Critics Choose Must-Sees and Worsts of 2009

Summary

RT is a great place to connect with other movie lovers, read up on the latest industry news, and stay updated on the hottest upcoming releases, but at the core of it all, what makes RT unique is our focus on the critics. With that in mind, we reached out to some of our friends and asked them to offer us their choices for the one film moviegoers must absolutely see this year, as well as the one film everyone should avoid. Some of the choices reflect what a lot of the awards nominations thus far have demonstrated, and it would seem that there is a relatively clear leader for "Worst Film of 2009." But we won't spoil any of the fun for you; read on to find out what some of RT's distinguished friends picked as the best and worst films of the year! Back to Article

Comments

Sarah E.

Sarah El

I don't think Watchmen is nearly bad enough to be amongst the worst films of the year. Perhaps one of the films with most squandered potential, but the resulting film wasn't bad, just nowhere near as good as its source material. It didn't translate well onto screen, that's for sure, but it still had some good parts (I particularly liked the opening credits sequence), the visuals were very good, and Jackie Earle Haley made a brilliant Rorschach (Jeffery Dean Morgan and Patrick Wilson were also good casting calls, in my opinion, but the rest of the cast either added little or nothing). Overall, I wasn't thrilled at the end of the film - I'd rather go back and read the graphic novel again - and I was disappointed, but I was hardly angry about the quality of the film. It was, simply put, OK.

Dec 30 - 01:32 PM

ColinTheCimmerian

Colin Hay

I kind of look at Watchmen in the opposite way; I think it's great as a companion piece to the comics (and since I'm familiar with the comics, I enjoyed it immensely and thus rate it highly) but I think it has some major problems as a standalone film, which is why I can understand why some people detest it and why it was a commercial failure. I thought it was for the most part well acted and directed, with good action scenes and strong production values, but the story is way too hard to follow for those not already familar with the source material. Multiple flashbacks and extended isolated backstories work fine in comics, but in a film, even a three-hour one, Watchmen's storyline comes off as disjointed, confusing, and poorly paced. I loved it, and I would definitely recommend it to any friends who have read the book, but if they haven't, I would strongly suggest they read it first or not bother. For that reason, it's one of the few movies where I can completely understand it being on both a best-of list and a worst-of list, because depending on one's level of familiarity with the source material, I can see it being perceived as anywhere from super-awesome to super-crappy.

Dec 30 - 02:19 PM

Andrew R.

Andrew Reichel

The critic who dissed Away We Go is an idiot.

Dec 30 - 01:36 PM

Alexson Philip

Alexson Philipiah

harry potter 6 was my best so far and tramsformers 2 was my worst and dissapointing.

Dec 30 - 01:41 PM

minderbinder

anonymous anonymous

Glad to see Transformers get called out. The success of those two movies makes me lose faith in the taste of the moviegoing public.

Dec 30 - 01:46 PM

Ponykillr

Joshua Donaldson

For all those who apologize for the incredibly stupid plot/action/acting by claiming dramatic license in regards to The Hurt Locker:

The writer, Mark Boal said of the film's goal, "The idea is that it's the first movie about the Iraq War that purports to show the experience of the soldiers. We wanted to show the kinds of things that soldiers go through that you can't see on CNN, and I don't mean that in a censorship-conspiracy way. I just mean the news doesn't actually put photographers in with units that are this elite."

As an expert on the matter I can honestly say he failed.

Dec 30 - 01:57 PM

TombstoneLawDog

Daniel Klein

Best I can say on an anonymous website is that I respect your disatisfaction with the movie. Worst I can saw is that I came away from the movie believing people who do that job have to have a certain frame of mind and that the job itself is periods of tense inaction followed by periods of excrutiating excitement with the potential for death and/or absurd physical/psychological damage. Beyond that, I assumed a fair amount of license on the technical aspects. I also expect that somewhere out there in the military, there is actually a type of thrill-junkie who needs that sort of life.

