Archive for March, 2007

Criti”size”ing up the critics: Filmmakers fight back!

March 29, 2007

This is one way to solve our critic dilemmas. How desperate is Uwe Boll to show that his movies are worth something? How desperate is he to prove that he is worth something? I would think he would be less upset about what the critics say and more disheartened by the fact that absolutely no one that has seen his movies has enjoyed them…or that no one has seen his movies except for the people that have something bad to say about them.

I find it ridiculously funny that one of the critics Jeff Sneider from Ain’t it Cool News has never even seen an Uwe Boll movie. It looks like Boll has a problem picking scripts as well as relevant opponents!

Criti”size”ing up the arguments

March 29, 2007

A lot of bloggers and journalists are throwing out their theories on why they believe there’s discord between what films critics say and what the general public wants to see, from Peter Bart at Variety to just about every other article at Jim Emmerson’s blog Scanners. A lot of the ideas are plain silly, some very well thought out (sometimes almost too thought out), and others search as if it were an elusive riddle that only a sphinx would know the answer to.

One problem, as in most cases, perception of the other person is based on little to no observational knowledge. Democrats believe what the few Democrats on television say about the Republicans and vise versa, but has a tree hugging hippy ever met an old religious Midwestern woman? Not likely. Thanks to those few people on television, now if they ever did I fear they would hate each other upon first sight, without giving the benefit of the doubt. In a similar sense how does the general public view the film critics? Who helps shape their idea of how they should see the films, and of what films they wish to see? The advertisers of course. When Joe Public sees that Time Magazine has given “Ghost Rider” a horrible review, would they rather listen to the words on a typed page, or the extremely exciting visuals thrown at them during a thirty-second TV spot? Haven’t the studios been training Joe Public to listen to them for years.? After all “Star Wars” (the original) was a great movie, and it had astounding visuals, right? “The Matrix” made their hearts stop every time the camera swung around, didn’t it? And when Spider-Man stops a train from flying into the harbor, how visually captivating and thrilling was that? Why shouldn’t they listen to their friend the movie trailer over some stiff who sits behind a desk turning these wonderful moments in film into intellectual dissertations? Isn’t that how the public sees reviewers and critics, unless they happen to write for Stuff or Playboy, in which case the reviewers have made less intellectual connections with their readers and have created something more carnal in nature (if they’re going to show me nude women, why shouldn’t their ideas of what makes a great movie be listened to?). Mike Judge, I think, encapsulates this idea in one of his early cartoon tests…it’s about a minute in, but keep watching beyond, there’s some really great early “Office Space” conceptualizations as well…