Monday, June 13, 2005
Thumbs up, thumbs down, thumbs up your ass
I think the issue here is a question of how you are judging a film. What kind of eye are you looking at the film; a critic's eye or a movie watcher's eye. Most people go to a movie with one thing in mind: Will this be worth the $10 I just shelled out (not to mention the $42 I spent at the snack bar)? If it's a comedy, will I laugh? Will I be scared at a horror movie? In other words, will I have a good time at the theater?
If it's an action movie, then people want to see explosions, car chases, gunfights, kung fu fighting and that sort of a thing. If it's got that, then most people will be happy. If the acting is passable, the actors are at least tolerable, the story is believable (or at the very least, you can suspend your disbelief), the script is somewhat interesting and you can follow what's going on, then most people will enjoy the flick.
Now I know what a lot of you may think: "Captain Spaulding thinks that the American people are idiots and just want lowest-common-denominator entertainment. " That's not the case. While I firmly believe that there is never a shortage of stupid people, I do not think that Americans have a monopoly. No, in this case, I think it's all a question of why people go to the movies. Most people, I think, go to the movies as a form of escape. It allows them to turn off their lives for a couple of hours and be immersed in a different world.
On the other side of the coin, there are those who judge a film by more than just "was it fun." These are the people who leave a film with thought of "well, the acting was very good, and the concept was interesting, but the direction was lacking. There was no sense of flow to the story." This is a small minority in the film going community. Most people don't leave a theater thinking about the editing or pondering the sound design.
There is a third category of film watcher. That person is the cult member, otherwise known as the fanboy. These are people who have much more invested in a film than it's artistic merits or it's entertainment value. Rather, these are folks who are hyper critical of films, particularly Sci Fi and fantasy films. They will analyze every exacting detail of the film in painstaking detail. Often, they have a very clear mental picture of how the film should be long before the film comes out. If it doesn't pan out the way they were hoping, then the film sucks, despite whatever artistic or entertainment merits it has. In the case of sequels (or prequels), the film will always be judged by that which came before.
I think a lot of Star Wars fans fall into this category. It was their favorite movie as a kid. They love the story, the characters, and the whole universe. They play the video games, read the books, and buy the toys. They show up to the theater in costume with plastic lightsabers. It's their mythology. In the days when people my age were called "Generation X," the elder generations thought that we were slackers with no ambition. They felt that part of the reason was that we had no heroes growing up like they did. Bullshit. Our heroes were Luke Skywalker and Han Solo. And unlike some of our parents' real life heroes like Babe Ruth, our heroes were flawless.
Anyway, I think the problem is that we are looking at Revenge of the Sith from two different perspectives. I don't think Cheese needs to rethink his grade, and I don't think he's too easy on movies. We're talking about a subjective measurement here. I think saying that someone's opinion is an insult to great films is ridiculous. People love Forest Gump. Love it. I think it's a piece of crap. Do I think that all the raving reviews and the Oscars and the millions of fans somehow diminishes masterpieces like Casablanca? No.
There's some sort of need in our society today to rank everything. What is the best movie of the year, what are the top ten guitarists of all time? The problem is that these are purely subjective critiques. There's no empirical scale for the quality of a movie. There never has been and never will be. You can't quantify personal taste.
I don't buy that statement that an A movie will be remembered as an achievment in film 50 years from now. When Citizen Kane came out in 1941, it bombed and the critics panned it. Granted, most of those critics were under the employ of William Randolph Hearst, but most people were turned off by Welles' radical approach to filmmaking. People just didn't like it. 64 years later, Citizen Kane is conisdered by many to be the greatest american film ever made. I think it's unwise to make bold statements about how history will judge something.
Anyway, for me, I give Revenge of the Sith the following grades:
Entertainment Scale: B+. Very Entertaining. Found some parts unbelievable and annoying, but full of adventure and excitement. Well worth the ten bucks.
Artistic Scale: B-. Visual concept was excellent. The script was lacking in several key areas, including Anakin's turn to evil. The acting from the leads (Anakin and Padme) was sub-par and wooden, and was carried by the supporting cast, namely Ewan McGregor and Ian McDiarmid, who were excellent. Visual effects, sound design and musical score were excellent as always.
Fanboy Scale: C-. While this film was leagues better than the last two films, it still pales in comparison to the original trilogy. George Lucas still doesn't get it, but given what has come before, I am satisfied with this completion to the series.