I am curious to know (if it's a simple answer) what exactly they got wrong.

Dec 30 - 02:06 PM

Ponykillr

Joshua Donaldson

A few of the blatant wrongs:

Three man teams running around Iraq like undisciplined cowboys, mixing of missions (EOD/Snipers/Infantry/Special Forces/CSI/%u2026.), gross lack of military knowledge/regimen, unbelievable characters, unbelievable situations, alcoholic binge drinking, unbelievable level of PTSD, etc.

In short the whole film screams ignorance on the part of the writer and director. The fact that it has been so well received is evidence of a gross ignorance of the general public and film critics.

You can't purport to portray accurate drama about Iraq and then blatantly lie and embellish to the point of ridiculousness. I would go further to say The Hurt Locker is a disrespect to the countless factual accounts of actual events in Iraq. With the plethora of real dramatic events to portray, the writer and director choose to create fantastic absurdities and pass them off as dramatic plausibility.

I frankly was embarrassed to sit through the movie beside friends who have no practical experience of Iraq besides my accurate descriptions. The movie is a disservice to those who really fight and does nothing but further civilian misconceptions about what is and what is not in regards to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Dec 30 - 02:36 PM

Nine Oh Two

joe schmoe

Let me start of by saying, ingenious avatar. Looks like a cross between Bush and Obama. If only people knew how similar they are...

Anyways, I thought it was obvious that the movie was imbelishing in some parts, but I still respected what it was trying to do - give us a glimpse into the life of the people so many take for granted. I thought the few parts that actually stayed true to the subject matter worked well. And the last shot was pretty damn powerful imo.

A lot can be said about the inaccuracies of The Hurt Locker, but for that matter, how many movies about war are that accurate? I can only think of one war movie that was filmed by a person who was involved in the war, Platoon(one of my faves btw). As far as movies about the middle east go, was this one really that bad?

Dec 30 - 02:56 PM

Ponykillr

Joshua Donaldson

Agreed. I understand that all war movies have embellishments, or any movie based on real life for that matter. I also respect what The Hurt Locker is trying to do. There is little doubt of the intentions of the writer and director. Intent is quite different than effect though, and in this case the effect is very different than the stated intentions of both the writer and director.

My major complaint is the unwavering admiration of the film for its "accurate" portrayal of the life of a combatant in Iraq. This is where the film is a major failure. Thus when you make a movie, say, Flight 93 (which shares the same cinematographer) and then proceed to embellish the story to the point of stupidity, it cheapens to film and disrespects the subject matter.

If a hypothetical Flight 93 movie combined scenes from Top Gun, Iron Eagle and Flight of the Navigator, and then pitched itself as an accurate depiction of the events onboard flight 93 on 9/11, you most likely could understand my frustrations if critics tried to give it a best picture nod.

Dec 30 - 03:15 PM

Nine Oh Two

joe schmoe

Yeah, I could see how it might be offensive. In a few of those scenes I kinda sat back in my chair and started scratching my head. I wasn't involved in the war but a lot of the parts in that movie seemed blatantly false, like they were trying to amp up the dramatic effect. Black Hawk Down never really got awards consideration, and that movie seemed more deserving IMO.

Dec 30 - 03:58 PM

manwithoutfear19

Daniel Raimondi

nice avatar

Dec 30 - 05:47 PM

Lion O

Larry Oliver

Ponykillr, I agree with your criticisms of The Hurt Locker. As a watched the film, I had to question the actions of the main characters (esp. Renner's cowboy bomb specialist) It looked like several of his actions should have resulted in serious disciplinary action. In particular the scene near the end, where the trio run off into the city, chasing a phantom bomber. The drinking scene, while a really good depiction of male bonding, also rang false. How are these guys gonna function the next day if they're all hung over?
I decided to see the film due to all the critics claiming it's greatness, however I thought it was good, not great. There are so few Iraq War films that when one is good, everyone praises it too much.

