Clangdon

This movie had me laughing my proverbial ass off, and to me it makes Dilbert seem absolutely toothless as far as corporate-satires go.

There's a lot of good subtle intelligent humor in here. A lot of people who complain about this movie seem either not to "get it" (condescending to say, maybe, but I think it's the truth), or are so part of "that world" and so "with it" they just can't get behind any honest criticism of it.

Excuse me whilst I go take care of some "action items"... (Then go show my new wife my OH face... OH! OH! OH! ... HIL-ARIOUS!!!!!)

Now, I've never read any of Thomas Hardy's works, so I can be no judge on how faithful this movie was to his novel. It seems many people consider it a very faithful adaptation.

So, I must just not be a Hardy fan. I found the story senselessly depressing. And not just realistically depressing, but depressing in a contrived and very manipulative way. (Is that what Hardy's known for?)

One scene that quite disturbed me was the discovery of the children. Not just the content, but the way it was handled seemed very heavy-handed, contrived and kind of slip-shod. It just seemed like pointless and at the same time almost laughable horror, with the short time passing between when Sue tells Jude Jr. "we are too many" and when the boy "does the deed". And the note was just too much. (I'm curious, does that whole scenario develop much the same way in the novel?)

It also didn't help my viewing that, in stark contrast to most of the user-commenters here, I was just very very annoyed by Kate Winslett's character. Her acting was unimpeachable, but the character just left me ill almost from the beginning, and made me iller and iller as the movie wore on. I couldn't see why Jude kept ever at her heels like a puppy-dog whilst she played her manipulation games. She just seemed always distant and all-'round messed-up.

Well, anyway, I suppose my critique is not so much of the movie as a movie, but of the story's content. Too too too bleak, and like another user-commenter said, "horrifying".

Now, I'm not _completely_ sure that I myself got it, BUT ... here is my take: the point of this movie is to carry some ideas, move them along with some exaggeration and big-bold metaphors, and be entertaining along the way. I personally very much enjoyed the rap sequences. It's obvious they were _meant_ to be awkward and goofy and dorky.

People have criticised the ending, but it just struck me as an acknowledgement by the filmmakers that the whole thing was known to be an exaggerated fantasy, and that it could never really happen that way. A politician is only the tip of his quite expansive and controlling iceberg. From the first time that such out-of-control behavior was even sniffed on a pol, his/her handlers would be on top of the situation toot-sweet, and we'd never get to see him/her "erupting" like Bulworth did at a fundraiser, much less becoming a big sensation that's sweeping the nation.

Some have criticized the "foul" language, but I think they're just fogeys and ninnies.

On another note, I agree with another reviewer that this film was marketed very badly. But then again, it prolly just goes to proving the film's very points.

Anti-PC zealots seemed to have seized on the trailers' "telling-off-the-black-fokes" feel, and were hoping for more of the same. I was glad to see that they were sorely disappointed.

And then we have knee-jerkers whining about Bulworth's tirades being "too conspiracy-theory". Hey, self-deception is the biggest conspiracy human beings have got going, haven't you heard?

Anyway, those are my thoughts. Take 'em for what they're worth...