heh, is that going to be quoted like ten times?

He will explain it in his mini-review.

Okay, here's the moment you've all been waiting for, haha.
Doubt: 9.5- Doubt, directed and written by John Patrick Stanley is a thrilling and compelling tale about a nun's (Meryl Streep) cynicism and her distrust of a priest (Philip Seymour Hoffman). The story takes place in 1964, focused around Sister Aloysius Beauvier, a principal and nun at St. Nicholas catholic school in the Bronx. The priest Brendan Flynn is a new age, light hearted man who is friendly to Sister Aloysius' students. However when he calls one of the students out of sister James' classroom to a private meeting, Sister Aloysius' becomes suspicious of his actions. From there the plot becomes a swirling entanglement of broadly spoken confrontations, dangerous accusations, and unending stubborness on behalf of Sister Aloysius'. Sister James becomes trapped in the middle of it, and has to fight with her instincts that seem to take Sister Aloysius' side, and her heart that wants to trust Father Flynn. Eventually Sister Aloysius' also involves the supposed victims mother, Mrs. Miller, by trying to make her as untrusting of Father Flynn as she is.
The plot provides for a suspenseful set up of certainty, doubt, instinct, trust, and especially right vs. wrong. The writing provides a lot of symbolism and metaphors, however most of these are not really subtle, they are just there for a more powerful way of speaking than simply stating fact. The script also includes rare moments where religion meets society, the way Mrs. Miller handles Father Flynn, is one example, or the approach of Frosty the Snowman by sister Aloysius is another. However the focus is whether doubt or certainty is the proper course of action. The film suggests neither, allowing for the audience to decide. The ending sequence with Sister Aloysius finally questioning herself makes these characters multi-dimensional beyond what they almost were, and provides for some serious insight into this running theme.
However the writing and titular theme are not the key parts to the movie. This is an actors piece to its' very soul, and never allows you to forget it. Meryl Streep deserves yet another best actress nomination for her shockingly in depth portrayal of the b word who turns out to be far more human than she lets on. Amy Adams does an excellent job with her emotional and yet balanced display of the innocent Sister James. Philip Seymour Hoffman does not give his best work, but comes close with a more emotional than usual character, who wants to change things for the better, however struggles with his inner nature. However I've been saving best for last, which is Viola Davis, giving a stunning and astonishing performance as Mrs. Miller. The entire movie is incredibly enjoyable, however the first 70 minutes or so lull a little, that is until Mrs. Miller shows up and totally changes the scheme of the film. Davis' 10 minute performance delivers perhaps the greatest ten minute scene in film history as the indescribably complex character of Mrs. Miller takes on a shocking color in describing her motives and behavior. I won't give away the story, however I will say that she really brings to the forefront the idea of what is right and wrong. She also hints at a very interesting character twist for her son, and Davis' ability to sink so throughly into the emotionally charged circumstance of Mrs. Miller truly transcends almost anything I have ever watched. This character is so utterly convincing that I almost believed I had met her and she was describing her mortifying circumstances to me personally. Also, her inability to convince Sister Aloysius to alter her course provides for an even more in depth analysis of the theme.
Doubt not only provides for an engaging thrilling study of human nature and societal behavior, it also creates some of the most emotional and realistic characters ever put in front of a camera.

Hope that clarifies my points, it is a pretty emphatic review (you should see my opinions on No Country For Old Men) but even if you disagree I hope you at least see where I'm coming from.

Interesting ideas...

But, like the rest, i just can't see where you are coming from with Davis' scene being the best in movie history. I thought she did a fine job for the amount of time she had and threw some more "logs onto the fire", but it was hardly a scene that i will remember in 10 years or even probably after Oscar season.

Overall, it is a well made movie with interesting themes and ideas, but i have a hard time seeing how people can love this movie. I gave it a straight up B+, but most of that grade comes from the acting. If everyone hadn't given such a powerhouse performance this thing would have fell flat.

It is interesting to see someone with such a love for acting. I personally consider acting as the icing on the cake that either makes the actual cake a little better or worse.

well in reality I have a passion for anything I see done particularly well, if you heard me talk about Aaron Sorkin you would assume I have a love for writing, or the directing of the Coen Brothers, so and so forth. In this circumstance it was Davis and the rest of the cast that defined the film, so it's them that I praised. I guess I just got a different impression from Davis, but my brother walked out saying the same thing, that was the dynamic shift of the film, and a defining piece of acting made all the more shocking since she was the only name that I did not know in a key role before walking into the theater.

I Doubt this movie is any good

This is the first ChipMunky post that ever made me a) laugh out loud and b) completely summed up a movie.

Bravo.

That's the same kind of misguided logic that made fools like Berardinelli think they could become film critics.

Film knowledge is a lot more important than passion or use of a thesaurus (which, btw, does not make a good writer). You wouldn't make a guy with no literature knowledge a book critic. Why is film so different?

haha thanks for the encouragement. He was just trying to reassure a young kid who's giving it a shot, you're doing the opposite.

Wow, yeah, seriously... wtf dude? I wasjust trying to say that i started off knowing nothing and have grown into knowing quite a bit today. To start off, all you need are those things, but over time, you will acquire the rest of the tools that make a great film critic.

Even I think trixster's gone too far here - - and I'm a cranky old grump...



(BTW, I used my trusty Roget's Thesaurus to confirm that there was no better word choice than "grump" for my purposes here.)

