Monday, March 19, 2007

What's going on with these "critics"?

I never tend to let a certain critic affect me too much. I don't like bitching about a certain review or a certain comment because that's whats fun about Cinema. Everyone has different opinions and different views and you don't always have to agree with them. As long as the critic gives a valid view and backs up his/her opinion I have no complaints.

However, today I bumped into 2 opinions which just baffled me. These just boggle the mind and just get me mad.

"If you thought "Gladiator" was a bit too stingy with the bloodshed, if you felt "Sin City" could have been more stylized, if you hate it when the masses refer to graphic novels as "comic books," this is your day. For today brings about the release of "300," and it is the "Citizen Kane" of cinematic graphic novels." - Richard Roeper

Are you kidding me?! If you thought Sin City could have been more stylized? Sin City is one of the most visually stylish films ever. How could anyone see Sin City and say "hmmm needs more style" The film is basically 2 hours of just pure style. It feels like you are in a comic book and every single frame oozes with an innovative sense of style. Love or hate the film, you have to admit the film had enough style for 4 movies. Needs more style? This makes no sense to me.

Gladiator was stingy on the blood? Granted I am not the biggest fan of Gladiator but to say a phrase like "was stingy on the bloodshed" makes you sound like the most ignorant critic ever. I thought critics judged the film, not the amount of bloodshed. This all makes you sound more like a typical frat boy than a film critic.

Also, the Citizen Kane of cinematic graphic novels? Wow Roeper you just made me lose the few amount of respect I had for you. I hate it when people say "it's the Citizen Kane of ___" There is no such thing as a film that's the Citizen Kane of it's genre. There is a reason that Citizen Kane is considered by many, including Roepers fellow critic Roger Ebert, as the greatest film ever made. Saying that a film is the Citizen Kane of it's genre is degrading Citizen Kane to a novelty and a throwaway term. Great job Roeper, not only do you think an overuse of blood and slow mo is having a lot of style, you also think that it merits the film to be compared to Citizen Kane. Such an amazing job Roeper, you just compared what is considered the greatest film ever made to a film that is a fad and will go away soon and be forgotten by many within a couple of years. I thought you were a critic and you loved film?

The other thing I read today that also left me confused and mad was something that I read in Entertainment Weekly. There is a section entitled "Ask the critic" Someone asks EW critic Owen Gleiberman if watching a directors cut on dvd has ever changed his opinion on the original film. He responds with this:

"Over the Years, I've preferred Brazil, Close Encounters, Apocalypse Now, Manhunter, and many other films in their original form to their vaunted director's cut's, since even the meatiest new scenes tend to take away more than they add." - Owen Gleiberman

The main problem I had with this comment was the part about Brazil. Are you being serious? Brazil earns it's spot in film history as one of the most brutally edited down films ever. There is a reason Criterion took out a 3 disc box set that includes both the Theatrical and Director's cut It's not so that you can choose which is better, it's for you to see how the editing in the Theatrical Cut makes the film horrible. There is even a commentary track where it explains to you why the Theatrical Cut is such a piece of trash. Takes away more than it adds? If anything the director's cut adds tons of stuff that the film did not have. Yet, Own Gleiberman liked the Theatrical Cut more?

Well, I should keep ranting about this one. I should rant about how by saying that he likes that cut he is not supporting the directors true vision, but what the hell? This is the same guy who gave Epic Movie it's only good review.

No comments: