Related Sections: Columnists Movies Opinion
Columnist Michael Cassutt to critics: "Stop hating on popcorn flicks!"
"I think they reviewed the wrong movie. They just don't understand the movie and its audience. It's silly fun. I am convinced that they are born with the anti-fun gene. The reviews are just so vicious. A lot of them are more personal than anything else."
So said director Michael Bay last month, just as his new film Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen opened to massive box office and blistering reviews, many of them nasty. When Roger Ebert says that viewing your film was "a horrible experience," you can understand Bay's reaction.
I'll be upfront—I've got mixed feelings about Bay's work. I liked Bad Boys and admired The Rock and found myself engaged by The Island. I enjoyed the first Transformers. Armageddon, not so much. Beyond responding to the work alone, I've had acquaintances who have been part of Bay's films ... less than enjoyably.
And yet, he is the master of a specific style of film-making, often known as the Popcorn movie ... colorful, action-oriented, heavy on big action sequences while light on plausibility and character... and LOUD. I know a little about this process, and I'm continually impressed by Bay's managerial skills, if nothing else. (With some sci-fi movies and television, the miracle isn't that they're good ... the miracle is that they're finished.)
And anyone who can claim directorship of the "Got Milk: Aaron Burr" commercial ... well, that director has talent.
The quote suggests that Bay is baffled and stung.
Given the staggering financial return for Fallen, why would Bay care about reviews? Because he's human and he works in a field that is entirely subjective. If anyone thinks that Fallen had a guaranteed box office because of its title or big robot battle moments or Megan Fox, I refer them to Watchmen or Land of the Lost ... two highly-touted sci-fi projects that, shall we say, failed to live up to expectations.
You don't have to bite it at the box office to be stung by harsh words.
One common school of thought is that no one is allowed to criticize a film, a television episode, a novel or a building, unless one has directed, produced, written or designed same.
Certainly this is the first response of any director, producer, writer or architect on the receiving end of a bad review. Because all of us want our work to not only make money and be seen by all of humanity, we want it to be loved.
There are some lucky artists who have combined commercial and critical success. Look at Michael Chabon's best-selling, Pulitzer Prize-winning novel The Amazing Adventures of Cavalier and Clay. Slightly closer to the heart of sci-fi there is Dan Simmons Hyperion Cantos, or almost any work by Neil Gaiman.
There are others who will be acclaimed, but never best-selling, hoping for that brief moment of notice, as witness the recent New York Times Magazine article on the wonderful, unknown-outside-the-sci-fi world author Jack Vance.
Most of us will fall into a third category ... undersold, little seen, never acclaimed.
The one thing all classes have in common is that we blame reviewers.
They are handy targets, after all.
Candidates don't have to pass a board to qualify as a reviewer in some formal way, any more than you have to hold an advanced cinema degree to qualify as a film-maker: you only have to convince someone to hire you ... once. And perform sufficiently to convince someone to keep hiring you.
And once hired ... once a reviewer has a platform, whether it's a national magazine or a television show or a well-known blog ... the fun begins.
The reviewer screens a new film or episode, or reads a book in galleys, and publishes a response in close to real time. His or her primary task is to tell you, the potential customer, whether or not this new piece of sci-fi is worth your time and money.
That's power.
Reviewers can make a project. Recent examples from mainstream film-making include Slumdog Millionaire and Little Miss Sunshine.
Reviewers can destroy a project.
Now, this power isn't ultimate. Some projects are reviewer-proof. Bad notices could not and did not keep people from standing in line to see Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. (They certainly didn't keep me away.)
And naturally there are worthy-yet-obscure projects touted by reviewers that simply fail to connect with audiences. It was a long time ago, but I have clear memories that Bladerunner was considered a box office failure in spite of a ton of admiring reviews.)
A reviewer's power fades over time. Word of mouth ultimately triumphs. For example, Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land was published in 1961 to a couple of nasty reviews in major publications—this at a time when a genre sci-fi personality like Heinlein would rarely be noticed by the New York Times ... and when a bad NYT review could kill your book dead.
