Here's something you might be interested in.
I really can't figure movie critics out. They baffle me.
The movie Step Brothers is getting bad reviews. Now, I hate Will Ferrell more than anyone. I'm just tired of his same old routine, movie after movie. But, I couldn't stop laughing during this movie. Yet, if you read reviews, they comment on not liking Will, or that he's doing the same character.
Well, last time I checked, Seth Rogen has played Seth Rogen in every single movie, yet he doesn't get knocked for that (and I think he's funny).
I loved Woody Allen's film "Casandra's Dream". Yet, it didn't get great reviews. But, if you read any of the reviews, they seemed to like it. Their big complaint was that it was too much like Match Point and his other recent films, which deal with a man murdering a lover, or wife, and trying to cover it up. I'm not sure why critics didn't say in the 70s and 80s, that Woody Allen was always doing his little neuratic Jew character. Yet, when he does murders, they don't like seeing the same thing.
A better complaint would be why anyone even supports this guy, when he went and took nude photos of an underage girl, that was the adopted daughter of his girlfriend/wife, Mia Farrow. He's now married to her, with two kids. But still. It's my same problem with Roman Polanski, who should be in jail. But I digress. Back to film.
I saw Brideshead Revisited. It was awful. Yet, it's getting good reviews. I'm not sure why. I think critics feel like they have to like it, because it's an English period piece. That's insane.
Emma Thompson was completely wasted in this role. The rest of the cast was good, in a poorly written film. That was filled with cliches, and just not that interesting.
I remember when Definately, Maybe came out months ago. The critics liked that, too. It was awful. The characters were all cliches (Kevin Kline as the professor who writes books, sleeps with students, drinks too much, etc.) The jokes about Clinton and chordless phones being huge (it was supposed to be in the early 90s).
And even when I'm on the same page with the critics, they say idiotic things.
The documentary out right now called "Man on Wire" is a must see. It's an amazing film. Of course, I might think that because I'm afraid of heights. But even if you aren't, you'll enjoy this.
Yet, when I read a bunch of the reviews, the one thing critics liked, is the one thing I didn't like.
The movie is about a guy that broke into the World Trade Center buildings countless times, to figure out how to string a wire across the two buildings and walk across them. Oh, I should note...he's a professional tightrope walker in France.
He got fake IDs, became friends with some workers in the building. Flew to the states countless times to plan this out. In 1974, a few days before Nixon bailed office, he did it.
My complaint (and, the one critic that agreed with me...our own Duncan Shephard), is why we didn't hear this guy talk about 9/11.
So many critics say it's great that he didn't, because the movie isn't about that. Well, who cares. You don't need to spend 30 minutes on 9/11. You can spend 30 seconds on it. That 30 seconds could be during the closing credits.
Even if we know what he'll say about 9/11...I couldn't help wonder, where was he when he heard the news. Did he all of the sudden get called for a bunch of interview requests.
But critics like to act like they're so intelligent. And, they think to themselves...hmmm, the filmmakers must've had a reason for not having his comments on 9/11 in the movie. So, I'm going to agree with that decision.
Wrong. Completely wrong.
You can think of the pros and cons, and when you do that, the only conclusion to come to is, the movie dropped the ball on that.
Because, there were elements of the movie that weren't covered I wished were. Like how they made enough money to continue to fly back and forth from France. Did this guy have any kids? They show a photo of his wife with a young child at one point, but we don't hear about that.
I could see how if you go down those paths, it makes the movie three hours long, and takes away from the great story at hand.
But you can't leave out 9/11, in a documentary that is about a guy who walked across those two buildings in 1974, and made the news worldwide when he did it.
I really can't figure movie critics out. They baffle me.
The movie Step Brothers is getting bad reviews. Now, I hate Will Ferrell more than anyone. I'm just tired of his same old routine, movie after movie. But, I couldn't stop laughing during this movie. Yet, if you read reviews, they comment on not liking Will, or that he's doing the same character.
Well, last time I checked, Seth Rogen has played Seth Rogen in every single movie, yet he doesn't get knocked for that (and I think he's funny).
I loved Woody Allen's film "Casandra's Dream". Yet, it didn't get great reviews. But, if you read any of the reviews, they seemed to like it. Their big complaint was that it was too much like Match Point and his other recent films, which deal with a man murdering a lover, or wife, and trying to cover it up. I'm not sure why critics didn't say in the 70s and 80s, that Woody Allen was always doing his little neuratic Jew character. Yet, when he does murders, they don't like seeing the same thing.
A better complaint would be why anyone even supports this guy, when he went and took nude photos of an underage girl, that was the adopted daughter of his girlfriend/wife, Mia Farrow. He's now married to her, with two kids. But still. It's my same problem with Roman Polanski, who should be in jail. But I digress. Back to film.
I saw Brideshead Revisited. It was awful. Yet, it's getting good reviews. I'm not sure why. I think critics feel like they have to like it, because it's an English period piece. That's insane.
Emma Thompson was completely wasted in this role. The rest of the cast was good, in a poorly written film. That was filled with cliches, and just not that interesting.
I remember when Definately, Maybe came out months ago. The critics liked that, too. It was awful. The characters were all cliches (Kevin Kline as the professor who writes books, sleeps with students, drinks too much, etc.) The jokes about Clinton and chordless phones being huge (it was supposed to be in the early 90s).
And even when I'm on the same page with the critics, they say idiotic things.
The documentary out right now called "Man on Wire" is a must see. It's an amazing film. Of course, I might think that because I'm afraid of heights. But even if you aren't, you'll enjoy this.
Yet, when I read a bunch of the reviews, the one thing critics liked, is the one thing I didn't like.
The movie is about a guy that broke into the World Trade Center buildings countless times, to figure out how to string a wire across the two buildings and walk across them. Oh, I should note...he's a professional tightrope walker in France.
He got fake IDs, became friends with some workers in the building. Flew to the states countless times to plan this out. In 1974, a few days before Nixon bailed office, he did it.
My complaint (and, the one critic that agreed with me...our own Duncan Shephard), is why we didn't hear this guy talk about 9/11.
So many critics say it's great that he didn't, because the movie isn't about that. Well, who cares. You don't need to spend 30 minutes on 9/11. You can spend 30 seconds on it. That 30 seconds could be during the closing credits.
Even if we know what he'll say about 9/11...I couldn't help wonder, where was he when he heard the news. Did he all of the sudden get called for a bunch of interview requests.
But critics like to act like they're so intelligent. And, they think to themselves...hmmm, the filmmakers must've had a reason for not having his comments on 9/11 in the movie. So, I'm going to agree with that decision.
Wrong. Completely wrong.
You can think of the pros and cons, and when you do that, the only conclusion to come to is, the movie dropped the ball on that.
Because, there were elements of the movie that weren't covered I wished were. Like how they made enough money to continue to fly back and forth from France. Did this guy have any kids? They show a photo of his wife with a young child at one point, but we don't hear about that.
I could see how if you go down those paths, it makes the movie three hours long, and takes away from the great story at hand.
But you can't leave out 9/11, in a documentary that is about a guy who walked across those two buildings in 1974, and made the news worldwide when he did it.