But then part of me wants to see it; to confirm that I was right originally, but I’ve heard unusually good things about it. (Especially considering the trailer made it look absolutely terrible, did I mention that?).
Then I heard about this; halfway through a screening of Clerks 2, ABC’s movie critic Joel Siegel abruptly stood up from his seat and proclaimed “Time to go! First movie I've walked out of in 30 [bleeping] years!”
Suddenly, I could only think of one thing. That’s when I remembered that movie critics are stupid.
If there was a job to watch three movies once a week and get grossly overpaid, where the hell do I sign up? Then, when you’re done with a nine hour work week, you must translate simple expressions into overly complex metaphors and puns that form sentences so overly complex and unnecessary, you completed forget the entire point of the sentence because the idiot rambled on so long like this one.
There are four different types of movie critics:
The “traditionalists”. White men in their fifties. They hate all movies, minus the following exceptions.
- Dramas over three hours in length.
- Any movie that uses a ton of computer effects.
I swear; it must by a generational thing. These kinds of critics love anything, I mean anything done on computers. Every superhero movie; Batman, X-Men, Superman, Spiderman = 10/10. Anything made by Peter Jackson and his team of ten million rending computers = 10/10. I guess they never had “computers” or “adding machines” growing up, so they’re so blown away by the graphics…
Take away all the fancy computer CGI behind the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and here’s what you get.
Brilliant! 10/10. And if the movie’s made by Pixar, I think the critic will just blow his load right then and there. All Pixar movies are just puns. That’s it. Like their latest release about the lives of talking cars, cleverly named “Cars”.
Goddamnit, all they do in Pixar movies is use puns. In case you don’t know what a pun is, here are some examples that would probably be in the movie:
Instead of saying,
“She’s checking out your ass.” = “She’s checking out your taillights.”
“She only likes me for my body.” = “She only likes me for my body.” (Get it?!?! Cause their fuckin cars instead of people L:OLLLZOZ!!!!)
That’s when I realized I’d be a great movie critic. I like to base my opinions on movies without even seeing them. The real movie critics already do that; and they already have a bias opinion about movies when they go into one, only watching the movie to confirm what they already believed before. And write killer puns in their reviews. “Cars” shifts audiences into high gear. “Cars” is fueled with plenty of family fun octane. Etc.
The Braindead, White men or women in their late thirties.
Usually just the paragraph blurbs at the end of People’s magazine, or the local news. They love every movie they see ever. As long as it has a budget of at least $100 million dollars. They usually don’t review the movie, just rehash the film’s synopsis and never really say if the movie was good or bad, but then at the last second they blurt out some queer rating system to show their overall approval/disapproval of the movie. For example:
Disney-Pixar’s “Cars” is racing its way into theaters this weekend. Owen Wilson does the voice of arrogant rookie racecar Lightning McQueen, who winds up stranded in the small desert town of Radiator Springs on his way west to a big showdown. 9/10 and a big [insert critic’s name] seal of approval.
Notice the overly bad pun to start the review.
Then there’s the “cool” reviewers, like in the free alternative magazines in coffee shops. Except their metaphors contain so many obscure references to underground pop culture that I have no idea what they are even talking about anymore. They love any “art” films, anything with an anti-corporate message, and basically anything rated ‘R’.
Finally, and my personal favorite, the internet reviewers. I guess they don’t really count since they don’t get paid. In fact, they are actually paying a phone or cable company to provide them with the privilege of voice their pointless opinion online like me.
Of course, when you break it down, they’re just as efficient as real reviewers, except with minimal spelling and punctuation skills.
I’M NOT SEEING CLEKRS2 SINCE KEVIN SMITH SUXX0RS AND SODLOUT TO HOLY WOOD AND MY FREIND SAYW THA MOVIE AND SAID IT S GAY AND ITS IN COLOR SO DONTT C IT K . ID GIVE IT 0 STARS IF I COULD OMG DON CCTHAT LSAMMAC MIM24!@#$!
By the way, who cares the movie is in color? Anytime anyone talks about the movie, they always mention that it’s in color. Who cares? The original was in black and white to save money, not to gain the “independent” look.
Did I get off topic? Movie critics are overpaid arrogant bastards that have absolutely no qualifications to tell the public their opinions. They work about ten hours a week sitting on their ass watching movies that we’d pay $8.50 to see, then jot down some paragraph-long blurb. No one reads movie reviews anyway since the public can’t decipher their unnecessary verbal wordplay. And they get paid more than you and me for that.
If I was a professional critic, I would only have three possible ratings:
Awesome.
Okay.
Sucked.
No elaboration at all. Just pick from 1 of 3 words.
Monster House Review: It distinguishes itself as entertainment with a willingness to spill into macabre territory without losing its prepubescent sense of carefree, AM radio adventure and imagination. (Brian Orndorf, FILMJERK.COM)
Monster House Review: (Translation) Awesome.
Lady in the Water Review: It's hard to think of a deadlier shotgun marriage than Jacques Tourneur's poetry of absence and Spielbergian uplift, but Shyamalan has patented the combo, adding pretentious camera movements that are peculiarly his own -- even the jokes are pretty solemn." -- Jonathan Rosenbaum, CHICAGO READER
Lady in the Water Review: (Translation) Sucked.
And what the hell is Spielbergian anyway? Cock. See, this is why no one likes movie critics. Get a real job.