Um, I gave it a B (which is high for me, and fifth highest ranked movie of the year thus far) before it even got released (went to an advanced screening) and was sitting over at 33% on RT at the time. I get no respect (or readership) around here.

LOL Galia I'm having a great time reading about all these new ideas that you brought up a while back and are sort of getting recognition for it now But Galia I read your reviews and from the movies that I have seen that you recommended you and I have very similar tastes (Ex New World, Matchpoint) But you just see a lot of movies that I haven't seen But i try to read as many of those reviews as I can I'm looking forward to seeing the Cock and Bull story movie, I really liked what you wrote about it and I have a friend who also wants to see it

I disagreed with Bradley on Date Movie and the only movie so far that I really didn't get that you liked was Caché.. the ending was just too off for me and I got angry because i was expecting closure!

Look at the top post

The last time Paul Weitz and Hugh Grant collaborated the end result was 2002's 'About a Boy,' an endearingly biting commentary on one modern man's relationships. It is then a shame to report that their follow-up, 'American Dreamz' is a flat, uninspired attempt at satire.

The jokes consistently fall flat and/or are hate-filled toward the U.S. and sympathetic to the plight of the terrorists. The characters are all one-note, which may have been the director's intention but it doesn't work here because each and every one is wholly unlikeable for one reason or another. The performances of said characters aren't any better with Grant phoning it in as a Simon Cowell-like TV host, Quaid doing a poor impression of Bush, and Mandy Moore reprising a character similar to the one she played in 'Saved' only far less effective. As the conflicted terrorist, Sam Golzari is bland and uninteresting. Willem Dafoe hams it up as Quaid's Chief of Staff, looking mighty odd bald.

On top of all this, the film is poorly paced, seeming to last 3 hours when it actually clocks in at under 2. The ending especially drags on for an indeterminable length.

1.5/5

Where we watching the same movie?

I was thinking the same thing.

Yet another example of the inability of people here to respect the opinions of others.

And yet another example of someone not being able to handle criticism of their opinion here.

Seriously, if you don't want people to question you, don't post on a fucking message board.

Calling what dolcevita said "disrespectful" is inane. All she was looking for was some kind of support for your ridiculous assertion that American Dreamz is sympathetic to terrorists. If not portraying all Muslims like raging lunatics is pro-terrorist, then I guess you're right.

You're being ridiculous. I didn't call you a moron or anything. I was wondering what "pro-terrorist" vision you picked up on, since you didn't actually give some examples, and thats not at all what I got out of the movie. Hence the "Did we see the same movie?" You're just throwing a temper tantrum now because someone actually asked you if you picked up on a different message in the movie than apparently they did, and where you picked it up. For real...

I thought such scenes as when Omer asks his mission leader "You are going to die with me and go to heaven today too?" And the guy says, "Well no. But I"m sure I'll be there in a couple years." That was making quite viscious fun at who the "leaders" are versus who actually blows themselves up. You don't see the big guys out on the front line, and they consider the foot soldiers as expendable as the next guy. That's what i got from that line. I thought when he breaks Omer's mothers records in the beginning that it was a pretty obvious ridicule of extremism, as Omer remembers his mom's love for the music warmly.

In fact, I'm pretty sure there wasn't one moment where "the terrorists" were being depicted ina good light, and ultimately Omer refuses to perpetuate their violence. Remember when he asks how where social responsibility is? Does it help to perpetuate the infliction of pain on others because of one's own past? And then his cousin thinks he's talking about beating Sally is all.

On the contrary, I think you're being pretty juvenile pointing an accusatory finger rather than actually giving an example of why you thought this Dreamz was so slanted.

You're the one who can't handle criticism of opinion. I disagreed with your opinion so you felt the need to validate yours by posting a retort. I never said Dolce was disrespectful. I just said what you quoted, nothing more.

It's pretty obvious the film is slanted. It's pretty clear who Quaid's character was making fun of.

Also, the film tries in vain to make fun of things that will never be funny. Sleeper cells in the U.S. Sorry but I forgot to laugh because you know, that never stops being funny. Weitz said the film was supposed to be a comedy. What's funny about that?

Wait.. what?!?!