Jan 2 - 04:01 PM

Gordon Franklin Terry Sr

Gordon Terry

dude,
as I said yesterday I'm 38 and thus 8 years out of the 12-30 moviegoer age bracket--all of these films seem boring to me to some degree.

AVATAR . . . we HAD to buy our tickets five days in advance for IMAX

INGLORIOUS BASTERDS . . . the film that got both JEWS and GERMANS to laugh about serious past hurts.

THE BLIND SIDE . . .the heart is surely in the right place.
and
SANDRA BOLLOCK . . . BEST ACTRESS for a entire career of good and memorable performances . . . even though I rarely see the movies Ms. Bullock stars in;
but that makes her all the better actor . . . an actor well-known enough to impress people who rarely see her films!!!!!


SPEED, with Sandra Bullock: I saw that and SPEED is awesome . . . in the movies but on PAN & SCAN TV SPEED stinks.

Its very difficult to imagine a WORST FILM . . . each film is good on its own terms--somebody loves every film no matter how bad we think it is.

but AVATAR must be THE MOST WELL-CRAFTED FILM . . . $200,000,000.00 million widely spent dollars will almost guarantee a BEST PICTURE

Dec 30 - 02:01 PM

ColinTheCimmerian

Colin Hay

@Tombstone: I don't think anyone has (or should) describe you as a 'hater' in the sense of the word you mean. I can't speak for Sputnik, but I don't think his comment was directed towards you. I'm also a defender of Transformers 2, and like Sputnik I get annoyed when people incessantly bash it (or any movie for that matter) without giving any justification for their opinion. Since you did, I don't think anyone can hold your hatred for the movie against you.

Personally, I wasn't bothered by the inconsistencies you describe because I didn't think anything was cemented strongly enough in the first movie for any 'rules' to have been broken by the second, but that's just my interpretation. I felt that both movies had an almost identical set of pros and cons, but that the magnitude of each aspect, good and bad, was amplified in the second. I enjoyed the first one because I felt the positives of the action, special effects, (good) comedic moments, and general cool factor outweighed the negatives of the plot holes, logical inconsistencies, irritating/unnecessary characters/scenes, (poor) comedic moments, disjointed story, and awkward fight scene cinemataography. In my opinion, the second movie had the same strong action, SFX, cool factor and (sometimes) good comedy going for it, just more of it, and also had the same story and logic issues, unnecessary characters and scenes and poor comedy working against it, again, just in greater quantities. However, I thought there was a marked improvement in the way the melee combat scenes were filmed (wide angle shots with more striking and less indescernibly jumbled grappling) which made the action much more enjoyable and thus gave the positives a larger edge over the negatives. For that reason I actually liked the second movie more.

I think most everyone can agree what the strengths and weaknesses of the movie are, where we tend to disagree is in how much those strengths and weaknesses affect our enjoyment of the film, and how they balance out. For me, the positives outweigh the negatives; for you, it's clearly the other way around. You are not a hater and I am not a fanboy, we just have different perspectives, and if more people around here come to understand that, I think we'll see less of those words thrown around.

Dec 30 - 02:02 PM

Josh C.

Josh Crawford

Ok, ColinTheCimmerian. You want justification for smack-talk?

DOGS HUMPING EACH OTHER.

ROBOTS. WITH BALLS.

MEGAN FOX'S ACTING. (KILL ME NOW)

MICHAEL BAY.

Need any more reasons? I got plenty. And so does everyone else. They just don't feel like wasting their time talking about how crappy it was. Fortunately, I do, and I have enough insults to make up for everyone who hated it.

Dec 30 - 02:51 PM

TombstoneLawDog

Daniel Klein

Best I can say on an anonymous website is that I respect your disatisfaction with the movie. Worst I can saw is that I came away from the movie believing people who do that job have to have a certain frame of mind and that the job itself is periods of tense inaction followed by periods of excrutiating excitement with the potential for death and/or absurd physical/psychological damage. Beyond that, I assumed a fair amount of license on the technical aspects. I also expect that somewhere out there in the military, there is actually a type of thrill-junkie who needs that sort of life.