Stranger was, in fact, wounded. It sold poorly in hardcover, and slowly in paperback for several years, until word of mouth rendered the permanent review.
Nevertheless, reviewers set the tone, open the argument. (Reviewers are different from critics, who take a long view ... and more time. They are more concerned with issues such as relevance, hidden meaning. A critical appreciation—or lack thereof—of the Michael Bay oevre is still some years off.)
In looking at a film-maker like Bay, and a popcorn project like Revenge of the Fallen, they must be strongly tempted to take on the big dog, to proclaim their independence ...by being negative, and sometimes mean.
This is not a plea for sympathy for Michael Bay. The one lesson any writer, director, producer needs to learn is that you can't change reviews by complaining about them. (It's also possible that Bay was engaged in a bit of public relations theater, but one would have to be truly cynical to believe that.)
To hammer Revenge of the Fallen for being light on character and plausibility and the other attributes of "serious" film-making is like slamming a ride like Space Mountain for its lack of astronomical data.
To be rude is just unnecessary.
Raiders of the Lost Ark is a terrific Popcorn Project. Does anyone care that at one point Indiana Jones is seen on the exterior of a submerging submarine ... and later goes safely ashore an untold distance away? How did he survive? Did we care?
I'm not saying reviewers should go easy on Popcorn Projects. They should just remember what makes popcorn tasty ... or stale.
Michael Cassutt has been known to criticize, but most of his working life is devoted to composing short fiction (for Asimov's SF), articles (for Air & Space magazine), television scripts (The Dead Zone), novels (Missing Man) and even video games (Singularity). He has suffered some nasty reviews and hopes to get over them one of these years.
By Dragen at 8:44 AM ON 08/10/09
Remember when you were a kid, and movies were supposed to be a fun experience?
By Doug at 8:47 AM ON 08/10/09
I fail to see how 'it's not meant to be good, so treat it differently to everything else' is a sensible platform in film criticism, or shall we say, critique of criticism.
Any film reviewer has to judge films by a set criteria in order to maintain consistency in their approach. Yes, the audience often argues that critics are harsh on a film, but the limitations of star systems inherently prohibit judging releases on a scale of relativity. You can't, for instance, give Children Of Men four stars for its artistic efforts and narrative, then give Transformers four stars because it's fun and isn't meant to stand up to the same level of criticism. You are in effect saying that Transformers does stand up to Children Of Men due to the fact that they both have four stars.
The whole point of review copy is to explain the reasons why a film is awarded the grade it has been given, and to do that, you need to judge everything on a level playing field. Would you give a restaurant a high rating for its food, then give another a similar one not because of its food, but because it appeals to popular culture and looks nice? No. The same principle applies.
Or maybe critics just don't understand films. I'd trust the opinion over someone who eloquently explained their reasons for giving a 'popcorn flick' a low score than someone who gave it a high score because it's a brainless summer blockbuster.
By Bulk Slash at 9:36 AM ON 08/10/09
Bay is missing the point, there are plenty of good, big budget "popcorn flicks", it's just none of them were made by him.
By JimmyD at 9:44 AM ON 08/10/09
Doug: You write "Any film reviewer has to judge films by a set criteria in order to maintain consistency in their approach."
In a perfect world, perhaps. There are no rules that reviewers follow. There is no Reviewers Handbook.
The guys over at Ain't It Cool constantly irritate me (but I still go back for more). Being mean for the sake of being mean is not a review. When Harry and pals start a review with "This was the sh*tiest pile of steaming sh*t EVER IN THE HISTORY of..." (not an actual quote but anyone who visits that sites knows what I mean), I now usually pass and move on to another story. I think a bad review can be done in a way that is productive. (Some of their raves are written in the same manner. When I see a rave written in the same way I now know they are way over selling and the movie will never live up to what they are saying.)
