movie. Nice move Sherlock.

You know I could go on about what was wrong with this sorry excuse for a movie. But it would only result in my fingers cramping and my soul dying a little more with each passing minute. Plus it doesn't matter, because you liked it. You thought it was awesome. Because you found that little switch in the back of your brain that let's you enjoy this drivel without thinking too hard about it. That is truly a gift my friend. Cherish it. I have yet to receive this gift and so I'll continue to lose brain cells with each passing summer. Can't wait for G.I. Joe!

THE Review is in... Roger Ebert on Terminator Salvation

So... today I am excited for this movie.

Roger Ebert:
Terminator Salvation ** (2 stars)
'Anyway, most of the running time is occupied by action sequences, chase sequences, motorcycle sequences, plow-truck sequences, helicopter sequences, fighter-plane sequences, towering android sequences and fistfights. It gives you all the pleasure of a video game without the bother of having to play it.'

Yes, Yes.Y.E.S. Earlier in the review he guesstimates it to be about 90% action by volume. Maybe this will be the all-out action and destruction Terminator movie I have been waiting for 20 years to see.
I have been trying not to get my hopes up for this movie as I was afraid that they would do 2 things: hold back on the action and add a tedious story to make us sit through (see Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines).
Even with a 40% on RT, all of the reviews keep washing those fears away. The ones that are bad consistently say that it is because of a lack of story, all that say it is good say that the action sequences are mind-blowing. I guess we will know in about 14 hours.

Note: For those who don't know, I love Roger Ebert. Granted I don't always agree with his reviews but they do make it easy to decipher what the movie is like and whether or not I will like it. Suffice it to say, T:S sounds like a movie I will enjoy.

I Just Know McG Is Gonna Screw Me On This One

Me: dude, Terminator tomorrow

Calfman: yeah, has a whole 25% on RT
Calfman: 2 to 6 though
Calfman: so it isnt all that true yet

Me: kinda nervous about it

Calfman: meh, you wont like it, I will
Calfman: all action, no story

Since This Went Unsaid...

I wasn't really excited for Star Trek, looking back, I'm not sure why. I should have been. It was very good. Go see it. :)

note: I back dated this post so it will be in chronological order for the release of all this summer's movies. A full review may appear here at some point as well.

Expectations: Wolverine, the Appetizer of This Year's Summer Blockbusters

To follow up on Marco's post: I also saw Wolverine at the midnight show. Not the same theater as Marco. And had a totally different, yet very similar reaction. I know, no surprise there.

I have to say that, once again, this is a movie that is only enjoyable if you know what to expect. If you go into it expecting a gore-filled slash-a-thon with Wolverine mowing down baddies with all but minimal resistance, it won't live up. However it was what I was expecting, watered-down and all.

The point of Wolverine is not to be the be-all end-all Wolverine movie. The point is to get asses in seats, money in pockets, and just not actively disappoint people. My expectation going into this movie was pretty low and that it would be what it was: same tone/intensity as the 3 previous X-Men movies, pulled punches on the gore/blood and overblown action sequences that give more weight to scale and being bombastic than technical proficiency and realism.

Now, I think there is something to be said for viewing and reviewing all movies in a vacuum, judging it against all films, and for its lasting appeal and delivery on its potential. In fact, I respect Marco's opinions for this reason. It is the review that looks at things from a distant perspective: When someone watches this movie 30 years from now, will it be what it could or should have been?

I personally tend toward reviewing the full experience of a movie, the zeitgeist if you will. In this context, I deliver the following review:

Wolverine was what I expected, no more, no less. And I liked it because of this. The best part of the experience though, was the Terminator Salvation trailer beforehand.

The last line of that simple review holds the key to my expectations and similarities to Marco's reaction: To me, Wolverine was destined to be a piece of trash, not awesome, not mind-blowing, but instead a forgettable lead-in to the Summer Blockbusters to come.

Right now, I would say that Wolverine was enjoyable. On the other end of the summer, after being visually thrashed by Transformers 2 and having my soul crushed by the bleak world envisioned in Terminator Salvation I may have a different opinion of Wolverine, if I even remember it happened.

