![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Did you read what I had to say about "The Lost City?"
Remember how I said the politics in it was kind of stupid, though not as bad as it could have been? And then I said that wasn't why the movie was bad, and I went on for pages about what was wrong with the movie? Mainly that it was a bad movie.
So in four pages of reviews on IMDB, we get 32 reviewers who can't find anything wrong with the movie and five (including me)who can. And one or two of those still give it way high marks. Almost all of those guys mention the politics as being one of the reasons why it's so good. Then they went around and gave each other high marks for being useful reviews.
That's political movie reviewing. That's "oh, look, Andy Garcia told our side of the story, so this movie has to be the greatest movie ever, don't let those PC bastards tell you it's a dud, everything is perfect in this movie" which is a pretty direct paraphrase of what some of the reviews said. And it's dishonest, and ultimately not good for movie making for your point of view, which means I guess I better not tell them that. If every piece of crap that's produced to promote your point of view gets treated like it was a masterpiece, then you're going to have to wait a long time before you do get your masterpiece for your point of view.
Remember this: the politics are not the problem in this turkey of a movie. It's bad dialog, bad acting, bad pacing, muddy storytelling, and stuff happening for no reason. It's a promise broken -- it's confusing opulence for landscape. That's what's wrong with the movie.
On another front, I have many phone calls to make today, because I didn't make them any other day this week.
Remember how I said the politics in it was kind of stupid, though not as bad as it could have been? And then I said that wasn't why the movie was bad, and I went on for pages about what was wrong with the movie? Mainly that it was a bad movie.
So in four pages of reviews on IMDB, we get 32 reviewers who can't find anything wrong with the movie and five (including me)who can. And one or two of those still give it way high marks. Almost all of those guys mention the politics as being one of the reasons why it's so good. Then they went around and gave each other high marks for being useful reviews.
That's political movie reviewing. That's "oh, look, Andy Garcia told our side of the story, so this movie has to be the greatest movie ever, don't let those PC bastards tell you it's a dud, everything is perfect in this movie" which is a pretty direct paraphrase of what some of the reviews said. And it's dishonest, and ultimately not good for movie making for your point of view, which means I guess I better not tell them that. If every piece of crap that's produced to promote your point of view gets treated like it was a masterpiece, then you're going to have to wait a long time before you do get your masterpiece for your point of view.
Remember this: the politics are not the problem in this turkey of a movie. It's bad dialog, bad acting, bad pacing, muddy storytelling, and stuff happening for no reason. It's a promise broken -- it's confusing opulence for landscape. That's what's wrong with the movie.
On another front, I have many phone calls to make today, because I didn't make them any other day this week.