If it's an action movie, then people want to see explosions, car chases, gunfights, kung fu fighting and that sort of a thing. If it's got that, then most people will be happy. If the acting is passable, the actors are at least tolerable, the story is believable (or at the very least, you can suspend your disbelief), the script is somewhat interesting and you can follow what's going on, then most people will enjoy the flick.
Now I know what a lot of you may think: "Captain Spaulding thinks that the American people are idiots and just want lowest-common-denominator entertainment. " That's not the case. While I firmly believe that there is never a shortage of stupid people, I do not think that Americans have a monopoly. No, in this case, I think it's all a question of why people go to the movies. Most people, I think, go to the movies as a form of escape. It allows them to turn off their lives for a couple of hours and be immersed in a different world.
On the other side of the coin, there are those who judge a film by more than just "was it fun." These are the people who leave a film with thought of "well, the acting was very good, and the concept was interesting, but the direction was lacking. There was no sense of flow to the story." This is a small minority in the film going community. Most people don't leave a theater thinking about the editing or pondering the sound design.
There is a third category of film watcher. That person is the cult member, otherwise known as the fanboy. These are people who have much more invested in a film than it's artistic merits or it's entertainment value. Rather, these are folks who are hyper critical of films, particularly Sci Fi and fantasy films. They will analyze every exacting detail of the film in painstaking detail. Often, they have a very clear mental picture of how the film should be long before the film comes out. If it doesn't pan out the way they were hoping, then the film sucks, despite whatever artistic or entertainment merits it has. In the case of sequels (or prequels), the film will always be judged by that which came before.
I think a lot of Star Wars fans fall into this category. It was their favorite movie as a kid. They love the story, the characters, and the whole universe. They play the video games, read the books, and buy the toys. They show up to the theater in costume with plastic lightsabers. It's their mythology. In the days when people my age were called "Generation X," the elder generations thought that we were slackers with no ambition. They felt that part of the reason was that we had no heroes growing up like they did. Bullshit. Our heroes were Luke Skywalker and Han Solo. And unlike some of our parents' real life heroes like Babe Ruth, our heroes were flawless.
Anyway, I think the problem is that we are looking at Revenge of the Sith from two different perspectives. I don't think Cheese needs to rethink his grade, and I don't think he's too easy on movies. We're talking about a subjective measurement here. I think saying that someone's opinion is an insult to great films is ridiculous. People love Forest Gump. Love it. I think it's a piece of crap. Do I think that all the raving reviews and the Oscars and the millions of fans somehow diminishes masterpieces like Casablanca? No.
There's some sort of need in our society today to rank everything. What is the best movie of the year, what are the top ten guitarists of all time? The problem is that these are purely subjective critiques. There's no empirical scale for the quality of a movie. There never has been and never will be. You can't quantify personal taste.
I don't buy that statement that an A movie will be remembered as an achievment in film 50 years from now. When Citizen Kane came out in 1941, it bombed and the critics panned it. Granted, most of those critics were under the employ of William Randolph Hearst, but most people were turned off by Welles' radical approach to filmmaking. People just didn't like it. 64 years later, Citizen Kane is conisdered by many to be the greatest american film ever made. I think it's unwise to make bold statements about how history will judge something.
Anyway, for me, I give Revenge of the Sith the following grades:
Entertainment Scale: B+. Very Entertaining. Found some parts unbelievable and annoying, but full of adventure and excitement. Well worth the ten bucks.
Artistic Scale: B-. Visual concept was excellent. The script was lacking in several key areas, including Anakin's turn to evil. The acting from the leads (Anakin and Padme) was sub-par and wooden, and was carried by the supporting cast, namely Ewan McGregor and Ian McDiarmid, who were excellent. Visual effects, sound design and musical score were excellent as always.
Fanboy Scale: C-. While this film was leagues better than the last two films, it still pales in comparison to the original trilogy. George Lucas still doesn't get it, but given what has come before, I am satisfied with this completion to the series.
Comments:
<< Home
You don't like Forrest Gump? Isn't that like hating puppies?
I think the rest of the world hs just as many idiots per square mile as America, they just don't have the free-time and the Internet access we do.
All fair assessments on Sith. Yes, George hs lost it. But for a man who is currently mourning the loss of Star Trek, Star Wars is the only sci-fi teet I have to suckle.
Hold Me
Post a Comment
I think the rest of the world hs just as many idiots per square mile as America, they just don't have the free-time and the Internet access we do.
All fair assessments on Sith. Yes, George hs lost it. But for a man who is currently mourning the loss of Star Trek, Star Wars is the only sci-fi teet I have to suckle.
Hold Me
<< Home