Wolverine: Destined To Suck

I saw Wolverine at a midnight show on Thursday. Despite what that implies, I wasn't that excited about it. In fact, I was pretty sure it was going to be a watered down, poorly written mess of a movie with underwhelming special effects to boot. My cinematic ambivalence was once again justified. The actual reasons I went to the midnight show are best saved for another post.

But I had to think for a bit before writing about the movie. What do I want to say about it other than it pretty much sucks? Well, I decided to talk about why it was destined to suck all along.

Movies like Wolverine, X-Men and Iron Man are required to have a PG-13 rating. I use the word "required" on purpose and I'll explain why. These movies have pretty big budgets. I'm calling anything over $80 million big, because that means the movie has to do very well to recoup the cost. With that in mind, I'm gonna take a stand and say it's damn near impossible for an R-rated movie to make that money back. There are still a lot of theaters that actually enforce the Restricted rating and there are still a lot of parents that forbid their children to see these films. And the sad fact is, if your movie has a large budget, but doesn't get a certain percentage of teenagers or younger children, you're toast.

Just think about the scene at your local theater at any given time. If it's packed, there's probably a pretty high percentage of teenagers or parents with multiple kids. If there's a low turnout of teenagers or kids, there's probably a low turnout of... everybody. The Underage are the bread and butter of big budget hollywood. Plain and simple.

So back to Wolverine. Why does it need to be R-rated? Why will it never work as PG-13? Because unlike a lot of other popular comics, the Wolverine comic itself is gloriously R-rated. In the comic, people are dismembered, decapitated and otherwise dispatched on a regular basis. There are buckets of blood. Or at least they were in the comics I remember (and still own). But this is in contrast to the X-Men comic and other places where Wolverine makes an appearance. These are your usual family friendly affairs. Instead of gutting a foe, Wolvie will cut down a light pole and let it fall on them or he'll miss the kill swing and kick them into a wall instead. Still cool, but definitely censored.

This is perfectly acceptable for Spiderman or Iron Man. But, Marvel knows better than to do this with the Wolverine comic. They created a classic anti-hero character with Logan. He's tough, a man of few words, takes shit from nobody and backs up his talk with decisive action. And then they made him more badass by giving him 2 key weapons.

1. Indestructible metal blades that can cut through anything
2. The ability to take any amount of physical abuse we can imagine.
   

When they took stock of their creation, they understood that Wolverine is an engine of violence. And not the wimpy violence that the other comic book heroes depend on. Stunning eye-beams, freeze rays, magnetism. Sure these are cool to look at, and I'd take any one of em if god were giving out random super powers. But they don't deliver the same level of morbidly satisfying mayhem as Adamantium Claws. Couple that with the healing factor. A power you can only showcase in one way: by beating the ever-loving piss out of Hugh Jackman. I'm picturing John McClane at the end of Die Hard, only in the next scene he's looking a bit better, and in the scene after that, he's back in tip top shape and kicking ass again. Basically, to capture what makes him appealing, the Wolverine movie should be the superhero version of Fight Club.

So what did they give us instead?

• Hugh Jackman's Wolverine smiles more than I do. Fail.
• Instead of slashing through torsos like butter, he stabs everybody... in the shoulder. And the claws come out squeaky clean every time. Fail.
• A truckload of giant timber logs falls on top of him, and they don't even do us the courtesy of giving him the trickle of blood down the forehead. Let alone showing us what we expected. The twisted, broken bones that will heal momentarily with really cool effects. Fail.
• A man does get decapitated. And we don't even get to see the bloody stump or the death grimace on the disembodied head. Fail.
  
• Only computer generated claws. Fail. (Having undeniably real steel blades strapped to Jackman's hands would've done a lot to placate me. Even if all he did was peel an apple or something)
• Adamantium bullets? Wielded by an old white dude wearing a tie? W... T... F.
  

