REVIEW OF THE REVIEWS

I recently watched The Adjustment Bureau, an Universal Studios production directed by George Nolfi and starring Matt Damon.  Interestingly enough, what sparked me to see this movie wasn't any trailer or critic review but rather a mention of it in my Philosophy class last semester, in which it brought up the question of faith and free will.  Up until this point I hadn't really seen any film that ventured into this area and I was interested to see what critics had to say.

That being said, Rotten Tomatoes gave the film a 78%, considered still "fresh", and Metacritic gave it a 60%.  While there are many critics that agree with both scores, there are some that vary along the line from extreme praise to utter disappointment.  Regardless, the film is 139 minutes long, rated PG-13, and was debuted on March 21, 2011.

REVIEW #1 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/movies/reviews/2011-03-04-adjustmentbureau04_ST_N.htm

The first critic I'll mention is Claudia Puig, writer at USA Today, and all-in-all she hints that Adjustment Bureau is pretty much just a C+ movie.  She starts off with a generic plot summary of the film, she leads the audience through a fairly detailed description actually, and only spends the last paragraph, maybe 2 on her actual perspective, which I found interesting.  And from that it seems as if she's taking almost a disappointed tone, as if she was longing for more and all she can say about the film is that it had great potential but never quite lived up to what it could've been.  In that sense, I think Puig is a very plot driven reviewer.  She references the cast, and to an extent she feels like that's what might have saved the movie.  She goes onto say, "with his natural charisma, Damon is convincing as a politician.  And has credible chemistry with equally believable Blunt. The two actors' likability and intelligence propel the film".  Yet at the end she comes back to complain about the cliches and glaring loopholes throughout the bureau concept, but then alludes to Inception, a very liked movie, in hopes to salvage that this is a movie you should still go see.

REVIEW #2 http://www.npr.org/2011/03/04/134056418/metaphysical-red-tape-foils-the-adjustment-bureau

The second critic I'll mention is Jeannette Catsoulis, writer at NPR, and unlike her counterpart Ms. Puig, she spends no time getting to the meat of her review.  In layman's terms, this movie sucks, and the only thing hold it up is the always refreshing Matt Damon, and his "semi-pro" counter part, Emily Blunt.  To be precise, she begins the review with "As most of us already know — and The Adjustment Bureau is eager to confirm — angels are watching over Matt Damon".  So it's obvious to the audience that Catsoulis is focusing heavily on the performance of Matt Damon to save the day.  Point is, she thinks the film is extremely anti-climatic and even goes on to say it would've been better as a straight up romance film, and from this I think it's easy to derive that her tone is condescending and almost sarcastic at times, putting in little tidbits in parentheses like, "at this point unimaginable without a rakishly tipped fedora".  Yet unlike the Puig's review, Catsoulis alludes to the idea of free will and determinism which is pretty much the only reason I watched the movie, but fails to elaborate.

Personally, having seen the film, both critics make compelling points, but I have to agree with Jeannette Catsoulis.  That being said, I do agree with Puig when she says, "The Adjustment Bureau is compelling enough, a sort of Inception-lite, but the plot holes take it off course".  The entire movie I was waiting for the kicker, the next level, but where Inception takes off and throws the audience into completely different realms, The Adjustment Bureau just kind of rolls over and lets Matt Damon win.  Catsoulis says, "what Elise would be doing there is anyone's guess; even the film's writer and newbie director, George Nolfi, just pulls a reason out of thin air", and I think this best summarizes the movie in that the movie just had too many holes in the plot, it was literally like, "oh well I guess Elise is about to show up in 3, 2... Oh hey Elise!" and then of course the Chairman miraculously changes the fate and the day is saved!  She hit it on the nail when she said the ending was "atrociously lame" and if I'd never seen the film before I'd have to defer back to what both these ladies said in that this film is nothing more than a C+ production.  This is not to say that there weren't glimpses of greatness or that the plot was dull because I'd actually disagree, but had I never seen this before, I'd look at it and say there's plenty of good movies on IMdB's top 250 that can tie me over before I have to see this.

If I were to write a 1 page review, my focus would be only 1 thing - telling the truth.  One of my pet peeves is when people sugar coat things, and I feel like maybe this is because I just want to hear it all, or maybe bad news doesn't scare me, I'm not sure.  Regardless, I wouldn't want to be tricked into watching Twilight 1,2,3,whatever - just because some critic gave it a 100% that just isn't realistic.  I think it's important to highlight acting, plot line, themes, and maybe even motive of the film.  When you start getting further than that it's hard to retain the readers attention, but I think those are my 4 key principles.