For those of you living on the frozen planet of Hoth or the forest moon of Endor, Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith opened last night around the country. Of course, every film critic has to post their opinion, as if I really give a damn about the opinion of some pretentious bastard who was jerking off to Barbarella when the original Star Wars came out in 1977. Which brings me to the thesis of this post: I hate film critics.
Let me first say that a frequent reader of this blog, Mister Bling, is an excellent reviewer of films. He has written several stellar reviews for different websites, and could make his own blog (hint, hint) where he reviewed films, and it would be 1) entertaining and 2) not completely full of crap. Mister Bling loves movies, and it's that passion that is lacking from today's film critics.
Take John Hartl's review of Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith (I'm sorry for including a link here). Hartl does what many film reviewers try too hard to do, which is to imply way too many things about a movie that were never intended. Hartl expects us to believe that the political themes in the film are meant to be a political allegory (he actually uses that word in his review) to present times. To me, this is like saying that Chet from Weird Science is really supposed to represent Rush Limbaugh because they're both disgusting pieces of crap, when it actually doesn't have to be that complicated.
Hartl goes on to say that the film is "uneven" (without any explanation as to why) "increasingly tired" (again, without justification) and complains that the climax to this much anticipated film seems "predetermined". No shit. You mean to tell me that since we've all seen the original Star Wars and already know the outcome of this film that the movie is predetermined? This guy should run the President with that sort of logic. Yes, John it is the very definition of predetermined when you see part IV before you see part III. Very good. Nice work John.
Our friend John, who writes a lot of mediocre film reviews for the Seattle Times, has forgotten the entire point of a film like Star Wars: to be entertaining. Although I haven't seen the film myself, I know it will at least be entertaining. His review of Episode III is a classic example of a film critic taking himself way too seriously. Like I'm less likely to see this film because you think it has little artistic merit. If I wanted artistic, I'll rent The Piano or Spy Kids 3 or one of the other movies John Hartl would undoubtedly jerk off to at a 4 pm showing. People don't care if Star Wars or Billy Madison or Dude, Where's My Car wins critical acclaim or Oscars. Star Wars was already seen by more people in one night than Hartl's favorite "The Russian Ark" will ever have. Because no one cares what John Hartl thinks of the movie or any movie for that matter.
This is the sort of thing that's akin to criticizing the cinematography of Bowling for Columbine or the Paris Hilton Sex Video, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference. How would you like your job to be completely meaningless in the grand scheme of things? Like we need some blowhard to tell us the artistic value of Star Wars. Thanks for your opinion John, I'm going to see Star Wars.
Movie critics seem to me to be people that don't have enough creativity to write about their own opinions or ideas, they have to summarize and judge the artistic merit of other people's ideas without any skills aside from being able to summarize a plot. Do we truly need this sort of thing? I know I don't, unless Mister Bling is planning to start his own film review site, I'll stick to making up my own mind.