“The Wrestler” was satisfying enough in the moment, but the more that I ruminate on it, the more I’m impressed with the thematic depth that lies within its otherwise routine sports film package.

I guess all I can say is that it’s a shame you didn’t respond to “Wendy & Lucy” the way I did. If it seems as though I’m jumping on a gushing bandwagon for the film, I can only attest that this isn’t the case. I had heard barely anything about it before a friend asked to attend the Festival screening with me, and I’ve never seen any of Reichardt’s other films. My response, therefore, is my own, or so I hope. You call out the film’s lack of a narrative pulse, and yet I was amazed a Reichardt’s ability to sculpt such an enveloping and soulful narrative with such a naturalistic style. Moreover, I empathized intensely with Wendy, partly due to Williams’ bold portrayal, partly due to Reichardt’s deft wielding of her social and economic sensitivity, and partly because I am a lover of animal companions (”pets” seems a understatement).

I suspect we’ll have to suss out our strongly divergent reactions to this film sometime, in print or otherwise. :)

I enjoyed “The Wrestler,” and thought it spoke more to Aronofsky’s immense and flexible talent as a director than anything else. I was a bit underwhelmed by it, although I would chalk that up to all the hype surrounding it.

I saw “Wendy and Lucy” last night. Pure misery. I understand what Reichardt is attempting to do; but framing it within a film that lacks any kind of narrative pulse is counter-productive. How can I care about the social subtext, how can I care about the casual disenfranchisement of American youth, when I can’t be made to care for anything or anyone in the film? There is a grand amount of appreciation from the critical establishment for this film, but I cannot share that enthusiasm. Perhaps it can be boiled down to “it just ain’t my cup ‘o tea.” Regardless, one of the most (for me) unpleasant films of the year.