I am curious to know (if it's a simple answer) what exactly they got wrong.

Dec 30 - 02:06 PM

Ponykillr

Joshua Donaldson

A few of the blatant wrongs:

Three man teams running around Iraq like undisciplined cowboys, mixing of missions (EOD/Snipers/Infantry/Special Forces/CSI/%u2026.), gross lack of military knowledge/regimen, unbelievable characters, unbelievable situations, alcoholic binge drinking, unbelievable level of PTSD, etc.

In short the whole film screams ignorance on the part of the writer and director. The fact that it has been so well received is evidence of a gross ignorance of the general public and film critics.

You can't purport to portray accurate drama about Iraq and then blatantly lie and embellish to the point of ridiculousness. I would go further to say The Hurt Locker is a disrespect to the countless factual accounts of actual events in Iraq. With the plethora of real dramatic events to portray, the writer and director choose to create fantastic absurdities and pass them off as dramatic plausibility.

I frankly was embarrassed to sit through the movie beside friends who have no practical experience of Iraq besides my accurate descriptions. The movie is a disservice to those who really fight and does nothing but further civilian misconceptions about what is and what is not in regards to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Dec 30 - 02:36 PM

Nine Oh Two

joe schmoe

Let me start of by saying, ingenious avatar. Looks like a cross between Bush and Obama. If only people knew how similar they are...

Anyways, I thought it was obvious that the movie was imbelishing in some parts, but I still respected what it was trying to do - give us a glimpse into the life of the people so many take for granted. I thought the few parts that actually stayed true to the subject matter worked well. And the last shot was pretty damn powerful imo.

A lot can be said about the inaccuracies of The Hurt Locker, but for that matter, how many movies about war are that accurate? I can only think of one war movie that was filmed by a person who was involved in the war, Platoon(one of my faves btw). As far as movies about the middle east go, was this one really that bad?

Dec 30 - 02:56 PM

Ponykillr

Joshua Donaldson

Agreed. I understand that all war movies have embellishments, or any movie based on real life for that matter. I also respect what The Hurt Locker is trying to do. There is little doubt of the intentions of the writer and director. Intent is quite different than effect though, and in this case the effect is very different than the stated intentions of both the writer and director.

My major complaint is the unwavering admiration of the film for its "accurate" portrayal of the life of a combatant in Iraq. This is where the film is a major failure. Thus when you make a movie, say, Flight 93 (which shares the same cinematographer) and then proceed to embellish the story to the point of stupidity, it cheapens to film and disrespects the subject matter.

If a hypothetical Flight 93 movie combined scenes from Top Gun, Iron Eagle and Flight of the Navigator, and then pitched itself as an accurate depiction of the events onboard flight 93 on 9/11, you most likely could understand my frustrations if critics tried to give it a best picture nod.

Dec 30 - 03:15 PM

Nine Oh Two

joe schmoe

Yeah, I could see how it might be offensive. In a few of those scenes I kinda sat back in my chair and started scratching my head. I wasn't involved in the war but a lot of the parts in that movie seemed blatantly false, like they were trying to amp up the dramatic effect. Black Hawk Down never really got awards consideration, and that movie seemed more deserving IMO.

Dec 30 - 03:58 PM

manwithoutfear19

Daniel Raimondi

nice avatar

Dec 30 - 05:47 PM

Lion O

Larry Oliver

Ponykillr, I agree with your criticisms of The Hurt Locker. As a watched the film, I had to question the actions of the main characters (esp. Renner's cowboy bomb specialist) It looked like several of his actions should have resulted in serious disciplinary action. In particular the scene near the end, where the trio run off into the city, chasing a phantom bomber. The drinking scene, while a really good depiction of male bonding, also rang false. How are these guys gonna function the next day if they're all hung over?
I decided to see the film due to all the critics claiming it's greatness, however I thought it was good, not great. There are so few Iraq War films that when one is good, everyone praises it too much.

