Mr. & Mrs. Smith

[Dagny]

I just recently saw this movie again for the second time and must say that I thoroughly enjoyed it. I know lots here dislike Angelina for her altruism and Pitt for his choice of characters. However, I thought this is one of the best movies either of them has ever made. The dialogue between the two characters in the first half of the movie was hillarious! I loved the way they spoke to the marriage counselor about their troubled marriage.

Having been through a troubled marriaged myself I can tell you they were right on about people growing apart. The power struggle between the two is quite evident in little things like picking curtains for their living room. I loved it when they finally got all their mental frustrations out in a physical fight- it was absolutely brilliant! Something that you obviously wouldn't do in real life with your spouse but is great for a movie. The latter half is more action oriented ...with gun fighting, etc. but its supposed to show how the two get to know each other and learn to work together. To sum up...I am adding this to my list of favorite movies.

[FeatherFall]

Of all of the movies I've seen within the last year, it's one of my favorites - far better than I expected.

[Becky]

I know lots here dislike Angelina for her altruism

Isn't there a difference between altruism and charity? From what I've read, Angelina saves 1/3 of her salary, spends 1/3 and gives away 1/3. She is not advocating one live in poverty to save others. I have read nothing to indicate that her actions are anything more than her being charitable. She has made many comments on the joy she receives from the children she's adopted. I don't see why charitable actions are automatically deemed altruistic. She obviously enjoys the fruits of her labor - large home, travels, shopping, etc.

As far as the movie goes, I was impressed with it. Not great cinema perhaps, but a wonderful, fun time. I would recommend it as a great date pic.

[RamelBradley]

I thought this was good too. Not great, but definitely entertaining and worth a watch.

[dondigitalia]

Isn't there a difference between altruism and charity?

Yes, a huge difference. It depends on the reasons why Jolie gives money to charities. I think she's a little kooky, and I have some real problems with her support of the UN, but I don't see anything wrong with donating money to charity, or adopting a dozen third-world children as long as it involves no sacrifice on her part.

That said, I really enjoyed this movie. I think both she and Brad Pitt are fantastic actors (and the two most beautiful people on the planet, to boot!). It wasn't too deep or Oscar-worthy by any means, but it was a lot of fun. I'll probably see it again when it comes out on DVD.

[tnunamak]

I thought Pitt and Jolie were both assassins working for free-lance agencies... meaning they are criminals, or am I missing something?

I was deeply disturbed by this movie, it seems to me to be a reflection of a recent trend to glorify criminals in such a way as to de-emphasize their crimes, and consequently, to justify their actions. The characters are portrayed in such a way as to gain empathy with the viewer. Or am I completely off the mark?

[softwareNerd]

....[criminals]... portrayed in such a way as to gain empathy with the viewer.

I forget if the story provided any moral justification for what they did. If anything, it's more of a sense-of-life piece, in the sense (dare I make such a comparison) that "The Night of Jan 16th" was a sense of life piece.

The basic "lesson" one gets from romantic art is: efficacious action is possible to man. In a great work, like Atlas Shrugged, this is combined with lessons about the right types of goals and actions. However, those are not primary. So, one can have Romantic art like "Les Miserables" or "Mr. and Mrs. Smith", where one disagrees with the goals of the protagonist and yet one sees the protagonist setting goals and achieving them.

As for it being a recent trend, the movie is a remake. So, unless they've changed it quite a bit, the glorification of criminals was probably present in the earlier version too. On the other hand, you're probably right about this trend -- with cynicism reigning, writers start with any goal and then show the protagonist attempt to achieve that goal. Not good, but (aesthetically) it's better to show some goals rather than none.

As for personal taste, I didn't like the movie too much. I thought it was okay, but not that good -- too much movement and action, and a bit cliched at times.

[DavidV]

I thought Pitt and Jolie were both assassins working for free-lance agencies... meaning they are criminals, or am I missing something?

I got the impression that their organizations contracted for the government. Why else would they be killing South American dictators and weapons smugglers? Their organizations were also pretty tight with the FBI.

[tnunamak]

In that case, the movie must not have the moral implications that I thought, so nevermind