Mile 22 movie review: unfortunately no one can be told what any of it means

Get new reviews in your email in-box or in an app by becoming a paid Substack subscriber or Patreon patron.

Mile 22 red light

MaryAnn’s quick take…

Welcome to the first action movie of the Trump era, wherein civil liberties are a distant fantasy and “no man left behind” has been forgotten, yet this is all “a higher form of patriotism.”tweet
I’m “biast” (pro): nothing
I’m “biast” (con): nothing
(what is this about? see my critic’s minifesto)
women’s participation in this film
male director, female coscreenwriter, male protagonist
(learn more about this)

Welcome to the first action movie of the Trump era — he actually gets a soundbite in the opening-sequence montage in which US Presidents extol the virtues of the American covert services — wherein civil liberties are a distant fantasy and “no man left behind” has been forgotten, yet this is all “a higher form of patriotism.” This is what gritty, “realistic” action movies have come to: no honor, no dignity, just bland cover for sociopathic expediency in the name of duty. Thank god Mile 22 doesn’t actually succeed in selling any of this: it believes itself clever but is nothing of the sort, and its generic yet unintelligible blandness conveys not one moment of excitement or engagement.

In an unnamed Asian city, operatives of — according to the movie’s marketing — “the CIA’s most highly prized and least-understood unit” are chasing down a weapons-grade-cesium macguffin when they acquire a human macguffin, an informer (Iko Uwais: Star Wars: The Force Awakens) who will tell them where to find the cesium only once he is on US soil. So now James Silva (Mark Wahlberg: All the Money in the World) and his team must race the informer across town while the baddies who don’t want the turncoat to talk try to stop them.

Mile 22! Costarring Carlo Alban, Ronda Rousey, a fuckton of bigass guns.
Mile 22! Costarring Carlo Alban, Ronda Rousey, a fuckton of bigass guns.

To call this fourth collaboration between director Peter Berg and star Wahlberg (the previous one was Patriots Day) incoherent would be a kindness. It’s mostly impossible to tell what’s going on in the copious action sequences. (Why would Berg cast a martial artist like Uwais if the director wasn’t going to shoot him in a way that lets us appreciate his brutal athleticism?) But even when we are given information, that never makes any sense, either; the ticking-clock urgency of the final act is discussed but not actually justified. Unless, of course, that a race against time is seen as shortcut to juicing up the thrills when the characters are cardboard and the dialogue is nothing but wiseass quips or — when things are meant to get serious — buzzwords and clichés; something about “hearts and minds”?

If Mile 22 hoped to educate us on this misunderstood CIA unit, we’re none the wiser by the end of the movie. (Hell, we never even learn what the title means.) Except that they’re all very, very angry, and shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near guns.



Apple News
Read this review and other select content from Flick Filosopheron the News app from Apple.

share and enjoy
             
If you’re tempted to post a comment that resembles anything on the film review comment bingo card, please reconsider.
If you haven’t commented here before, your first comment will be held for MaryAnn’s approval. This is an anti-spam, anti-troll measure. If you’re not a spammer or a troll, your comment will be approved, and all your future comments will post immediately.
subscribe
notify of
30 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
view all comments
susmart3
susmart3
Fri, Sep 21, 2018 11:49pm

What, nothing about Ronda Rousey, who has given up MMA fighting entirely now to be in the movies?

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  susmart3
Sat, Sep 29, 2018 4:26pm

You may presume from my lack of comment on her work here that she doesn’t particularly distinguish herself. That’s mostly the movie’s fault, but what were you expecting me to say?

susmart3
susmart3
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Sat, Sep 29, 2018 10:13pm

Just something as to this might be a good career move or she shouldn’t have bothered.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  susmart3
Wed, Oct 03, 2018 4:01pm

I doubt she’s getting many good opportunities to advance her acting career, which isn’t a reflection on her but on the extremely limited choices women in Hollywood have.

RogerBW
RogerBW
Thu, Oct 04, 2018 2:57pm

The quote atttributed to Orwell, though not actually found in his writing, about “We sleep peaceably in our beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf” is perversely appealing to a certain type of person – yeah, those sheep can never understand what needs to be done to keep them safe, and that’s why we need to get rid of due process and lawyers and the idea of “war crimes”, ‘cos a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do.

I have very little interest in films that follow this philosophy, especially when they end up super-grim and forget to be at all fun.

