Japan: A+
Morocco: B
Mexico: C-
Rinko Kikuchi: A+

The Mexico portion was an absolute waste thematically speaking. Aside from the border search scene, the rest of it really contributed nothing whatsoever to the thematic elements of the film, and that was very disappointing. I also found these scenes by far the least engaging of the film. I found the Nanny and her final questioning to be very touching however. I enjoyed that actress.

The Japanese plot was absolutely perfect. The rave scene was brilliant, I tell you. That whole storyline was pitch perfect for me. I think some people were in a way "grossed out" by Kikuchi's character, but I was shocked at how she spoke VOLUMES about her character and yet she spoke not a word in the film. I loved it, to say the least.

The younger son of the child duo who possessed the rifle was surprisingly moving in his final pleas. Actually, this was a very moving moment for me, since he never really respected his older brother before this moment. We see them act very mean toward each other.

B/B+ (still rather undecided - I think I want to catch it again)

All in all, disappointing considering my expectations, but I wouldn't classify this so poorly as some here have. It's certainly a shaky film in some areas, but I think it had a lot of worthy merits as well, hence the B/B+ area grade.

Peace,
Mike.

Okay, if we are breaking down story lines:

Japan: B (until she hands him the letter, and tries to get LIT on us, it was a B+)
Morrocco- C
Mexico- F
Brad- B
Cate- C
Rinko Kikuchi- A

Cate having to pee and Brad making out with her, PRICELESS.

This is one of the very few films that has left me in a weird state of mind. I can't decide if the movie was good or terrible.

On one hand, I was genuinely interested to see what else would happen. On the other hand, I was pretty much only waiting for something to happen. More often than not, nothing happens.

On one hand, I found myself enthralled with Rinko Kikuchi. On the other hand, the Mexican part of the story was just a meandering piece of crap. I waited long and hard for something great to happen, but nothing does happen.

I think the turning point for me, when I realized I was watching a mediocre piece of filmmaking, was when the younger brother smashes the rifle against the rocks. All that was missing was a loud cry of "THIS WAS ALL YOUR FAULT!".

I understand now why people are grading the movie by the three parts of the story. The Japan portion had me interested, but the rest just left me lukewarm at best. I guess it can't be considered a terrible movie, but it's not anything brilliant. Kikuchi deserves any praise the film receives.

Grade: C

The Japanese Girl storyline - A+

Everything else - D+

Outcome - B-

How much you take from the film is completely dependent upon how much you take from the film's theme -- and whether you find that theme (the difficulties of communication and the repercussions of failed communication) provocative or tired.

I didn't necessarily find that theme especially provocative, but the manner in which Gonzalez Inarritu paints subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) characters and moments around whom the film's higher intentions pivot I found fascinating. It left me, for lack of a less cliched term, riveted.

I'm sure there will be debates to come, but I do love this movie and, actually, did not expect to.

A

Another one brainswashed.

I still love it as much as I did two weeks ago

Lay off the weed man, its frying your brain.

I'm frankly a little surprised that Crash haters haven't deemed Babel as the... anti-Crash, if you will.

While I liked Crash, I recognize that it is a very surface film. It's a film about race with no misgivings for a lack of subtlety in confronting race: each story acts as a microcosm for larger issues, and hardly any of said stories require any unpacking.

Babel, on the other hand, tackles a much denser theme -- that miscommunication of words, ideas, and culture begets worldwide conflict -- and works with that theme on two levels in each of its stories (also acting as microcosms): one on a literal level, in which a character literally cannot communicate via his or her words, and another in which a character cannot communicate (or has barriers to communicating) his or her emotional state. While doing so rather loosely, the gun revealed at the end of the story ties together the stories for the sake of the larger issues at play -- that this miscommunication, primarily between cultures, begets misunderstanding and, topically speaking, violence.

I feel like I'm spelling out a lot of things here, and I'm sure a lot of you already get all this and you still don't like the film. That's fine. But I feel like there are others who are screaming "how pointless and dumb!" whose heads this has completely flown over.

Don't lump me into that group. I hated it for all the reasons I previously mentioned and that there was no point to the film.