I know someone whose 'review' of 'Transformers 2' (which I personally loved) was "This was a pile of sh*t." and the proceeded to quote things from other reviews. What I asked was, why do you think that. I don't care that he thinks it was bad but I think it would benefit him to be able to be able to explain why he said that. Bad plot and weak characters are not the reason for this person because I know there are plenty of movies and TV shows in his collection that are guilty of those things. I'd like to have a conversation of why he didn't like it and why I did. To me, if he were to write: I didn't like it because blah blah blah... But he doesn't. He'll rant and rant, start in on personal attacks on the director. It's like he doesn't know why he hated it so much, which makes me ask, "Why did you stay? Why, after the first 30 minutes didn't you go ask for a refund (theaters will refund your ticket if, within a certain amount of time, you request it. I know, I've done it. Bad movie, technical issues, obnoxious audience.)
I completely agree when you say "The whole point of review copy is to explain the reasons why a film is awarded the grade it has been given, and to do that, you need to judge everything on a level playing field."
Roger Ebert use to piss me off but I now realized, even if we disagree, I know he will tell me WHY he said what he said, and nine times out of ten, I'm perfectly happy with his opinion.
You also said "I'd trust the opinion over someone who eloquently explained their reasons for giving a 'popcorn flick' a low score than someone who gave it a high score because it's a brainless summer blockbuster."
But why can't it be the other way? Can't one trust a review that eloquently explains why they gave a blockbuster popcorn flick high marks?
(I think another topic could be: What Are You Expecting From The Movie You Are About To See?)
By skippytheheathen at 9:45 AM ON 08/10/09
Wholly agree with this. Critics are critics and its their job to criticize. Reviewers jobs is to review...not critiques. There are cettain objective principiles to which critics adhere.
But all this can ber simple. If reviewers and critics could just say, "look, as a film, this movie was put together badly, the acting was bad and the effects were retro....but you know it may not have been a 'good' movie, as in done to a high artistic standard, but it was damned entetrtaining." OR "This movie was a feat of sheer filmmaking genius...but you know what, it bored me to death and I walked out halfway through."
See its not hard to seperate a technically astute film from one that entertaining, or whatever combination of both.
Frankly there are some moves out there that are good, but I wouldn't finish watching them cause they're crap and boring.
By Artemis at 10:04 AM ON 08/10/09
I love popcorn movies. Heck, I grew up on them. However, Bay's work is too overstylized to provide any real immersion or identification with the characters. A popcorn move is one thing — and Ebert has given good reviews to plenty of them. A two-hour music video is something else.
By Des_Shinta at 10:18 AM ON 08/10/09
The reason Land of the Lost failed was because Will Ferrall was cast. Seriously, that guy ruins everything he touches.
By The Movie Whore at 12:05 PM ON 08/10/09
Brilliant piece sir. I would love to see a critic free world. If you want to have a flick reviewed then take it to the public that is going to pay to see it.
By novastar at 12:16 PM ON 08/10/09
I don't usually listen to critics mainly because they're getting paid to watch movies, in other words they've for the most part have already decided how they feel about a movie before they go see it. They don't go see a movie to WATCH IT. Most of the time if they hate it, it's usually pretty good. need I say more.
By Journeyman at 12:29 PM ON 08/10/09
"Raiders of the Lost Ark is a terrific Popcorn Project. Does anyone care that at one point Indiana Jones is seen on the exterior of a submerging submarine ... and later goes safely ashore an untold distance away? How did he survive? Did we care?"
Umm, a little off topic but they never do show the submarine submerging. During the timeframe they were working in submarines traveled faster on the surface than they did underwater (which is not true of modern subs) and I was under the impression they were making great haste to get the Ark to the island.
By kryche at 12:33 PM ON 08/10/09
If not for critics, I'd imagine this guys movies would be worse than they already are.
There's gotta be some part of him that wants his work to be well received critically, and that pushes him to at least put some effort and heart into his work, though it barely shows on screen. I can't imagine the trash he would throw to the public if he didn't have that.
