I stumble upon a conversation between H and M – they are talking about movies. H wants to see “Eat, Pray, Love” while M is musing about “Expendables”. Neither of these films appeals to me. One seems to be a full-on chick flick -definitely not my demographic – while the other is so over saturated with macho action hero testosterone that I can hardly believe that it will have even a vestigial smidge of some cerebral content. So I pipe in with my choice:
“You know what is the movie I really want to see? Scott Pilgrim vs the World.”
H makes a face and M shrugs with disappointment. I was hoping that being the youngest of us he would be the most likely candidate to appreciate it for the awesome mix of music, comic books, video games, pop culture and teenage romance. It seems that I was wrong.
“It looks silly…” he informs me after a pause.
H nods vigorously and adds: “I heard it’s not that good.”
“Says who? I heard it was rather good.”
“People.” – she makes a dismissive motion with her hand. “Who told you it was good?”
“Movie critics. It got good reviews so far.”
She puts on a disgusted grimace and rolls her eyes. “I don’t trust movie critics. I never agree with them. I always seem to love the movies they hate and hate the movies they praise.”
“Well, maybe you are just listening to the wrong critics. You sort need to find those with similar tastes and interests. A lot of them are biased against certain things you might enjoy but as you get to know them you eventually learn to filter that out…”
“No, no – it’s not that. It’s like… What do they know what I like or don’t like?”
“They don’t. Movie reviews tend to be subjective even when the reviewers try to give you an unbiased opinion. It is still an opinion.”
“They are movie snobs. That’s what they are. I don’t want to hear what some snotty reviewer has to say. I can’t relate to that! I want to know whether an average American would like it.”
Here is where I temporarily lose it and my soul burns with an internal rage. But I manage to keep a straight face and continue with the conversation.
“But an average American does not know anything about movies. I’d take an opinion of a movie snob over that of some random dude on the street any day.”
“That’s because you are a movie snob yourself. Hell, I haven’t even heard about half the movies you talk about.”
M pops back into conversation to add a “me neither” and I give him an evil glare.
“I don’t consider myself a movie snob. I just like movies that don’t suck.”
“You hated Transformers!”
“Because it was a horrible movie. Both of them were. Horrible plot, horrible acting, signature Michael Bay bad camera work, excessively busy design and overt the top CGI and stunt-work that you can’t even see well because of the shaking camera, chrome glare and explosions.”
“Exactly my point. Movie snob. Do you know how much money this movie made? How many people went to see it?”
“Box office numbers are not really reflection of quality… Movies that pander to the lowest common denominator usually do better than more ambitious projects but that does not mean they are good.”
“Well, millions of people disagree with you and they vote with their wallets…”
“Exactly!” pipes in H “Same goes for Twilight. The movie critics keep nitpicking and give it bad reviews but look how popular it is.”
This time M rolls his eyes.
“Do you really want me to tell you what I think about Twilight?” I’m actually banned from bringing up this topic around females these days after I almost got stabbed in the eye with a ballpoint pen that one time. You know – for my own good.
I know for a fact that M has the same opinion as I do about Twilight – but that’s probably just because of the “girly fick” stigma that surrounds it. He never actually did the research like I did.
“No, I don’t want to have that conversation again. But that’s what I mean. I don’t trust critics because they tend to talk shit about stuff I absolutely love. They hate everything that does not fit into their little criteria. They are just so… So…”
“Educated?” M ventures a guess. I give him a big smile.
“Thank you. That’s what I’m saying – I’d rather hear an opinion of someone who knows a lot about movies (good movies) rather than that of an average American.”
“I didn’t mean it as a good thing. That’s why they are so disconnected.”
I try to give him my most severe “son, I am disappoint” expression but it doesn’t seem to register with him. Or if it does, he doesn’t react. In the meantime
H finally manages to find her missing word: “Elitist. They are so elitist in their selection that they automatically dismiss anything that is not intellectual and ambitious. Movies are supposed to be entertaining though – and they just don’t see that.”
“That’s absolutely not true. Most critics will acknowledge the entertainment value even if the rest is abysmally bad.”
“No they don’t. Case in point: Twilight.”
“That’s not an example. There is nothing good about these books or these movies. All the criticism and scorn they get is well deserved.”
“Says the movie snob.”
