I find that movie unbearable. The actual dialogue is "you keep reading the ******* wrong books, read Howard Zinn instead, I'm so smart." "What about Manufacturing consent, huh? (You see? I can be edgy and smart as well)" And the whole movie is like that.
The world agrees with you, it's universally acclaimed, but I kind of hate it. In my opinion, it is based on three questionable notions that Hollywood absolutely loves: 1) that skills are about being talented since birth, and so there is always this guy, the genius, who's so cool that he succeeds in everything without even trying (and btw, he appears to be dominant in every possible field, not just a few of them ). 2) that academics are all pretentious jerks. Now, some of them surely are, but come on, it's not like you enter a random pub and you meet that stereotypical dude who's just looking forward to outsmarting a complete stranger. 3) that being smart equates winning verbal fights, and proving the opponent that you can be petty in a more clever and witty way than they do. Almost every dialogue in the movie is about one person dunking on another one, often in rather childish ways. So, yeah, I guess I'm missing something because most people love it but that's how I feel.
I have that with west wing. Universality loved, Alan Sorkin, Martin Sheen, so quotable. To me it’s just a load of people walking down a corridor just waiting for whoever is currently saying something smart and witty to stop talking so they can say something even better.
These three are the core tenets of the Iron Man movies and the MCU more generally, which is why those films are so grating.
Fair comparison. Good Will Hunting is like an action movie, but rather than shots and punches they throw at each other petty smartass monologues.
Now I want an MCU film about Noam and his Russian clone counterpart. Iron Noam vs Chomski. “Chomski? More like Chump-ski.” “Pah! And they call you the father of modern linguistics!”
I remember the first time I read about Noam Chomsky that I was so intrigued by him, and then when I came across him again I was so bored by him and wondered why I was intrigued in the first place. I’m not sure if that’s good, with normalization into the mainstream debate of many of his views, or bad, with him getting stale and losing his touch and sometimes making really unfounded remarks.
Yeah, but all that endless dunking, yet doing nothing, is presented as a negative in the film. It’s Will, instead of having the courage to use his brain to do something meaningful, engaging in typical Boston ball-breaking culture, but with his “I’m well-informed and you’re not” amateur intellectual edge. Because it’s easy. He gets to stay in his comfortable childhood world, while also beating people - verbally and physically. And the whole movie’s point is that he has to break out of that superficial comfort zone. Which is why there’s a shrink at the center of it all. So the stuff you’re criticizing…you’re supposed to criticize. The director wants you to see it that way. So yeah, I also agree it’s annoying, especially as I grew up with that one-upmanship culture (something that’s also prevalent in much of Italian culture too, I’d add). Petty, smartass comebacks is what it’s all about. Battute. But I think you’re meant to be annoyed by it. And shouldn’t glorify it. And I don’t think the film does. Also, Will is indeed a kid. So he’s immature. And he thinks he’s wicked smaht in a lot of annoying ways. And that’s partly why the movie works. Because kids his age are ****ing annoying. That said, I haven’t watched the movie in ages and don’t intend to again. I just remember it capturing Boston and Bostonians, especially from Southie, pretty well. I mean, Damon and Affleck. Yeah.
