1. Summarize the plot in one sentence. The trial of the “masterminds” behind the protests coinciding with the 1968 Democratic National Convention.
2. Who would you take to see this movie? Explain. Anyone hip enough. I think the typical “indie” movie-goer would be attracted because of the animation interspersed with documentary footage – but that shouldn’t discourage anyone else.
3. What impressed you most about this movie? Lots of things. I was worried about the animation, worried the film might be preachy. The animation was actually pretty seamless with the documentary footage. The film appeared to be mostly impartial – there were no overt messages. The music was, as I put it afterwards, bumping. Overall, good choices with regards to the soundtrack and the movie itself was scored well. But, the inclusion of “Kick Out the Jams” on any soundtrack is enough to win me over. The film itself was funny – even when dealing with some very serious issues.
4. What disappointed you most about this movie? The voice-acting was not the best for some characters.
5. One person involved in the production of the film must be given a prestigious award, and one person must be cast into an active volcano. Who should receive each of these fates and why? Whoever was behind the way they switched from the animation to the footage they had should win an award. It was not nearly as distracting as I thought it would be – it actually worked, which I found impressive. Whoever chose to score the scene of police brutality with “Moonlight Becomes You” in a typical indie movie schtick, Michael Moore-esque sequence should be tossed into the volcano.
6. Under what circumstances would you watch this film again? Oh, as usual, I don’t think I would own the film, but it’s certainly one I would seek out to watch again.

Michael’s Review

1. Summarize the plot in one sentence. The trial of the Chicago Seven and the events leading up to it are recounted in a documentary format.
2. Who would you take to see this movie? Explain. I could see this film having pretty broad appeal — for anyone that doesn’t mind the anti-”establishment” presentation. There’s quite a bit to look at and think about, and the story ought to be interesting to anyone, not just documentary fans. I’d take anybody that doesn’t say “ick” after reading my response to question 1.
3. What impressed you most about this movie? The format, definitely the format — a free-wheeling mix of documentary video, grainy 8mm film footage, and CGI animation. I said to Kara as we were leaving that ten minutes into this film I was seriously worried. The weird mix of media initially seemed like a contrivance. But the filmmakers make it work, and work well. The animation stands in for film or video footage that doesn’t exist, yet it has a whimsical stylistic element all its own. I don’t think anything quite like this has ever been done.
4. What disappointed you most about this movie? Setting gratuitous police brutality to “Moonlight Becomes You.” Good God, that pissed me off, especially because the rest of the film skirted pretentiousness so deftly.
5. One person involved in the production of the film must be given a prestigious award, and one person must be cast into an active volcano. Who should receive each of these fates and why? Director Brett Morgen certainly deserves the award in this case, and I’d say he’s likely to receive a few prestigious awards in real life for this effort. The volcano has to go to whichever casting director was responsible for casting the voice actors. I love Hank Azaria as much as anyone else, but his Abbie Hoffman sounds like every Simpsons character with a Northeastern accent ever. And Roy Scheider, may he rest in peace, sounds so comically evil as Judge Hoffman that it’s difficult not to view the judge as more caricature than historical figure.
6. Under what circumstances would you watch this film again? Not much replay value here. I’d watch again with someone who hadn’t seen it, but I wouldn’t buy the DVD or anything.

