What is it about reviewers that makes me go up-and-down crazy mad? They're self-preening, idiotic, self satisfied living-in-moms-basement virgins with no sense of sartorial elegance (Yes, I know the irony of me saying this. But if I don't, who will?). I feel like punching them in the face. Sadly, I don't know what they look like (that's probably why they are critics. Nobody wants to look at them and they can't become actors).
Take, for example, the legendary Roger Ebert. Go Google his picture and you will see that he was born in a time that they used anvils as retainers and braces, and he never took them off.
What's even worse is his review on Mark Millar, John Romita, Brad Pitt and Matthew Vaughn's Kick-Ass.
"Shall I have feelings, or should I pretend to be cool? Will I seem hopelessly square if I find “Kick-Ass” morally reprehensible and will I appear to have missed the point?"
This is a man who gave The Godfather Part II a 3-star rating and The Godfather Part III a 3-and-a-half-star rating. And his reviews are syndicated to 200 newspapers worldwide. The public, and I mean the word on a global scale, pay our politicians and sportsmen to be stupid. Now we pay our critics too?
I seriously think that as people who are supposed to represent the public opinion, critics have absolutely no idea what the people want. Time and time again, they review something, say the like it or don't like it, yet our feelings are completely opposite of it. I, Robot is the perfect example of this. So is Kick-Ass
Let me tell you what the movie is all about. It's about freedom.
Yes, yes I sound American.
But look at it this way. I come from a country where swearing is socially acceptable yet is a crime by law. Yet this movie was barely censored regardless of all of the carnage (literal and physical) that came out of it. The language used would make Sir Alex Ferguson blush and the carnage makes Kill Bill seem like a walk in the park in a lazy Sunday afternoon with your lover (unless, of course, you're in my country. The punishment for walking with a lover is getting your head cubed).
It shows that finally, after an ice age (the real thing, not the movie), two World Wars and the invention of toasters that can burn faces on your toast, mankind has finally lost his inhibitions and accepted the deviant as the norm (for you mungo's out there, go check the dictionary for the meaning of that). It's accepted that violence and swearing are normal, and as long as we don't do it in real life, it's good entertainment to watch.
The Green Condom and Cher Jr.
I wont bore you with the summary of the film. Instead, I'll just give you the Why's and Why Not's.
Why (should you watch this film): It's fun, well scripted, well acted and highly entertaining. There's hardly any scene of the movie that is not awesome. The soundtrack is great too. Look out for music from the earlier Batman movies and 28 Weeks Later.
Why Not: The costumes are horrendous. Next to Red Mist, the superheroes literally looks like things you could find in Elton John's closet (why is Elton John, a gay man with great musical genius at his fingertips, dressed like a clown in every picture he's in?). Oh, and Nic Cage was rubbish. Something about putting on a fake French Beard makes it impossible to actually understand the crap that's spewing out of his mouth.
Rating: 4/5
A couple of other reviews from the professionals.
A Good One: io9
A Horrible One: Ebert's idiotic heap of dung
Coming Soon: I'll fight the TV channels of America, teach you how to download movies and TV shows legally yet at 1% of the price, and of course, the preview to Iron Man.
No comments:
Post a Comment