I don't really understand the incredible divide in reviews.
The negative seem to mostly fall into three groups.
In regards to the positive reviews they seem entirely of two camps, people who are clearly not a true general public reviewer, are not general audience members, but instead part of the actual production, or sales department for the film. The entirety of the review reading like it is right off the back of the dvd jacket, or the write-up in Amazon again written by marketing for the movie. Rarely have I seem such blatant examples of this...
Back to my own issues with this movie.
In all seriousness, the entire premise seems completely shallow, and the points they are trying to make come across as totally like a rich liberal view of what 'being poor' actually entails.
The points made, especially by the 'winning team' all feel entirely generic, not the kind of points people who actually live through in situation of poverty, etc, The message is suppose to through be these more personal points made to communicate/share emotion and have some impact on the listener, by sharing what it means personally to be in these situations that they are describing. So then you would think the two speeches from this team would be moments to dig deep and share very personal examples that they themselves went through leading up to the debate, or the night before, week of, ec. Instead we get clinical stats, mascaraing as 'heartfelt' points/stories. It is frankly like the author being so far removed from such issues can't actually put themselves truly into the shoes of kids who do. And i won't bother going into these issues because frankly they take time to cover with the respect they deserve, ie mental health being more common in families with economic stress like those that poverty bring, or dealing with divorce in the family with no money vs with money, etc. All the things that unless you take the time to cover in detail, or with a very clear example from the heart from the person who experienced them. But this film it seemed that was a big part of the film, those points, and yet they completely failed to deliver, not once but twice when they had what really was a perfect setup for it.
The entire range between the two main characters in regards to economics also comes across as skewed upwards, like they both seem pretty spoiled, and if all you need to do is concentrate on being good at debating, all the while you have access to the support either of these kids have then clearly you are already in the top 1%. Again a bit odd considering she seems to bring up there 'differences economically' a lot and so does the mom seem completely fixated on it. But in reality they both seem to have many of the same opportunities, etc.
I mean when you are starting with one family being friends with people like Obama and Oprah, then seriously, the fact that they seem to dress the same, have the same overall same social standing in speech, vocabulary, shows they are closer in status to the majority of Americans would be. And in fact even with the 'winners' at the end as well their speech speaks volumes to access to education, facilities, So some of the points definitely felt hollow to me, and I am not saying they have to be for the movie to work, there are other ways they likely could had played it, but the way they choose to definitely doesn't feel authentic to me, perhaps others may have felt different, but true disadvantaged kids have way more to deal with then this movies seems to be either aware of or for some reason capable of addressing in the story with any depth or heartfelt honesty behind it.
Add in some very cliche 'just have fun speeches', then the most original part follows of the show, which is a bit of a downer. So are you trying to break kids spirit, i mean why 'give up' to a team that isn't at all accomplishing the thing they are supposedly sacrificing talking quickly to achieve, ie emotional connection with the audience.
So then what is the point of the movie, it is not like there is a new message here, or one that hits hard enough to change minds, it really is only going to be a shrug for anyone who already believes these things already anyway, so the entire point of the message seems inconsequential, ie has zero consequence as the people who will nod in agreement(or apparently be moved to tears according to the 10 out of 10 reviews) already fell on that side of the issue before, and this isn't even going to strengthen that with some honest presentation of what it really is like for someone to deal with, so it feels like the entire disadvantagement for some people point they seem to be trying to include falls completely flat.
Add in some completely random death, which is perhaps one of the most honest feeling parts of the film, including their reaction to it, and the question of the entire point of closing yourself off in high-school to achieve these goals. I mean, but again, why, like what at they trying to tell the audience, that trying so hard for Harvard is pointless or that perhaps social interactions, ie like dating is more important for life long happiness, etc.
To tell the truth, it feels like someone who can see all the parts a movie like this needs to successfully. Ie In the telling of a story that also conveys some wisdom regarding life and the struggles around getting accepted into good universities. But then at each point they are suppose to 'fill in the blank' they don't have enough life experience to actually have any true emotion, or originality coming from honesty or humility around some of these situations for instance. Instead of heartfelt moments from the two 'disadvantaged' kids teaching the entire audience(in the movie and watching) about what is important(communication and integrity around what you are doing vs just going to for the points to win), yet the speech has no actual annecdotal stories as they describe in the actual movie that is should have. Or the 'parts' again where the story needs 'humor here', are filled with really unoriginal move quotes like 'Fight Club Rules', again in another movie with a teenage club in it. Again understanding what parts are needed for a good script/film of this type but ultimately being unable to deliver.
It had the outline to have some interesting moments, but I just do not think the writer/director had the life experience to make it work. Almost like someone who didn't experience high-school parties, dating, drinking, and all those experiences that give you social iq, enough to say tell a joke, or understand what comes off from the heart vs feels statistical etc...
I still can't believe not just 1, but a few people gave this movie a 10 out of 10, apparently this is a masterpiece and I am just missing it entirely...
The negative seem to mostly fall into three groups.
- The first composed of people unable to handle any mention of political issues unless it is in agreement with their own position. It seems inevitable then that these reviewers will give a rating of 2 or less in 9 out of 10 movies they watch, as it kind a follows from regarding everything with such a zealots viewpoint.
- The next group seem not be able to get past the fact that speaking fast is apparently a strong/common strategy for this particular set of debating rules. I can understand that the whole premise seems completely flawed, as well as annoying in fact to watch, but isn't that. I believe, part of the entire point for one of the messages in the movie as well, so they are in fact on the same side as the director/writer anyway, and despite them somehow needing to make this point in a very clearly annoyed way, ultimately their low review comes from them not being able to separate being annoyed by these moments, from the overall movie kind of seems a we bit shallow way to judge a movie... makes me wonder if most of them even watched past those moments... basically got annoyed and decided to immediately come make a review...
