clearly not the type of person to go all in for hygiene—wears shorts for the several days depicted in the film, for instance, her legs remain decidedly unhairy.

This is an ignorant statement. Shaving one's legs is not a matter of hygiene as hairy legs are not a health issue. Besides, some women's legs are naturally hairless. Get into a bigger world, baby.

Wow, what a useless review. Why the nitpicky focus on minutiae like door locks? Was the film any good? Did it have any strong characters? Was it thematically provocative in anyway? Did it move you, emotionally or intellectually? Did it contain any insights about the human condition? Did you enjoy it?

These are the kinds of questions a good film reviewer should attempt to answer.

This was your review? Really?

It's a fine (short) review. The film is a worthy attempt to convey the feeling of being alone for the first time. Main flaw: lack of attention to detail. Two examples are offered. Fifty examples are not necessary.

For all the reviewer knows, Wendy could have packed a razor ... to shave her legs. WE just weren't treated to the sight of her doing such a mundane task as ... shaving.

Also, Wendy leaving her car door unlocked can easily be attributed to absent-mindedness. I mean, here is a woman who finds herself in such a new situation that ... her common sense is BOUND to escape her, from time to time.

michelle williams is an unbelievably underrated actress. i hope this film gives her a better spotlight than your review did.

Abbie, I have to ask if you saw the movie. We were treated to such "mundane tasks" as Wendy changing her underwear and brushing her teeth in the gas station bathroom she has for bathing/grooming/hygiene issues. In fact, the movie is entirely made up of mundane tasks.

As to whether she'd have locked the door: In the short story the movie is based on (and the film follows the story so closely that there's no reason to believe the story's character diverges in any way from the film,) the character makes a point of checking the doors before she goes to sleep.

This review was only 300 words; I wish I had three times the space. I might do a long post on Slog about my complicated relationship to this movie, and if I do, I'll link to it here.

As briefly as I can, because it's Sunday: I loved Old Joy. And I wanted to love this movie. But when you have a movie like this, where there's almost no plot and the shots are very slow-paced, all that you have to tell the story with is the details. And there was a serious failure of details here, which means the movie doesn't work as it should.

But as a reviewer, in the space that I had, my job was to talk about the plot, contextualize it with the filmmaker's previous film (which is not always important but was in this case because the previous film was so distinctive and successful and the first question on the minds of everybody who saw Old Joy is going to be "Is it like/as good as Old Joy?), talk about what the film and its cast achieves, and explain whether I think it works or not. I don't usually have a problem with writing 300 word reviews, but in this case, there's a lot more there. You should see it, but there's a weird inauthenticity to the film-making this time around that I found troubling. Williams was amazing—I've known (furry-legged) women exactly like that in my life—but the movie around her doesn't quite work. Old Joy worked. Momma's Man, which is a film by a different director but is very similar to this movie in a fundamental way, worked.

I'd love to see what people have to say about the movie, though—maybe I missed the forest for the trees. But those details are really distracting.

"I might do a long post on Slog about my complicated relationship to this movie, and if I do, I'll link to it here."

Please do. Explain yourself.

As a writer, you do the best with what you have and you don't make excuses after the fact something is published; a chance at redemption is another backwards facet to blogging, I guess. While I genuinely enjoy your words, this review was a joke. If her character didn't have hairy enough legs after TWO days of not shaving qualifies as a "serious failure of details here, which means the movie doesn't work as it should"...well, that's a serious failure on your part.

(Ouch. I just realized the internet brings out my meaner tendencies.)

I loved this movie and hope more people go see it, although I realize that a number of them will hate it.

You write: "for the several days depicted in the film, for instance, her legs remain decidedly unhairy."

If I remember the movie correctly, don't you just see two days depicted? Did you expect to see super hairy legs after two days of no shaving?

FWIW, imdb.com lists this in their trivia section: "Michelle Williams did not shave her legs or clean her fingernails during filming. After filming completed, Williams' friend Busy Philipps treated her to a manicure and pedicure. ... Director Kelly Reichardt was worried that Michelle Williams was "too pretty" to play the role. She asked Williams to go without makeup and not wash her hair for two weeks during filming."

I'd have to watch the movie again to look for the car lock stuff you mentioned. One explanation is that perhaps the car lock just doesn't work.

It's great to hear what people notice in the movie and it's great to hear their interpretations of people and events in it. Reading through some messages boards, you can easily find people who can quickly explain why Wendy (stupidly/smartly) did this or that, or whether certain characters are "good" or "bad". Seriously, it's a great rorschach test to find out how judgmental people are.


(Random note: after Michelle Williams broke up with Heath, she and her kid went to PDX to make this movie.)

eat poo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFAUF7942…