MovieChat Forums > Good Will Hunting (1998) Discussion > Why 'Good Will Hunting' doesn't work

Why 'Good Will Hunting' doesn't work

posted 11 years ago by Wuchakk
72 replies | jump to latest

The theme of a genius janitor is great and I thought I'd like the film more than I did, but a couple of things really bog it down.

For one, Will Hunting is not a "good" person, as the title suggests (I'm sure they were being ironic). In fact, he's so smart he's stupid. Doesn't he know that smoking will destroy his body and send him to an early grave? (I get it, he's super-smart in some ways but he lacks common sense wisdom). More importantly, he's arrogant and unnecessarily mean. For instance, Professor Lambeau visits him in jail and Will's first words are, "What the *beep* do you want?" Could anyone be that stupid? How about, "Hi, I'm Will. Who are you, Sir?" I get it -- he's from a tough neighborhood and was abused as a kid, but 99% of guys from tough neighborhoods who were abused as kids don't talk unnecessary sheet like Will does in this film.

In fact, too much of the cussing rings untrue. Will and his three friends from South Boston use the f-word practically every other word and it strikes an inauthentic chord. Yes, I realize -- they're trying to act like hooligans from a rough neighborhood -- but they try too hard and it comes off contrived.

I should add that I hail from a neighborhood where the gang cussed, drank, did drugs & smoked like sailors, but even we could construe eight words together without throwing in the f-word (although two full sentences would be a challenge, lol). I have no problem with realistic cussing in films; in fact, I prefer it. But when it's so over-the-top that it seems artificial it detracts from the drama.

Furthermore, Damon doesn't LOOK like a tough guy from the wrong side of the tracks (neither does Ben, but he's a little better). Matt's miscast because he just looks too soft with his baby-face. I think he knew this because he tries too hard to be a tough punk, and it shows.

The fact that the main protagonist is thoroughly unlikable takes away from the story. Who cares about some disrespectful punk who doesn't care to better himself, genius or not? As a result, the drama isn't nearly as compelling as it could've been. When Sean (Williams) finally gets Will to break at the end, I wasn't much interested.

I'm not saying that the movie's wholly bad or that it's a waste of time, but the above factors prevented it from having any impact on me.

[–] nnpietro 10 years ago

Okay

One can be a genius but usually when we think of "genius" it's almost always strictly a intellectual peak. Will Hunting clearly possessed some tools that allowed him to solve complex math problems and read several books in a day. But he lacked the skills to deal with his emotions and trauma.

You cannot encapsulate Will by comparing your experiences to his. Because you "hailed" from a rough sounding neighborhood and don't say the F-word every other word today is only a testimony of YOUR experience. You cannot project how you would handle situations on someone else. Well, of course you can say all you want but for argumentative purposes, it's a pretty weak reasoning.

I don't have a problem with Will smoking. I think that's just a subset behavior of how he's struggling with his trauma. He knows perfectly well how bad smoking is for him. He also knows perfectly well how bad grand theft auto and street fights are. But he also knows one more thing: remember the "It's not your fault" scene? Before Sean begins beating it into Will that he doesn't have to feel responsible for the abuse he has experienced Will asked about the contents of his profile,"What does it say in there? That Will has an 'attachment' disorder? Fear of abandonment? etc." Will also knows about Psychology. Clearly he read Sean's book and the other therapists' books.

You can know a lot and be pretty smart. But for some people certain experiences in their past have handicapped them so much that they retaliate, even at themselves, even at the best of themselves. This is why Sean was a genius in his own right as going through life trying to apply and use the tools of his field of expertise.

[–] Wuchakk 10 years ago

As far as the smoking goes, I said in my review: "I get it, he's super-smart in some ways but he lacks common sense wisdom." So it's really a non-issue and maybe I shouldn't have even mentioned it, but it still points out his stupidity despite his amazing smarts. The viewer automatically thinks, "Well, he must not be all that brilliant."

You cannot encapsulate Will by comparing your experiences to his.

I grew up in the NE in a tough neighborhood so I'm qualified to evaluate the way this type of environment is depicted in the film and, for me, it struck an inauthentic chord. Yes, I realize -- the actors were trying to act like hooligans from a rough neighborhood -- but they tried too hard and it came off contrived. I'm not saying this as some crabby person who hates the actors/filmmakers, I knew the plot and expected to like the movie, but this aspect came off artificial to me because they tried too hard to act like bad dudes from the other side of the tracks.

I repeat what I said at the end of my original post: I found the protagonist -- Will Hunting -- thoroughly unlikable and it takes away from the story. Who cares about some disrespectful punk who doesn't care to better himself, genius or not? As a result, the drama wasn't nearly as compelling as it could've been. When Sean (Williams) finally got Will to break at the end, I wasn't much interested.

At the same time, I'm not saying the movie's all bad and I'll give it another go sometime since I own it, but I don't expect to warm up to it much due to these legitimate criticisms.