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  RogerBW
Thu, Oct 04, 2018 3:34pm

Mostly, I find that when films raise these sorts of issues, they fall into one of three categories:

(1.) We have no choice but to commit terrible acts of brutality.

(2.) We must never commit such immoral acts, because it would cost us our souls.

(3.) Gosh, it’s a moral quagmire isn’t it? I don’t really know the answer, but isn’t it daring of me to raise the questions?

The movies in category three appeal to me the most, but I prefer the rare films that actually try to answer the questions (though very few come to mind).

RogerBW
RogerBW
reply to  Danielm80
Thu, Oct 04, 2018 4:06pm

I think there’s a multidimensional aspect to it – I can still enjoy Schwarzenegger’s Commando because that’s basically cartoon violence that happens to use live actors. It’s when a film tries to be gritty and real, but at the same time indulges in the horrible things, that it completely loses me.

OnceJolly
reply to  RogerBW
Fri, Oct 05, 2018 2:58am

With the caveat that I’m not a Orwell scholar, I wonder if the phrase isn’t a paraphrase of a line from his essay on Rudyard Kipling: “He sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other men,
inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them.”

In context, it’s not part of an endorsement of Jack-Baueresque torture but a damning indictment of the Left’s relationship to Empire.

Edited at 9:09 p.m. to include link and second paragraph.

kagey
kagey
Wed, Nov 18, 2020 10:13pm

It’s sad to see a film critic trash a film and blame the narrative for omissions that were obviously included in the film. Let’s review:

… US Presidents extol the virtues of the American covert services — wherein “no man left behind” has been forgotten…

two things at play here — 1.) delivering a package is job 1 in the intelligence business and despite this, 2.) Silva does go back for Alice.
there’s a difference between CIA and Marines.

they acquire a human macguffin, an informer who will tell them where to find the cesium only once he is on US soil.

um, no. He will give them the code to a hard drive that tells them where the cesium can be found once he’s on a plane leaving the country. His plane was headed to Germany.

the ticking-clock urgency of the final act is discussed but not actually justified.

the hard drive with the location of the cesium will erase itself if man is not taken out of the country by 8 hours. That is set up at midpoint. The plane is vulnerable on the ground – it’s supposed to remain on the runway for no more than ten minutes.

Hell, we never even learn what the title means.

The distance from the embassy to the airport – where the informer catches a plane is 22 miles.

maybe if this “film critic” spent more time watching the movie and not playing Candy Crush or Facebooking on her phone, she would have been able to give an accurate assessment of the movie’s failings.

It’s an empty, uninspired and flawed movie. And it was conceived and began pre-production prior to Trump taking office. But hell, why let the facts get in the way of a good tongue lashing?

amanohyo
amanohyo
reply to  kagey
Thu, Nov 19, 2020 8:05pm

Sooo, you also disliked the movie, but you’re upset because the review criticizes the movie for what you consider to be inaccurate reasons? Weird thing to get fired up about, but okay. It might be possible to communicate this passionate correction in a less douchenozzley way though:

Maybe something like, “Well actually, Ms. film critic, if you stopped drinking wine and watching Sex and the City and Mama Mia on your phone for one second, you would have see-” wait, wait that’s also super douchey…

Perhaps a comment along the lines of, “This movie does suck, but you’re reviewing it all wrong, silly, blind movie lady, put down your cats and knitting needles and listen to m-” no, no, that’s kinda dickish too…

Wait I got it, you should have gone with, “M’lady, I mean not to offend, however I feel I must illuminate the unfortunate fact that you have perchance mistakenly published several inaccurate statements in your so-called “review.” I am uncertain as to how you could have overlooked such obvious information; nevertheless, your ignorance makes me quite sad and more than a little annoyed, and so as a fellow aficionado of the cinema, I feel I must express said frustration and sorrow in a lengthy comment, detailing the specific instances in which your descriptions of the movie’s failings were, in actuality, the failings of your own poor perceptive abilities, these no doubt due to your proclivity for playing games of the casual variety and engaging in meaningless social banter upon your intelligent telephone. I myself am more than capable of providing an accurate assessment of the film’s failings, which have nothing to with President Trump, I feel I must add, making me a superior reviewer than you, a supposed professional, what an amusing turn of events! I forgive you for your error in this one instance, although In the future, please concentrate on providing the reading public with a purely factual account of any films under your purview.