By mdoz34 at 1:04 PM ON 08/10/09
Seriously, reviewers do not write reviews based on criteria, but on their opinions, and anyone who looks would be able to tell you that the harsher the review, the more they didn't like the movie, good for their opinion, bad for anyone else. Transformers 2 was a great movie, and i give it 5 stars, and i also give The Dark Knight 5 stars, and Watchmen, the same. Each of these movies i like for different reasons, and yet i give them the same number of stars. Now their are those who will say, i am just an idiot because i liked one or more of those movies, and yet, i am not limited to only those. Million Dollar Baby and Mystic River were also 5 star movies. Ask yourself which is better, Deep Impact or Armageddon?? Deep Impact had great acting, great story, great visial effects on the comet, I give it 5 stars. Armageddon had great characters, actors, a semi- great story though extremely unrealistic, and less fancy visual effects, and i give it 5 stars. Which one was better. because i liked both and if you look through critics history, you will see the same thing, they give their oppinions and being unessesarily harsh is just them getting upset that a movie will have a fan base when they don't think it should. The problem with critics is that people listen to them, instead of making thier own judgement call. I see what catches my attention in the theatre, and sometimes i don't. Regardless of what reviewers say. i'll see or not see a movie and i may wait until dvd, but i don't let others make the choice for me. My opinions are reserved for when i see the movie, not before, so critics can give their opinions, if they chose, but be honest, tell people you didn't like it and why, but until you have seen some of the movies i have, don't even try to tell me its the worse thing ever made. Remember, movies are meant for fun, especially summer movies. These artsy movies have their place, but i find its the dvd, not the theatre. And lastly, try seeing a movie before believing a critic, they get it wrong, a whole lot!!!!!!!!!!
By fernando poo at 1:31 PM ON 08/10/09
Everybody is allowed and opinion. Mine is that Transformers 2 sucks big donkeys and no amount of shielding it under a "popcorn movie" umbrella is going to change that.
By Alverant at 2:37 PM ON 08/10/09
Of course different movies have to be judged by different criteria! If a murder mystery movie solves the crime in the first 20 minutes then inflicts 90 minutes of psychological thriller on the audience, then it fails as a murder mystery, even if it's the best psychological thriller ever made.
Critics watch dozens of films a year while most of us see a movie once every other month. They are out of touch with what most people experience when they go to a movie. I feel that most critics expect every movie to be like Citizen Kane. They watch hundreds of movies then complain if a movie isn't original to them. Some critics don't like certain genres of movies but they go ahead and review them anyway. I don't like horror movies. The last one I saw was Scary Movie. If I start writing reviews of horror movies, no one should take them seriously. It should be the same for professional critics. That's why comedy and sci-fi movies don't get good reviews most of the time, the critics do not respect those genres.
The only question a critic should deal with is, "Was I entertained?"
By suprememango at 2:46 PM ON 08/10/09
I didn't expect a great story and wonderful acting in Transformers 2. None of these were in part one and I still enjoyed myself. But it seems that Bay and the writers just threw a bunch of transformers in a blender, set to puree and served it on screen. I spent way too much time figuring who was fighting who and with what.
Transformers 2 suffered from the same thing Xmen 3 suffered from - too many characters and not enough time to give them some development. But TF2 was a whole 150 min while XM3 was only 105 min (way too short for the story in my opinion). So it's not that they didn't have the time develop the characters in TF2, it's just they didn't bother to. And why so much focus on the annoying and pointless characters of Skids and Mudflaps, and so little on Josh Duhamel, Ironhide, Ratchet et cetera. And I still couldn't identify who all the new Autobots were because they wizzed by so fast. Who the new Decepticons were, was also very blurry.
I love popcorn flicks. I love big dumb action movies. But Transformers was a hot mess for the most part. And no mystical key can save it
By spda242 at 3:49 PM ON 08/10/09
DON' T ever, Ever, EVER AGAIN mention Popcorn Movies and Michael Bay in the same line!!! Popcorn Movies are a wonderful art of entertainment and to suggest that the horrible junk Michael Bay makes are Popcorn Movies, that's just insulting to the Popcorn Movie genere.
NOW don't ever, Ever, EVER, EVER mention Michael Bay and Raiders of the Lost Ark in the samt sentence either. Raiders are a masterpiece and it has several intentional "flaws" like the submarine.
