Mila Kunis did an interview where she claims the film has a little action…a little drama…a little romance…a little fantasy…a little of everything for everybody…
So, in essence, she claims it is pablum for the sheep.
First, why do they interview actors? Interviewing an actor about why a part was written a certain way is like interviewing an anchorman about the political story s/he just grinned through as they read.
Also, why are pablumatic films thought if with anything other than disdain?
When we look back at “classic” films of the last thirty years, they have become more and more specialized. Take the first Star Wars film, for example…easily the best of the six…no romance…no mystery…not even real hard core science fiction…just a fantasy adventure.
How about this year…Django, up for best picture. Gore action, humor and maybe a dash of romance…but not something for everyone due to violence, language and even subject matter. Though it likely will not win, odds are good it will be remembered longer than the winner…how many, off the top of your head, remember what film won when Kill Bill hit the screens? Back to the Future? Stripes? Animal House? How about the first Matrix film?
…for the record, the second and third Matrix films went the other way and became pablum.
So…would you rather drink the pablum and go to a film with a little of everything for everybody? …our would you rather have the bartender serve up that special cocktail that for a select few quench the thirst beyond any other?