A Critical Mess.

Now, I understand that it is necessary for movie critics to exist; they keep me from seeing movies like Ultraviolet. But what I don't understand is the critics who: 1) are only looking for movies with a deep plot, but not too complicated. The movie must also have a resounding message which is unique and if bot this critic will give the movie a bad rating. Or perhaps 2) the political movie critic, the dumbass, and then there is 3) the "genre" critic (who really is confined to small things and not much of an importance, so I'll leave them off).

For your first category you need only to look at the nearby NewYorker. I'm pretty sure they only given two movies a good rating: The English Patient and Mulan.


Such criticism causes the reader not to know the difference between an awful movie (Pluto Nash) and a fun but not significantly substantial film (98% of movies), thus the veiwer either: doesn't see movies in general, or accidentally chooses Pluto Nash. You play Russian Roulette with The NewYorker.

The second category I came upon last night, and refund this morning and it pissed me off so much I decided to blog about it (obviously).

Look at the reviews for The Hills Have Eyes, a movie I saw last night :

"I don't care for a French filmmaker making a contemptuous, smug, proselytizing allegory about the legacy of Yankee colonial/expansionist violence." -

"And to think that the French wonder why we hate them!" - Scott Foundas, L.A. WEEKLY

ah yes, Now I know why the movie was bad... It has something french in it.. the certian Je ne sais que... Thank you. Amelie, naturally, still holds the bar for worst movie I have ever seen, because it is French. Chocolat ou merde, comme Je dis, parce que it dealt with the French. Because of my thoathing of French, I hate baguettes, crepes, Impressionism, Absinthe, berets, oral sex and also revolutions against an oppressive state... which brings me to my next point, from V for Vendetta:

"...A lackluster comic-book movie that thinks terrorist is a synonym for revolutionary." - Jeff Giles, NEWSWEEK

WHAT?! WHAT?! WHAT?! WHAT?!.... Ce Que?!
Last time I checked TERRORIST WAS a synonym for REVOLUTIONARY, it is simply the side you are on. And taking in perspective of this movie, Jeff Giles must be aligned with the Nazis.
And I also like how "comic-book" is used as a pejorative.
Jeff Giles, you are a moron.

Seriously, that quote sums up the biggest problems in America.

"...A lackluster comic-book..." - pejorative used for something that is not understood
"...Thinks..."- large entities and objects don't think
"..Terrorist..." - evil, never good.
"...Revolutionary..."- AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!! (our forefathers were not terrorists to the British, they were Revolutionaries!)

But V for Vendetta looks good and otherwise received good reviews and The Hills Have Eyes was scary as hell and if you can survive a hour and a half of complete tension (with gaps just long enough to catch you breath so they can freak you out again) then go see it.


ps. Jeff Giles is a moron.


Blogger Pat sez...

Yeah man fuck those idiots at Newsweek. Anyone who dismisses a complicated moral issue like the one presented in V for Vendetta should not be a critic of any art form . . . the fact that V is a terrorist and the moral implications of this is the center of the book, and the movie looks no different. What is the difference between a terrorist and a revolutionary? Is there a difference? The book doesn't answer these questions, but it certainly raises them, and Jeff Giles is an idiot.

10:48 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home