Tár Is An OBJECTIVELY BAD Film | Klavan Reviews Tár

Watch the member-exclusive portion of the show now on DailyWire+

Todd Field's critically lauded film Tár has all of the makings of a great film, particularly due to an exceptional performance by Cate Blanchett in the lead role, but it suffers heavily from a lack of discipline by its writer/director, therefore making it an objectively bad movie.

#tar #tarreview #oscars #AndrewKlavan #DailyWire

[nelsonraley]

I’m so thankful for these Daily Wire film reviews, it’s an extremely easy way for me to tell if a movie is gonna be good or not.

I can’t wait to watch Tár, if Klownvan hates it this much, it must be a masterpiece!

[webbe]

This film honestly needed to be as long as it was. It is a detailed character study, so if it didn't take its time to explore her as the complicated human being she is, it would just fall flat. I never felt bored in the theater, precisely because the film succeeded in making her a fascinating character. If it was around 1h 30m to 2h long, it would likely just feel incomplete and dissatisfying.

[taywil]

4:30 not every movie is trying to go as fast as possible, imagine telling kubrick to cut down 2001 "all you need to show is them going to the moon, you don't need a 12 minute scene of them floating through space". Tár is an excellent film, you just found it boring, which is a taste thing, not an objective thing.

[genechamson]

This review definitely could have been shorter! 😂

[IrishRoo]

There’s something to be said about lean efficient story telling, but I will never understand why people can claim to love movies but also want to spend less of their time watching movies because over 2 hours is “too long”

[StarrySidekick]

I think we can all agree this is an OBJECTIVELY BAD review for the movie Tàr. I mean, just look at the facts, it’s obvious!

[justinsuttles]

This review is insufferable. I'm so sick of this pervasive idea that art must be scarified on the altar of economy. Tar could have been 5 hours long and I still would have loved it. If the length doesn't agree with your sensibilities, that's fine. But to have the temerity to say that makes a work objectively bad is far more pretentious than the film itself.

[notavictim]

I saw it before the Oscar hype, so I had no expectations. It took me a while to get into It’s pace, but by the end I loved it.

It’s a slow character piece which in my opinion is extremely well written.

The acting, the writing & the pace feel naturalistic and real. The central character can be taken multiple ways. You can justify her being the hero and the villain. She’s both. Like real people are.

I think it’s a great look into modern elite society for better and worse. It shows the falsity and corruption, but also, the discipline and rigor.

I wouldn’t cut it shorter I wouldn’t change a thing. If you’re not looking for a slow character piece, if you need quick cuts and boiled down dialogue, watch something else.

[alexdaw]

Andrew says over and over again that long scenes are bad, long movies are bad. They are bad because they are bad, creating long scenes is bad writing, you have to get your ideas across to the audience faster. I don't know. It's more like the rules for creating Hollywood entertainment. I don't think these criteria are universal and should apply to all films. Obviously, there are many great films longer than 2 hours and even 3 hours. And that there are many "objectively good films" made according to all these rules that are quickly forgotten and not worth your time.
I'm not a fan of the Tar movie, I think the movie was just OK. The scenes that he showed as an example of bad scenes seemed normal to me, I was not bored.

[Nisfornarwhal]

For anyone who is going to drop this film just because Klavan says it's bad, I would recommend that you reconsider. Even though the film takes ages, it shows the archetype of the "tortured artist" who has flaws, but because of today's society, she get destroyed piece by piece. Then the debate outside of the cinema becomes whether her destruction was wholesale or not, or whether she deserved it or not. It's a good film! Even though it drones on, it is still gripping when you realise what is being built up. It is a film about elites, and it is over-indulgent to suit the theme.

[aaronsetton]

The question isn't why is it long, its what to take out. You can have all your meals in one pill, but without the detail and pleasure of eating, whats the point? Would you like LotR, Seven Samurai, or The Good The Bad and The Ughly to be 90 minutes.

[noahboy]

Objectively bad? This dude is very full of himself.

[benjamindover]

Despite a phenomenal performance by Blanchett, the film is poorly paced and is structured like a novel rather than a movie. But still worth watching

[Altairkin]

I agree that almost all modern movies that are over 2 hours have no good reason to be that long. But this movie is an exception for me, I was completely enthralled and fascinated by it from beginning to end, it's my favorite movie of last year. And I don't care about its messages or plot. Yes, you could cut a lot of it and not lose any plot points, but the rythm would definetly be ruined and it would lose the magic for me.

[notavictim]

Experiment: closely watch Klavan’s “A shock to the system” then, closely watch Tár. See which one you still think about two months later.

Klavan is too up his own ass to be immersed by it. Too self involved to see the texture it creates. Judge it for yourself.

[rynolascavio]

I love The Klavan and the Klavanon Universe, but any time he tells me not to see a movie I end up seeing it and enjoying it. Weird

[Hard_Boiled_Entertainment]

To be honest, I'm not prone to take too seriously Drew's constant claim about movies being too long...when his favorite movie is The Godfather. I'm curious what he'd cut from THAT film....

[Nomadic_Budgie]

When your only argument for writing you don't like is "it's too long".

[broncofan]

Sorry Andrew I really think you missed the mark on this. Length of the movie shouldn’t matter if the content (story/character work) is really good. You admitted that Lawrence of Arabia is long AND good. I agree that editing is extremely necessary and when done right leads to amazing and impactful scenes but I really think you tried to boil this down too far. The quality of the story is what matters here not the quantity!

[knwr]

That 9min openening scene was fantastic. It's what made me stop what I was doing and actually watch the film. That makes it _good_ .

It's pretty clear that you have a strong bias for short films, yet it surprises me how blind you are to it. You are taking your own desires, over emphasizing _story_, and concocting "rules" that only exist to you. There are a lot of films out there that follow rigid temporal beats and fulfill these expectations you have for a short experience. This isn't one of them, and--contrary to your thesis--that does not make it bad.

"You can do anything you want, as long as it communicates emotion" -- Yes, this film did. The problem is with you as the receiver, I'm afraid.