My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/

[–] abuelita_gaviota 10 years ago

Wuchakk, give it up! Stop highjacking your own thread! You've been beating this dead horse for just a month short of a year, plenty of time to keep your promise to view the film again, which apparently you have not. We get it--you did not care for the protagonist, and my guess is nobody cares that you didn't care.

[–] Wuchakk 10 years ago

Stop highjacking your own thread! You've been beating this dead horse for just a month short of a year, plenty of time to keep your promise to view the film again, which apparently you have not.

How exactly am I "hijacking my own thread"? The only time I post on this thread is when someone replies to one of my posts here. What do you want me to do, be rude and ignore the person? As far as "beating this dead horse" goes, I'm doing nothing of the sort. I posted 11 months ago or so explaining why the film didn't work for me -- not that it's a total piece of sheet, just that it didn't fully work for me (and numerous others, I might add) -- and I merely post in reply when someone else posts. So what's the problem?

plenty of time to keep your promise to view the film again, which apparently you have not

Like you say, my friend, it hasn't even been a year. Give me time and I'll eventually get around to it. When I do I promise to give it an open-minded re-evaluation. Cool? Now, you might argue that I said something to the effect of "I'll give it another viewing in a few months" or something along these lines; if I stated something like that (I can't remember if I did or not) I was simply referring to a non-specific period of time, which can be translated as such: I own the movie so I'll eventually get around to viewing it again when the mood strikes me, even if that's another year from now, or two years, or five. After all, why watch a film if you're not in the right mode for that kind of movie?

I see that the film has a lot of adamant fans and I respect that, but I know my criticisms are legitimate because more than a few people have agreed with me, both here and elsewhere.

We get it--you did not care for the protagonist, and my guess is nobody cares that you didn't care.

Matt Damon's fine but -- you're right -- I didn't care for the titular character and my posts have provided valid reasons why. As to whether or not anyone cares, these boards exist to encourage dialogue on topics like this and exchange of ideas. Evidently some people care because this thread has been going on for about 11 months now.

Regardless, I like your passion abuelita_gaviota and respect that you didn't resort to name-calling or making derogatory remarks, which happens too often on these IMDb boards (over a freakin' movie!). Have a good one.

My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/

[–] Wuchakk 10 years ago

I said in one of my previous posts on this thread that there were others who agreed with me that the cussing in this movie was overdone to the point that (1.) it became distracting and (2.) struck an inauthentic chord, like the writers/actors were trying too hard to portray bad white dudes from the other side of the tracks. Of course I've been castigated by the movie's fans for pointing out this flaw, but it struck others the same way. Here's a prime example: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119217/reviews-496

And another: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119217/reviews-131

And probably the best: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119217/reviews-725

As you can see, my main criticism of the film is shared by many viewers; I wasn't making up a reason to not like it.

This doesn't mean, of course, that you can't like the film, but at least concede that it's a genuine flaw.

My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/

[–] furienna 9 years ago

I can't believe that I didn't say anything yet about the real topic of this interesting thread. I guess I thought I was going to do that some other day, but then I forgot about it. Oh well, here it goes...

I really don't think that Will was that likable either. And yeah, why should I feel any connection to this little thug? Of course, I did not grow up in a tough urban environment. But still, I would never do half of those stupid things, that Will seems to do on a daily basis. And yes, I will count "minor" things like the smoking (I just love how Sean told Will that it would be healthier for him if he put those cigarettes up his butt) and the cursing (I agree with you that they just went too far with that part) to that big cathegory. And don't even get me started on worse things like stealing cars and starting that fight. But then we get to see those glimpses of Will's huge intelligence. How he could solve a difficult Math problem and loves to read books. And thus I start to sense a totally different person, somebody I can like, behind what looks like just another petty criminal from the wrong side of the tracks.

You kept asking who cares about a Math wiz. Well, I have to say that I do. And luckily for Will, so did Lambeau and Sean. (Well, Sean didn't care too much about the Math thing, I guess, but he still set his mind on this case.) It is really sad to me that Will was just going to waste his life, staying in that bad neighborhood working in one low-paid job after the other. But I guess that I have to agree with some previous posters, who had seen his flaws as a part of a defence mechanism, that he built up as an abused child. He learned to not trust any authorities, and even to mostly hide his brilliant intellect behind this "tough guy from the hood" facade, because he couldn't share all that with any of his friends. We get a good scene though, where he and Sean talked about how we should stop looking down upon an honest blue collar worker. Will sure made some good points there, as there is nothing wrong about for example building a house. But in the end, even his best friend had to tell him that he should start living up to his potential. I just hope that he finally did that after this movie ended...