I quoted dolce because I agreed with her, and I wanted to know why you felt that way, not because I wasn't not handling criticism. Throwing a temper tantrum like you did is not handling criticism.

And how exactly did you not say she was being disrespectful?

"Yet another example of the inability of people here to respect the opinions of others."

dis·re·spect·ful
adj.
Having or exhibiting a lack of respect; rude and discourteous.

You said there was a lack of ability to respect your opinion, hence, DISRESPECTFUL.

That still doesn't explain how the film is pro-terrorist, but okay.

I didn't throw a tantrum, I made a single comment. A tantrum would seem to imply a torrid of comments. And I don't really care for people basically saying "Well, I don't agree with you so your opinion must be wrong" through such comments as "Did we see the same movie?" which basically says the same thing. If you don't agree with me, explain why in a thorough manner (more than an offhand comment) or better off, just don't say anything at all. It saves time.

Quaid, playing a Bush parody, is a moron so who cares if the terrorists kill him. The film attempted to have its cake and eat it too by making you sympathize with the plight of the Arab contestant but also despise the person he is supposed to kill. In this day and age attempting to sympathize with a terrorist is awfully difficult, to say the least. He's a terrorist not by any act he performed but for the simple fact that he doesn't turn in his comrades back in the training camp, which he could have done.

I didn't like the movie, and I didn't find it very funny, but I had no problem with this. The movie was making fun of terrorists, making them look ridiculous. That doesn't make it pro-terrorism. Yes, Quaid's character was making fun of Bush. Or trying to. I found the parody dull. That doesn't make the movie anti-America.

http://www.themovieboy.com/

He seems to think it's anti-American and I agree. The only person who ends up looking good is an Arab, all the "American" characters are either morons, self-centered, or power-hungry.

Yeah, but that fell flat. Ultimately, it was a warm role. He got up at the end of it and said sometimes so much is wrong in the world he doesn't want to get out of bed, but then he does and tries to work with the situation. That was a redemptative story. I thought the direct references (unlike the other ones that were a bit more steeped in history) were its downfall. But they didn't paint him in a bad light at all. Especially by the end of the movie.



Um, when the Sleeper cells are cushy Orange County mansions with fun loving shop-a-holic cousins who want to do broadway musicals of Grease and a very generous hostess of an aunt, it is funny. Remember part of the story is that once exposed to such a nice "American" lifestyle, how many people are really going to want to give that up. Its about the fact that the entire space or California and the celbrity system are completely a-political in tehf ace of fame.

If you were never going to laugh at the idea of a Sleeper cell (even one where the man obviously doesn't go through with it, and actually turns in his leaders to the police), why did you even go see the movie? Its not like that wasn't the first thing menioned in the summary description of the movie.

Am I the only one that doesn't go to and/or pay to support movies I already know I'm not going to like around here?




What? The President ends up going on fact-finding and peace keeping missions with the first lady! How is that making him look bad?

And by the way, I liked Sally the best!

I didn't pay for it. I snuck in as part of a triple-feature so it didn't get any of my money. As is illustrated by its numbers, not many others bothered to see it either. I saw the movie because I like Moore, Grant, Dafoe, and Quaid along with Weitz's previous movies.

Well, this I agree with. I can see someone not finding the jokes funny. That is different than saying the jokes are anti-America; its just saying they're not funny.

In other news, can we make Dreamz be the next surprise New World length thread?

Perhaps Joe just feels strongly about movies which show one side in a positive light, as with American Dreamz when Omer chooses peace and understanding over violence.

I'm sure Joe will protest just as vehemently about the onesidedness of United 93 when it's released later this week...

Okay, okay - I failed to give you two the recognition you clearly deserve on recognizing this movie's quality. I guess I was in a grumpy mood that day. Though with you, dv, I'm still trying to rebuild trust after your V for Vendettadebacle...

No, I won't likely "protest" because it looks to show the heroism of Americans, something more identifiable than that of the enemy.

Take all the time you need to reconcile our differences. You'll come around to seeing the light sooner or later.

I actually thought the clueless president was endearing, as I said in my mini-review. He was just so out of it and such a pawn that you felt bad for him, even though it was a satire.