Ratings

Kara’s Review

1. Summarize the plot in one sentence. A young woman obtains an illegal abortion during the communist regime in Romania.
2. Who would you take to see this movie? Explain. Another woman. I don’t mean to imply that men can’t be moved by this movie, just that a woman watching this movie has – statistically – engaged in sex and chances are she has played over in her head the circumstances that could arise from the act of sex. No sane person can deny that pregnancy affects a woman’s life more than a man’s life.
3. What impressed you most about this movie? The ability to deal graphically with unpleasant subject matter with an unflinching point of view. The camera is ever-present.
4. What disappointed you most about this movie? It was boring. I hate to say this, because the critics have loved this movie, but I found myself yawning in the middle of it. It’s a heavy movie, but it’s not really that interesting. There’s too much focus on people thinking, when the conversations people engage in within the movie are far more compelling and more thought-provoking.
5. One person involved in the production of the film must be given a prestigious award, and one person must be cast into an active volcano. Who should receive each of these fates and why? I don’t know if the prestigious award should go to the actors or the writer, but the dialogue within the movie is really good, really human. There were several scenes where I found myself remembering conversations I had been part of that played out in the same way. The camera-work was at times distracting, too focused on weird angles for no readily apparent reason, so I would throw the person overseeing that into a volcano.
6. Under what circumstances would you watch this film again? If I ever taught sociology or philosophy at a college level, I’d probably bring this film into a special session for discussion. Other than that, I don’t believe this film has much artistic merit.

Michael’s Review

1. Summarize the plot in one sentence. With the help of her roommate, a young student in Ceauşescu’s Romania obtains an illegal abortion.
2. Who would you take to see this movie? Explain. This movie is perfect for the art-house film crowd. The setting is a dark, crumbling vision of Eastern Europe, the subject matter is uncomfortable and politically explosive, the shots are long and sometimes inscrutable, and it’s subtitled in a relatively uncommon language.
3. What impressed you most about this movie? While not being quite like anything I’ve seen before, the film still seems to have a consistent sensibility of its own. I could be crazy, but the closest comparison I can draw is to the work of Takashi Miike (without the gore and supernatural elements, of course). I appreciated the way the story unfolded entirely from the point of view of roommate-protagonist Otilia.
4. What disappointed you most about this movie? When you talk about a film like this one that drips with artistic sensibility, it’s taboo to mention the B-word, but I think I have to invoke it here. At certain points, I’m afraid this film is boring. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not the sort of person that tosses that criticism around a lot — but there were several points at which I wanted a time check. For example: A dinner party takes place in real time, complete with conversations among family members that do very little (nominally, anyway) to further the story the film is trying to tell. Now, I understand why this was done, and it fits perfectly with the director’s vision, but the truth is that it’s boring to watch. I know plenty of excellent films that are totally unpleasant to watch, but there’s a difference between invoking that kind of unpleasantness and boring the audience.
5. One person involved in the production of the film must be given a prestigious award, and one person must be cast into an active volcano. Who should receive each of these fates and why? Anamaria Marinca (Otilia) deserves the award for this one. She is superb, and meshes perfectly with the world created by the film. The people I would really like to throw into the volcano are the critics who are unwilling to accept that this hauntingly beautiful film has any flaws, but that’s not really a fair choice since they aren’t involved with the film. So the volcano goes to the person operating the handheld camera in the nauseatingly shaky scene of Otilia running through dark streets near the end of the film.
6. Under what circumstances would you watch this film again? I’d certainly watch this film again — probably with someone who hadn’t seen it, but I don’t think I’d mind seeing it by myself again either. I keep wondering whether a second viewing would result in me developing a greater appreciation for the film. As it stands, I think it’s a very good piece of cinema, but I seem to have been much less impressed with it than most people.

Ratings

1. Summarize the plot in one sentence. Someone thought a comic remake of the movie 300 was a good idea and, unfortunately, America proved that person right this weekend.
2. Who would you take to see this movie? Explain. I’ll tell you who I wouldn’t take instead: my 7 year old kid. For the love of all that is holy, why do parents think taking their 7 year old kid to this movie is a good idea? Yes, they have the under-developed wit needed to find this movie funny, but that does not mean it’s appropriate to take them.
3. What impressed you most about this movie? They didn’t try to stretch it to an hour and a half.
4. What disappointed you most about this movie? That it was the top movie this weekend. American cinema – please tell me we can do better.
5. One person involved in the production of the film must be given a prestigious award, and one person must be cast into an active volcano. Who should receive each of these fates and why? I want to throw whoever provided the coin for this movie into the volcano. There is not one aspect of this movie for which a prestigious award could be given – the acting isn’t good, the camerawork is awful, the scenes are poorly constructed. It’s just bad.
6. Under what circumstances would you watch this film again? One day, when I’m very old and I lose my hearing and my sight, I wouldn’t be opposed to watching this film. Of course, I wouldn’t be conscious of watching it.

