Click here for the review of Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

SPOILERS must be tagged with the "SPOILER" tag!

It is interesting to note that both this film and "Hugo" involve sons seeking to solve mysteries that have the potential to reveal some information that would help them to know their fathers better.

HUGO and THE ARTIST are very closely wed in thematic terms.

So you're saying that this could use any sort of tragedy that involves the death of his father and still get essentially the same effect?

I think you mean HUGO and EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE are very closely wed in thematic terms lol

I think James meant what he wrote. While the protagonists of EXTREMELY LOUD and HUGO might share similar goals as I mentioned, HUGO and THE ARTIST are more closely related in that both films have a reverence for film history. I haven't seen THE ARTIST, but I have heard them compared endlessly.

Here are some alternate opinions of this film:

Manohla Dargis seems to admire the craft of the film, but ultimately feels it's too manipulative: http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/12/23/mo ... ss&emc=rss

Scott Tobias of the AV Club hates the film, giving it an F: http://www.avclub.com/articles/extremel ... ose,66898/

While I respect James' opinion, I think I'll wait until it comes out on DVD/Blu-Ray to see it.

I haven't seen the movie but the critical response isn't all that different from what the novel received when it was first published. A good share of the critical response was effusive, praising Foer's technical skill and the novel's unusual structure and narrative voice. An equally good percentage of the critics felt the novel was irritating past absurdity.

I think Emanuel Levy has it right when he remarks that this film will divide critics. Right down the middle.

I pretty much am very irritated with the novel. Too many tricks and Oskar's main story being constantly interrupted by other significantly less interesting side stories. And some plot elements are just too out of this world for me to make a connection to, a crucial element in a novel about loss and its aftermath.

That said, from James' review I have a feeling I would like this movie a lot more than the book. It seems that in order to make the novel filmable, they streamlined it, making the central story Oskar's, which is a good thing.

I read the A.V. review and I thought that the grade 'F' is of the very personal perspective. For example, he mentioned in the very end of the review the last aspect of the movie, which I gathered was translated directly from the book. I myself found that aspect to be poignant and not offensive at all.

I'm usually averse to anything emotionally manipulative, but I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, although "enjoy" is too light a word for this experience this movie gives you. It was painful in places. The lightest it got, for me, was poignant. My theater was packed full and almost everyone left the credits in silence.

This is a movie I won't soon forget. I could see myself associating it with 9/11 in the future, since I found the portrait so realistic. The kid doing Oskar was fantastic, and what a well-written character for a child!

I'm watching the film right now. All I have to say so far is that Sandra Bulloch plays the most believable character in the whole thing. No other character acts like a normal person. The narration by the kid is probably the worst part. I think its just bad writing.

Wait 'till you get near the end. There's a fairly laughable conceit that I think completely undermines her believability.

Damnit, you ruined the only hope I had for this thing.

Haha, sorry about that! Maybe you had a different reaction than I did?

Well, I finished it, and I'm not sure what you meant about Bullock's character.

Potential spoiler:


I think I know why this movie is so divisive for some. While James did praise it, it only has a 46% rating on RT. I think it's because its fiction. For something that was so close and damaging to so many people who are still alive, the fact that this movie thinks it knows how to deal with the subject matter is insulting. If it was based on true events, or at least somewhat influenced by them (as was the case with United 93), I think it would have been better. It would have been about understanding one family's story and how they coped with the loss. But this is unfair and wrong. Throughout the whole thing, I just stared at the screen and thought, "What the fuck am I watching?", finally culminating with the scene with Max von Sydow and the answering machine.

All in all, it's insulting that this movie pretends to know. In truth, it's as lost as the rest of us.

I love this movie. I found it to be powerful and overwhelmingly emotional at times. Thomas Horn is amazing in the movie. Definitely, IMO, one of the top lead performances from last year. Sandra Bullock also deserves accolades for her wonderful work on this movie. Several scenes got me choked up, none more so than the kid's "confession" to Jeffrey Wright at the end. An unbelievable movie that does not deserve the critical ire it's been receiving for some reason. Definitely one of the year's best!

I agree with James grade of *** 1/2 out of ****.

This was it.



There are individual scenes in the film that are very effective in their simplicity, but the central narrative is so ridiculously implausible that it overwhelms all the admirable aspects.

Daldry interviewed dozens of 9/11 survivors and families of the dead before going forward with the film and tried to remain as respectful of their feelings as possible, even going so far as to change things in the screenplay that were at odds with what learned from the people he spent time with. This is the reason why there are some notable deviations from the book.