And I also like how one poster said that Lambeau only wanted to help Will, so he could present a prodigy to the world and just share his glory. For that is probably true, sadly enough. But it could also be that as a professor, Lambeau could have simply felt that it was his duty to become Will's intellectual guide. But it was also probably all too true that he hardly was interested in anything about Will's life, that had nothing to do with his Maths skills. Thank goodness that he had Sean for all that! Then again, what else did a person like Lambeau have in common with a person like Will? Nothing! So I guess that it makes sense after all... And one last thing before I leave you: I just adored the budding romance between Will and Skylar. It seems like they pushed each other and made each other broaden their horizons. This movie and Disney's "Tarzan" made me appreciate Minnie Driver as an actress.

Intelligence and purity.

[–] Wuchakk 9 years ago

Thanks for the insights, Furienna. I really need to see this again! (I know I keep saying that, but I just haven't got around to it yet -- so many movies so little time).

My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/

[–] furienna 9 years ago

Tell me about it. I have just the same problem. 

Intelligence and purity.

[–] mikeblast-820-586932 10 years ago

Einstein did smoke. Lots of clever people have bad habits, they are no robots you know.

[–] furienna 10 years ago

To be fair though, Albert Einstein would also treat both his wives as total garbage. The first one, Mileva Maric, eventually did leave him, but she was also forced to raise their two sons on her own under a strained economy... His second wife, who happened to also be his first cousin, only stayed with him because he had became famous at that point. But after she died, Einstein went on to live his last nineteen years as a "lonely" widower, and that was probably also for the best. Hans Albert, who was the oldest son, only reconciled with him after his mother's death, and Eduard, who was the younger son, got stuck in a mental asylum in Switzerland and alledgedly said that he hated his father. So I must say that smoking was the least of Albert Einstein's vices. And I say that as someone, who never has liked smoking at all...

Intelligence and purity.

[–] StakkaDakka 9 years ago

obviously it DOES work and the problem is YOU, you douchecanoe

[–] Wuchakk 9 years ago

Not to me it doesn't, although it's okay.

you douchecanoe

Lazy people who lack the ability to support their position typically resort to ad hominem tactics; how much more so when they do it in their opening statement!

My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/

[–] StakkaDakka 9 years ago

The only thing needed to support my position (that is, you being a douchecanoe) is you are literally the only person I have ever met who doesn't think GWH is a great movie.

[–] Wuchakk 9 years ago

You need to get out more; there are people on this very board who attest to its glaring flaws.

My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/

[–] elgaspo 9 years ago

1 thing's for sure: the NSA monologue sure as hell isn't working, 19 years on. As great as it may have sounded to liberals in 1997, it turned out to be completely wrong when confronted with historical facts that have transpired since.

Tell me the difference between stupid and illegal and I'll have my wife's brother arrested.

[–] jeremyjj-65746 8 years ago

Genius's are often pretty flawed. I have an IQ of 140'ish according to every test I've taken, and i'm a *beep* person currently posting high on cocaine. I liked him just fine, btw.

You can't just point to his intellect and ignore his abusive upbringing.

As for babyface, I don't know what that even means. The character was like, 19-20?

[–] Wuchakk 8 years ago

Thanks for the insights and honesty. Be of good health, my friend. 😃

My 175 (or so) Favorite Movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/

[–] cartesianthought 8 years ago

a lot of people dislike movies because they don't like the protagonist. but the main goal of film-making is not to make the viewer feel good about themselves by watching a story of how one good man conquers evil.

most of this thread seems like nitpicking to me.

[–] Wuchakk 8 years ago

a lot of people dislike movies because they don't like the protagonist.

Generally speaking, the viewer needs to relate to the protagonist in some way in order to enter into the 'world' of the central character(s) and his/her challenges in the story. If the protagonist comes across like an unbelievably clueless piece of sheet it will naturally hinder this. This holds true for protagonists that are antiheroes as well. This is one of the main problems with "Good Will Hunting."

the main goal of film-making is not to make the viewer feel good about themselves by watching a story of how one good man conquers evil.

After making moolah, the main purpose of a movie is to entertain; another purpose is to convey a message. The better the entertainment and message, the better the movie. The reverse is also true. These factors naturally increase its chances of making money or, at least, developing a perpetual cult following.

With that understanding, a character -- a protagonist -- that the audience identifies with in one way or another who faces great obstacles and somehow conquers them is a recurring theme in movies. Why? Because (1.) it grabs people's attention and therefore attracts an audience, which therefore (2.) makes money for the film.

the main goal of film-making is not to make the viewer feel good about themselves

This is irrelevant to this thread. No one here said anything about how movies should make them "feel good about themselves." The original "Apocalypse Now" and "Runaway Train" feature total antiheroes and aren't feel-good films in any sense, and yet they're cinematic masterpieces.

most of this thread seems like nitpicking to me.

That's your prerogative, but the majority of the criticisms by me & others are legitimate and they all add up to why this film leaves a bad taste and just plain isn't as great as its admirers insist. But if you love it, that's great.

My 175 (or so) Favorite Movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/