Most polarizing movie


I'm firmly in the "love it" camp, and I run into people who hate it, but what really strikes me after all these years is that there's no middle ground. I've never met anyone who was indifferent to JVTV, or who felt it was "okay."

And I can't think of another movie that has engendered such an all-or-nothing response from viewers.

Here's my stab at an explanation: it's caught between two worlds.

On the one hand, it's an incredible piece of art from all concerned: the script, the acting, and the incredible art design.

But on the other hand, it was imbued with elements of a wacky comedy. At the time it was made, Tom Hanks wasn't "Tom Hanks" yet -- and the studio didn't quite know what to do with him. This wasn't the "Philadelphia" or "Saving Private Ryan" guy. He was still the "Bosom Buddies" and "Bachelor Party" guy. Hadn't even made "A League of Their Own" yet.

So what we got was an odd amalgam of "Shanley's deeply moving carpe diem parable" and "Hanks's yuk-yuk sendup." Note that I'm not indicting Hanks here -- I think he knew what he was about. But if it had been made even five years later, do you really think we would have had a Muppet shark that growls like a tiger? Would the Waponi have been so over-the-top?

A person I know, very knowledgable about film, said he'd admired this script for years -- and only later saw the movie, finding it "terrible."

Do you agree that this film is tremendously polarizing? What's your take on why?

reply

I too love this movie--I always watch it when I'm down and it never fails to put me in a great mood. But as far as why it's so polarizing (I know many people who DETEST this film--some calling it the worst movie they've ever seen), this is my theory. The script is extremely deep and covers some heavy topics: Grappling with a terminal disease, learning to live life to the fullest, suicide, depression, and finally love and marriage. Metaphors exist in spades in this movie. Yet it's wrapped up in a screwball-like package, with Steven Spielberg's commercial touch thrown in for good measure (his company produced the movie). Had the movie been an indie, it may have resembled something darker, maybe even American Beauty, another existential movie that reminded me of Joe. Joe was basically ahead of its time. Some viewers (especially female, I've noticed) were hoping for a movie along the lines of When Harry Met Sally or Princess Bride, and were not prepared for how deep this movie went, and they reacted by hating it.

Maybe I'm wrong but that's the best explanation I can think of, regarding why this movie is so polarizing.


Human Beings...Wow

reply

Very true. I have loved this movie since I first saw it in a crowded theater with my wife back in 1990. We were the only ones walking out talking about how we loved that movie while everyone else was grumbling about how much they hated it. I guess that those of us who "get it" are summed up in Patricia's statement:

"My father says almost the whole world's asleep. Everybody you know, everybody you see, everybody you talk to. He says only a few people are awake. And they live in a state of constant total amazement."

The symbolism and the beautiful imagery of this movie is overlooked by the masses. I've watched this movie hundreds of times and still don't tire of it. And now that I have watched it a few times recently in HD, it is once again my favorite film. By the way .. you should read the script .. it has a lot of dialog that didn't make it to the final cut of the film. It is a great read.

reply

I am also firmly in the "love-it" camp... and it works for me on all levels.

In fact, the whackiness and quirkiness of it actually underwrites the plot, because as seriously as we want to take life, we can't help but think it's all just a big joke, and if we all just lightened up a little bit, it would be a much more pleasant place for all of us! In fact his manager actually says that at one point. "This is life, it's not supposed to be fun!"

Joe has figuratively been screwed by his job, but the moment he realizes that his life is precious, he breaks out of that cycle and becomes the ultimate fire-man (earlier on in his life he was a hero-fireman, now he is going to extinguish a whole volcano!).

This movie is extremely deeply submerged in symbolism and existentialism! Almost every line of the movie has significance! I can't help but watch it and pause and make commentary on it and it irritates the heck out of my family, but they do agree with my commentary!

reply

I agree with all the others who love the movie. I am a movie buff. I have seen French, Italian, Spanish, American, Canadian, Mexican etc... film from all decades and am rather knowledgable with the theory of cinema as well as just watching for entretainement. Joe Versus the Volcano is, for me, one of the best movies of all times. First, it is accesible to all because it appears at first, to be a romantic comedy with some corkiness. But it is much more than that. It has very strong symbolic elements and it is a movie about acceptance of one self and courage to take one's life in one owns hands. It's also a statement on society and the work environment. All these elements put together, the meaning of life, the societal issues, the corkiness, even slapstick elements, and the romantic aspect make it a true great movie. I watch it every few months. It makes you think as well as puts you in a good mood.

reply

I love it also. And I liked reading your thoughts.