Oki, I did like "The Rock", he did get that one right but he also made one of the two most horrible movies ever made, Armageddon (the other being Perl Harbour).
I did ofcourse not watch Revenge of ...whatever (I tried to watch the first one but I falled asleep) but my friends who are Transformer fans did watch it and they said it sucked Donkeyballs!!!
Just because M.B. makes bad movies doesn't make them Popcorn movies.
By jhawks1510 at 5:15 PM ON 08/10/09
I just went to see TF2 over the weekend. I am a huge TF fan, and have been since 1984. I bought every comic & watched every cartoon. I walked into the first TF movie supremely excited to see them on the big screen and walked out uttlerly horrified as to what had happened. So I waited 6 weeks to see this one, and force down my expectations as low as they could go, and was thus not unhappy when I left the theatre.
It doesn't change the fact that even though the effects, explosions, battle sequences in this movie have breached new ground, effects unimagineable just five years ago, I don't blame critics for panning the movie, because as a movie it suffers from a lot of problems (like Megan Fox, John Turturo's over the top acting, poor scripting, and lack of character development on the part of the transformers). Heck, even the Beast Wars series was superior in many ways to this movie.
I pretty much agree w/Suprememango. Maybe I liked it a little more than he did. Expect little, and you won't be disappointed.
By The Icon at 6:21 PM ON 08/10/09
I still don't get why people have conditioned to think that "popcorn" films should be bad. You realize that you can have popcorn movies that have good characters, good story and goo SFX, right? Stop being apologists when it comes to blatantly bad movies.
By smegforbrain at 7:26 PM ON 08/10/09
It's very easy, really.
Popcorn flicks don't have be badly written, badly acted, badly directed, and they don't have to be dumbed down for the lowest common denominator.
By JimmyD at 10:01 PM ON 08/10/09
suprememango is a great example of saying a movie is, in his/her opinion, not good without being rude or disrespectful to those who did enjoy it.
I still don't understand why a person who didn't like something, simply say, "I didn't like it." "I thought it was really bad." "I was expecting more and was horribly disappointed." instead of "sucks big donkeys", which does say anything remotely productive.
Maybe there should be reviews of COMMENTS?
IMO, "sucks big donkeys" shows the same lack of talent and imagination that fernando poo saw in 'Transformers 2.'
My review: fernando poo's comment regarding 'Transformers 2' sucks big donkey (whatever that means). Therefore, I give his comment 1 star out of 10.
Just sayin... you can get your point across without being mean. In fact, you might be taken seriously if you're insightful and interesting. Maybe people would actually respect your opinion.
By asdf at 10:19 PM ON 08/10/09
"found myself engaged by The Island."
HA HA HA
Engaged by a movie that was so pathetic it had to rip off a movie from MST3K?
By Tarc at 10:36 PM ON 08/10/09
The fact is: garbage is garbage. It doesn't matter if it is a 'popcorn flick' or an Oscar contender, there are certain elements that still need to be there. Modern audiences want more Star Wars, more (early) Indianna Jones, etc. not incoherent, badly filmed, movies complete with blatant misogyny, racism, homophobia, wooden trite dialog, copycat fight and crash scenes, and STUPID, STUPID characters. I rememeber the FUN - I just expect the people that make popcorn films to possess an ounce of talent and three cooperating brain cells. Make it FUN and not INSIPID, and the audience will flock in.
By Tarc at 10:41 PM ON 08/10/09
Oh, and Mr. Bay: Transformers 2 was garbage. Seriously. No defense. I stood in line for Star Wars for seven hours the night it opened, and I saw it seven times at the theater. My whole film identity was shaped by the classic popcorn films, from the monster movies of the 1950s to the classics of my youth. Transformers 2 was stupid, incoherent, racist, badly planned, and badly exectued. It was one of the worst films I saw in the last decade. No defense.
By J at 11:07 PM ON 08/10/09
I agree with Michael Cassutt and will take it one step further; it seems like the critics want every action/sci fi film to be the Dark Knight; intellectual and somehow defining Western Civilization. I love Dark Knight, but I don't want all action/scifi movies to be like that, and frankly, they can't be.
