Garcia
1
Michael Garcia
Hallinger
Film
10/29/03
The Movie “Erin Brockovich” was
reviewed by several professional critics on their thoughts about the film. Even
though this movie was very good, it still received some negative comments and
reviews by some critics. The three professional critics I chose to critique the
film are Christopher Null, MaryAnn Johanson, and Amy Taubin. By reviewing the
comments by these critics, we will learn more about the film as well as my
input as to how in my opinion the movie was.
As you may know, the movie begins
with a lady named Erin Brockovich who is struggling with money, when she one
day gets a job that turns her life totally around for good. Unfortunately, not
all critics are very nice, giving at times, a negative-type of review.
Christopher Null writes “As a primer on the U.S. legal system, BROCKOVICH is
not terribly compelling. The legal mumbo-jumbo is all there and feels accurate
enough, but the heart of the movie simply doesn’t rest with the details of the
case, which features Pacific Gas & Electric poisoning 600 people in a small
California town with chromium (and then telling them it’s good for them).”
Christopher doesn’t feel there is any real “heart” to the film, rather just a
bunch of historical stuff in one movie. This makes Erin Brokovich seem like any
other court-case movie. Christopher continues by saying “ While it’s not a
class-action lawsuit, the case has essentially the same details as A
CIVIL ACTION and
any number of other verdict clones, with nearly-bankrupt attorneys who risk it
all on One Big Case.” “ERIN BROCKOVICH is her movie. And while Albert Finney
steals a bit of thunder as her grumpy boss, it’s Erin’s brassy, white trash,
amateur investigator that makes you want to watch this movie, all 2 ½ hours of
it.” Once again, This critic highlights the fact that this movie can only be
like any other “clone” to lawsuit films. From his view, he makes it seem almost
as if you are wasting 2 ½ hours of your life unless you look at Erin the whole
time. I know that I did not “waste” my 2 ½ hours with that movie. Even though the movie does not completely
revolve around Erin, she does help to make the movie more interesting.
Another critic with her own views is
MaryAnn Johanson, quite blunt, to the point at times about this movie. MaryAnn
writes “Okay, I could complain about the fact that Erin, who can't pay her
phone bill at one point, barely seems to wear the same outfit twice... indeed,
barely seems to wear her outfits at all. (Poor thing: she doesn't seem to be
able to afford a single blouse that actually covers her bra.) I could complain
about the fact that Erin gets the information she needs, is able to dig up
incriminating evidence against a $30 billion corporation due not to her not
inconsiderable smarts but because, well, she dresses like a whore, wiggles her
ass a lot, and drops ridiculous compliments to moronic men who gape at her with
their jaws on the floor. I could complain that the unfortunately depressing
reality that women are still judged more by their sex appeal than by their
brains and abilities…” She feels the way Erin dresses in the movie changes the
situations in the movie for the better, making her get things she wants with
her body. Even though the real Erin Brockovich dressed kind of provocative, the
movie made it seem as if she looked like a “whore”, according to MaryAnn. I
agree with her, but I wouldn’t say that she seemed like a whore, Erin had
brains, she was smart enough to use her body for good, to get what she needed.
In the movie, Erin is real, she isn’t some fake girly-girl in the attorney
meetings, she knew what she was doing, and she was determined to win the
lawsuit, even if it took doing everything by herself. MaryAnn continues by
saying “The thing that I hate about Erin Brockovich (you knew I'd find
something to hate, didn't you?) is its unironic attitude that all lawyers are
cold-hearted, uncaring sharks. "Do you know why people think all lawyers
are back-stabbing bloodsuckers?" Erin asks a lawyer at a big firm that Ed
partners with when their PG&E case gets too overwhelming. The rhetorical
question never gets answered, but I think I know why: because that's how movies
like Erin Brockovich portray them.” The stereotypes that make it seem
that all lawyers are indeed “back-stabbing bloodsuckers” can come from media
like that, and perhaps even through personal experiences. I definitely agree
with her that the movie does answer the rhetorical question, being that media
can alter, or twist things.
On
the lighter note, professional critic Amy Taubin adds to criticism by leaving
her two cents on the movie. According to Amy, “What's pretty original about the picture is that it
focuses an investigative drama based on a true story around a comic
performance. Without Roberts's combination of exuberance and irony, Erin
Brockovich would have been a replay of the earnest A Civil Action,
in which John Travolta brings suit against a big corporation that's been
dumping toxic waste in a town's water supply. Erin Brockovich has an
almost identical plot, but it's closer in tone, and even politics, to Thelma
and Louise. Outlaw humor is its survival tool. The originality too is what
attracted me to the movie, it was very interesting because since we were
recently learning about the subject about the chromium in the waters at
Hinkley, it kept me focused into the movie.
Even though she does say that it has a similarity to the film A Civil Action, it does indeed pack a
bigger punch than that movie.
Overall, In my opinion the movie
Erin Brockovich was very interesting with its facts, and irony. Who would have
thought that a woman like Erin would be a mulit-millionaire despite all her
problems? In the beginning of the movie, you wouldn’t even have thought that
Erin was going to be rescued from all the disaster in her life, losing her job,
being behind in bills, and getting into a car accident, she wasn’t even a
professional attorney, but her determination is what helped her through all the
problems.
No comments:
Post a Comment