Jan 2 - 04:01 PM

Brandon D.

Brandon Douglas

saw 500 days of summer great my 5 fav films of the year are
1. Avatar
2.(500) days of summer
3. Inglorious Basterds
4.The Hangover
5. Up
Runner up Star Trek

Dec 30 - 02:12 PM

ColinTheCimmerian

Colin Hay

I kind of look at Watchmen in the opposite way; I think it's great as a companion piece to the comics (and since I'm familiar with the comics, I enjoyed it immensely and thus rate it highly) but I think it has some major problems as a standalone film, which is why I can understand why some people detest it and why it was a commercial failure. I thought it was for the most part well acted and directed, with good action scenes and strong production values, but the story is way too hard to follow for those not already familar with the source material. Multiple flashbacks and extended isolated backstories work fine in comics, but in a film, even a three-hour one, Watchmen's storyline comes off as disjointed, confusing, and poorly paced. I loved it, and I would definitely recommend it to any friends who have read the book, but if they haven't, I would strongly suggest they read it first or not bother. For that reason, it's one of the few movies where I can completely understand it being on both a best-of list and a worst-of list, because depending on one's level of familiarity with the source material, I can see it being perceived as anywhere from super-awesome to super-crappy.

Dec 30 - 02:19 PM

dcarver1991

Dylan Carver

AWAY WE GO as the worst movie of the year. You've got to be kidding me. What are you on.

Dec 30 - 02:22 PM

Ponykillr

Joshua Donaldson

A few of the blatant wrongs:

Three man teams running around Iraq like undisciplined cowboys, mixing of missions (EOD/Snipers/Infantry/Special Forces/CSI/%u2026.), gross lack of military knowledge/regimen, unbelievable characters, unbelievable situations, alcoholic binge drinking, unbelievable level of PTSD, etc.

In short the whole film screams ignorance on the part of the writer and director. The fact that it has been so well received is evidence of a gross ignorance of the general public and film critics.

You can't purport to portray accurate drama about Iraq and then blatantly lie and embellish to the point of ridiculousness. I would go further to say The Hurt Locker is a disrespect to the countless factual accounts of actual events in Iraq. With the plethora of real dramatic events to portray, the writer and director choose to create fantastic absurdities and pass them off as dramatic plausibility.

I frankly was embarrassed to sit through the movie beside friends who have no practical experience of Iraq besides my accurate descriptions. The movie is a disservice to those who really fight and does nothing but further civilian misconceptions about what is and what is not in regards to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Dec 30 - 02:36 PM

Nine Oh Two

joe schmoe

Let me start of by saying, ingenious avatar. Looks like a cross between Bush and Obama. If only people knew how similar they are...

Anyways, I thought it was obvious that the movie was imbelishing in some parts, but I still respected what it was trying to do - give us a glimpse into the life of the people so many take for granted. I thought the few parts that actually stayed true to the subject matter worked well. And the last shot was pretty damn powerful imo.

A lot can be said about the inaccuracies of The Hurt Locker, but for that matter, how many movies about war are that accurate? I can only think of one war movie that was filmed by a person who was involved in the war, Platoon(one of my faves btw). As far as movies about the middle east go, was this one really that bad?

Dec 30 - 02:56 PM

Ponykillr

Joshua Donaldson

Agreed. I understand that all war movies have embellishments, or any movie based on real life for that matter. I also respect what The Hurt Locker is trying to do. There is little doubt of the intentions of the writer and director. Intent is quite different than effect though, and in this case the effect is very different than the stated intentions of both the writer and director.