What confuses me the most is that Transformers 2 was very similar to Transformers 1, yet Ebert gave the first Transformers 3 stars and Transformers 2 only 1 star. What changed? There was no explanation for this.
Personally, I enjoyed Transformers 2 as much as a enjoyed 1. It was put together decently; the banter between Shia LeBouf and Megan Fox, as well as his family, was hilarious and didn't miss a beat. Optimus was nobly portrayed as always, although I was bothered when he executed that one Decepticon early on. Otherwise, the characters were pretty spot on. Ravage was awesome. Visually the whole thing was great. Fight scenes were good. I went "NOO! Not again!" when bad things happened to Optimus (I'm in my 30s now and remember the cartoonmovie).
The biggest complaints I could think of were the majority of stuff with Jetfire, and that decepticon that made herself look like a girl; that actress could barely speak! Otherwise, it was enjoyable as the first and so I'm perplexed as to what was so different fans of the first hated the second.
By Doug at 8:27 AM ON 08/11/09
JimmyD:
"In a perfect world, perhaps. There are no rules that reviewers follow. There is no Reviewers Handbook.
The guys over at Ain't It Cool constantly irritate me (but I still go back for more). Being mean for the sake of being mean is not a review."
You are, of course, correct. There isn't a codified system for film criticism that a reviewer can follow. What I was referring to is a critic's personal set of criteria, for instance, plot development, characterisation, performances, direction, special effects, use of colour, light and tone, script and other such areas, ones we all recognise when we watch a film.
You also make a few good points about certain styles of review, which seem more suited for offering gratification for the author than for actually following journalistic conventions and serving to adequately analyse a film's artistic merit and entertainment value. I don't consider these to be reviews, but opinion columns with a rating slapped on the end. For me, a review should have its assertions backed up by evidence from the film, simply saying 'This actor is shit', as so many do, isn't acceptable. I'd be more likely to trust a review that said 'This actor is shit, particularly with his/her delivery in scenes like...'.
"But why can't it be the other way? Can't one trust a review that eloquently explains why they gave a blockbuster popcorn flick high marks?"
It can certainly be the other way, if the argument is sound and intelligent.
Skippytheheathen:
"Wholly agree with this. Critics are critics and its their job to criticize. Reviewers jobs is to review...not critiques. There are cettain objective principiles to which critics adhere."
I disagree with this assertion entirely. As a reviewer, you are critically analysing the component parts of a movie and then giving it a score, which immediately compares and contrasts it with other films. Reviewing is inherently critical.
Your next point is perfectly valid, and it's completely acceptable to include that in the review as a personal aside to the reader. However, it shouldn't be the sole component part of the review, it should only be taken into account as a number of other factors.
Novastar:
"I don't usually listen to critics mainly because they're getting paid to watch movies, in other words they've for the most part have already decided how they feel about a movie before they go see it. They don't go see a movie to WATCH IT. Most of the time if they hate it, it's usually pretty good. need I say more."
Should the fact that critics get paid to review films and watch them not suggest to you that their livelihood depends on doing a good job of the review, and it's therefore perhaps more balanced than word of mouth? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying film criticism is perfect, but it's a damn sight more accountable and backed up than discussions over a water cooler.
Also, critics don't always get to see films for free. Studios frequently screen films without press previews, GI Joe is a good example. I'd take up a difference with your idea that critics don't go to a film to watch it. Are you suggesting that they don't appreciate films or enjoy watching them, but merely see them as a pay cheque? I'd feel sorry for them if that were the case, stuck in jobs they don't enjoy.
mdoz34:
"Seriously, reviewers do not write reviews based on criteria, but on their opinions, and anyone who looks would be able to tell you that the harsher the review, the more they didn't like the movie, good for their opinion, bad for anyone else"
Of course a review is written based on an opinion. If it weren’t, it would be a press release or a simple regurgitation of the plot. It's your choice at the end of the day whether to take that opinion from a critic you trust, whose reviews you generally agree with.