Michael’s Review

1. Summarize the plot in one sentence. In an extended parody of 300, the Spartans fight two battles against the Persians, which wouldn’t take 84 minutes if it wasn’t crammed with stupid pop culture references and crude, unfunny jokes — and if it didn’t contain nearly 20 minutes of closing credits.
2. Who would you take to see this movie? Explain. There is not a person alive on whom I would wish this movie. I like to consider myself a pacifist.
3. What impressed you most about this movie? I enjoyed the ending sequence, where the entire cast joined in a rousing, choreographed rendition of “I Will Survive.” I enjoyed it partly because it reminded me of the musical ending to Blazing Saddles, but mostly because it meant the movie was over.
4. What disappointed you most about this movie? I thought I knew what I was getting into when I bought the ticket for this movie. The ads and previews have sold it as the annual pop-culture parody, so I expected an utterly disposable film — and yet, I was still surprised by just how bad this movie is. It’s the only thing the movie does consistently: badness. But I’m not answering the question here, am I? OK, I would say that my disappointment peaked during the first scene in which the Spartans are on the move, when it became apparent that the entire film had been shot on a soundstage. We’re not talking about a good soundstage, either — props and backgrounds were so atrociously constructed that I was reminded of the third season of Star Trek. You know, the one where they ran out of money. Despite easily being the funniest thing about the film, the filmmakers never played the poor production value for humorous purposes.
5. One person involved in the production of the film must be given a prestigious award, and one person must be cast into an active volcano. Who should receive each of these fates and why? I know I have to actually answer this question, but let me make something clear first: There is not a volcano in the world large enough for this film. Everything about it is horrible. The jokes are unfunny, the pop culture references are banal (the film insults the audience repeatedly by explaining said banal references), the endlessly repeated gay jokes are such straight-faced grade school material that it’s actually embarrassing, and the pacing is torturous. I normally enjoy bad films — I’m frequently the only person in the theater laughing during the latest horror film — but there is nothing to enjoy here. As an example, this film contains, in no particular order: extensive footage of a grown man beating a small child, a Sanjaya Malakar impersonator, a long and unfunny “Yo Momma” battle, and not one but three pixelated celebrity crotches. The rub, however, is that the audience in our theater thought each of the things I just listed was uproariously funny. So writer-directors Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer each deserve an award for knowing exactly what makes teenaged American boys laugh (to the tune of $18 million over opening weekend). Since I can only give the award to one of them, I would have to flip a coin. I would then invite the winner to a gala awards show — at the rim of a volcano.
6. Under what circumstances would you watch this film again? None.

Ratings

1. Summarize the plot in one sentence. The autobiography of a woman growing up within the tumult of revolutions in Iran.
2. Who would you take to see this movie? Explain. An indie friend who wouldn’t laugh at me for crying sometimes, someone who loves graphic novels because they’ll appreciate the medium of the movie.
3. What impressed you most about this movie? The fact that the animation was drawn by hand, not simply computer animation. I haven’t seen an animated movie or a tv-show drawn by hand in recent years.
4. What disappointed you most about this movie? The disjointed nature of the story. I think there are a couple really good reasons for this (author is writing about her childhood and memories are often disjointed, this movie is the trimming down of two graphic novels) but it’s still bothersome.
5. One person involved in the production of the film must be given a prestigious award, and one person must be cast into an active volcano. Who should receive each of these fates and why? Both would go to Marjane Satrapi. It is her drawing and her direction with each of her characters and the scenes that really made the medium of this movie incredible. However, it’s also her editing of the story that creates the disjointed nature of the film. She’s cute though, so I think the prestigious award part wins out, for me.
6. Under what circumstances would you watch this film again? If a friend expressed an interest in going, I’d certainly shell out the money to see it again with them. I’d watch it on tv or dvd if someone asked, but I don’t feel the particular need to own it. I have, however, added the graphic novels to my amazon wishlist.

