sweetprince (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sweetprince) wrote2008-03-15 03:30 pm
sweetprince) wrote2008-03-15 03:30 pm
Entry tags:
Please stop running in circles, I can't handle it
I don't listen to movie reviews. Not unless the movie looked like something I really didn't want to see, somebody tells me they must see it, and the papers say it's going to put me to sleep, and I need some leverage against them.
If I want to see a movie, usually nobody can tell me otherwise, because I figure I know what I like. I like big explosions, and fight scenes, and people tossing witty (yet ultimately empty) repartee at each other along with their grenades. Generally, the reviews don't agree with me over what makes a good action movie.
A.O. Scott called Mann's adaptation of Miami Vice "sublime," when that movie made me want to go to the nearest eye doctors to see if I needed prescription glasses. I love him, and I read his reviews, but it's hard for me to take him seriously when he called The Royal Tenenbaums beautiful, but empty, and then turned around and said Miami Vice was "dazzling (and sometimes daft) wagnerian spectacle." I feel like nothing about that movie was daft at all, but I could bitch about that film for hours.
I read the NY Times and the SF Chronicle's reviews (just about the only bit of the paper I actually pay attention to), but I don't let it shake me when they say that Never Back Down is going to be totally crappy, hello! I know that, I could tell from the trailer. That doesn't mean I'm not going to go see it. (Which I did, Misha made me promise that I wouldn't write slashfic about it before we left, and then after we walked out of the theater she rescinded the promise. I SWEAR IT WAS THAT GAY!).
Telling me that In Bruges got bad reviews when I really want to see it is not really going to work on me. Telling me it got bad reviews, when both the Times and the Chronicle like it--admittedly Mick La Salle was the one who reviewed it, and he's crazy. His pretentious ramble about 4 Months, 3 weeks, and 2 Days made me want to hit him with every copy of Film Art I own and then blow up his toilet--but I digress, my point is, telling me that it got horrible reviews across the board when two respected papers both say it's good?
Not a good idea.
You know, it's okay to say "In Bruges didn't look good to me and I don't want to see it," but don't tell me the movie I desperately want to see and have been raving about was panned when it wasn't. Unless you think that Dhargis's comment that it was somewhat fluffy and puffy is going to stop me from wanting to see it. BECAUSE HONESTLY, Dhargis also thought Transformers sucked ("a glorified car commercial") and Maslin thought 16 Candles was "Sophmoric" and Fargo, a movie I'd sooner slit my wrists than watch again, was at its "clever best."
These people can't possibly speak to me. So please, use your own voice to tell me it's awful.
If I want to see a movie, usually nobody can tell me otherwise, because I figure I know what I like. I like big explosions, and fight scenes, and people tossing witty (yet ultimately empty) repartee at each other along with their grenades. Generally, the reviews don't agree with me over what makes a good action movie.
A.O. Scott called Mann's adaptation of Miami Vice "sublime," when that movie made me want to go to the nearest eye doctors to see if I needed prescription glasses. I love him, and I read his reviews, but it's hard for me to take him seriously when he called The Royal Tenenbaums beautiful, but empty, and then turned around and said Miami Vice was "dazzling (and sometimes daft) wagnerian spectacle." I feel like nothing about that movie was daft at all, but I could bitch about that film for hours.
I read the NY Times and the SF Chronicle's reviews (just about the only bit of the paper I actually pay attention to), but I don't let it shake me when they say that Never Back Down is going to be totally crappy, hello! I know that, I could tell from the trailer. That doesn't mean I'm not going to go see it. (Which I did, Misha made me promise that I wouldn't write slashfic about it before we left, and then after we walked out of the theater she rescinded the promise. I SWEAR IT WAS THAT GAY!).
Telling me that In Bruges got bad reviews when I really want to see it is not really going to work on me. Telling me it got bad reviews, when both the Times and the Chronicle like it--admittedly Mick La Salle was the one who reviewed it, and he's crazy. His pretentious ramble about 4 Months, 3 weeks, and 2 Days made me want to hit him with every copy of Film Art I own and then blow up his toilet--but I digress, my point is, telling me that it got horrible reviews across the board when two respected papers both say it's good?
Not a good idea.
You know, it's okay to say "In Bruges didn't look good to me and I don't want to see it," but don't tell me the movie I desperately want to see and have been raving about was panned when it wasn't. Unless you think that Dhargis's comment that it was somewhat fluffy and puffy is going to stop me from wanting to see it. BECAUSE HONESTLY, Dhargis also thought Transformers sucked ("a glorified car commercial") and Maslin thought 16 Candles was "Sophmoric" and Fargo, a movie I'd sooner slit my wrists than watch again, was at its "clever best."
These people can't possibly speak to me. So please, use your own voice to tell me it's awful.