So how do you make a good PG-13 Wolverine movie? I have no idea. Because frankly, I can't imagine one that would deliver the carnage that the character embodies.

Observe and Report: Why Rape Isn't Always An Outrage

Okay, maybe it should be. But I wanted to take a second to respond to Dan's post on the rape seen in the movie Observe and Report. The summary is that "rape in any form is not okay, and it's not okay the way treat it in this movie".

So before I respond, let me say I haven't seen the movie. I want to see it because I'm a fan of Seth Rogen and that genre of comedy usually.

As for this argument about the rape scene, I generally agree that the subject isn't given the weight that it deserves. But I'm not sure if condemning a movie like this is the right course of action. I'm reminded of a comment by Kevin Smith on his dvd "An Evening with Kevin Smith". He's a college campus talking to the students. And this occurs during a question and answer session.

A lesbian student asks a scathing question about the treatment of lesbians in the Smith movie "Chasing Amy". Essentially the student is upset that one of the characters implies that all a lesbian needs is to have good sex with a man once and that'll "straighten them out". Or something to that effect, but with more expletives. The scene is a derogatory treatment of lesbianism as an abberation that needs to be fixed instead of a personal choice that should be accepted.

Smith didn't shy from the question and his response was illuminating. He says of course no sane intelligent person would subscribe to that view. And that's why the sentiment comes out of the mouth of one of the most asinine, degenerate characters in the film. You're not supposed to think that this is how the filmmaker really feels. You're not even supposed to take it as a comment by society at large. You're supposed to understand that this is the mindset of the ignorant. You're supposed to understand that these are people we can chuckle at and dismiss. Not people who have a real voice in the diatribe of our society. And a director who chooses comedy as his medium for art, can take the license to present these hard societal questions in a way that at least gets a laugh.

I agree with that sentiment. It's the same as a slasher horror film that has stupid, sexed-up teenagers being decapitated. Nobody accuses the director or actors of being murderers or not giving the act of murder it's proper weight (at least not anymore, it was a big deal in the 70s). And everyone realizes that we're not supposed to agree with what the killer's doing. But you can still get a kick out of seeing the heads roll.

The same is true of O&R. From everything I've seen in the trailer, nobody in that movie should be counted on to produce anything resembling deep social commentary. They're not roll models. The guy who commits the crime in the film, played by Seth Rogen, is supposed to be an authority figure. Yet he is taunting a trauma victim about how she's the suspect will definitely come back and murder her. He is abusing his position of authority (as a mall security guard) to obstruct a police investigation, in an attempt to win points with said victim. He is roping in his equally ignorant comrades who are the epitome of negative stereotype. How can we be surrounded by absurdity and be okay with it, but pick out one certain scene and say "no, that's too serious." Give me a break.

So I'm actually kind of irritated by this whole curfuffle around O&R. It's just a movie. And a comedy at that. It shouldn't be responsible for taking the lead in our discourse about real rape and the way it's treated in our society. How about we spend a tick lamenting the fact that everyone on both sides seems to agree that Anna Faris does a "great job" playing a stupid, ignorant, druggie, alcoholic bitch. Why is that acceptable entertainment?

There are many things wrong with our society. But let's not focus on a comedy movie as the perpetrator of all of our woes. If you don't think it's right, don't go see it, and they'll probably stop making movies like it.

Slumdog Millionaire: The Reason We Love Movies

Slumdog Millionaire is amazing. I'm sitting here watching the 81st Annual Academy Awards and hoping that Slumdog wins every category it's in. I just saw it yesterday and it changed my entire outlook on this year's movies.

Yesterday I went to a special theater event where they showed all of the Academy Awards Best Picture Nominees back to back. The line up went like this.

1. Milk
2. The Reader
3. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
4. Slumdog Millionaire
5. Frost/Nixon

Almost 14 hours in total, it was a long day. You really have to be a film lover to sit still for that long and let someone tell you their story. I am in fact a film lover, but even I was a little groggy after the first 2 Movies. Remember these are Best Picture nominees. That requires them to be heavy and thought provoking by definition. They're supposed to weigh heavily on you. And they certainly took a toll, whether I thought they were excellent or not.

