On Movie Criticism pt. 1

I read reams of movie reviews and I have often wondered if a published film critic has ever given a movie they didn't like a good review on technical merit or the reverse.

For example, Napoleon Dynamite was a terrible movie because the characters were never really described or defined, though the film was bound to the "slice of life" style. When asked why anything happens the response is invariably "why not?". The Napoleon dance scene goes against anything we know about Napoleon's character. With all of this said, I would give the film a 6/10 or 3 stars because the film tries to deliver a segment of the characters lives, regardless of who they are, and it succeeds. The technical aspects of the film need some improving like editing, to make it flow seamlessly from story to story.

For my next witness, FourBrothers. I liked this film, but it was nothing more than mindless self indulgence. It had all the marks of a summer movie, Guns, car chase, Marky Mark, and minorities. The "get revenge" archetype was upheld in the film with several glaring plot holes and flubs. The movie's highlight, spoliers!!!, is when a panicking Andre3000 kills the hell out of a home invader with a butcher's knife. This film deserves nothing more that a 2 or 3/10 or a 1-1.5 star rating.

I think the problem stems from the fact that the ranking of films was never really taught to anyone and each review has their own scale within "stars" or "out of ten". Also, Movie critics are a dime a dozen and if they say something mean-spirited about a movie that truly stinks they can get burned and cut.

part 2 coming soon...