Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The only worthwhile film criticism would be on the order of "This movie sucks. Don't go. There's too much violence, and meaningless nudity. Or go, if you like that."
That is, sum up in less than 20 words. Instead you get a whole page. For popular movies the reviews are really dumb, especially when they start comparing to other movies..."This movie is bad, not as bad as ACTOR'S last movie, which was horrible."
Excuse me. Problem.
People read the review to decide to go to the movie in the first place, so if I had listened to the review of the last movie I wouldn't get the reference point as I wouldn't have seen the last movie.
For small films its even worse. Plot twists-surprises etc.? The review gives them all away. So you read the review before you see the movie and it ruins the movie. Read the review after and the nit-picking still ruins the movie. "The ___ scene was dumb, the ___ character was needless filler etc." Maybe they're right, but there have been a few movies that were perfect. You can nitpick them all. I just want to enjoy it, must this analysis be shoved in my face?
In sum, reviews are useless to decide if you should see a movie, damaging if read before seeing a movie, and harmful even if not read until after seeing the movie.
Music critic? Does anyone really read that crap? A review of a rock CD is the biggest wank I can imagine. How can people write that crap?
|
Hank Chinaski's latest output,
post 2372 in this forum, reminds us why God invented the scroll wheel. The subject matter is pedestrian, the execution mundane, and the conclusion should you stick around for its merciful arrival, completely obvious. Even at matinee prices, this Chinaski effort makes the Mike & Ikes seem underpriced.
This reviewer will admit to enjoying Hank's work in the past. It is not often a viewer receives such candid insights into such a completely tormented soul. And some of his work has been funny -- the Picasso post (the first time), the "fringey is fat" series, even the juvenile jousting with this jovial journalist -- all show theoretical evidence of humor of a sort. Though the humor comes with such inconsistency that it causes the viewer to question whether it is intentional is of no consequence. It is the work that must be judged, not the "artist."
But this latest work by Hank typifies his more recent work, which is greeted by viewers with as much fanfare as yet another Michael Jackson's Greatest Hits compilation. Earnestness overrides informative, stridence overwhelms entertaining. It is sebby without style, coltrane without the bumbling innocence, plf without being smoothed by delicious ironing.
Is Hank completely bereft of amusing, original thought, or did he just sell out? Given that Hank's appeal has always been extremely limited, it is difficult to believe the latter. This reviewer is forced to conclude that it is time for Hank to retire this sock, re-register and go back to kickin' with nfh and Ashlee Simpson. Sadly, viewers may not even notice.