For me, it's all about how long, pretentious, and overdramatic the movie is. Innaritu stuffs the film with so many scenes of people crying and yelling, and heavy handed cultural scenes, he seems to be asking for people to call his film important and give him Oscars. Oh look, a Morrocan who jacks off to his sister! Hey, Mexicans getting drunk and chasing chickens around! Innaritu is so good at this world scope thing, wow. Oh noes, a man forgot to get his permission when he crossed the border, oh look there he goes storming off into the desert... better have the woman cry in the morning looking for a car, and forget where her children are... bring into an interrogation room, deport her, make her cry more, yeahhhh. Morrocans, what dramatic event can we do with them? Let's make the police shoot at them, we'll kill one of the boys, and the other will smash his gun against the rock while yelling and screaming, yeah! That'll make them cry, it makes our film powerful and important, we're giving out messages about racial communication and how wrong we are about our world. Uh uh an American tourist who got shot, let's make the husband carry her through the town, and then cry for the rest of the movie and yell at the locals about how he needs an ambulance. That's gold sir, gold! By making an interconnecting stories film about 4 random cultural and racial events loosely connected by relation and who bought a gun from who, and giving it a message of communication and how we are so wrong, with all the powerful and dramatic moments we've given the film there's no way they can ignore us!

The "international incident" aspect is pretty much irrelevant because they don't play it up big time. Do you ever watch Fox News? Every time a blonde tourist gets hurt, it's an international incident. Every time a Muslim kills someone, it "could be terrorism." That's forgivable for two reasons: 1. It isn't harped on - it's obscurely mentioned two, maybe three times. and 2. It actually happens all the time, so to claim there is a foul is pretty lame.

It isn't the "too dumb to get it" theory, but rather an observation - that Crash and Babel are very distinct films that deal with the issues in different manners. If you still dislike one or either, that's up to you. DK isn't being pretentious, and his posts have been much more thoughtful and tasteful than most of what has come out of this recent anti-Babel clique.

Good post, but I don't really agree. I don't think there is a way to really make a tapestry/ensemble piece like this without a few contrived coincidences. They kept it to a minimum here - it's not Crash-like in terms of the sheer impossibility of the happenings. It's much more about bringing home a simple message about miscommunication, rather than a nicely packaged discussion on specific relations or something like that. It's a global epic. The discussion is the same, but through vastly different stories. Innaritu probably went over the top - I agree - with making these characters too distinct but nonetheless I think they make for a compelling exploration of the issue. I do understand how some get bored... they are working with a simple thesis and once you get it, you get it... I still appreciate the performances, the varied circumstances of the characters, and how it all managed to come together thematically and technically. It worked out well. It's a very solid film in my opinion.

No, we aren't.

There are is a small police investigation in Japan and a handful of random television remarks. It makes sense. The ONLY aspect that suggests it is something more than a small investigation is some random anchor with a sensationalist headline. It doesn't strike me as being any different from the way things are now, and if anything adds more to the theme of miscommunication. It isn't the focal point - the "international crisis" aspect - imo. It might be the glue between the stories, but it's a mere facet and not the driving force. The only reason it exists is to pull the vignettes together and give the film a sense of completeness, and to reaffirm the epic nature of miscommunication. I think it's a reasonable choice, not some careless error.

Please, show me the way to enlightenment. I really, really appreciate your argument but I think it's going too far. This film is not a classic, so stop trying to ostracize me like I think it's the best thing since sliced bread. I'm just saying, it's a good, well thought out film with a few interesting things on its mind. It isn't so bad, dammit.

For the record, that (in bold) was... pretty much directed at you and loyal.

First half of the movie: C-
Second half of the movie: B
Overall: C+

So then you must be directing the "not getting it" remarks to me. I must be the dumb one who doesn't understand film. Why is it that if there is a film that is as esoteric as they come, pedantic as they come, boring as they come, and pr etentious and pointless as they come, those that like the film have to tell those of that don't how dumb we are?

This ain't going anywhere, so why bother?

I think I should see this again.

I just said that those comments were not directed toward you.

I thought they were directed at loyal.

Well wouldn't ya know it?

I got dragged off to see this movie tonight, after refusing to see it for 3+ months, and damned if it wasn't a piece of crap.

But I'll tell you who's goin' like this --> Grief Junkies. Yup, this is a grief junkie's delight! It's another one of them cross-cultural/cross-temporal mish-mashes, hoping to be as good as the champion of this genre - Crash, but failing as miserably as it's nadir - Traffic...

A director who doesn't have the courage to tell one good story well (and any of these stories would have been a start), ends up hoping to blur the plotlines & timelines sufficiently so most of the audience won't notice how frickin' lazy he is. You need look no further than his previous work - 21 Grams, a movie that attempted to pass off it's trite message by scrambling the sequence of events. But -- Bzzzzt!!! -- he gets caught again, despite trying to gussy this old gray mare up with lipstick and a biblical title - Youch! -- what an amateur; except of course for one thing - the guy knows how to sell himself, what with the awards and all. And acting awards? With a movie like this, it all seems so random -- why should any one of the myriad big name bit players get more attention than any other?

This movie doesn't deserve to be released in the same year as a brilliant masterpiece like Children of Men, let alone be recognized above it. This is a travesty of celluloid, a botched production, a sad, sad distraction...

1 out of 5.

quite true..