Sincerely,
kagey

P.S. If you feel yourself becoming irrationally angry at my cool, logical, objectively factual comment, as women are wont to do, I hereby give you permission to calm your nerves by gazing upon my strategically placed adorable puppy profile portrait. Perhaps its harmless, young, and aesthetically pleasing face will instill within you similar qualities, those which I seek in all the women of my social circle, whom I can assure you, are both multitudinous and magnificent.”

Oh no, wait, that’s a tad condescending too, maybe just.. don’t? Like, when you get the urge to be a dick to a stranger for no good reason, just… don’t and go play Call of Duty, pound back some Red Bulls and Wahlburgers, watch some Football, or you know, some other generic stereotypical male behavior that I’m going to arbitrarily assign to the imaginary cardboard strawperson representation of you I’ve constructed to cowardly pile all my frustrations onto instead of facing my emotional issues head on like a mature, empathetic human being? Maybe do that instead? Gosh!

kagey
kagey
reply to  amanohyo
Thu, Nov 19, 2020 11:15pm

ha ha… I love it.

“you’re a douchey, douche douchbag and you should only write constructive criticism like I do. signed amanohyo, head of douche patrol”

MaryAnn gave this movie ZERO stars out of 5 — which is totally uncalled for. If she doesn’t like action flix then she shouldn’t review them. If she hates Berg or Wahlberg, then she should opt not to review such a film. But if you’re going to be a professional reviewer, for God sakes, review the movie that was on the screen!

She was extremely harsh on a film that was obviously trying to entertain us. But hey, she got in a pot-shot at Trump as well as the filmmakers. So, can’t be all bad, huh?

Anyway, thank you for your looooong, irrational, condescending, immature emotional outburst amanohyo. I’m sure MaryAnn will sleep better tonight knowing trolls like you have her back.

amanohyo
amanohyo
reply to  kagey
Fri, Nov 20, 2020 11:29pm

Listen, I was going through a tough time a couple days ago. I had just caught a mouse secretly munching on my prize stash of semi-sweet chocolate chips. It ate half of a cherry tomato too – a complete betrayal of trust that drove home how fragile our security truly is. If an unauthorized mouse can mosey in and gnaw your morsels, who’s to say next time it won’t be something even deadlier like an irritable badger, a caravan of illegals, or Pelosi’s elite squad of paramilitary communist assassins squeezing under the basement drywall to munch your sweet cocoa nuggets?

Then I saw your comment, brash and bracing, standing firm, veiny, and proud, parting the waves of hypocrisy and lies so selflessly, so courageously, all to defend a movie you didn’t even enjoy from baseless, fraudulent claims, because you love truth in film journalism that damn much. I read it, then reread it in utter disbelief weeping out of fear at what it had awakened within me. When you mentioned Candy Crush and Facebook, my two favorite pastimes, I thought, “Finally! Someone who truly sees me for who I am!” It’s been so long since someone just… got me, you know?

I guess what I’m trying to say is, I lashed out last night and it wasn’t fair to you or to us. I don’t think you’re a douchenozzle – if anything I’m the douchebag, and you are the cleansing vinegar couched within, primed to spray out and extinguish the injustices of corrupt film critics across the globe. Your penetrating comments have rocked my soul and opened my chakras to the magical vibrations of Marky Mark and the Wahlburgerian Lifeforce itself. I see now that your passion comes from a holy place of purity and love, and I’m finally ready to take our relationship to the next level.

Let’s celebrate our newfound love by discussing what we liked and did not like about this deeply flawed, but objectively worthy of more than zero stars film.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  kagey
Sat, Nov 21, 2020 8:01pm

If she doesn’t like action flix then she shouldn’t review them

Have you read a single other review of action flicks I’ve written? Cuz I like plenty of ’em.

If she hates Berg or Wahlberg, then she should opt not to review such a film

I’ve praised both men’s work plenty, but that is NOT how this works.

I’m sure MaryAnn will sleep better tonight knowing trolls like you have her back.

Why are you like this?

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  kagey
Sat, Nov 21, 2020 8:01pm

The distance from the embassy to the airport – where the informer catches a plane is 22 miles.

But what does it mean?! What is the significance of that distance? C’mon, this isn’t difficult…

kagey
kagey
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Sun, Nov 22, 2020 2:36am

But what does it mean?!

seriously? it’s the distance to their goal.
You know, like if you need to go the grocery store and it’s 5 miles away. You have to travel 5 miles to get to your goal. So, you could entitle your story “5 miles.”

