Just so I have this straight--there were "at least 50 better films" than Sideways in 2004. Among the reasons--the protagonists "behave as if the world beyond southern California doesn't exist." Also the movie "dances around class issues without ever facing them." I suppose for some the movie would've been improved by a segue into a Marxist examination of the plight of the proles working the vineyards in, say, Chile. I think, however, that for most of us this was an enjoyable movie that was well cast, well acted, and had adult dialogue and a good combination of pathos and humor.
As J.R. Jones points out ["Our Lists, Ourselves," January 7], Rosenbaum's selections say more about him than these movies. Contrast his trashing Sideways with his praise for the intellectually weak Farenheit 9/11. While I intensely dislike Bush, I was hoping Michael Moore would use his considerable talents to persuade people.
However, the movie contained so many obvious inaccuracies I doubt anyone was persuaded except the most dim-witted. Everyone else pretty much left the theater believing what they did when they came in. Does this movie really even compare to the works of Errol Morris?
Had Moore at least been innovative I too could give him credit for offering what was supposed to be a documentary but clearly did not adhere to the rules of documentary film. Ask yourself this, Mr. Rosenbaum, would you have been as charitable had Moore's movie targeted someone you didn't so despise? Had he, for instance, targeted windbag, leftist, pompous movie critics and then given such a distorted view and tried to pass it off as a documentary, would you have been as eager to heap praise?