Slant Magazine

You are either a fool for missing the significance of this film, or you are a huge narcissist for trying to get attention for being the only one criticizing it. Ironic, eh? Sorry to rant on the review here—but I hate attention seeking reviewers more than anything.

I'm not usually inclined to write in these comments sections, but I felt compelled on this one. Not really because of how strongly I disagree with the your opinion of the film (which I do) but because this review is just so angry. I can't imagine what about this film could make you so upset. And then your response to poor lwalker8 there. Sure he insulted you a little (not as much as the ones on rottentomatoes, though, did you see those? You didn't deserve those comments), but you seem so angry at him too.

I quite liked that the film focused on the banal. It made me feel good and connected that people all over the world seemed like me in many ways I don't take the time to think about during any given day.

But that's beside the point, we clearly disagree on that. I think the issue with your review is not your opinion it's that it's written with so much anger it really doesn't form a coherent thesis as to why the film is bad. Example:

"As a juxtaposed collection of footage, the sequence is both far too obvious in its construction and completely useless." What does that mean? How is a sequence "useless"? And from a strictly grammatical standpoint how is anything "completely useless"—can something be partially useless? Doesn't having no use say enough? In any case, it seems like a strange way to describe a sequence of images that really only exist to have potential context and meaning to an audience not to have "use".

You're biggest grievances seem to be it's banal and that it doesn't take into account enough other points of view, that it is faux-populist. But don't your comments to lwalker8 contradict your desire for true populism? After all if it's populism you're after why are you waiting for the New York critics to validate your opinion of the film?

Oh dear. Half a star?

I think i will have to echo what the others have said here about your review, which appears to have missed the point of the film completely or more precisely seems an exercise in bombastic attention seeking for this publication and its writer. This part of your screed:

'the uncritical narcissism that the film celebrates'

Seems especially ironic.

As to this:

"Second of all, I see films at press screenings several weeks before the reviews are posted..."

This is laughable. The film was screened at Sundance back in the winter and the dozens of critics who saw it then, 'heaped praise' many months ago. Not to mention the dozens more reviews posted weeks before yours. If you failed to read what others said about it, you are either being untruthful or sloppy about doing your job.

Hopefully people will have the good sense to skip over this (so as to not drive up your page hits (*hint, hint*) and/or Rotton Tomatoes changes the weight allocation of this nonsense.

Mr. Schenker,

I think that readers are being far too harsh on you. Your review is opinionated and well written, as any critic's should be. However, I also believe that you are being far too harsh on this film. While the film certainly has its flaws, I think it certainly deserves more than the 1/2 star you gave it, and here's why.

I read your review and it made me think. It made think the way I think after reading a classic piece of literature, critically analyzing themes and structure. Only, this isn't a novel. It's an amalgamation of incredibly random and short clips. As a director, what else can you do except try to assemble the clips in the most coherent manner possible, especially when you didn't film the footage yourself). Because of this, the themes and structure had to be simple (as you state), and I don't think that's a bad thing.

Your critiques and criticisms all make sense. In many senses, you're right. However, throughout your review you work awfully hard and dig very deep to point out flaws in the film without ever appreciating the film's many achievements.

Did you walk into the screening with a pessimistic attitude or something? For example, you responded to Dmetz saying that you cared so little for the scenes and the people in them because MacDonald gave you no reason to care about the subjects or their daily activities (other than the fact that we all eat breakfast and brush our teeth). Well, what was Macdonald supposed to do? Ask everyone in the movie to include a 5 minute bio prior to their introductory scenes? To me, I was INCREDIBLY interested in the lives of everyone featured in the film for the very reason that they were all DIFFERENT people with UNIQUE stories from around the world. As an average American, it was eye-opening to get a glimpse into the lives of people from all over. I'm sorry that you did not find their stories as inherently interesting as I did.

And as for the Afghanistan sequences, I still don't quite understand your dislike for the fact that they were shown in juxtaposition of one another. I don't know what you mean by "the alternation seems created to defy critical analysis," but to me it was simple. straightforward. and effective. Afghanistan is more than just a terrorist state. And being a military wife is hard. I got the message and I was touched, why criticize the scene so harshly?

Most critics pointed out small flaws in their reviews as well, but for the most part, they were able to look past the flaws and appreciate the film for its simultaneous beauty and creativity.

I understand your gripes with this film. And even if you disagree with all of my aforementioned observations, how can you deny the many instances of innate humanness spread throughout the film? How can you deny the numerous naturally funny moments, or the heartwarming tenderness of the elderly couple renewing their vows, or the sheer wonder, beauty, and thrill of watching that lady jump out of a plane and plummet toward the Earth with nothing but a parachute to save her? Lastly, how can you not appreciate what must've been Macdonald's painstaking and creative editing?

