they don't decide to slaughter the entire town out of loyalty to Angel. It's just what they do, because they're a bunch of bastards.

I like this interpretation better. Heh.

LiT is a movie that hit me so hard I can hardly bear to hear people say anything bad about it.

Substitute Big Fish for LiT, and this is me.

I liked LiT a lot, but don't have it enshrined in my heart.

Sort of missed the great big LIT love. But I'm a freak and there were no bodies...it was me, I accept it. I enjoyed it, though. "rah-rah loyalty" is one of my favorite themes ever...sometimes makes me cry...I was a fucking mess during the John Kerry movie, for fuck's sake...all those Sobotka-esque machinists and stuff standing up for "The Captain"...Damn. Sniveling wreck, especially when that one vet started talking about when you face death, everything else you live through is extra... tough guys talking about their feelings kill me.

I won't talk about LiT here again, so as not to worry anyone. See, I like it quite a bit.

See, this I totally disagree with. It does seem to be a popular interpretation, but I don't get it. I mean, ra-ra loyalty and all that, but they don't decide to slaughter the entire town out of loyalty to Angel. It's just what they do, because they're a bunch of bastards. I don't see it so much as Pike being noble and doing The Right Thing. It is important for him, personally, because he's always abandoning people, but it's just as much ennui. They've got nowhere to go and nothing to do. Time's up. If they hadn't killed Angel, I don't think it would have changed a thing.

I think our disagreement may be a little more subtle. When I said he's doing the right thing, I meant for him personally. I don't think it's so much about loyalty to Angel (although that's definitely why Mapache dies) and nobility and all that garbage as it is about Pike accepting that yes, he has nowhere to go (as Dutch says earlier in the film to his notion that they'll do this last job and back off, "Back off to where?") and time has passed him by, but by god, if he's going to kill a bunch of people, rather than doing it in another botched robbery plan or rather than killing his best friend, who he wronged, he's going to do it right there in Agua Verde because a) he's paid a lot of lip service to the notion of the Bunch staying together (which is, as you point out, quite important to him to actually do what he says for once) and b) he's driven by his disgust at the forces of progress, which, in that place, are represented by the Germans and the uniforms. I think that's why Peckinpah goes out of his way to show that it's a child who shoots him, because, as illustrated by the earlier scene in which Mapache stands the bombing by Pancho Villa in order to use the telegraph, the children hero-worship Mapache. Pike has to die because he's a relic, and he knows it, and for him, the exact right thing to do in that situation is to struggle in vain against the future, ostensibly to uphold the values that he's been paying lip-service to when it suits his purpose. He has to prove to himself that being a bastard to the world is alright as long as you're not one to your compadres. I mean, he's wrong, but that's how I read that fucking incredible look on his face in those couple of seconds between shooting Mapache and shooting the German.

Also, I should point out that Pike originally thinks of Mapache as just another outlaw like the Bunch, but Dutch points out that they don't hang people. Mapache is a completely different sort of bastard, and I think that Pike figures that out when Mapache won't sell Angel back to them.

Edit - On re-read, I'm sorry for the convoluted sentences. If I could make heads or tails of them, I'd rewrite this for clarity.

Most of my reaction to LiT was "Why should I care again?" And there was a bit of "Ew." as the judgemental side of me came out. And I fully appreciate that if I did care about the characters, I wouldn't be standing out here judging them so hard. But I didn't, not at all.

Charlie is doing pretty well with the critics, but it seems to hinge on whether or not the reviewer liked Depp's performance.

Time Out New York's critic (whose review isn't online), hated the movie, and was basically claiming that Depp's performance was too similar to Michael Jackson for him to stomach.

Substitute Big Fish for LiT, and this is me.

Oh, Big Fish is on my list, too.

I'm sure I'll end up seeing Charlie at some point, but I just can't make myself interested in it. The trailers make it look unwatchably bad.

OMG, Corwood, Pike is almost like Frank Sobotka...clinging to his dream and his past on the docks way past its day...trying to do the wrong things for the right reasons... Ok, that's enough boring Wirehead epiphany.

and was basically claiming that Depp's performance was too similar to Michael Jackson for him to stomach.

I've heard that theory, but I think reviewers spouting that are trying just a bit too much to be hip, meta, and to tie things into current(ish) events.

I'm seeing the movie tonight, of course. The reviews I've read have me all giddy with anticipation.

I avoided both Lost in Translation and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind for fear of being unable to see their lead actors as characters rather than themselves. Both have an impressive collection of tics and a tendency to mug for the camera that can throw me right out of a movie if everything else isn't handled just right.

In other news, I went with my mom to see Dark Water last night. Despite the suspense, mental health issues, and child endangerment storyline it was so much more comfortable a viewing experience than seeing the nudist episode of Queer Eye together Tuesday night.