Movie Reviews: Whom to Believe?
Category: Movies...
Posted Friday, May 11, 2007 at 10:17 AM [GMT-6]

Being a professional movie reviewer is very much like being Al Gore. You can say whatever you want about the subject of your presumed expertise, and no one can actually prove you wrong (or right). You can also indulge in bucket after bucket of buttered popcorn.

The subjectivity of movie reviews has never been better illustrated than with two write-ups of the new zombie movie, 28 Weeks Later, a sequel to 28 Days Later, which itself garnered some pretty good reviews for a zombie movie.

David Germain, a reviewer for Associated Press, has this to say about 28 Weeks:

...this woeful sequel presents a strained story and a barrage of turgid action that looks like inferior outtakes from the first movie. ... The sequel has a nasty spirit and unlike the original, has no sense of humor, and often, so sense at all.

From the other side of the sticky aisle come these comments, from a fellow named Joe Morgenstern, who happens to be the Pulitzer-prize winning film critic for the Wall Street Journal and co-founder of the National Society of Film Critics:

There's no better fun for movie lovers than a small, unheralded film that turns out to be terrific -- unless it's a small, unheralded sequel that trumps the original. Such is the case with "28 Weeks Later," which comes four years after "28 Days Later," the brilliant riff on zombie flicks that Danny Boyle directed from a script by Alex Garland.

So, who do you believe? It's not a trivial question, given the cost -- and not just in terms of dollars, but also time and hassle -- of attending a movie nowadays.

In the case of 28 Weeks, I suspect that the target demographic won't be swayed by either review. If you're a zombie fan, you're a zombie fan, and for you, the issue of distinguishing between a good zombie movie and a bad one is met with a reaction of "I don't understand the question."

But, lest we be disheartened by this absence of unanimity, the critics are on the same page with respect to Lindsay Lohan's new movie, Georgia Rules. Morgenstern draws immediate blood with this opening sentence: Certain words should be reserved for special occasions. "Abysmal" is one of them, and "Georgia Rule" is as special as such occasions get. And the AP reviewer, Christy Lemire, gives it one star. And, I think, for most people this will reinforce their decision to see Spidey3 one more time.

Permalink
Comments

Well, I guess I can pass on "Georgia Rules" and save-up my pennies, so I can by TWO tubs of buttered popcorn for the next "Pirates of the Caribbean" movie!

Posted by: Jeff at May 11, 2007 10:30 AM

I hope POTC3 isn't as frantic as the second movie. It wore me out in places!

Posted by: Eric at May 11, 2007 10:55 AM

Eric, I also found myself more than a little worn-out towards the end of POTC2 - I think the word "frantic" is perfect - and, quite simply, didn't have as much fun as I did on my first cruise with Caprtain Jack Sparrow .....

Funny thing, though, after so much of the film left me ... well ... ambivalent .... along came the very end, the last couple of minutes, where Tia Dalma challenges the surviving crew members ... and who steps forward to command them on their mission to the world's end, but Captain Barbarossa .....

That ending absolutely nailed me ..... it was my favotite part of #2, and insured I'd be in the theater for #3.

Posted by: Jeff at May 11, 2007 11:23 AM

Oh, yeah...I'll be right there behind ye!

Posted by: Eric at May 11, 2007 11:26 AM

eric - something tells me this won't be playing in midland (that's more of a knock on hollywood theaters than it is on midland by the way :-) , but you ought to see if someplace near you is playing "into great silence". a filmmaker spent a year in one of the most remote monastaries in the world and filmed it by himself. i saw it last week and it is particularly amazing; not exactly entertaining, but one of the most interesting things i've ever seen.

Posted by: kyle at May 11, 2007 12:09 PM

If it it's not capable of generating $100 million in ticket sales, or doesn't star Lindsay Lohan, it won't make it to Midland. It might show up in Odessa, however; I'll watch for it, based on your recommendation. I've always enjoyed movies about monkeys.

What's that?

Oh. Um.

Never mind.

[Just kidding. Couldn't resist.]

Posted by: Eric at May 11, 2007 12:27 PM

This post reminds me of the old adage, "Opinions are like asterisks: everybody has one."

For me, the answer to the question of whose review to believe has been "track record". MLB and I have found a local reviewer, Gary Cogill, who generally has the same sensibilities as we have, and we can with occasional exceptions count on his reviews to point us in the right direction.

But the best reviews come from friends who have established, similar tastes. One of the neat side effects of my recent MS 150 ride is that I got to know "Squirrel Bait's" husband. Come to find out that we both rate Silverado and Snatch as a couple of our favorite movies, for instance. That allowed me to confidently urge him to see Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels; he recommended The Long Riders.

The first review I read suggested that Spiderman 3 was a huge disappointment. I've since heard from several people I respect that this is far from the case and that the Silver Surfer trailers look amazing.

I get chills just thinking of it. Or maybe it's because I'm typing in my underwear and the ceiling fan's on. Opinions differ...

Posted by: Foo at May 13, 2007 09:08 AM

Libertas has a review of "28 Weeks Later" along with a review of the reviewers -- specifically the ones who saw the movie and decided to turn it into an allegory on the war in Iraq (which the website's own review disputes).

Of course, there are a ton of film critics out there who could turn "Shrek the 3rd" into an allegory on the war in Iraq. You just have to read each movie reviewer over an extended period of time to find out not only if their taste in films is roughly in synch with yours, but if they can keep their ideological biases out of their reviews. Too many who either want to be relevant to news in general or to the Hollywood celebs they occasionally interview can't manage that feat or don't even try.

Posted by: John at May 13, 2007 10:18 PM
Post a comment [Take your time...we're in no hurry.]
Note: You must provide either a website URL or an email address...but there's no rule that says you have to tell the truth. If you don't want your email address published on this site, just input a website URL, or make up an email address.









Remember personal info?