Alverant:
"Of course different movies have to be judged by different criteria! If a murder mystery movie solves the crime in the first 20 minutes then inflicts 90 minutes of psychological thriller on the audience, then it fails as a murder mystery, even if it's the best psychological thriller ever made."
You're talking about genre, not criteria. See above in my reply for what I consider to be a reviewer's criteria, but yes, perhaps films of different genres have to be taken differently, but I still maintain there is a basic set of general norms common to all films that should be taken as loose guidelines when reviewing.
As for "Was I entertained?", it's a fair point. Film is, after all, essentially entertainment, and that should certainly be a part of the review. However, it's hard to argue that film has not evolved from talking pictures into an art form itself. Take literature, for instance. You don't expect a literary review to simply tell the reader whether the book was fun, if a little vapid, you expect it to go into style, dialogue, characters, plot revelations, literary allusions, because writing is an art form and deserves to be judged on that scale. The same goes for film.
Smegforbrains:
"It's very easy, really.
"Popcorn flicks don't have be badly written, badly acted, badly directed, and they don't have to be dumbed down for the lowest common denominator."
Yes, exactly.
By raindog469 at 10:28 AM ON 08/11/09
If the kind of people who like Michael Bay movies could actually read, there would already be a whole array of reviewers catering to their tastes.
I think GI Joe's opening weekend proves once and for all that popcorn flick aficionados just don't read, or care about, reviews.
By xdeathknightx at 3:57 PM ON 08/11/09
@raindog: most popcorn flick afficionados just don't care. Think it is more a problem of movie critics/reviewers losing touch with the larger movie-going public.
@Doug: I find the conversations at the watercooler or with friends to be a whole lot better. Most of my friends know what I like and share my taste for some part. So if they say a movie is good I would be more enticed to take their word for it then a movie critic.
This mostly because I have noticed I don't share my opinions with a lot of critics. Next to critically acclaimed movies even some arthouse I also like a lot of zombie movies and brainless action movies at times, also a lot of horror movies (save for the current torture porn) and cult/camp movies. A lot of those get really decent to poor reviews while I quite like them.
And I agree with jimmyD rather see someone explain why he gave that popcorn movie a good mark
By Michael Bay at 4:29 AM ON 08/12/09
Watching Michael Bay movies is like taking a dump
By cht232323 at 11:55 AM ON 08/12/09
Box office number mean NOTHING!! You are saying that Transformers was a better movie than Watchmen because it did better in the box office? lol give us a break. How are people supposed to tell if a movie is worth seeing...unless they see it? Box office numbers are a result of what type of movie it is, like how many people it relates to, and marketing. Do you think many people watched the trailer for watchmen and said, "hey, that looks interesting to me"....only nerds(like me), and geeks. But with transformers, it is a more widely accepted theme, that basically everyone in the world has heard about and would be like "yeah, i'd be interested in seeing how they make a movie out of this".
Transformers was a poorly directed movie, along with many other michael bay movies. He does action sequences great, but his grasp on romance and comedy is terrible.....terrible. That's why he gets ripped apart by critics...they know what they are talking about, you don't. So keep enjoying your crappy movies and let the critics alone.
By kingmoe at 1:48 AM ON 08/13/09
The Hellboy and Dark Knight Enough said.
By Fargo at 1:07 AM ON 08/16/09
If Michael Bay, and movie makers like him are sick of getting bad and mean reviews, then a simple solution is to stop making horrible movies (I wonder if he is even capable of making a decent movie anymore). But nah, why bother doing that when you can just take a poo in your right hand smear it on some film stock and a massive amount of peabrains will eat i t up and ask for more.
It's a pity that popcorn movies are getting a bad rap (and really starting to leave a bad taste in my mouth - no pun intended), because of these terrible directors that just throw every piece of trite trash on the screen that they can think up. Put a little more thought into the movie and perhaps you'll get an audience with an IQ higher than 5, and a bit of respect from the people you obviously admire and want to love your "art".
Visit mobile.syfy.com/wire on your mobile device.
Fargo:
If Michael Bay, and movie makers like him are sick of getting bad and mean reviews, then a simple solution is to st...More »