Movie critics, like weather forecasters, should be held responsible for what they say. If a "meteorologist" in Florida says a hurricane will hit your town but then it doesn't, he should have to reimburse you for the plywood, nails, and twenty jugs of drinking water you bought. If a movie critic says a new horror movie is "packed with thrills" or "deliciously scary," then, at the very least, the film shouldn't suck. And if it does, the critic should reimburse you the ticket price. Here's my main question: how can a veteran critic with the New York Times or Rolling Stone or Time get it so incredibly, horribly wrong?
The obvious answer is that they're getting kickbacks from the movie companies. Well, maybe not that obvious. I personally feel movie critics should stick to reviewing movies like Avatar (which I refuse to see) and leave the horror to those who understand horror. And that would be us, the fans. Case in point is Paranormal Activity. All of the big shot critics fell over themselves praising this overrated and even worse, boring, movie. Seriously, I've watched episodes of Ghost Adventures on the Travel Channel that gave me more chills. The critics make much of the movie's price tag ($15,000) and say it proves you don't need to spend the big Hollywood bucks to make good horror. I tend to agree with the latter, but what I can't figure out is what they spent the $15,000 on. In this instance, perhaps more would have been better.
Bloody-disgusting.com is a pretty good site for horror movies. If you go there and look up Paranormal Activity, the average user rating is only two and a half skulls. Out of a possible five. These are horror fans. Of course everything's subjective and opinions are like...you know. So why listen to my critique of anything? That's simple. I'm right.
No comments:
Post a Comment