Your posts are great! They are well-written, interesting, and concise. I have one suggestion: tag your posts more thoroughly.

For example: hammerle, film, Michael Clayton, Clooney, movies.

You will draw more traffic, and your posts will be easier to find. Great stuff so far!

Hey Bob. Okay, maybe "sold it out in favor of some face time" was a little harsh. But I think his films would be much more effective if he didn't do some of the self-serving things he does and stopped trying to make himself a celebrity.

I applaud Moore confronting congressmen, but I thought his methods were as much a chance for him to look good on camera as it was for him to make his point. Sign their own kids up for military service? How does someone sign up their adult children for military service?

If he had, for example, gone up to them and asked them if any of their children were in the military or if they would be in favor of their children going over there I would have been completely okay with it. But what he did was combative, rude and ultimately self-defeating as a method of argument. It won't serve to sway any of his detractors, and it might give his supporters a chuckle but won't really do much in a positive way as far as changing minds. It certainly was something that turned me off, and up until that point I was more or less on board with his argument (and I still am for the most part). I appreciate his ultimate point, but he was also grandstanding.

To answer at least one of your questions, I do not think he would be any less vilified if he took himself out of his films. However, toning down his some of the more outlandish parts of his MO, and sacrificing some narrative smart-aleckness (if that's a word/phrase) that lead to blatant factual errors (such as the "Automotive Theme Park" deal from "Roger and Me"--how could he have not known the proper timeline for that?) would do a little more to sway some conservatives (especially the younger ones who might be willing to admit that they're wrong...and I count myself in that group, because that's where I was 10 years ago).

We're in agreement on all of those things you mentioned. Indeed they were but a few in a continuing series of disgusting acts a lot of conservative commentators and our current leaders have done. But in the case of most of them, those transgressions are much worse than most of the things done publicly to Michael Moore, given the fact that none of these people are politicians, nor should they even be considered political figures (excluding Kerry, of course, and maybe Cindy Sheehan, who became a protestor but she doesn't have any political aspirations that we know of). Still, none of them deserved the smear campaigns and the scare tactics that were put against them.

But Moore himself should know a little better, because he's a filmmaker who is directly attacking those people and their beliefs, platforms, etc. If he remained factual and removed himself from the equation a little (not completely, because he can be a face for the cause), he would probably do more to affect opinion.

To conclude (unless you'd like to continue the discussion, of course), I do want to reiterate I agree with much of what he says, and I think in total his work is good. But I think his work can still be better, and I thought (and still do) think he deserved a little constructive criticism in addition to the unfair, mean-spirited criticism he already gets.

Oh, I re-read your comment, and one more thing regarding the Dixie Chicks. While I don't care for their style of music, I do admire them greatly for their courage in standing up for themselves and persisting when they were blackballed by the same people who shunned Johnny Cash back in the day. To persist the way they did and sticking to their guns in the face of enormous pressure from not only conservatives, but their own fan base (i.e. the people who pay their salaries) is the very height of bravery.

And I didn't see their documentary, but I would wager I wouldn't have quite the same problems with it as I do some of the things I outlined about Moore above.

Hineline on Hammerle:

Hammerle likes Hammerle's name. Hammerle wants to make sure everyone knows that he wrote what Hammerle contributed. Hammerle forgets that his photo and name show up in every post list.

Hammerle, Hammerle, Hammerle, Hammerle, Hammerle, Hammerle, Hammerle, Hammerle.

I'm just teasing. I found it funny when I looked at your profile and every one of your post titles starts with your own name.

Believe me Bob, waking up as me isn't all that glamorous either!

Is that a hammerle or are you just glad to see me?

Hi Bob! I haven't seen you in 10 years and you look exactly the same. :) I worked for your firm for about six months before going to work with LaMothe at the Chamber. I'm now on my own -- an exciting adventure! Currently working on the Indianapolis New Year's Eve Masquerade at Grand Hall/Union Station. You should join us!!

Hi Robert, Will you be reviewing 'The Mist'?

Found you! Good hors d'oeurve last night! Enjoyed your reviews and will log you into my "Favorites" file. Good luck to Mo with the trial and Assiz with the choir. Later, Lee

I get the rationale of what David Denby did...in a similar circumstance it might be a choice most of us would make. My objection to the ending is still on a larger narrative level. Why do that to the characters, the "good guys" who work for good? I get the quick death vs. in-the-face-of-a-gruesome-death rationale (or even worse, as those spider victims learned), but as I've said before, horror films are almost always good vs. evil stories, and it seems to me like punishing David so severely (and giving him the added punch-in-the-gut that followed immediately after) was cruel and unjust to the characters.

Plus, the film had some good subtext regarding religious fanaticism and society unraveling in the face of extreme circumstances, but for the most part the movie was wholly ridiculous, with giant bugs and weird dinosaur-creatures, mutant spiders with acid webbing and disembodied toothed tentacles and giant mastadon creatures wandering around. The last thing I want in a movie like that is those last few moments we got. When it's horrific like that I want something to give me hope at the end.

Having said all that, I'm quickly developing a new appreciation for the movie given all the discussion about it. I think much of my objection is due to the fact that I have a young son myself. If the movie had ended at the moment the car ran out of gas, I would have been satisfied, or if the tanks, etc had rolled in just before that horrific event (forgive my vagueness here as I'm trying not to give too much away to people who might read this who haven't seen the movie--I've come dangerously close to doing that already!).

And I'll agree with you that there's no way that Dane Cook lands Juliette Binoche for more than a single date (and he might not even last a full date, because she would be bored to tears within 15 minutes). I was really pleased that they were able to keep his character from being a total jerk; he wasn't a bad person, but it was obvious that Binoche and Cook were totally mismatched, and that she and Carell were not.

I liked it too, but I didn't love it quite enough, for just those reasons. It was so rushed. I wonder if New Line didn't anticipate the controversy and short-shrift it a little bit. It should have been a little bigger.

But that armored bear battle was something else.

I'll be interested to see our conversation about your thoughts on "I Am Legend." My review should be hitting indy.com any time now, and I surely don't want to spoil it by commenting here, but give it a read if you get a second today!

Also caught your name in the paper last week regarding your "other" job. :)

Read your post on Matt Gonzales' page re: women/sexual stereotypes in "Inside Man."

What part of it did you think was forcing a stereotypical view? There were definitely aspects of the film that displayed how women are stereotyped, or objectified (such as focusing on large breasts, not being able to distinguish between two brunettes with large breasts because the detectives were so focused on such, etc.) but, frankly, as a woman who falls into that category, I saw it as a representation of reality, not as forcing a perception.

Just curious if that's what you were referring to, or something else that I missed...?

I did see it (and I posted on it this morning, so take a read). I didn't like it. I'm a fan of Tracy Morgan, and he had a couple of funny lines, but for the most part it was a pretty standard (below average) movie. I didn't find Katt Williams funny at all, and Ice Cube was supposed to be a sympathetic character, but he acted too gruff and mean to people.

Robert, thanks for the personal note about There Will Be Blood. 2 of my best friends absolutely loved it and forced me to see it (which wasn't necessary because i love Daniel and usually really enjoy PT's films). i just did not get it. sadly, i still haven't seen No Country and plan on doing so this weekend.

Steve

P.S Your reviews are a bit long winded, typical lawyer!

Mr. Hammerle, I just wanted to let you know how much I personally appreciate your reviews. I find them fresh, insightful, and a joy to read. Please keep up the wonderful work.