Michael’s Review

1. Summarize the plot in one sentence. One woman provides her recollections of growing up in Iran, with the early days of the Islamic Revolution as a backdrop.
2. Who would you take to see this movie? Explain. My liberal wacko friends. Seriously, though, this is a fine film that not everyone will enjoy. Stephen Colbert interviewed Marjane Satrapi the other night and raised his concerns that the film might humanize the people in the Middle East. Obviously he was joking, but there are American viewers who will perceive a political agenda in this film (none exists) or who just won’t find it interesting. This is not National Treasure: Book of Secrets, but it is a ride of a completely different kind.
3. What impressed you most about this movie? Definitely the visual style. The filmmakers sought to animate a graphic novel and did so in a manner that is at once incredibly straightforward and incredibly unlike anything that’s been done before. I think the film deserves credit for managing to be almost entirely in black and white without the audience really noticing. Persepolis also stays remarkably light in apparent tone given its subject matter. Maybe that’s why graphic novels are such an effective medium for stories underpinned with violence and despair — there’s something beguiling about the format itself.
4. What disappointed you most about this movie? I think it’s easy to lose track of the fact that this is someone’s personal story, and to expect some easy conclusion to be handed to you, gift-wrapped, at the end of the film. That doesn’t happen with Persepolis. I felt, though, that the film set up some expectations of that sort (I don’t know if that’s particular to the film adaptation, since I haven’t read the graphic novels). It feels a bit as though Satrapi has something to say but won’t come out and say it.
5. One person involved in the production of the film must be given a prestigious award, and one person must be cast into an active volcano. Who should receive each of these fates and why? Obviously, Ms. Satrapi should receive the award. As to the person who should be…er…vulcanized, I nominate whoever decided it would be a good idea to redub this film in English for its full U.S. release. I don’t know the person’s name, but they know who they are. The French voice acting is marvelous, and any foreign language dub is bound to be disappointing — maybe not Toho Films disappointing, but disappointing enough.
6. Under what circumstances would you watch this film again? I don’t think this is the sort of film that has a great deal of replay value — its story is straightforward and its effect on the viewer is marked, even without a second viewing. I would have no hesitation to see it again with someone who hadn’t seen it, and I’d probably be willing to shell out for theater tickets. I don’t feel any need to own the DVD, but if I was the sort of person who buys the complete Criterion Collection I would certainly choose to include this film in my library.

Ratings

I’m attempting to come up with guidelines for reviewing movies, questions we could both answer that manage to incorporate going to see fun movies as well as going to see serious movies. I have a problem with a lot of movie reviews in that they focus too much on plot or on the director or anything else. I don’t care, I just want to know what the gist is.

Here’s my working list of questions:

1. Summarize the plot in one sentence. I stole this idea from an Adolescent Literature class in college. We practiced writing one sentence book summaries as a means of inducing people to read books. It eliminates the bologna and gets to the point. What’s the main drift here, what are we movie go-ers concerned with?
2. Who would you take to see this movie? Explain. This question is meant to create an image of who would see this movie and under what circumstances.
3. What impressed you most about this movie?
4. What disappointed you most about this movie?
5. Comment on the scoring, graphics/cinematography, the ability of the film to draw you in, the length, development of plot, etc… So the reviewer can compliment or insult a wide-range of the artistic elements of the film.
6. Under what circumstances would you watch this film again? (torture, rerun on tv, plan to own it, etc)

Ideally, WoDM and I would both fill this out, and the reader would get two perspectives on the same thing. With a few adaptations, I think this review could be used for books, possibly for albums, and likely for rating outings. We shall see.