As harsh as it may be, trixster is right.

I think the key word here is good, as in "good review". Sure, anyone can write something about a movie with the skills Leader of the Pack described above, but to write something interesting or truly "good", it takes a fairly extensive knowledge of film and - in my view - art as a whole. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try and mess around with it until you have a ridiculous encyclopedic knowledge of the form, but the principle idea behind trixster's comment is true.

Yea that's a more true statement. Unless I read wrong I don't think Benjamin is applying for a job in the Chicago Tribune or something tomorrow, he's just writing his opinion on the movie and trying out a review. Trixster's comment is true for professional critics and what not, I just think it doesn't fit to this situation. If he's legitimately saying people without film knowledge shouldn't write reviews or blurbs on here or in general... well then he's just a very very wrong cocksucker who you should ignore

Anyways Benji, as long as you're seeking out films more and more as you age and enjoying the craft as we all do, all the power to you! We all start somewhere. The poster above me once called Saw one of the greatest movies ever

True fact.

Like I said, you shouldn't take what trixster said as "if you don't know anything now, don't bother at all". We all start somewhere, and we all learn what makes movies good. And it can take a long time. Believe it or not, no one was sitting there in middle school extolling the virtues of Tarkovsky's cinema to their 13-year old peers, and anyone that tries to tell you they were is full of shit.

With that said, this isn't an excuse to rest on your laurels. When someone calls you out for saying or writing something stupid about a movie, take it and try and learn from it. Try and engage them in a conversation about it. Don't plug your ears and scream "IT'S JUST MY OPINION!!!!!" over and over.

haha thanks for all the advice everyone. Having any opinions of the mini-review? I would love some feedback from you experienced critics *winks*

Well I would have paragraphs for one

Also never been a fan of plot explanation. For professional critics its there because a lot of their readers read written reviews to decide to see a movie or not and need to know plot details. But otherwise meh. Though I guess it's not bad to practice, regardless yea use the paragraphs so if we want to we can skip it right away if we want.

Indeed... I think i have such different taste is because of this stubborn idea that i have. Now i know Trixter and Makeshift will 100% disagree with me most likely, but i like to think it will work.

My whole deal is i have not and do not watch any old classic movies. Most all critics today go on and on about how movies today almost never as good as they were decades ago. That is because that is what they grew up with and formed their opinion that, that is how movies should be.

I am trying to be different by basing my opinions off of the films i have grown up with. Most all of my film knowledge comes from the movies of the 90's to today. This gives me a totally different viewpoint than most critics. Like i said earlier, i know it is extremely stubborn, but this is how i feel i can stand out in a sea of ordinary critics. So far, thanks to decent writing skills, it has worked well for me.

I think you just killed trixster

Jesus Christ.

All I meant was that it takes more than "passion and a thesaurus", as LOTP put it, to write a good review. It takes a true knowledge of cinema, and that's something that comes with watching more movies (especially old movies) and reading about them. You can't just watch every single piece of shit that gets released these days and expect to have an encyclopedic knowledge of film. Like it or not, you need to watch the classic stuff.

But I wasn't trying to insult anyone, directly or indirectly, except for Berardinelli, and we all know he deserves it.

Trix, you generalize a lot. It applies to certain films, films of art, films that need to be put in perspective. case in point (for instance) - L.A. Confidential. It is very benifitial to know what the film noir genre is, to know which film has started it, which has ended the classic noir and so on and so on.

But imagine writing a review on Disaster Movie. How much cinematic knowledge do you need there?

Well, Disaster Movie doesn't exactly qualify as cinema, so I'd say very little.

Film in general, though, is not meant to be merely a form of entertainment. It is an art, and there is good and bad art within it, and it takes knowledge to write about both. You have to be able to say why Disaster Movie fails as a film while something else succeeds, more than just the obligatory "it sucks" or "it rocks".

But as a good reviewer....would you really go into in-depth dead-serious elaboration on why Disaster Movie is actually not good? Because I doubt that's a review most people would like to read. A good review should depend on the film it is reviewing and for something like Epic Movie or Meet the Spartans you can't just go on writing how the acting is not up to par with Mel Brooks' early works of parody and so on and so on. Because the only thing crossing my mind as a reader while reading this would be: "No shit, Sherlock".

I think there are many different ways to critque a movie and your personal prefrence is the New York Times style. Most people who read reviews aren't wanting some in depth message on how it works as art. Most are just wanting to know whether or not it is worth their time and if it is, what makes it so.

Sure, i haven't seen all the old stuff, but through all the films i have watched over the years i can pick out the smaller pieces that make a movie great or bad. That doesn't make me a bad critic, just one you would not listen to.

You and the rest of the snobs can have your enlightening critiques, but i'm quite content with providing amusing summaries and insights for my humble college readers.

Well, I don't mean a good review should constantly be referencing films of the past, just that there is a general sense that the reviewer knows what he's talking about. There can be a highly negative review of Disaster Movie that still sucks because the reviewer is clueless.

As I implied, though, this is all largely moot. Disaster Movie doesn't really deserve to be mentioned next to the word "good" at all.

For the medium as a whole, no, but some, actually the vast majority of widely released North American ones, and for the vast majority of viewers, entertainment is the #1 and only goal. That's why even Disaster Movie it's hard to call 'bad'... it's bad on a film art level and that's inarguable... as entertainment and only entertainment, to the 5 Disaster Movie fans, they have their case