My major complaint is the unwavering admiration of the film for its "accurate" portrayal of the life of a combatant in Iraq. This is where the film is a major failure. Thus when you make a movie, say, Flight 93 (which shares the same cinematographer) and then proceed to embellish the story to the point of stupidity, it cheapens to film and disrespects the subject matter.

If a hypothetical Flight 93 movie combined scenes from Top Gun, Iron Eagle and Flight of the Navigator, and then pitched itself as an accurate depiction of the events onboard flight 93 on 9/11, you most likely could understand my frustrations if critics tried to give it a best picture nod.

Dec 30 - 03:15 PM

Nine Oh Two

joe schmoe

Yeah, I could see how it might be offensive. In a few of those scenes I kinda sat back in my chair and started scratching my head. I wasn't involved in the war but a lot of the parts in that movie seemed blatantly false, like they were trying to amp up the dramatic effect. Black Hawk Down never really got awards consideration, and that movie seemed more deserving IMO.

Dec 30 - 03:58 PM

manwithoutfear19

Daniel Raimondi

nice avatar

Dec 30 - 05:47 PM

Lion O

Larry Oliver

Ponykillr, I agree with your criticisms of The Hurt Locker. As a watched the film, I had to question the actions of the main characters (esp. Renner's cowboy bomb specialist) It looked like several of his actions should have resulted in serious disciplinary action. In particular the scene near the end, where the trio run off into the city, chasing a phantom bomber. The drinking scene, while a really good depiction of male bonding, also rang false. How are these guys gonna function the next day if they're all hung over?
I decided to see the film due to all the critics claiming it's greatness, however I thought it was good, not great. There are so few Iraq War films that when one is good, everyone praises it too much.

Jan 2 - 04:01 PM

Ponykillr

Joshua Donaldson

I did however like the cinematography and Jeremy Renner's acting. But good acting and cinematography are a standard for good movies not the defining characteristics. Without a good plot, story and characters a film is simply bad. Hence the criticism of Avitar; great visuals but an empty movie in terms of story.

Dec 30 - 02:44 PM

Josh C.

Josh Crawford

I seriously don't know what the heck is wrong with some of you people. The Hurt Locker is absolutely one of the best movies of the year, if not the decade. Get over it, you war-hating hippies. It was outstanding.

Love the hate for All About Steve :)

But Transformers II? Come on, people! That should have been at the bottom of EVERYONE'S LIST! IT WAS WAAAAAAAAY WORSE THAN STEVE!!

Dec 30 - 02:45 PM

Josh C.

Josh Crawford

Ok, ColinTheCimmerian. You want justification for smack-talk?

DOGS HUMPING EACH OTHER.

ROBOTS. WITH BALLS.

MEGAN FOX'S ACTING. (KILL ME NOW)

MICHAEL BAY.

Need any more reasons? I got plenty. And so does everyone else. They just don't feel like wasting their time talking about how crappy it was. Fortunately, I do, and I have enough insults to make up for everyone who hated it.

Dec 30 - 02:51 PM

Nine Oh Two

joe schmoe

Let me start of by saying, ingenious avatar. Looks like a cross between Bush and Obama. If only people knew how similar they are...

Anyways, I thought it was obvious that the movie was imbelishing in some parts, but I still respected what it was trying to do - give us a glimpse into the life of the people so many take for granted. I thought the few parts that actually stayed true to the subject matter worked well. And the last shot was pretty damn powerful imo.

A lot can be said about the inaccuracies of The Hurt Locker, but for that matter, how many movies about war are that accurate? I can only think of one war movie that was filmed by a person who was involved in the war, Platoon(one of my faves btw). As far as movies about the middle east go, was this one really that bad?

Dec 30 - 02:56 PM

Ponykillr

Joshua Donaldson

Agreed. I understand that all war movies have embellishments, or any movie based on real life for that matter. I also respect what The Hurt Locker is trying to do. There is little doubt of the intentions of the writer and director. Intent is quite different than effect though, and in this case the effect is very different than the stated intentions of both the writer and director.