- And then lastly people with legit issues with the entire film, and in fact i kind of agree with a lot of the points these reviewers are making. But before I get into it, in regards to the positive reviewers.. just for the sake of competition..
In regards to the positive reviews they seem entirely of two camps, people who are clearly not a true general public reviewer, are not general audience members, but instead part of the actual production, or sales department for the film. The entirety of the review reading like it is right off the back of the dvd jacket, or the write-up in Amazon again written by marketing for the movie. Rarely have I seem such blatant examples of this...
- Second group of positive reviews honestly come off a bit naïve, because if you honestly believe this movie is 'easily the best movie this entire year', or 'a 10 out of 10 movie', which is apparently perfection, and 'without flaws', i would normally chalk these up to the first case above, written by marketing, I mean 10 out of 10, really, but some of the writing is so earnest it might be real, which is frankly scarier.
Back to my own issues with this movie.
In all seriousness, the entire premise seems completely shallow, and the points they are trying to make come across as totally like a rich liberal view of what 'being poor' actually entails.
The points made, especially by the 'winning team' all feel entirely generic, not the kind of points people who actually live through in situation of poverty, etc, The message is suppose to through be these more personal points made to communicate/share emotion and have some impact on the listener, by sharing what it means personally to be in these situations that they are describing. So then you would think the two speeches from this team would be moments to dig deep and share very personal examples that they themselves went through leading up to the debate, or the night before, week of, ec. Instead we get clinical stats, mascaraing as 'heartfelt' points/stories. It is frankly like the author being so far removed from such issues can't actually put themselves truly into the shoes of kids who do. And i won't bother going into these issues because frankly they take time to cover with the respect they deserve, ie mental health being more common in families with economic stress like those that poverty bring, or dealing with divorce in the family with no money vs with money, etc. All the things that unless you take the time to cover in detail, or with a very clear example from the heart from the person who experienced them. But this film it seemed that was a big part of the film, those points, and yet they completely failed to deliver, not once but twice when they had what really was a perfect setup for it.
The entire range between the two main characters in regards to economics also comes across as skewed upwards, like they both seem pretty spoiled, and if all you need to do is concentrate on being good at debating, all the while you have access to the support either of these kids have then clearly you are already in the top 1%. Again a bit odd considering she seems to bring up there 'differences economically' a lot and so does the mom seem completely fixated on it. But in reality they both seem to have many of the same opportunities, etc.
I mean when you are starting with one family being friends with people like Obama and Oprah, then seriously, the fact that they seem to dress the same, have the same overall same social standing in speech, vocabulary, shows they are closer in status to the majority of Americans would be. And in fact even with the 'winners' at the end as well their speech speaks volumes to access to education, facilities, So some of the points definitely felt hollow to me, and I am not saying they have to be for the movie to work, there are other ways they likely could had played it, but the way they choose to definitely doesn't feel authentic to me, perhaps others may have felt different, but true disadvantaged kids have way more to deal with then this movies seems to be either aware of or for some reason capable of addressing in the story with any depth or heartfelt honesty behind it.
Add in some very cliche 'just have fun speeches', then the most original part follows of the show, which is a bit of a downer. So are you trying to break kids spirit, i mean why 'give up' to a team that isn't at all accomplishing the thing they are supposedly sacrificing talking quickly to achieve, ie emotional connection with the audience.
So then what is the point of the movie, it is not like there is a new message here, or one that hits hard enough to change minds, it really is only going to be a shrug for anyone who already believes these things already anyway, so the entire point of the message seems inconsequential, ie has zero consequence as the people who will nod in agreement(or apparently be moved to tears according to the 10 out of 10 reviews) already fell on that side of the issue before, and this isn't even going to strengthen that with some honest presentation of what it really is like for someone to deal with, so it feels like the entire disadvantagement for some people point they seem to be trying to include falls completely flat.
Add in some completely random death, which is perhaps one of the most honest feeling parts of the film, including their reaction to it, and the question of the entire point of closing yourself off in high-school to achieve these goals. I mean, but again, why, like what at they trying to tell the audience, that trying so hard for Harvard is pointless or that perhaps social interactions, ie like dating is more important for life long happiness, etc.
To tell the truth, it feels like someone who can see all the parts a movie like this needs to successfully. Ie In the telling of a story that also conveys some wisdom regarding life and the struggles around getting accepted into good universities. But then at each point they are suppose to 'fill in the blank' they don't have enough life experience to actually have any true emotion, or originality coming from honesty or humility around some of these situations for instance. Instead of heartfelt moments from the two 'disadvantaged' kids teaching the entire audience(in the movie and watching) about what is important(communication and integrity around what you are doing vs just going to for the points to win), yet the speech has no actual annecdotal stories as they describe in the actual movie that is should have. Or the 'parts' again where the story needs 'humor here', are filled with really unoriginal move quotes like 'Fight Club Rules', again in another movie with a teenage club in it. Again understanding what parts are needed for a good script/film of this type but ultimately being unable to deliver.
It had the outline to have some interesting moments, but I just do not think the writer/director had the life experience to make it work. Almost like someone who didn't experience high-school parties, dating, drinking, and all those experiences that give you social iq, enough to say tell a joke, or understand what comes off from the heart vs feels statistical etc...
I still can't believe not just 1, but a few people gave this movie a 10 out of 10, apparently this is a masterpiece and I am just missing it entirely...