Review On : On Review
Let me get something off my chest outright: film critics make me want hack off their fingers with a spoon.
I'm not speaking of ALL reviewers: those who review obscure films or who review films honestly, and there are some, are fine. What really pisses me off are the majority, a collection of pretentious, whiny, sanctimonos asses who give the impression of hating everything. They will give good reviews to a film only if everyone else is doing so; you know the type of film, the piece of sanctimonious dreck that just seems Oscar worthy. There are many movies that fall into this category, films that are inexplicably admired to this day (Forrest Dump comes to mind). Thus, not only are these critics annoying as hell, they are tautological, i.e., superfluous.
In addition, these sanctimonious assholes often manifest a a faux morality that would make a Victorian blush. Movies such as Van Wilder 2 (infinitely better than the unwatchable first one with, ugh, Tara Reid), the funnier than expected I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry, and even the classic Billy Madison have received nearly unanimous bad reviews. I know what's going on: most people find these films funny, but because they may be deemed "low brow" (God forbid!!), reviewers conceal their shame at having laughed at something vulgar by simply denigrating the film. Screw them!!
***
I myself saw two films yesterday: Truffau's Fahrenheit 451 and the Simpsons movie (I won't say how I saw them; let us just say I didn't have to pay). I'll devote another post the former, which is worth discussing, but merely point out that the Simpsons movie does NOT live up to the hype. Don't get me wrong: it's not a bad film. In fact, I guarantee you will laugh at times. As hard as it tries though, it is disappointing and or frustrating. If you are expecting "classic" Simpsons (a la seasons 2-6), you will be disappointed. Much of the film is actually serious, but even the humorous bits are somewhat predictable or tired, which, I suppose, is to be expected from a show that has been on the air since I was in primary school.
The film isn't bad, but the critical consensus is that it is great. Some reviewers claimed that it is worth watching sixteen times, as one should with a classic episode. I couldn't disagree more: in fact, less than 24 hours later, there's much about the film I can't remember.
In conclusion, the Simpsons movie is probably worth seeing, if only to see the animated family on the big screen for an hour and a half episode, but don't expect too much.
Oh, I almost forgot: Film critics, suck my balls!
I'm not speaking of ALL reviewers: those who review obscure films or who review films honestly, and there are some, are fine. What really pisses me off are the majority, a collection of pretentious, whiny, sanctimonos asses who give the impression of hating everything. They will give good reviews to a film only if everyone else is doing so; you know the type of film, the piece of sanctimonious dreck that just seems Oscar worthy. There are many movies that fall into this category, films that are inexplicably admired to this day (Forrest Dump comes to mind). Thus, not only are these critics annoying as hell, they are tautological, i.e., superfluous.
In addition, these sanctimonious assholes often manifest a a faux morality that would make a Victorian blush. Movies such as Van Wilder 2 (infinitely better than the unwatchable first one with, ugh, Tara Reid), the funnier than expected I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry, and even the classic Billy Madison have received nearly unanimous bad reviews. I know what's going on: most people find these films funny, but because they may be deemed "low brow" (God forbid!!), reviewers conceal their shame at having laughed at something vulgar by simply denigrating the film. Screw them!!
***
I myself saw two films yesterday: Truffau's Fahrenheit 451 and the Simpsons movie (I won't say how I saw them; let us just say I didn't have to pay). I'll devote another post the former, which is worth discussing, but merely point out that the Simpsons movie does NOT live up to the hype. Don't get me wrong: it's not a bad film. In fact, I guarantee you will laugh at times. As hard as it tries though, it is disappointing and or frustrating. If you are expecting "classic" Simpsons (a la seasons 2-6), you will be disappointed. Much of the film is actually serious, but even the humorous bits are somewhat predictable or tired, which, I suppose, is to be expected from a show that has been on the air since I was in primary school.
The film isn't bad, but the critical consensus is that it is great. Some reviewers claimed that it is worth watching sixteen times, as one should with a classic episode. I couldn't disagree more: in fact, less than 24 hours later, there's much about the film I can't remember.
In conclusion, the Simpsons movie is probably worth seeing, if only to see the animated family on the big screen for an hour and a half episode, but don't expect too much.
Oh, I almost forgot: Film critics, suck my balls!
Labels: hate film critics, review, reviews, Simpsons Movie
posted by Pious Labours | 8:30 a.m.
1 Comments:
I loved the Simpsons movie. You're absolutely right that it is no masterpiece (some usually very good critics such as Roger Ebert in his print review would agree with you there), but there was no way it was ever going to be. The show pioneered a particular style of half-hour satire and the change in format was never really going to help.
It will be interesting to hear your ideas about Fahrenheit 451. I think it's a great film and I'll be teaching the book this fall.
Jamie
Post a Comment
<< Home