“Finally, someone's found a sure-fire way to make money with a modern Middle East war movie: Just send a Marvel superhero into the fray to kick some insurgent butt. The powerhouse comicbook-inspired actioner "Iron Man" isn't principally about this fantasy, but it won't hurt at least American audiences' enjoyment of this expansively entertaining special effects extravaganza. Having an actor as supercharged as Robert Downey Jr. at the center of such a tech-oriented enterprise reps a huge plus, and Paramount should reap big B.O. rewards by getting out ahead of the summer tentpole pack with such a classy refitting of an overworked format.”
Todd McCarthy, Variety
“An intriguing high concept is undermined by low-grade dramaturgy in “Hancock.” This misguided attempt to wring a novel twist on the superhero genre has a certain whiff of “The Last Action Hero” about it, with Will Smith playing an indestructible crime-buster in a pointedly real-world context. Although it will inevitably open very large, this odd and perplexing aspiring tentpole will provide a real test of Smith’s box office invincibility.”
Todd McCarthy, Variety
I really don’t get it.
Or I don’t want to get it.
You know, the public is more than welcome to think whatever they want about whatever movie they want. Opinions are not like assholes, they are like fingerprints. Everyone has them and they are a little different for everyone. A piece of art, like any movie, has a million tiny little pieces and while people can agree on the general, when you look at the detail about how people feel, the variations are invariably remarkable.
But professional film critics? Not so much.
I keep saying it… I keep getting yelled at for saying it… but for whatever reason, critics embrace the most easy, simplistic, unchallenging work from studios with an odd amount of generosity and anything that veers in the smallest way from the expected – which is what these same people scream for in think pieces year after year after year – the big hammer comes out.
It can’t be conscious. None of the people I am speaking of are hacks or full of ***. Yet…
I mean, really… two 40-year-old drunks take heat and reform. In one third act, the reformed guy gets a cool suit and blows more *** up, righteously but maintaining the edge. In the other third act, the reformed guy gets a cool suit and gets challenged on a much more intimate level, but does blow more *** up and maintains his edge.
One is “expansively entertaining.” One “has a certain whiff of “The Last Action Hero” about it.”
Guess which is which? Of course… the more complex one… the one that makes the critic think and – I think this is critical – conceive of other complexities he or she might like better... the one that perhaps makes them a little uncomfortable... is crushed.
We see this EVERY summer.
Of course, some will write this off as “Todd is right,” others as “you’re arrogant,” and others as, “who cares?”
Well, I care. And if I didn’t see this happen over and over and over again, I would not keep bringing it up. The specifics of these two films are really beyond the issue I am trying to bring up.
People have the right to like what they like. Critics have some responsibility to have an objective eye, even if their subjective eye overwhelms it. We are not supposed to be suckers for low expectations and raging maniacs when our expectations are too high.
“All the potential the premise seemed to offer is frittered away, mind-boggling gaps of logic come to the fore, and arbitrary plot devices serve to shortchange a story that could have gone in much more interesting directions.”
Or less interesting directions.
If critics could just admit that they can be as simple minded as any teenaged boy in the multiplex, I would feel better. It would feel more honest to me... more consistent. Critics seem to want their crap to be clean and simple and dumb, their art as dense as possible, and nothing in between.
Sigh…
Read the complete post at http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/archives/2008/06/one_of_these_th.html