When it comes to polarizing films though, check out the user ratings for "I Know Who Killed Me". 30% said 10 Stars, and 40% said 1 Star. The remaining 30% are spread fairly evenly over 2 Stars through 9 Stars. It's nuts. I've never seen anything like it.


Where the hell did I put my damn Horcruxes?!

reply

I know why some people hated it, they saw Sleepless in Seattle, You've Got Mail, and the other half-dozen Tom Hanks + Meg Ryan movies out. They watched this movie expecting a story drenched in romantic anticipation, and instead got to witness a Forrest Gump/The Terminal type movie. Because they didn't get what they expected they gave the movie a 1.

People who knew what to expect loved it, people who expected a Harry Met Sally romance flick, loathe it.

reply

right now this is showing a 5.2 rating ... yikes, now I wonder if half of the IMDB raters are 'retarded' ...

I would think this could be typical. I'm not sure why people seem to assume so much from a movie based on the cast.. maybe some knowledge of the script (or maybe the actual script?).

This movie rocked. Its like Gattaca, but in some ways better... definately funny and definately deep. Its like the Princess Bride... its whacky and its cool and its great stupid fun that goes beyond the sum of its parts.

I think a lot of people get caught up in the 'presentation' ... A lot of people may say the acting is bad... or over the top, but then they dont really know acting or worse, real life. Clearly this is not trying to be a 'real world exploit' but its definately more real than half the crap Hollywood tries to sell.

Sometimes cheesy whacky comedies about life are the best stuff Hollywood can make ... its a fine line between genius and stupidty.. unfortunetely people cross this - without knowing - all the time.

reply

I, too am firmly in the "LOVE IT" camp. This movie should resonate with anyone who's been or felt like they were stuck in a crappy, dead-end job. As I say in my review, those who hate this movie are not just asleep, but REFUSE to wake up! Check out my review. 'Nuff said.

A closed mind gathers no knowledge

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity - Robert Heinlein

reply

I love it too. I used to have that job and I got out too - though not under threat of terminal disease.

Actually the movie has always reminded me of the movie 'After Hours'. They are both existentialist fables.

reply

I think the movie is polarizing because it's a deeply romantic movie, and I don't just mean romantic in the conventional Hollywood sense, but also in the spiritual sense. It all starts with the Graynamore scene - you're either going to buy the idea that a person could be convinced to jump into a volcano... or you're not. If you're not, you might as well stop watching right there, because the rest of the film will just piss you off. Literal-minded, practical people just can't make that necessary suspension of disbelief to enjoy the movie.

I believe every movie should be judged on its own terms, and should be experienced in the spirit that the filmmaker intended. 'Sleepless In Seattle' is no less a romantic fantasy than JVTV, but SIS attempts to ground the story in reality, while the latter film is neck-deep in allegory. If you don't get that going in, if you don't understand that JVTV is not meant to be take literally in any way, then you're wasting your time. Don't get me wrong; I can nitpick with the best of them. But with movies like JVTV or The Princess Bride, you have to leave the nitpicking impulse at the door, or the movie will never have a chance to win you over.

My experience with JVTV has been on two levels - the first level is that I'm watching Joe Banks' 90 minute fever dream, an artful mishmash of cultural touchstones and romantic idealism. One of the most important lines in the film is "You're coming into focus, kid." Shanley tips his hand here that the focus of the story is exclusively on Joe, and everything that happens is only relevant in terms of how it affects the central character. That's why I see the movie as a dream, because we never have a scene that does not have Joe front and center - it's Joe's dream, and we're watching it along with him. He never initiates action, he only reacts to what's happening, or he's just following whatever course somebody else put him on. Doesn't that sound like a dream to you?

The second level is allowing myself to be seduced by Tom Hanks' goofy charisma, Meg Ryan's heart-melting smile, and Shanley's exquisite dialogue. Yeah, the Waponis appear to die at the end. Patricia's crew were lost with the ship. Two people jump into a volcano and miraculously escape unscathed. The folks who don't like this movie just can't get past those things, and I've read the original screenplay, so believe me when I tell you that the current ending is much better. One change that Shanley probably shouldn't have made was to de-emphasize how upset the Waponi chief was with his people, and the original screenplay suggests strongly that the Waponis have only themselves to blame for their fate. But again, we're not supposed to take any of this literally, and Joe's jump into the volcano is a metaphor representing his need to leave his fears behind and start taking chances again. The whole plot is ridiculous, so why fight it?

Speaking of dreams, Meg Ryan has never been more appealing than her turn as Patricia Graynamore. I was sixteen when I saw JVTV for the first time, and Patricia was my dream girl for many, many years. Man, I miss the 80's Meg Ryan.

reply