There is a news flash!!!
Critics are snobby "intellectuals" who hang in the liberal circles...so by definition they know nothing about what the average American thinks or likes.
Just about every single person I know either thinks nothing about movie reviews or actually takes the exact opposite advice.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Film reviewers, moviegoers disagree
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
The critics are pin headed, jello heads. Ya, ya I know a jello pin is hard to visualize, but what the hay!
The critics don't like 300 because the persians (fore-runners to the Iranians) are the bad guys, and the Greeks (fore-runners to our system of gov't) are the good guys. That's it in a nutshell.
If 300 was about a band of lesbian Amazons who battled multitudes of Archie Bunkers trying to take over the world, it would be nominated for an Oscar before it ever hit the screen.
Libs are soooo preditible. Personally, if a movie doesn't bode well with the reviewers, I KNOW, it's worth a puruse.
The movie critics fail to realize that some go to moves for escapism. Ya, I like a high brow movie or book as well as the next conservative, but on occasion, I just want pure out entertainment. 300 is a movie you can immerse yourself in. It don't matter that it's predictible, it's predictible with style!
I'm sick and tired of critics that brow-beat the fun, and entertaining, while holding up the mediocre's (Degenerets, O'Donnel, Whoope, et. al.) as high art.
I consider myself a participant in the consumption of high art, and I can guarantee that most of what the critics consider as being worthwhile, is in reality worthless. Give me tha Beattles, Mozart, a good B horror movie, some ribs, a ball game, and I'm a happy man. To hell with the skyisfallingantiapartheidanticapitalistprohomo crap the critics foam-at-the-mouth over.
well done
Before he got sick, I liked Roger Ebert. I mean, not so much "liked" Roger Ebert, he's a flaming liberal moonbat who thinks movies about homos and lesbians are "important", but I got to the point where I knew what to expect based on his reviews. Other guys would throw me off. I didn't depend soley on his reviews as much as my assumptions about what he meant or what his reviews meant for me. An example is "Die Hard". He gave it two stars, as I recall. I thought it was great escapist fare and enjoyed it on it's level. Yet, he liked "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" based on what it hoped to deliver, and I did as well. He got it with Bill and Ted, but not with Die Hard, yet, I understood that for me, both were worth the time.
But his other picks are typical of what a lib moonbat would find cool. He was big on "Inconvenient Truth". I don't think there's a homo movie he can't get behind. "TransAmerica" he was quite fond of.
Since he's been sick, Richard Roeper has been filling in on the big movies, and he gave "300" four stars. He reviewed the movie on it's own level and I would think Ebert may have also.
So even if a critic is a flaming lib moonbat, if you understand what HE'S thinking, you can get a good sense of how that would align with your choices. The best critic, however, is word of mouth from people you know.
The best reviewer I ever saw was Holly McClure. But the local newspaper dropped her when they found out Holly was a Religious Christian. Just shows that the secular progressives and religion haters that are editors are not open minded to that much diversity.
Scorpion says---
Normally when I read or listen to a movie review if I expect to see the opposite of what the reviewer is saying about the movie it usually is the case 90% of the time.
Post a Comment