For every flaw that this movie has, you must admit that it is ripe with breathtaking imagery, universal themes (love and fear), and moments of earnestness, sadness, and joy. Aren't these the very things which make us human, and the very things that we would hope to experience in a day?

Certainly that warrants more than a mere 1/2 a star.

You know, I don't have a problem with reviewers being "that guy" when it comes to going against the grain. But when a reviewer has to defend their review or argue in the comments section, that's when it show you're not good at your job. You write like a Pitchfork intern on steroids, so addicted to your thesaurus that you make yourself sound better than you actually are. I can highlight a word, hit shift + F7, and sound like the smartest man in the room.

You're never going to convince anyone either that you didn't think about the traffic you'd drum up by being the only negative review. You're never going to convince anyone that the thought didn't cross your mind of "This is the only negative review, so it'll probably stand out and bring more traffic." You're a writer and critic, and it's your job to bring traffic to Slant's website. If you don't do something to drum up traffic, then you're not doing your job.

And what's with being so defensive? Are your feelings hurt because someone is being "libelous" on a message board? Awww, poor guy. If you can't handle being critiqued as a review, maybe you're in the wrong field. Or maybe you should close the comments section if you're afraid of those big, bad internet bullies saying those mean things about you. The internet makes everyone a critic, so deal with it. And I'm not even getting into how the things you say about the people in the movie could be considered libelous as well.

Two more points, and I'm done. First, what's with all the .5 reviews you do? Is every movie you've seen and didn't like really just one of the worst movies ever?

Lastly, any publication offering a giveaway of a Limp Bizkit prize pack needs it's credibility called into question. Anyone who employees a writer who is so self-aggrandizing and is so full of faux intellectualism needs to be questioned even further. Goodness! I better watch myself though. What I'm saying might be libelous!

If i were an alien and the first thing i saw on this planet were raging posts regarding RT aggregate scores and a film review, i'd take it that this world is be a horror-devoid one. You'd never guess that this nation is involved in multiple wars, millions are waging battle against AIDS, or that even more children go to be hungry every night!

That's the thing about opinions: they can change from person to person! Apparently this notion never occurred to those whining commenters over on RT, or the ones on this site for that matter.

* The inclusion of be in the second sentence is a typo, as is the misspelling of bed in the second one.

This movie sucked, and it was refreshing to see that Slant got it for it's misguided route. Who wants to sit through a bunch of people's home movies. What's so special about that particular day? Nothing. At least the short movie "Oops" (2010) has a theme (accidents) and better more captivating editing. On the other hand, I couldn't even sit through this all the way. Nice try crew and editing team. Back to the drawing board, conceptual team. Try less gimmicky.

I apologize for my earlier comment, I prematurely judged you as something you are not—one of the few critics who seek out attention by being the one negative review on a film. These individuals are a disgrace to their profession. And implying that the purpose of a film critic is to generate traffic to a website is quite similar to saying the purpose of a doctor is to make money.

As far you go specifically, you just don't really seem to like anything. And neither do your regular readers—so in that way, it's a great fit!

I won't be able to see this film until it hits home video. (Although, personally, this looks to me like a bet taken too far. A novelty YouTube-based project that belongs... on YouTube, yet currently isn't. And, perhaps, a silly anti-Faces of Death. If you know what I mean. With all the depth of the opening credits sequence from Harold Ramis's remake of Bedazzled or profound affirmations of Sliver. Anyone remember that one? Or its' last line of dialogue? Shockingly appropriate advice I believe some of us—jessiependergrass, in particular—should take.)

But, since I noticed at least a couple of people commenting here mentioned Andrew "didn't seem to like" any of the movies he reviewed, or gave them only .5 stars... I took a few minutes out of this day in my life to click on Andy's name and flip through his reviews to see his record for myself (and yes, jess, I'z dun it wid muh wittuw o keebord 2 sound totes Ntellygent). Between January 9th of this year to July 24th, he gave 2.5 stars to: Mumbai Diaries, Winter in Wartime, 6-7-8, Incendies, Armadillo, Flowers of Evil, Beats, Rhymes & Life: The Travels of A Tribe Called Quest, The Names of Love, Passione, The Last Mountain, and United Red Army. He gave 3 stars to: Bal, Majority, Winter Vacation, The Princess of Montpensier, The Miners' Hymns, Underwater Love, Caterpillar, Tabloid, Sholem Aleichem: Laughing in the Darkness, The Crime, and Louder Than a Bomb. And 3.5 stars to: Attenberg and Extraordinary Stories.

Check them for yourselves.