Behind My Criticism: An In-Depth Look

Behind My Criticism: Part I
As I get older, I?m finding that what I?m looking for in films keeps changing. Only about four or five years ago I could go into a theater and be reasonably entertained by the average offering. Back then I wasn?t looking for much ? and if you've read some of my old reviews, I was one easy-to-please cat (and some of those reviews are painful to re-visit). Since then, a terrible thing has happened: I?ve matured, which has changed my taste in films. I have gotten attacked for a while for being so critical of movies: People visit the site and want to see what movies we're recommending, and when there are truly few in that regard, some people find that they can't trust our sensibilities (or mine in particular). And when a movie like Deuce Bigalow 2 earns a B and B- from two of our reviewers (and I was one of them) and is the hottest rated movie for a period of time, while the critical darling Constant Gardener receives a mere C+ and C from us, I can understand the criticism that can come our way (I know it's kind of ironic to say that I've matured and still liked Deuce, but what can I say).

I don't really view myself as a critic; I'm just someone who really loves movies for the emotional journey they can take you on. Now, you might be saying, how can I claim to love movies and show little interest in many of today?s offerings (and dislike most of what is released)? The box office slump of 2005 backs me up here; I don't think I'm the only one with this mentality. But it might be true that I'm severely critical, and I've even wondered if I'm too critical of films. Yet, no matter how much I try to loosen up with them, boredom is often the result.

I say that I don't really view myself as a critic because critics are supposed to have a wide film sensibility; I can admit that I don't. Not only did I not like critical favorites like this year's Constant Gardener and Syriana (and I'm really hesitant about seeing Pride & Prejudice), but I've had a peculiar negative reaction towards almost every Miramax Oscar contender for years when most critics have fawned over them (I wanted to walk out of Cold Mountain and Gangs of New York, and I'm even a big fan of Scorcese). When it comes to documentaries, I rarely find any that can sustain my attention (Super-Size Me, Fahrenheit 9/11, and Bowling for Columbine are the only recent ones I've liked). Just recently I was trying to watch Buena Vista Social Club, and within ten minutes I had already had enough. I tried to watch Oscar favorites like Born into Brothels and Capturing the Friedmans, but couldn't last more than thirty minutes without turning them off. I saw part of Dogville, which was an experimental film (basically a play) with Nicole Kidman, and walked out an hour and a half through ? when it had another hour and a half to go. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is one of the only foreign films in the recent years that I've liked ? and I didn't love it, contrary to the critical reaction. As I state in my Three Extremes review, what's most frustrating to me about the genre is that directors usually manage to assemble a fine cast, and yet the stories are just so infuriatingly slow and distant.

My complaints with most documentaries are relevant to my complaints about normal movies. Most of the time I try and watch a doc, I?m left wondering why this story had to be told. Some of these stories could?ve been intriguing (it?s all a matter of presentation), but issues like getting to the point, pacing, and elaborating on the purpose are thrown out the window; it?s all very slow and boring. It?s almost as if the filmmakers think they are ?different? from other films and don?t have to follow the basic rules of film. But, these documentaries are still films: they play in theaters and people have to pay to see them. As much as Michael Moore can be biased with his presentation, I compare him with the likes of Scorcese and Paul Thomas Anderson in terms of pacing and letting us know what we need to know at the right time. Morgan Spurlock showed similar talent with Super-Size Me, and I?m looking forward to whatever he?s up to next. I?m a sucker for films that don?t waste time, just get to the point and don?t let up until the experience is over. Not every film has to have a quick pace, but pacing is a crucial issue in any genre of film.

Syriana and Constant Gardener are two recent films that had the pacing problem; they?re both talky and dull. And they?re also the types of film that can really get to me: Because of what they stand for, you can be looked upon in a disrespectful way if you don?t like them. Their issues are very relevant to today?s events, and so we?re supposed to react to them profoundly as a result. And if you don?t react to them, some people might think you?re ignorant or don?t have the credibility to approach such intellectual fare. Constant Gardener was pumped up as being the next feature from the director of City a God, which is another film that critics adored (and is a film that I didn?t react strongly to, but nonetheless admire). Syriana was pumped up as being the next feature from Stephen Gaghan, who had written Traffic (a film that was also smothered with praise, and I actually loved it too). Both stories basically send out a specific message to moviegoers ? or more so intellectual moviegoers: You have to like them (or love them). And if you don?t like them, it?s easy to come out of the experience confused as to why you just don?t ?get it.?

I haven?t talked to anyone who hasn?t loved City of God; I liked it, but that?s another one I don?t get. I gave it a reasonable B- grade for being different, edgy, and for portraying such a sense of life that few films accomplish. But on an emotional front, I thought the film was lacking ? I couldn?t relate that much. I hear people praise the distorted visual look it takes on, and how realistically it depicts the culture, and I do acknowledge and respect those aspects ? but above all, I?m looking for an emotional core. I?m all for filmmakers taking a look into other cultures, but there needs to be an emotional focus, or else you can just get a very detached feeling from everything that?s happening onscreen. In a film like Monsoon Wedding (which I gave a B), it starts off kind of distant, emotionally (which threw me off the first time I tried to watch it), but gradually it does expand on the characters and what they?re going through. That?s a film I had to watch twice before I actually liked it, and Whale Rider was the same way (I had a pre-conceived view of it that hampered my first viewing). I gave City of God a second try on DVD in case I was in a weird mood when I saw it in theaters, but still, my opinion didn?t change.

I didn?t really look forward to any movies at this end of the year. I didn't look forward to Harry Potter and I didn?t like it either. I view King Kong as my other War of the Worlds of the year: I?ll be there opening day, but I'm not exactly going apeshit over it. I want to see Munich, but I?m not positive it?s going to be great. I saw the first two Harry Potters in my lenient phase; I liked them in theaters, but on DVD I found them to be a bore (they?re just too cute and family-friendly for my taste). When I saw Prizoner of Azkaban on opening night with an audience that was clapping and cheering along in excitement, my eyes were fixated on the exit sign. I liked the first two installments of Lord of the Rings when I saw them in theaters, but like with the Potters, on DVD they were different experiences. And when I saw the three-and-a-half-hour-long Return of the King in theaters, I knew I would never be able to watch it again. I acknowledge that these are technically well made films; they're just not what I'm looking for.

Behind My Criticism: Part II
So What Am I Looking For, Exactly?