It’s a title that’s meant to be taken literally.
what does The Godfather mean?
C’mon, this isn’t rocket science.

In the last couple of years, I’ve noticed you like to give zero stars to project that don’t meet with your liberal agenda. You even gave Clint Eastwood’s Mule ZERO stars while you gave Oceans Eight FOUR stars!! Wow! That’s telling.

Let’s face it, you’ve stopped being a film critic and now you’ve become a SJW. You should simply resign from being a movie critic and join pundits who bash anything that has a white male in the lead.

I’ve had conversations with Ebert back in the day and he was always willing to review his past criticism and whether or not they were too biased or dismissal. He was always willing to be fair and he even did shows where he would review movies that he disliked and look at them with fresh eyes.

There was a reason Ebert chose to rate films as thumbs up or down is because he didn’t want to prevent people from enjoying films. He wasn’t judging the film – he was simply offering his simplistic recommendation. When you give a film zero stars you’re saying that EVERY aspect of the film was horrible and EVERY person who worked on the film didn’t try. That’s a very harsh assessment.

As flawed as your review was – and the fact that you couldn’t even understand a simplistic title – I would still not rate your horrible review as zero… even though it looks like you didn’t even watch the entire film and wrote your review in less than ten minutes.

There are projects out there that are money grabs, poorly made, poorly executed and deserve zero stars. 22 Miles isn’t one of them.

The script didn’t have plot holes in it (unlike Oceans 8). It had both male and female stars in it (unlike Oceans 8). And it was enjoyable entertainment (unlike Oceans 8).

Zero stars should be reserved for the worse of the worse movies. The way you’re giving those out to movies that actually try and present an idea (that you oppose) makes me think that maybe 23 years of movie watching is just too much for you to handle.

You owe the filmmaker, cast and crew an apology on your reviews of 22 Mile AND Mule — and you should re-watch them to understand why your reviews were inappropriate.

amanohyo
amanohyo
reply to  kagey
Sun, Nov 22, 2020 4:11pm

1. No critic owes anyone an apology for expressing subjective and honest opinions about a work of art. If you’re attempting a parody of “cancel culture,” that doesn’t happen here for respectful commenters who stay reasonably on topic (*nervously adjusts collar*).

2. If you personally witness a reviewer on their phone, playing games during most of a screening, and their review is completely inaccurate, please present your evidence.

3. “I disliked it and found it incoherent, but the kind of person who likes this stuff will probably think it’s okay, 2.5 stars” is a product review, not interesting or worthwhile criticism.

4. A good critic is willing to be surprised and occasionally watches movies from genres/directors/actors they typically dislike. This is a good thing.

5. Sometimes a critic is angry at a film for not fulfilling its potential, and expresses that frustration in their review – this emotional honesty is also a good thing. It would be “inappropriate” to write a dishonest to spare the filmmakers’ feelings or please PR. It’s possible to state one’s disappointment in a work of art while still respecting the artists who produced it.

6. This is not the CCP. A critic is free to assign whatever score they want to a review they’ve written, if you feel it deserves higher because of aspects the review missed or mischaracterized, point them out and explain what you liked. No one will judge you for your opinion here unless…

7. …you act like a dick. Opening a conversation with: “How could you miss this, you stupid deluded biased SJW, I’m right and I demand you apologize!” is a nonstarter. It’s unfashionable but theoretically possible to be respectful and polite to someone you disagree with without immediately mutating into a socialist SJW snowflake simp.

8. We have different tastes, but everyone here loves movies here and likes to think about what they do well and ways they can be improved. If you tell us what you liked about the movie, maybe you’ll convince someone to give it a shot? Instead of focusing on “this review sucks and so does this critic!” try, “this movie was not that bad, and here’s why…”

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  amanohyo
Sun, Nov 22, 2020 4:46pm

I’ve written reviews and served on awards committees, and I often try to imagine the reactions of other audience members, because I know that works of art aren’t produced exclusively for an audience of me. Sometimes I say things like: Many people will admire the technical skill and ingenuity that went into making this. I admire those things, too, but it still didn’t work for me, and here’s why…

Another option, of course, is to say: I loved this movie, and anyone who doesn’t agree with me must have something seriously wrong with them. Let me guess wildly what that is.

