It works better as a series of vignettes before delving into its generic, almost hokey, narrative. The bits with Woody showing him the ropes are the best, and although Morton gives it her all, the ill-fated romance drags the entire thing down. It doesn't help that Ben Foster always comes across as a creep, and, thus, those scenes are sleazy rather than poignant. The direction is restrained but the writing certainly is not; at no point does subtlety enter into the conversation. Woody himself is good but not Oscar-worthy; the same can be said of the film itself. Nothing terrible, but nothing particularly memorable, either.

I thought it was a very good film. The subject, casualty notification, is fascinating and dramatized here with intelligence and respect. A big point on which I disagree with trixster is Ben Foster. I adored his performance here; it rests on this strange border between compassionate warmth and live-wire anger, a strange blend of sympathetic and intimidating. I thought Foster nailed the role. And Harrelson was, of course, a delight. He has the best, funniest lines and runs with then. He also delivers in spades when the role calls for wrenching emotion (his reaction to Foster's war story near the end). It's one of his finest performances, without a doubt.

A-

Is there a movie you don't like?

Of course.

Trixster's question was a legitimate one and deserves a more lengthy and elaborate answer.

I'm not going to randomly list films I didn't enjoy. And I'm not going to continue this conversation.

I do not intend to hound or insult you, this is not what I was trying to convey. It simply seems, from the handful of reviews I have seen of yours, that you are very easily satisfied. As the saying goes, you cannot know what you love until you know what you hate. I was curious as to what makes a film "bad" for you?

I do tend to be nice to most movies and don't belabor the point when they're bad. I understand there are people here who are far, far harsher and more discerning. For a film to receive a grade in the A- to B range from me, it needs to have two or three strong performances, two or three memorable scenes, and/or an interesting premise. I felt The Messenger delivered on those counts. If a film excels in those areas and is particularly involving and memorable to me (recent examples: The Ghost Writer, Green Zone), it will receive an A.

I try to use the "judge a film against its best peers" model when considering a movie, i.e. compare a romantic comedy to the best romantic comedies (Annie Hall, for example) and see how it holds up.

And I often write positive comments in this section because I rarely venture out to see movies I don't expect to at least enjoy. I could've blown ten dollars on Our Family Wedding and panned it, but I don't see the point.

As for a couple random recent movies I found disappointing or just plain bad: Nine and 9, Legion, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Confessions of a Shopaholic, G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. And so on and so forth. I'm not sure what insight can be gleaned from this, but there you go. lol

Gunslinger, that actually was an informative post to your, and most likely many posters here, analysis of movies and I appreciate it.

The Messenger is another great entry in the war film genre even if there is no battle occurring. It's an eye-opening film into the life of a war messenger and just the type of tragedy it gets to the receiver but also the messenger himself. Ben Foster gives a solid performance throughout the film but the true winner here is Woody Harrelson who 100% deserved his Oscar nomination for this film. It's one of the most gripping dramas of 2009 and since it is now on DVD, hopefully it can find a wide audience. ***1/2