mrwelles

Lots of filmgoers have given their opinion of "A Simple Plan" here, and to my eyes and to the eyes of many others here (eyes which look at film as an art form), it's an outstanding work. The cinematography and acting are exceptional (especially the work done by Thornton), and the script is extremely compelling. I've spoken with other true film buffs about "A Simple Plan," and to an individual, they all thought it was head-and-shoulders above typical 90's fare. I felt it was the best film of the past year. This brings me to Leonard Maltin. Leonard, what are you thinking?! Leonard Maltin can be one of the most incisive critics around, yet he squanders his reputation by trashing too many brilliant films that happen to contain meanspiritedness or violence. He lets a few slip through without panning them (he's a big "The Silence of the Lambs" fan), but he has to understand that most people who purchase his book (or read him here) aren't trying to find out if a film is appropriate for Sunday school. They want to know if a film is well-made, compelling, well-acted, etc. He refuses to budge on "Taxi Driver" (* * ?!?), dislikes films such as "Cape Fear (1991)" (* * 1/2, a film generally more highly regarded) and so many others. He even trashes "Little Shop of Horrors (1986)" because the goofy plant turns "really mean and monstrous." Yo dude, it's a cartoonish black comedy-musical. He's gone too far with "A Simple Plan," though. I thought that, maybe, his occasional inexplicable pans of great films would be over... perhaps he'd gained some perspective. I can see that this was a misguided notion on my part. This is not to say that "Cape Fear (1991)" and "Little Shop of Horrors (1986)" are "great" movies, but they're certainly above average. It's films like "Taxi Driver" and "A Simple Plan" that he does the most disservice to. Is "A Simple Plan's" plotline unbelievable, something that doesn't hold up to scrutiny? I've tried to spot the plot holes, but they're simply not there. Some things happen that wouldn't happen in every case, or even most cases ... but they're not impossible. If it had to "ring true," perhaps the film should've shown how the brothers (and their pal) found the money and kept it, taking off to Mexico and buying some race horses. Perhaps the film should've focused on the experiences of the three after turning in the money instead of keeping it. Maybe they could've tried to get the farm started again, with the movie focusing on their troubles getting a loan from the bank and/or their problems with the old farm equipment they might purchase. Wouldn't THAT have made for a more interesting film?? I didn't think so.

So people, check out this movie ... it's terrific, everything a movie should be. And Leonard Maltin: Please try to open your mind. You're so good most of the time. You've got one major flaw and I'm not going to give up on you... and I know from past experiences that you DO change your reviews on occasion.

Yes, it clearly hasn't been improved upon. I am always amused by people who will criticize a film like "Citizen Kane" and those who happen to support a popular opinion, i.e., that it's the best ever. Most of us come to this decision ourselves, because the film is THAT GOOD. I'm a little too savvy... as most "Citizen Kane" supporters are ... to follow anybody's opinion. Pauline Kael was wildly inconsistent with how I (and many people) feel, totally off the mark perhaps half the time. I'm happy that her "Citizen Kane" review was so positive. No slams from hacks, please ... the providing of objective opinions would be nice.

This film might very well be the worst film ever made, and is one of the all-time great entertainments. Not to be missed by any true film buff.