[REVIEW I GUESS] Into The Wild

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Thu May 29, 2008 6:02 pm

This is the film retelling of a true story about a dude named Chris McCandless who, after graduating college, gives all his money away and hits the road in an attempt to find himself, taking two years to hitchhike and otherwise find his way up to Alaska to go all Walden and live off the harsh land.

This movie is based off a relatively well-respected book, but if you read the reviews on Amazon, you'll see that most of the reviews aren't reviewing the quality of the book, but the quality of the GUY that the book is about.

"Chris was an inspiration and a wonderful guy who touched countless people! FIVE STARS!"

"Chris was an ignorant, stupid, selfish prick! ONE STAR!"

My review of the movie must make mention of this phenomenon and warn you of the possibility of succumbing to it while watching the movie, rather than taking the movie on its own merits. The movie should not get worse or better depending on your opinion of the main character.

It's valid to say that you might want to judge the movie on the differential between your opinion of the man and the opinion of the man that the movie seems to be trying to give you, but to the movie's credit, until an overly sappy final chapter, it stays pretty even keel, just telling the story and letting you come up with your own reactions. Any accusations that the movie "glorifies" Chris are suspect at best. In my own household, in fact, reviews were split as to whether the main character was a sympathetic, troubled character whose yearning for "freedom" and solitude were totally understandable and compelling, or whether he was an immature, selfish douche.

Both opinions have merit.

Anyhow.

This movie has flashes of brilliance, and long stretches of quality filmmaking. By any account, it should have been at least a 3.5 star movie. For me, however, two things keep it from that highly respected status:

1. The aforementioned last chapter, which begins to wade into saccharin waters, and we're force-fed just a hint of Forrest Gumpian sap, as he is able to tap into long-lost wisdom in others and himself, over the strained warbling of Eddie Vedder (better here than in Pearl Jam, but still.) This is a small quibble though, when compared with:

2. The NARRATION, done by the character's sister (not the real-life sister, the movie sister) which is the most over-the-top, pompous, self-important wad of nauseating sentimentality you're likely to hear in a movie this year. Long, poetic stretches espousing Chris' mysterious internal struggle, and florid passages describing their difficult (but not atypical) homelife and how this led to his journey and... bleah. Stop already. These narrations last perhaps for no more than 6 or 7 minutes throughout the movie, but they're a tough 6 or 7 minutes.

Anyhow. Not a triumph, but certainly good, with some gorgeous photography and some really solid acting by everyone involved (including Vince Vaughan actually portraying a character with some depth.)

A half hour too long, though.

THREE (***) STARS

co · Post by co » Fri May 30, 2008 9:29 am

I think the story about the living with bears guy getting eaten by one is better.

Ice Cream Jonsey · Post by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Fri May 30, 2008 9:45 am

Would your "ideal" movie be the guy in the first one getting eaten by bears?

co · Post by co » Fri May 30, 2008 11:39 am

yeah, then maybe they never find the bear that did it like in Zodiac - that would be perfect.

Ice Cream Jonsey · Post by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Fri May 30, 2008 11:51 am

Hahah - perhaps at the end they bring someone into an airport to look at a photo lineup and the guy's like, "IT WAS A BEAR. Who the fuck remembers specifically which one?"

Roll credits!

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Fri May 30, 2008 11:58 am

Hey Robb!

Done you liked Zodiac.

Ice Cream Jonsey · Post by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Fri May 30, 2008 12:22 pm

I did, unfortunately I mentally confuse it with the Black Dahlia, which was a laughable abortion and complete waste fo time. So if I don't seem as passionate about Zodiac as you'd like, that's why.

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Fri May 30, 2008 12:23 pm

Well, that's good.

Black Dahlia was horrible. I am angry at you for confusing the tw--- wait!

No, wait.

That's it. I will now bring the "Me Being Angry At People For Their Opinions About Movies" era of Jolt Country BBS is now OVER.

I have brought that era to a close.

Ice Cream Jonsey · Post by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Fri May 30, 2008 12:41 pm

I saw them one after another, and they are both tangentially about real murders, one serial one... spree? Whatever the Black Dahlia thing was. I certainly learned nothing about it from the terrible, terrible movie that "based" itself on. And when I say "based," I mean that as a colloqiualism the kids might use if they were to drink lye. "It got based."

AArdvark · Post by **AArdvark** » Fri May 30, 2008 7:02 pm

I read the Black Dahlia book. Well, whatever the syntax, I read it. If the movie was less than the book it must have sucked balls.

THE
MEXICAN BAR SCENE
AARDVARK