We took a big break in the middle because we had already seen Benjamin Button. And then came the clear gem of the evening. I've been hearing nothing but acclaim for Slumdog Millionaire for months. But I honestly had no desire to see it until some time in January when I read a short synopsis. Even the pitch to this movie is compelling. My paraphrasing:

A boy from the slums of Mumbai, India manages to land on that country's version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. He's one question away from winning it all, when he is arrested for suspicion of cheating. Now he must convince his accusers that his whole life has shown him the answers, and led him to this moment...

I know right! You're kind of intrigued now too right. I went into it with almost no information and no expectations. And I was blown away. This movie was tremendous. It does almost everything right, and I only say "almost" in a vain attempt to try and retain a bit of my natural cynicism.

I want you to see this movie so much, I'm going to refrain from giving out spoilers. Instead I'll just talk about what you'll love about it, and hope that convinces you to see it. If it wins Best Picture tonight (and it should) then you'll certainly be able to catch it in theaters.

You'll love the characters

We watch the 2 brothers, Jamal and Salim, grow from young boys to young men. They are played by 3 different actors each and all are great. The fact that they all keep the same consistent character is astounding. You can't help but love with these boys while watching their adventures around India and the way they stick together through it. The poop scene, the Latika rescue scene, so many others. You really believe in them, you fear for them when they're in danger, and you feel elated when they triumph.

You'll love the story

The stories in Slumdog have been told for centuries. Two brothers, one on the wrong path. A young man chasing after his great love. And the reason they are always retold is that we love them. They are the stories we can always relate to. But recently I've found that it's harder and harder for these movies to hit pay dirt. Every time you see them, they get a little older, a little more familiar. And it's only a short hop from familiar to cliché.

The talent of a great filmmaker is that they can revitalize these tried and true tales. We want to see them again. But we want them to feel new. Slumdog pulls this off beautifully. Taking the story to India allows it to present so many new things. It introduces new set pieces that you're not used to. In some cases it's pretty jarring, like when the young brothers are picked up by an "orphanage" that turns out not to be such a safe haven. While watching your favorite story, you're also being exposed to a new world. And so Slumdog achieves what's become more difficult to do these days. It's gives us something that's "The same thing, only different."

You'll care how it ends

This was the clincher for me. This has been my primary complaint with many of the movies I've watched for the past 5 or more years. Hollywood is losing us on the ending. You know how it goes. You've watching a pretty good movie for the last hour and half, and then you're hit with the "twist". Somehow it has become a matter of course in Hollywood that people need some kind of unexpected turn to be interested in a film's ending. But when that ending turns out to be stupid or predictable or just plain uninteresting, you leave the movie feeling dissatisfied. Let down. Taken for a ride. A ride that cost $8-$12 depending on where you live.

Slumdog Millionaire combats this with 2 very simple methods.

1. You know the climax from the start of the movie
2. The entire movie is spent making you care about the climax

In fact, even if you haven't seen the movie, you know the climax right now. Jamal is one question away from winning 20,000,000 rupees ($402,257.11 US) with the final question on Who Wants to be a Millionaire. Will the authorities let Jamal play? And if so, will he win? The entire movie leads up to these answers, and by the end, you are at the edge of your seat in anticipation. Everything pulls you in and makes you root for the underdog. But the amazing thing is, I think I would've been just as satisfied whether the ending was happy or tragic.

That is the mark of a great film. And as of about 30 minutes ago, Slumdog Millionaire is the best film of the year 2008. Go see it. You won't be disappointed.

Benjamin Button: It doesn't matter if it's just like Forrest Gump

I had a very interesting conversation thread about Benjamin Button with some friends of mine. I think it's interesting, so here it is pretty much verbatim. It started with forwarding a link from http://www.pajiba.com. The author of the post agrees with me.

Me:

Check it out. http://www.pajiba.com/the-curious-case-of-forrest-gump.htm

I said this exact thing when I came out of Benjamin Button. It's basically Forrest Gump with Brad Pitt. Still good, it just feels a little wrong.