My major complaint is the unwavering admiration of the film for its "accurate" portrayal of the life of a combatant in Iraq. This is where the film is a major failure. Thus when you make a movie, say, Flight 93 (which shares the same cinematographer) and then proceed to embellish the story to the point of stupidity, it cheapens to film and disrespects the subject matter.

If a hypothetical Flight 93 movie combined scenes from Top Gun, Iron Eagle and Flight of the Navigator, and then pitched itself as an accurate depiction of the events onboard flight 93 on 9/11, you most likely could understand my frustrations if critics tried to give it a best picture nod.

Dec 30 - 03:15 PM

Nine Oh Two

joe schmoe

Yeah, I could see how it might be offensive. In a few of those scenes I kinda sat back in my chair and started scratching my head. I wasn't involved in the war but a lot of the parts in that movie seemed blatantly false, like they were trying to amp up the dramatic effect. Black Hawk Down never really got awards consideration, and that movie seemed more deserving IMO.

Dec 30 - 03:58 PM

manwithoutfear19

Daniel Raimondi

nice avatar

Dec 30 - 05:47 PM

DieHard23

Jared Levinson

Favourite: either district 9 or star trek both great sci fi/ action films
surprised district 9 wasn't up there

Least favourite: all about steve, nough said

Dec 30 - 03:12 PM

DieHard23

Jared Levinson

Favourite: either district 9 or star trek both great sci fi/ action films
surprised district 9 wasn't up there

Least favourite: all about steve, nough said

Dec 30 - 03:13 PM

Shmelldoc

Kellen Woods

dude i have never posted in these forums... until now... your arrogance and disrespect for others is shameful. do you get a kick out of knowing that everyone who reads your posts is disgusted, and in turn hates whatever/whoever you are? stop acting like your some type of aristocratic movie buff whose opinion is absolute. i totally get your "steez" though. you purposefully make these outrageous comments, cast them into the forum, and wait for someone to bite. congratulations sir! you did it! everyone dislikes you... mission accomplished? i guess. if thats what it takes for you to feel acknowledged

Dec 30 - 03:15 PM

Ponykillr

Joshua Donaldson

Agreed. I understand that all war movies have embellishments, or any movie based on real life for that matter. I also respect what The Hurt Locker is trying to do. There is little doubt of the intentions of the writer and director. Intent is quite different than effect though, and in this case the effect is very different than the stated intentions of both the writer and director.

My major complaint is the unwavering admiration of the film for its "accurate" portrayal of the life of a combatant in Iraq. This is where the film is a major failure. Thus when you make a movie, say, Flight 93 (which shares the same cinematographer) and then proceed to embellish the story to the point of stupidity, it cheapens to film and disrespects the subject matter.

If a hypothetical Flight 93 movie combined scenes from Top Gun, Iron Eagle and Flight of the Navigator, and then pitched itself as an accurate depiction of the events onboard flight 93 on 9/11, you most likely could understand my frustrations if critics tried to give it a best picture nod.

Dec 30 - 03:15 PM

Nine Oh Two

joe schmoe

Yeah, I could see how it might be offensive. In a few of those scenes I kinda sat back in my chair and started scratching my head. I wasn't involved in the war but a lot of the parts in that movie seemed blatantly false, like they were trying to amp up the dramatic effect. Black Hawk Down never really got awards consideration, and that movie seemed more deserving IMO.

Dec 30 - 03:58 PM

manwithoutfear19

Daniel Raimondi

nice avatar

Dec 30 - 05:47 PM

What's Hot On RT

Box Office
Box Office

Planet Of The Apes Is No. 1

<em>Unbroken</em>
Unbroken

Trailer for Angelina Jolie's latest

<em>The Hunger Games</em>
The Hunger Games

New Mockingjay teaser trailer

<em>Jimi</em> Trailer
Jimi Trailer

Clips: Andre 3000 plays Hendrix!

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile