Sideways Overrated? Troubling...

Last night I checked my email and found a message from Jim Demetre, the editor at Artdish.com, for whom I recently wrote a movie review of the Alexander Payne film "Sideways." Jim had forwarded me a comment from someone on Craig's List about my review:

"I'm troubled by the fact that the writer doesn't appear to know the difference between 'clambering' and 'clamoring.'"

I had written the following:

"You can bet that his next project will be the focus of tremendous buzz (and probably a lot of A-list movie stars clambering for a role)."

First of all, the person was right. The common phrase is "clamoring for a role," so I don't disagree (that's what I get for dragging out tired cliches). Likewise, I do know the difference between the two (to clamor is to make a loud roar while to clamber is to climb awkwardly). Geesh, I won't make that mistake again! And yes, I did look those definitions up just now, but only because I wanted to be 100% certain of their meanings (like anybody else cares anyway).

Anyhow, the person's snarky use of the word "troubled" really bothered me, I don't know why. Then I found out about an article in the NYT from January 2 by movie critic A.O. Scott (see link) that called "Sideways" (in its bold headline, no less) "The Most Overrated Film of the Year."

His article is worth reading, but that headline is over the top. Of course the reason critics loved that film was because many of them related to the main character, himself basically of a critical mentality (he's a serious wine lover)! Does A.O. Scott think he's a genius for figuring that out? Personally, I enjoyed the film because: a) I related to the main character, b) it made me laugh out loud more than any other film of 2004, and c) the writing was brilliant and the performances were inspired. So what's not to like and how does that turn into the sour headline: "The Most Overrated Film of the Year?"

Scott does couch his observations with the following qualification: "Overpraising good work is surely a more forgivable sin than underpraising it." Still, I think there are better targets to bring down out there than the refreshing "Sideways" even if it does have its obvious flaws (I don't know what Virginia Madsen's character could possibly see in the main character, either, but I still bought it because stranger things have happened and he did have his charming moments).

Similarly, everyone is attacking Michael Moore now as if we didn't already know he was being heavy-handed against Bush and the war in Iraq all along. Isn't that why we loved him in the first place? And if Kerry had won the election (he lost by a mighty slim margin if you ask me), wouldn't many of these same people be praising Moore for helping Kerry get enough votes to carry the key states?

And don't even get me started on "Eternal Sunshine from a Ridiculous Mind" which I truly thought WAS the most overrated movie of the year. It was an idea that, frankly, just didn't work. But that didn't stop screenwriter Charlie Kaufman from taking an absurd storyline and running with it (not that it doesn't have its merits, but I quickly "forgot" the film after I saw it).

Link