I don’t really class myself as a film reviewer. Certainly not a professional one anyway. I’m just a fan boy who discovered that if I wrote down my rants rather than spouting them to all my friends in the pub then I might find some like-minded souls who not only agree with me, but compliment me on my observational skills, impressive prose and stunning wit. Plus it might mean people will want to come to the pub with me again.
When I go to see a film I very rarely do it with an open mind. If I’m walking into a romantic comedy I’m just looking for an excuse to hate it. If it’s a film adaptation of a Marvel or DC comic, chances are I’m going to find a reason to love it.
Of course this can sometimes leave me conflicted. I deeply dislike Bayhem, but he made two films with Optimus Prime in – what’s a geek to do?
Despite evidence to the contrary, I am actually going somewhere with this. My point is, I accept my bias, possibly even revel in it at times, yet even the best critics can’t seem to admit to theirs. It is often so predictable which critics will like which films, and why, it’s hardly worth reading the review.
I think the crux of my rant here is the tendency by some critics to dismiss any film with the label ‘blockbuster’ attached while lapping up anything ‘gritty’, ‘independent’ or ‘worthy’ (yes, you’ve all heard my ‘worthy’ film rants before, but I’m not stopping now). Granted I have been disappointed this summer, but just because a film is big doesn’t make it less worthy than one about an alcoholic, mentally challenged boy hiding from Nazi’s in war torn Poland (Thanks American Dad).
I mean, come on people, Ricky Gervais joked about Kate Winslet doing a holocaust film in order to win an Oscar. Then what happens when she did a holocaust film two years later? Yup, you guessed it. He even laughed about it when he hosted an award at the Golden Globes this year.
However, one of my favourite examples of ‘Critic Fail’TM is Kevin Smith. As people are probably aware by now I’m a big fan of his work. I love juvenile ‘dick and fart’ jokes and I like how he writes dialogue (must be a fan boy thing).
The reason he is such a great example of ‘Critic Fail’TM is because of his first film Clerks, which was made on a tiny budget and filmed mostly at night in the shop that Kevin Smith worked in at the time. It was shot in Black and White and as independent as they come. It was also a damn funny movie.
The critics certainly agreed – they lapped it up. Kevin was given plaudits and awards and rightly so. Unfortunately Mr. Smith then made a fatal error. He made his next film with a bigger budget, set it in a shopping mall and then, god forbid, shot it in colour.
Mallrats had the same humour, geek references, witty sidekicks (who can deliver a line better than Jason Lee?) and flawed couplings that we saw in Clerks, but was almost universally panned.
Of course I’m aware of the flaws in my argument here. Firstly I’m sure there are plenty of critics who have liked all of Kevin’s movies, or at least been fair with him all the way through. Secondly, Kevin’s third film Chasing Amy was generally well received by critics even though it wasn’t in black and white. However, my answer to this was that it was a film about lesbians, which means it fell into the ‘worthy’ column, so it was ok for critics to like it – nice one Kev!
So here’s a little mantra for all you critics out there: if it’s a big budget Holywood summer movie it’s not necessarily bad and if it’s a low budge independent film then it’s not necessarily good...unless it’s got Ryan Gosling in, because he’s always awesome.
Wow, it’s amazing the sort of rant I can come up with just by watching Zak and Miri make a Porno on DVD again. Even funnier the second time round and with a great soundtrack!
Posts
