Re the “Speed Racer” reviews, I have rarely seen so much undiluted movie critic hate oozing from every pore. When something is so widely panned isn’t that often an indicator (like Starship Troopers) of the fact that they just didn’t “get” what the directors were trying to accomplish?
Not necessarily. Plenty of bad movies have been universally panned. You’re not going to be able to determine a universal law here.
It’s a remake of a very bad kid’s cartoon. What was there not to get?
Tris
Why should there be an automatic assumption that what the directors were trying to accomplish was worth accomplishing?
Creators in every medium in every time make awful art. They may not have a good idea in their heads to start with, or they may not have the skills to realize that idea, or the people they work with may be inadequate. Art can fail in a thousand ways. It’s always a surprise when anything good emerges.
Besides, these are the people who made Matrix Reloaded. Shouldn’t the automatic assumption be that anything they come within a thousand miles of will suck like a giant tornado?
It’s often an indicator (like “Starship Troopers”) that the movie sucks.
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
What they said. Also, if the makers of a piece of art have a point and the audience doesn’t get it - it might be the audience’s fault, but it’s also possible for it to be the artist’s fault.
Mick LaSalle’s review does comment…well, not exactly favorably, but not exactly unfavorably either, on the film’s attempt to break new ground. In the end he just doesn’t think it works.
'course I don’t know how well regarded LaSalle is as a reviewer and whether his thoughts on the matter are widespread in the critical community.
If the previews are any indicat…
Oh look, something SHINY!
…indication, the entire movie looks to be…
Wow, a Blue Car!!!
…looks to be quite hard to watch due to the powerful lobbyists in…
Why yes, I would like some popcorn, thank you
…The Attention Deficit Disorder Film Editing Union
it should appeal to viewers who have problems concentrating for more than thirty seconds
I haven’t seen it, but most of the negative reviews are along the lines of great visuals, bad everything else, so if that holds true for the masses, it comes down to if the amazing visuals are enough to make you not care about the other shortcomings.
Yahoo dot com has the first seven minutes of the film up, on their video section, I watched it out of morbid curiosity…
it was about six minutes and fifty-five seconds too long for me, it was all there, retina-melting colors, repetitive dialog, and snap-cuts quick enough to give you whiplash, it was also very repetitive, and to make matters worse it was even repetetive, when it wasn’t being repetetive, that is
and yes, the editing looked like it was done by crack-addicted meth addicts on speed…
and to make matters worse, it was repetetive, I don’t think I mentioned that yet…
Yeah, you can “get what the directors were trying to accomplish” and still think they did it poorly.
I have not seen SR so I can’t comment. I have in the past seen cases where it was obvious the critic just did not get it
Two cases come to mind.
A local TV reviewer panned Adventures in Babbysitting. He said flat out on TV that it was racist (reviewer was white BTW). I thought WTF so I went to see it. All the African-American characters are either good guys, or neutral. The bad guys that are chasing the kids are two white crime bosses that are chasing white teenagers from the suburb.
The other case is Last Action Hero IIRC Siskbert had no clue as to the plot of the movie when they reviewed it. They tried to explain it, and could not. I saw the movie and had no problem the plot. Really it wasn’t that complex. I think they watched about 5 minutes at the beginning of the movie then stepped out for a beer. Forty five minutes later when they came back in they didn’t understand what had transpired.
I respect Roger Ebert and hope he recovers and returns to reviewing films on TV. But I never pay any attention when he says that a plot is confusing. Mostly because, in nine of his reviews out of ten, he mentions some element of the film and makes an error. It happens so frequently that I wondered if he was doing it deliberately, as some sort of signature. I’d make a crappy film critic because I don’t watch them dispassionately from the rear of the theater trying to maintain objectivity. Nope, I’m right up front totally engrossed in the film. Which makes it even stranger that I’d spot the errors.
But a friend saw Ebert years ago at Chicago’s Music Box theater. And apparently he waited until the film had started to get his drink and popcorn.
This would make a lot of sense, since I’ve seen the same thing. I still have idea why he thinks he can just duck out after the imediate opening, come back after getting his snacks, and then still somehow get every movie that comes down the line. Sure, some movies will not be too badly messed up by such a gap, but most will.
The standard movie start is something like:
Hook interest -> Introduce characters -> Introduce setup -> Main Plot
So Ebert would be missing parts of the two critical sections (introduce characters and setup).
A critic’s job is to say whether a given movie is good.
This does not equate with being “fun,” “enjoyable,” or “popular.”
Movie reviewers (and we’re talking here about reviews, not criticism*) are just watching the movie to determine its strengths and weaknesses. They are often out of step because they have seen more movies than the moviegoing public and can recognize cliches more readily. In addition, they tend to be interested in elements like plot and characterization, which a lot of the movie audience these days don’t care about, since they’re interested in flashy special effects. Ultimatly, though flashy special effects just become dated, making the weakness in the story more obvious (once you remove the “bullet time” elements from The Matrix – which has become a cliche now – the movie is very dull and cliched)
I will say that there are very few examples of films panned by all critics, and those that are panned by an overwheming majority or critics are nearly always as bad as the critics say. When you have so many critics saying the film is bad, then those that like it are the ones who are likely to be wrong.
*A reviewer assumes you haven’t seen a film and want to know whether to see it; a critic assumes you have seen the film and want to discuss its strengths and weaknesses. Most newspaper film “critics” are generally reviewers, except for occasional special articles.
Dr. Sagan? Is that you?
Ebert has a particular hate for the Resident Evil movies (which I know aren’t great, but they’re decent rainy afternoon zombie flicks) and in his review of each one he manages to latch onto a two-second conversation that has no bearing on the plot and berate the movie for being about something so stupid.
The particular plot point is always close to the beginning, so I imagine it’s the first scene he sees, writes it down, falls asleep and then leaves at the end of the movie to write his review.
I used to love Ebert, but his review of Resident Evil just really hurts his credibility.
Ebert and other major critics often see a movie as a screening and then go see it in a theater to gauge the reactions of regular viewers. Unless you know for sure, it’s not good policy to assume that any critic you see in a regular showing is seeing the movie for the first time.
With the range of opinion on every film there have to be some critics who don’t appreciate any particular movie. There are as many reasons for this as there as critics and showings and moods. Making the case that they all somehow simultaneously fail to “get” a movie is practically impossible.
From what I’ve read, it seems like a star candidate to watch on acid. Or a really terrifying one.