This is where I give up and changed the topic. I could probably add some more commentary to this but I think this dialog stands on its own. I will say this though: I really don’t get why people always want to hear what “average Americans” have to say about everything. Honestly, I don’t care. Why do people have this deeply seethed animosity towards experts and authorities who have the experience and knowledge to give educated opinions and advice. Above we talk about movie criticism, but this attitude extends much further than that. Often this is how people talk about politics which is even more baffling to me.
Honestly, when I’m tasked to pick a person to do something important me I want to make sure that whoever I choose is the best qualified and best educated candidate for a given position. It is one thing to be anti-elitist, but it is an entirely different thing to mistake education, qualifications and experience for elitism.
Do you get into this sort of conversations? Does this attitude annoy you? Or am I the only one?
Maybe it’s just the way it’s written with you as the protagonist, but I’m ready to give H and M a good slapping :P
It’s not hard… read a variety of reviews, if it’s lauding things you agree are good qualities in a film then you will probably enjoy the film. If it’s criticising flaws that you think are important ones, you may well not do so. Or search until you find a reviewer with the same tastes as yourself, then let them watch all the dross so you don’t have to (and when they recommend something, get on it).
Just hit me… I use the reviews on this site for that purpose. We seem to like the same sort of things in a film :mrgreen:
I hear Scott Pilgrim vs the world is a good movie (from critics and friends alike), but I’m just so sick and tired of Michael Cera playing Michael Cera that I don’t think I’m going to see it. At least not in the theater, maybe when it comes out on Netflix. I’ll let my wife add it to our queue, that way it won’t have been my choice.
And I know lots of actors tend to play every character the same over and over again *cough* Nicholas Cage *cough*, but I don’t know. Hollywood really seems to be cramming Cera down our throats lately. Especially ever since geek became so popular. It’s like they think he should be our awkward geek poster child/idol. No thanks. I’ve had enough.
Anyhow, speaking of actors who play the same character over and over *cough* Jason Statham, I’ve already seen The Expendables twice now. Liked it each time. But I guess if you’re not into the ’80s and ’90s testosterone infused action flicks then you’ll probably pretty much hate that movie. :)
Matt` wrote:
Awesome. I’m providing a useful service. Yaaaay!. :)
@ Rob:
Honestly, I like Michael Cera. I mean, yes – he has been playing the same character since his Arrested Development days but a lot of his movies are enjoyable so I don’t really mind.
Plus in Scott Pilgrim I think he is branching out a bit – you know, with the wire-rope-fu fighting and all.
Oh goodness yes. A friend of mine insisted I watch the second hulk and tell him my honest opinion. I watched it, it sucked, and I told him. He kept trying to make sure I had watched the Edward Norton Hulk, not the Ang Lee Hulk. No one can believe that I think Batman Begins was too much navel gazing and the characters were totally one-sided. Or that The Dark Knight was made for stupid people because the director hit us with “the moral” a dozen times in a dozen ways. Or that Hitch was nauseating with its meaningless absurd “romantic” diatribes. I’m not elitist, I just like good movies.
Luckily for me, my wife and I agree on virtually everything we watch. So that’s nice. Recently, thanks to Netflix streaming, I’ve stumbled across Japanese Samurai movies from the 50s by Kurosawa. I’ve seen Yojimbo Sanjuro, and Drunken Angel – and they’re stellar. I’m looking forward to seeing more with Mifune & Kurosawa, which I’d have never heard of without Netflix suggesting them. But when I tell people that I’ve been watching 1950s samurai movies, they think I’m funny in the head.
This is my unedited Hulk review I wrote for my friend. Enjoy :)
A friend ruined a lot of big budget films for me with the single sentence: “If only they spent one million less on special effects and one million more on scriptwriting, they’d have an awesome story that still looks great”
Starcraft II’s single-player campaign also sucked for plot. Nutshelled it’s ’embattled loner does things his own way and wins in the end’, nothing new or fresh, and even has the ultra-corny line “maybe we can find some untouched paradise world somewhere and settle down”. Entirely predictable throughout, which is a letdown from the team at Blizz.
@ jambarama:
I absolutely agree with that review Hulk.
Oh, btw – some nonsensical bits you mentioned – like “HULK SMASH”, clapping hands to create shock waves and etc were just fan service. They basically wanted the superhero to say his catch phrase so that the fans in the theater can clap and cheer when it happens.
Honestly – the whole abomination subplot was unnecessary. In fact the army and the general’s pursuit of Hulk should have been a secondary plot. The main focus should be the love triangle between Ed Norton, Liv Tyler and the new boyfriend.
