While looking up some info on "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" when I did its review, I had seen some comments from movie critics that basically bashed the movie to no end. And after reading the comments and after seeing the movie myself, the first thought I had was, "These people don't have a clue." You see, I actually stopped reading full reviews from actual critics some time ago because I would see movies that would get average reviews, yet the way they talked about them made them seem worse than how they grade it. Doesn't make sense to me that you would rate the movie a 3 out of 5, but say how it falls flat on its face and is not very entertaining.
I also notice that these critics seem to have their own guideline as to what makes a movie good. And if it's missing any of their criteria, even if the movie doesn't even need it, they sit there and say it sucks. Take "Clone Wars" for example. The movie was made to boost the upcoming television show on Cartoon Network, according to the people that made it. Critics said the movie looked like a Saturday morning cartoon....no kidding! Because it's completely computer-animated, the "Star Wars" franchise is stepping into new territory. One critic said something like "This isn't the Star Wars we've known and loved".......maybe because it's new? The critics bashed some aspects of the animation by comparing it to older shows.........even though George Lucas said their style was a way to pay homage to those shows. But the worst thing I had seen was the comments on the writing. Because this movie is animated, it is meant to get attention from kids. Considering kids would be more drawn to the visuals of the movie, you would expect the script to be easy to understand. Then the comments I saw said the movie's dialog was "simplistic," and character development was lacking because of the many action sequences. Now, think of yourself when you were a child. When watching a movie or TV show, did you even give a crap about character development and complex dialog? I sure as hell didn't.
One critic said "If you can regress your mind to that of a 12 year old, you could enjoy the movie." That's an intelligent critic. Not only did he give the movie some credit, he told you who it would appeal to. That's what any real critic would do. That's what I'm trying to do on here. There are a couple of movies that are truly bad, and deserve the reviews they get. "House of the Dead" is the best example I can give. Other than one interesting character, the movie was badly made. The movie was made in '03 and had 60's special effects, the characters really showed no personality and you could care less about, and the action scenes consisted of the camera rotating around every character while they fired guns.......which lasted like that a whole 15 minutes. That's a movie that deserved to get bashed.
Then you go to a movie like "The Warriors," which was a review I did some time ago. When the movie came out, it got some bad reviews, with critics harping on dialog, characters, and style. But the movie made good money on its release, and it has gained cult status to the point that critics themselves have re-examined the movie, and ended up giving it a better review. Goes to show you that even when the critics don't like it, the people still do.
The world of entertainment is not made for everybody. Certain things are only going to be liked by certain people. But if you take a movie, and make it sound like it's not worth anybody's time, then it ruins its chance to entertain people who would go for it. That's not what these "esteemed" critics should be doing. They place a value on these films when it should be up to the casual people who see them on their own. If you're looking for an opinion on a movie you might want to see, do you go out and find an actual critic? No, you find an average guy you know personally who has seen the movie. That person may say "it's great" or "it sucks", but you know what they like. So it's easier to judge how your take on the movie might be.
Here's how I usually like to operate: when I see a preview for a film, I look at who stars in it, how it looks, and what's the general story. If I see something I like in any of those aspects, chances are it's a movie I'll like. And honestly, I don't think I've seen a movie I was insanely hyped about, and didn't enjoy it. "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" was not liked by the critics. But I saw the preview. I like Star Wars, and I like action. This movie had what I wanted, and I enjoyed it. 'Nuff said. If you see a movie trailer, and it doesn't appeal to you, don't see it. There could come a time when you might end up seeing it and might like it, but it's not often. Even then, your level of entertainment may have changed anyways. But the biggest piece of advice I can give is this: forget what any movie critic on TV, in magazines and newspapers, and those online have to say about a movie. That's their "opinion," and will not be yours. Even if they give a movie an extremely positive review, but the ads didn't get your attention, you don't need to see it. "Chicago" won Best Picture at the Oscars, and was well reviewed. I had no interest in it, and never saw it. Just because it won an award doesn't mean it would get one from me.
Here's hoping you read all of this, and maybe got something from it. I do welcome any response, and I would also like to add that if there's a particular movie you'd like to see a review of, feel free to suggest it. Even if it's a movie I haven't seen, I'll go out of my way to see it. However, I need to stay true to my word, and I'll only see those that I have an interest in. Like "Sex and the City." I wouldn't touch that movie with a 10-foot pole.
No comments:
Post a Comment