Brad:

The only similarity that I saw in that movie to Forrest Gump is that he does a lot of things in his life. That is pretty much where it ends in similarity. There are two reasons it seemed similar. First, and most obviously, is that it came from Hollywood. Enough said there. Second, it is because both of those movies deal with situations that happen to pretty much everybody. Who knows someone who has been to a war? Had a crush on girl in school? Had a parent pass away? Jumped from job to job? Sure, you might not have worked on a tug boat or walked funny as a kid, but the underlying message is the same. In fact, the fact that is seemed so familiar is one of points of the movie and/or short story in my opinion.

Also, some of the images in that video are comparing apples to oranges. Forrest Gump was in the war, and the scene from Benjamin Button wasn't even him...it was the clock maker's son. And they compared Bubba Gump (a friend) to the guy who was essentially Benjamin Button's adopted father.

I personally think this movie was one of the best movies I have seen in a very long time. If you look past the surface and think about what it is saying overall, there are some really good things in there.

Aniyia:

I agree with brad. I already had this debate with marco :) (sent from my iphone)

Me:

I think you're both nuts. I'm not talking about the theme of the movie. I know it's supposed to paint a broad picture, and that you're supposed to identify with a lot of the situations. But I'm saying this dude used the exact same devices in two movies to do that. You guys might not be aware but the same dude wrote both screenplays. And anyway you look at it, there is no excuse as a writer for using the exact same plot devices in the exact same way.

In fact, I think this video didn't do a good enough job of pointing out the similarities. The Bubba character in Ben Button wasn't the step father dude, it was the pygmy dude. They got that wrong. And a few other things struck me. Why is it that you have to introduce a deus ex machina that makes the protagonist independently wealthy before he can have his major catharsis? Either your drunken father figure buys stock in Apple for you or your real, absentee father has a change of heart and leaves you his million dollar business. And obviously you don't care about the money. You've got better things to do like run around and be a bum (either running cross country or traveling the world like a vagabond). Seriously?

Like I said, I enjoyed both movies. But that is to be expected, because they are the same. That dude needs to get some new material. Or in about 8-10 years we will see Shia LaBeouf in the exact same story. And nobody wants that.

Brad:

I still don't buy it. The fact that the same guy wrote similar screenplays doesn't mean that he needs to get new ideas. It just means that the same stuff still plays 14 years later and people still eat it up. I don't hear people complaining when every zombie movie out there ends up like every other zombie movie. Same reason....it came from Hollywood.

But I will compromise....there are similar scenes in both movies. But that is because they changed too much stuff from the 1921 version, and that is the screenwriter's fault. So if you are going to say the movies are the same based on visual similarities, then maybe. Other than that, they are pretty dissimilar....at least to me. Then again, I might be getting stuff from the movie and stuff from the short story mixed up.

Kelly:

What's weird to me is the Benjamin Button movie was adapted from the short story by Fitzgerald but after reading the story, the movie does seem quite a bit more like Forrest Gump than it seems like the actual story it is based upon.

You can read the entire short story here: http://www.readbookonline.net/read/690/10628/

Aniyia:

It strays quite a bit from the short story. But hey, they had to find a way to make it three hours long!

Brad:

So then maybe I am biased because I already knew the short story beforehand and went in looking for similarities between it and the movie.

Of course, now I if I watch it again, I will see more similarities between the two movies because they have been pointed out to me. So I am damned either way. I will just stick with the book.

Kelly:

Really though, couldn't they have stuck closer to the short story and just had the movie be 2 hours?

Not that I didn't love the movie. But I didn't realize how much it strayed from the original story and towards a Forrest Gump-esque tale.

What I think is interesting is that everyone involved in this conversation liked the movie. I admit to liking it less after further rumination. But that doesn't matter. I came out satisfied and recommended it to people. I'll probably buy the DVD. What this means to me is that we're doomed to get served the same things that have worked in the past, instead of what's fresh and new. Because we don't really mind that much.