Perhaps the most annoying thing about certain movie critics, particularly those on the cultural left, is their manner of lecturing us on what types of movies we should enjoy and not enjoy. I’ll try to track down the review I read in the early 2000s where the critic acknowledged that he had enjoyed watching the film, which held his attention through the entirety of the screening, but gave it a lousy write-up because it didn’t meet his pre-set criteria for what a good “film” should be.
Look, sometimes we enjoy movies which are objectively “bad” where the flaws in the script as so patent that a clever actor can’t even disguise how out-of-character a line is for her part. Or where the story, when you start to think about it, just doesn’t make sense, yet when you were watching the movie you were, well, riveted. Some movies are just meant to entertain. If you enjoy a flick, you shouldn’t try to rationalize that pleasure away, just acknowledge that you enjoyed even if it seemed silly. Heck, it’s a movie. Not all movies need to be On the Waterfront. Or Fanny and Alexander. Or The Godfather.
Heck, two of my favorite romantic comedies are incredibly cheesy and seriously flawed, but that doesn’t stop me from recommending Maid in Manhattan or Two Weeks Notice to friends. Or, for that matter, going out of my way to see Ruthless People on the big screen.
This rant came to mind this morning when, in my in-box, I read one of the most self-righteous, arrogant headlines to a movie review I’d read in years: “Audiences and Critics Are Wrong,” David Thomson writes in the New Republic, “Woody Allen’s ‘Midnight in Paris’ Isn’t Good. It’s Dismal.” Look, in terms of taste, audiences can’t be wrong. If people enjoyed the flick, they enjoyed the flick. This may not please those who believe we should prefer Jules & Jim to Star Wars, but, well, so what?
It is interesting to ponder why certain film snobs need to dismiss popular preference for a certain movie as “wrong.”
Well, I was actually excited to see Woody’s film, but then I heard in reviews that Woody makes fun of TEA PARTIERS by having the (2) least liked characters (and main characters to boot) be atrocious bores who are right wing. That would be RACHEL MC ADAMS (oh why did you do this beautiful Rachel!) and MICHAEL SHEEN (Again, why oh why sexy Michael…who I still feel was robbed of an Oscar Nod for THE QUEEN). Anywho, I will avoid it like the plague.
Self-aggrandizing Child Molester WOODY is one to scold others on politics & tea partiers.
Anyway off track but look at recent films that were derided by critics, both HITS & OSCAR nominees. “The Blind Side,” etc…
I confess. I enjoyed “It’s Pat”. Does that make me a rube?
While I enjoyed the original ‘Star Wars’ in the theaters many moons ago, after watching it again on video I have the heretical thoughts: “Plot is predictable, dialogue is stilted. Overall, a very bad film. But it had cool special effects”
Reviewers are basically marketing the films. I don’t trust ’em at all. . .
As far as I can tell, you have to be an idiot to pay money to see Zak Galiafadouchebag.
Critics (and writers) are often out of touch.
Look at Alan Moore’s Watchman. He meant for Rorschach to be a character everyone reviled, instead he became the hero, so much so that in Justice League Unlimited, the Question (whom Rorschrach was based on) emulates some of his quirks.
Likewise, Lucas’ Prequil trillogy is ham handed politicking, to the point that his efforts are transparent and dated (especially in the ‘all flash no substance’ Obama presidency) and his Jedi are no better than the Sith.
Livewire, funny you mention ‘the Question’ if I remember correctly he was also a gay character, while Rorshach is usualy identified as a character who seems to have major woman issues (note the only time he is close to being nice is around Nightowl) and is often seen as a concervative character… secret gay patriot I wonder…
Anyhow reviews just tick me off for the most part. My favorate example is the review I read about “The two towers” where the reviewer spent the article bashing bush and giving his opinion on the “real”politics of book. According to the review tolkeen wanted the story to be “more (Hans) Blix and less (george) Bush).
After that I was done with reviewers.
I don’t think Vic Sage (The original Question) was gay in the comics. He definately wasn’t in the DCAU, the Question/Huntress subplot was fun.
Renee Montoya (the current Question) is gay. She was/is in a relationship with Kathy Kane, the current Batwoman. (fun fact, she’s also a canon immigrant from Batman: TAS, like Harley Quinn)
Lucas’ Prequil trillogy is ham handed politicking, to the point that his efforts are transparent and dated (especially in the ‘all flash no substance’ Obama presidency) and his Jedi are no better than the Sith.
I have this fantasy of making a movie that would essentially be a roman-a-clef of ‘The Version of Phantom Menace That Doesn’t Suck.’ Without using any Star Wars characters or direct references.
– Begin the story on “Tatooine” with “Anakin” as the central character. (Of course, not calling the planet Tatooine or the kid Anakin)
– Make the central conflict between the two knights guarding the princess and the assassin. (Instead of a pod race, have the heroes race across the desert while pursued by the assassin, e.g.)
– Make the emotional climax of the movie the kid’s departure from the planet to an uncertain but optimistic future
– Push the politics into the background.
in my opinion, people who listen to anyone’s review or critique of a film, and actually do or don’t go based on that critic’s opinion, are complete tools. how about you just go enjoy yourself. see the movie because you want to, not because someone who fancies himself the new gene siskel says not to.
fuck critics.
Well, Ian, you don’t mince words now, do you? 🙂
And you offer a good piece of advice.
Livewire, I admit I am not too familiar with the comics version but the cartoon version of The Question was a buble gum pop loveing male spy who blasted chick rock and sang along when he could… And he wore orange socks with a blue overcoat… He may have been with huntress… but i think there was more to the story than we know… Ok so the orange socks thing kinda makes you wonder about his fasion sense but still ;P
I am certainly no movie snob, some of my favorites are exactly the kind of movie snobs look down their noses at, like the Harry Potter and X Men movies.
But audiences can be wrong. Armageddon & Independence day are two of the worst films ever made. 🙂
I think the orange socks were a reference to his lack of social graces. Along with the ‘what’s that smell’ comment. *shrug* Though the second verse of that song is about two girls kissing. (can’t find the link off hand).
Really it doesn’t matter to me so much. I love the character.
“You went through my trash?”
“Please. I go through everybody’s trash.”