We’ve all seen what happens when people do that, and how futile it is to argue with them.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  kagey
Mon, Nov 23, 2020 12:47pm

You have to travel 5 miles to get to your goal. So, you could entitle your story “5 miles.”

And that would be a terrible, banal, pointless title… unless there was a genuine significance to the distance. Unless it had a thematic meaning. How do you not understand this?

There was a reason Ebert chose to rate films as thumbs up or down is because he didn’t want to prevent people from enjoying films.

Reviews prevent you from enjoying a film? If that’s true, why didn’t a thumbs-down ruin a film for you?

As for the rest of your screed, I will repeat what I’ve said many times before: All critics are biased. If you don’t see a critic’s biases, it’s because your biases align with theirs. That’s it.

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Mon, Nov 23, 2020 7:03pm

It’s disheartening to see how you (and longtime readers) have to have this conversation over and over and over and over and over again with different people who think they’re the very first ones to argue with you about it. Where do they get the energy? His use of “SJW” and “liberal agenda” are also signs you’ll find no common ground with him. I suggest you just block these fuckers.

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  Bluejay
Mon, Nov 23, 2020 8:14pm

If it’s at all heartening, MaryAnn is part of a grand tradition when she gives a movie zero stars:

https://hazlitt.net/feature/roger-eberts-zero-star-movies

kagey
kagey
reply to  Danielm80
Tue, Nov 24, 2020 4:35am

Mile 22 – Ebert 2.5 Stars
The Mule – Ebert 2 Stars
Extraction – Ebert 2.5 Stars
Inheritance – Ebert 2 Stars
My Spy – Ebert 2.5 Stars
Gemini Man – Ebert 2 Stars

MA Johanson – all Zero Stars

MaryAnn has given more Zero Stars ratings in the last 2 years than Ebert gave his ENTIRE career!

Take My Spy for example – 119 critic reviews on RT. MaryAnn is the ONLY critic to give it Zero Stars.

She’s not part of a “grand tradition” – she’s part of the “woke” media and suddenly feels the need to attack anything that does not fit in her political agenda.

want more?
Gemini Man – 319 critic reviews on RT
MA, the ONLY one to give it Zero Stars

The Mule – 189 critic reviews on RT
MA, the ONLY critic to give it Zero Stars

this isn’t movie reviewing – this is disgraceful.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  kagey
Tue, Nov 24, 2020 1:09pm

I am not competing again Ebert, or any other critic. I don’t think you understand how any of this works. You’re wasting your time here. Go find another critic whose biases align with yours if all you’re looking for is affirmation of your own opinions.

kagey
kagey
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Nov 24, 2020 7:53pm

“… all you’re looking for is affirmation of your own opinions.”

I think you have that backwards.
All I’m looking for is a fair and balanced review of the movie that was presented on the screen.

When your reviews consistently attack action and/or white male leads…
when your reviews bash world leaders even though the film has nothing to do with this…
when your reviews run polar opposite to EVERY SINGLE ONE of your peers…

you have ceased being a film critic.

You have become a one-person movement to change what films should represent.
This is fine as an activist.
But this is unacceptable as a film critic.

The vitriol and hatred that you spread in your “reviews” and on Twitter have no place in today’s world. You have become the very bully and acrimonious pontificator that you like to accuse politicians to be.

When your reviews urge your audience to watch a biased documentary so they would vote the way you believe they should — you’re no longer a film critic. You don’t deserve the invitations and benefits a film critic gets.

You should resign as a film critic and simply label your site what it is: FeministFilosopher.
There is no room in the art of film criticism for your hateful rhetoric and agenda-pushing.

You’re right. You’re not competing with Ebert, Pauline Kael or any other film critic (past or present)… because you’ve long stopped reviewing films. I’m not even sure if you like movies anymore.

You’re competing with Rush Limbaugh — and your public contempt for the films that don’t fit your world beliefs in the form of a film review is unconscionable.

amanohyo
amanohyo
reply to  kagey
Thu, Nov 26, 2020 5:29am

You’re right, Gemini Man doesn’t deserve zero stars. Zero is a real number, and there’s nothing real in that film. Even a negative, imaginary, or complex score would be too generous for that soul sapping, anemic tech demo.