That’s sort of how Iron Man movies were designed – the characters and their relationships were front and center but they still delivered the big superhero showdown scenes and fan service.
im thinking of giving Scott Pilgrim vs the world a chance only because it has the director of my favorite movie ever Hot Fuzz, but not until its out on bluray, i hate cinemas, it feels like work going there, standing in line, sitting in an uncomfortably for 2 hours while trying to ignore the 10 dudes messing with their cellphones, the 2 babies crying like crazy and the kids kicking the back of my seat and now with the new addition of wearing a set of 3d glasses so filthy you might as well watch the movie though tinted glass smeared with grease, youll probably have higher risk of catching a STD from those glasses than all the hookers of the world mixed in a single entity, but i digress
@vacri: your friend speaks words of deep wisdom
sc2’s campaign sucked but i dont think it was because of the script, if you think back none of Blizzard’s games have a good story, the story in most of them is either very light (blackthorne, rock&roll racing, lost vikings, warcraft 1,2,3 and starcraft) or completely optional (diablo 1 and sort of with 2)
the main differences between sc2 and their old games are the budget and the lack of a proper ending (yeah some of their games had cliffhangers but they had an epic enough last stretch of missions/fights to satisfy your thirst for a while)
sc2 force feeds its huge budget one million at a time though completely pointless and disjointed scenes of whatever they thought it was cool at the time, barely going anywhere, teasing you with the possibility of a choice that never comes and then slap you with a “no ending for you!, try again in heart of the swarm, roll credits! kekeke” after “yet another timed mission” following a pretty disappointing campaign that was overshadowed by the much more longer, varied and fun war3 & war3xp
I find it interesting how “educated” apparently has become a swear word. If someone has educated himself/herself in any given arena, that person is per definition wrong. That is completely backwards logic. In my opinion at least. I think really I am just appalled by the people you know.
I hear this kind of conversation over and over again, about everything. The party currently governing my country is there just because he is “the average Italian” and understand what the “gente” (people, but more stupid) wants.
The competition, the excellence here is almost always seen as something to avoid, because no one will recognize the value and the importance of it and because it makes people envious.
I have no excellence myself but, as you have stated: if I want something said or done, I would like to get it from someone how is trained and really skilled at it.
I don’t get this attitude as well.
Democracy and equality should not be seen in this way :|
Democracy is not about being “right” it is about having “rights”. It is not about reason but about freedom. Hence democracy and box office figures should have nothing to do in a discussion about culture and good taste.
This said, I think both average Italians and average Americans have a profound aversion against what they perceived as elites. Which are, in fact mostly well educated people. There is a despise and even hostility in the USA, I think, against general culture and proper education. Apart from maths and related “hard sciences”, I have often been stricken by how many Americans (but certainly not only them) have a shallow knowledge. This exist in many countries (France and Netherlands, where I live, come to mind), but only in the USA do we see this described as a sort of political virtue. In France, many people are like that, but they are ashamed of it, and rightfully so. In the USA, it seems to be the norm and they are proud of it. Which gives us people like the Tea Party guys… But also on the Liberal side, all kinds of brain dead types (see Bidden).
It was exactly my point, Alphast.
Maybe I write it down in the wrong way.
I think the way the people approach high ideas and concepts is reflected by the way they approach advises and opinions and guidance offered by the said élite.
Everything is boiled down to “the majority is right”, and since the élite isn’t the majority, it is rejected, with rights and duties (and so real democracy) pushed in the background.
You wrote it very well, I think. I was just concurring with your opinion and adding my own feelings.
Sorry, my bad :)
I like rottentomatoes.com as a movie recommendation service:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/scott_pilgrims_vs_the_world/
you get the chance to view both worlds, the critics from one side and the viewers from the other.
Usually, when a movie gets a really high score, it is a good sign. when the high score comes from both sides, it is a really good sign.
so for example, Scott Pilgrim gets an overall 81% with critics at 79% and viewers at 88%
While the first Twilight gets an overall of 50% with critics at 56% and viewers at 82%
Do I listen to critics? well, my brother is one, and our taste is very similar (we do disagree on some movies), so in a way: yes. With other critics, I tend to see when I’m going to disagree with them since they are acting as “movie snobs” as your friend said, and when they are really giving a bad review since the movie was truly bad.
One thing I noticed since my brother is a movie critic – he tends to notice stuff that I don’t – so sometimes we disagree on some points or on the whole movie since something really bothered him in the movie in terms of movie making while I didn’t notice it at all.