Upon reading Bob Grimm's review of the film The Book of Eli ("Bible Bump," Cinema, Jan. 21), I found myself distracted by his biases. The first thing that stood out was the blatant distaste on Grimm's part for any film that dares to include the Bible as an important part of the story. Apparently, one cannot mention anything relating to Christian doctrine without evoking comparisons to the latest blockhead televangelist or producer of low-budget "gospel movies."
Grimm's credibility as a film critic comes into question when such distractions overshadow the actual information. It gets a bit old and comes across as juvenile when movie critiques begin to function as blogs. Where's the professionalism?
Speaking of professionalism, it might have helped Grimm's case had he mentioned the fact that Pat Robertson, while an insensitive and unreasoned man at times, made his ridiculous quip during a fundraiser for Haiti, which no doubt raised more money for the cause than most of us could hope to ever raise ourselves. Perhaps Grimm would do well to recognize the irony in giving the thumbs-up to movie blood and violence, but the wag of the finger to Kirk Cameron, who at least has the courage to admit that a morality not only exists, but that it should be adhered to.
If Eli had been a Quran- or Bhagavad-Gita-touting hero, I wonder how the critique might have changed.
I get it after reading a couple of paragraphs and one or two reviews: You're angry about Peter Jackson's flick ("The Year in Film," Jan. 28).
Reading you for the first time that I can remember, I now feel hesitant to read any of your future pieces, as your obsessive takes on and references to The Lovely Bones were frustrating, at best. I believe you can get your point across with out ruining your article.
The sight of the military's bigoted leadership—which tramples cultures and slaughters innocents—being overpowered by an empathic connection with spiritual people was inspiring in Avatar.
It's that same tyrannical attitude that promotes hatred and violence among us at home (as well as abroad and beyond), and that's the irony in the Jan. 28 issue. I can see even without 3-D glasses that a desire for harmony, understanding and respect for our differences is the point of the Pride supplement.
When Bob Grimm became one of the main movie reviewers for the Weekly, I almost completely stopped reading the movie reviews, which I used to enjoy. His assessments are so obviously lacking in depth and creative analysis. He generally fails to recognize any real intelligence in the films he reviews. While he tries to feign having an intellectual perspective, he would be better off writing, "Dude, it was a pretty cool movie. The chick sucked, though."
I always look with hope to see the name DiGiovanna at the top of a review. I offer my own film-review services to see if I fare any better.
Regarding Grimm's recent review of Avatar ("Full Avatar Review!" The Range, Dec. 28, 2009): The plot is not completely original, but the setting is, and the visual component of telling this story is so impacting that it catapults the whole experience into something awe-inspiring. This movie goes somewhere beyond meaningful by reiterating a theme we have seen all too often on this planet in a format that is revolutionarily tangible. It's absurd to think that a movie that addresses the usurping of native rights and the terse dismissal of an entire foreign culture for the sake of personal gain could not be meaningful.
Though we have read the story in our history books, and seen versions of it in Dances With Wolves and FernGully, we have never had the opportunity to be so close to it (almost inside it). The relevance of this movie, for multiple reasons, will have an impact on how we appreciate movies in the future.
Thumbs-up for Dances With Smurfs!
Regarding "Bible Bump" (Cinema, Jan. 21):
I'm an atheist, myself—small "A." That means that while I don't believe, I don't begrudge or demean others who do. At the point, Mr. Grimm, where your inner voice said, "Yeah, right!" mine said, "How did THIS film get a green light in Hollyweird?"
This was a decidedly pro-Christian (not pro-all-religion) film. It said in no uncertain terms that the God of the King James Bible was real, at least to the characters in that film. Unsurprisingly, you dismissed that entirely.
(The Book of) Eli—even for an atheist like me—wasn't depressing. It was a good story, well told, with a Sixth Sense twist ending that worked.
But given the subject, I'm not surprised you didn't think better of it.