You’re getting pretty worked up about like, just other people’s opinions, man. Plenty of critics pan movies I love, and lots of my favorite movies have low RT scores. If you like a movie, then vote with your wallet, your eyeballs, and your brain. No zero star review can take that joy away from you. My favorite soup is considered inedible by the majority of the US population. It remains fucking delicious and has only grown in deliciousness over the years.

One last time: there’s no one correct way to be a movie critic or single agreed upon rubric for what different star values mean. There are also no political requirements or restrictions when writing criticism. How could you ever trust or respect a critic that changed their opinions and methods based on the wishes of an angry stranger who couldn’t even be bothered to defend the movies in question (despite being asked multiple times) whose entire argument rests largely on a basic bandwagon fallacy?

What kind of jelly-spined critics populate your delusional dystopia? In your ideal world, do reporters who ask difficult questions also mysteriously vanish and get replaced with a “proper” journalist after a furious tweet by some random anonymous internet hobgoblin?

“Uh oh… someone just wrote a book criticizing your favorite streaming show! A couple months at the re-education camp will teach them to be a more appropriate author. And I don’t care much for the lyrics to that BTS song either… why do they keep lighting up dynamite? A bit too political and subversive – better run it past comrade kagey at the Ministry of Culture and see if we should censor the lyrics and force a public apology.”

“Excellent work comrade, stay ever vigilant and objective. May Lord Robert guide your thumb sure and true. Objectify and Obey! Olé Allah Allez!”

*salutes the Ebertian Flag with both thumbs*

kagey
kagey
reply to  Bluejay
Tue, Nov 24, 2020 4:11am

you’re probably right Bluejay – came here for a movie review – not a political grandstanding. Yet you can feel such hatred coming from film critic who should be promoting movies…comment image

comment image
comment image

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  kagey
Tue, Nov 24, 2020 1:09pm

LOL

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  kagey
Tue, Nov 24, 2020 4:03pm

You’re boring. I’m blocking you now. Have fun whining.

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  Bluejay
Tue, Nov 24, 2020 5:42pm

I thought this was funny:

https://youtu.be/QPQAXqqy1uk

kagey
kagey
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Mon, Nov 23, 2020 7:51pm

First – in this review – your “biast” sections says you have none. That’s a lie.

Next – your review harms a film when you set out to settle a score by giving it zero stars. Unfortunately, RT has you listed in that small group of “professional” reviewers – so you’re zero stars rating carries more weight. You kill the aggregate score that’s used to advertise the movie for the rest of its life. But you already know that.

In fact, if you compare your hate (0 Stars) to those of other professional movie reviewers, none of them take their reviews to the extreme you do. What you’re doing is dishonest. You’re not rating the movie experience you had – you’re rating the movie experience you wanted.

Yes, we’re all biased in our opinions – but even when I watch such crap as The Hustle, I can still find some value in it.

Your zero stars rating is the equivalent to today’s cancel culture. If it doesn’t meet with your approval, it must be destroyed. This is an immature response from a professional reviewer. Like literary reviews, you have a responsibility to give a balanced reporting of what you experienced. When you don’t, you’re being negligent. And you’re actually harming the entire industry that makes it possible for you to earn a living. (ironic, isn’t it?)

I get it – you hate Trump, you hate the GOP and most white American males — this is evident in your radical liberal tweets. Maybe it’s time you walked away from movie reviews and just became a political pundit 24/7. Because your reviews have long stopped becoming reviews of what’s actually on the screen – but instead of what you wish the world could be (as evidence by the “Johanson analysis” of evaluating females in film).

Maybe this is why Ebert won a Pulitizer Prize and you haven’t. He was able to put his politics aside and would judge a movie on whether or not it was successful at accomplishing its intent. You, on the other hand, are writing reviews as a SJW and you’re trying to use your influence to deride commercial art that you disagree with. This is feckless and shameful.

Yeah, the title 22 Miles may be banal. That’s fine. But don’t say you don’t understand it or that it was never explained. IT WAS. You just wish it was more creative like, um, say Oceans Eight. Movie titles are not required to carry thematic meaning or double entrendres… 1917, Green Book, BlacKkKlansman – all titles that reference a specific time, prop or character. 22 Miles is the goal. Nothing more.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  kagey
Tue, Nov 24, 2020 1:09pm

Oh dear. You’re one of those people who worries about a movie’s RT score.

Maybe this is why Ebert won a Pulitizer Prize and you haven’t.

You are simply hilarious.

And you can fuck off too.