criterionforum.org

Armond White hates it.

It's funny to watch Armond tie himself in knots about this film; he's trashed every single anti-Bush (or what he perceives to be anti-Bush) movie that's been released since 9/11, and now he has to do it to a director he actually admires.

what percentage of films does this guy actually like? seems to be that he hates almost every movie ever made.

I hate it too (based on the trailer). Why do we have to pay to see it--isn't Loach a commie?

So don't see it...see how easy that is?

(And I like how you can hate a movie in its entirety based on a 2-minute trailer....)

I think that John Simon hates most every movie ever made. The difference is that he's entertaining at least.

I gave up on Loach a long time ago. He just became too didactic. I think I stopped with "My Name is Joe". (I've tried to forget his odious, silly and disrespectful 9/11 short.) BTW the trailer has been getting laughs whenever I see it.

Scott Foundas in the Village Voice isn't laughing.

And neither is Andrew Sarris.

Jean-Luc Garbo wrote:I think that John Simon hates most every movie ever made.

...except Fellini's I Vitelloni and Bruce Beresford's King David.

if any critic deserves the label 'odious' it would have to be scott foundas.

i'm not looking forward to this one either, fwiw, but will give it a spin at some point with an open mind, I guess.

A.O. Scott weighs in.

Cineaste magazine's review by Gary Crowdus was mostly negative because of it's cliched (in his opinion) storyline and characters and (again, in his opinion) Loach's naive suggestion that the anti-treaty Irish fighters could've created a socialist utopia even though a small minority of them fought the treaty and a Leninist Ireland was highly unlikely. He's also thought the one-dimensional depiction of the British went too far, although it'd be fairly difficult to depict the notorious Black and Tans in anything but an extremely negative light.

Still, though, I'm interested in seeing any new Loach film.

Barmy wrote:I hate it too (based on the trailer). Why do we have to pay to see it--isn't Loach a commie?

This wouldn't necessarily mean that a ticket is free -- only that everyone pays the same price.

Spunky

I finally caught this last night and was greatly impressed by it. I have to admit that I'm a fan of Loach's films, but this is somewhat different from -- and generally superior to -- his usual work. It's neither as cliched nor as didactic as many critics would lead you to believe. To be sure, the Black and Tans are presented in a one-dimensional way, though I think that's justified by the historical record. But the movie most definitely does not attempt to draw black-and-white/good-and-evil distinctions. If anything, it's a denunciation of all forms of ideologically driven violence and the cyclical consequences of that sort of violence. In fact, what most impressed me about the film was its carefully crafted structure: In a sense, the first 90 minutes (covering the Tan War) is repeated in miniature but with greater intensity during the final 30 minutes (the Civil War) -- with events, relationships, and even lines of dialogue mirroring each other. And again, history tends to support Loach's assertions. Even the finale, which is perhaps the only truly cliched part of the movie, works within this larger framework.

Of course, there are still many characteristics that you come to expect in a Loach movie: ad-libbing, town-hall-like discussions of political situations, matter-of-fact action sequences, etc. But I've really come to appreciate the bracing simplicity of Loach's style. Maybe I've just been watching a lot of Renoir lately (especially La Marseillaise), but I've found The Wind That Shakes the Barley to be the most effective -- and affecting -- movie that I've seen in the theater in quite some time. Frankly, I'm just glad that I live in a world where someone like Loach can still churn out a movie every 18 months or so.

Also, I felt that Loach explained/justified the socialist leanings of some of his characters quite well by making them followers/disciples of James Connolly, whose views are more or less accurately reflected in the character Liam Cunningham plays.

Finally, it was also cool to see Neil Brand in a cameo as the pianist during the newsreel scene.

Yup, that A.O. Scott piece coupled with Tryavna's endorsement is enough to make me really pissed at myself for missing the short run this film had in my little city. I love how people are dismissing TWTSTB for its simplistic politics, but John Rambo gets a free pass.