No opinion is ever wrong.
I live by that ideal. That’s not to say opinions can’t be stupid (like a lot of mine are), but I pompously display my stupidity, with pride on my sleeve and a potato on my lapel.
Every year, I’ve had my respectability as a movie fiend jacked down a couple of hinges. Friends, Romans, countrymen, they all snarl at me when they see my copy of Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story on DVD. But hey, I don’t care. If I like a film, you’re not gonna change my mind (even if I might).
Here are five of my dumb opinions on some films I liked this year that the majority of critics did not.
The Green Hornet
44% on Rotten Tomatoes, 39/100 from Metacritic
What the critics thought:
“Even if you “get” what The Green Hornet is trying to do, it is never terribly enjoyable.”
James Kendrick – Q Network Film Desk
I “got” what it was trying to do. I enjoyed it.
James probably never “got” what it was trying to do. He didn’t enjoy it. That’s fair enough too. I’ve gone through the same thing with numerous movies, often leaving frustrated at what the hell it was ever trying to achieve.
“The Green Hornet doesn’t seem worth the outrageous 3-D-glasses surcharge. In all senses, there’s little that jumps out at you.”
David Edelstein – New York Magazine
It’s true, the 3D was pretty pointless. Aside from a pathetic little flame and a massive cartoon wasp at the end, the effect was barely noticeable.
“A facetious industrial product, and the first out-and-out bore of the year.”
David Denby – New Yorker
God I love the word “facetious.” I imagine saying it dressed in a suit whilst trying to sip on a cocktail with my enormously high upper lip.
OK, so that last sentence was, itself, facetious (*sip*), but it seems a little odd to me to use it as a criticism against The Green Hornet. Yeah, it’s a tongue-in-cheek superhero origin story.
What I thought:
Perhaps I suffer from a bit of Gondry-bias, but I thought the film was a genuinely entertaining from-zero-to-hero story with a string of creative action set pieces. Its issues lie mainly on its script, especially in regards to the ridiculous buffoonishness of Britt Reid. Nevertheless, I liked it more and more with each viewing.
The Thing
35% on Rotten Tomatoes, 49/100 from Metacritic
What the critics thought:
“It’s curious that a movie about a shape-shifting, person-imitating alien lifeform should itself feel like a mutant hybrid: half-prequel, half-remake, never sure which end to cosy up to.”
Tim Robey – Daily Telegraph
Nicely said, and it brings up my initial thoughts of the remake-quel-boot prior to seeing it. Perhaps that’s part of the reason the film sent critics in an angst: it never really defined itself as to what it was trying to be. The lack of a name change only added to the vagueness.
“Despite its visual sophistication and a good lead performance, there’s no escaping that this Thing is a pointless remake trying to convince itself that it is in fact a prequel.”
Shaun Munro – What Culture
OK, so I’ve tried avoiding critics that compare to John Carpenter’s original (for I haven’t seen it), but this statement got to me. The only way I can see a remake being pointless is if there’s nothing you can do to change and/or improve on the original. This doesn’t mean it has to be better than the original, only that it needs to shake it up a bit and come up with a different substance.
Through its “visual sophistication,” this remake does just that. From what I know, Carpenter’s The Thing is more centred on the characters. This remake dumps most of the character development in order to increase the kill count for a more straight-up horror.
I accepted that trade-off and ended up getting enjoyably freaked out by the movie. In no way can I see this reboot as “pointless” when we have Chris Rock’s Death at a Funeral on DVD store shelves.
“It’s easy enough to sit through; it’ll be even easier to forget in a few weeks.”
Ken Hanke – Mountain Xpress
Probably the criticism I can understand the most. In being a straight-up monster-chase film, it never stands out from other, more superior monster-chase films. That said, it was easy for me to enjoy.
What I thought:
Like the ghost from Paranormal Activity, I grew frustrated at the creature’s unexplained motives. Bypassing that, I had an enjoyable time being disturbed at the creative mutilation and fleeting attempts at exposing the thing. It didn’t have me hugging my pillow late at night, but it did make me want to avoid people vacant of tonsils.
One Day
37% on Rotten Tomatoes, 48/100 from Metacritic
What the critics thought:
“Such a simple and small premise would and should yield a simple and small movie — something not so heavy and epic, but more lovely and amazing.”
Jeffrey M. Anderson – Combustible Celluloid
I agree part-heartedly. The film really could’ve used an indie sensibility (like, er, Like Crazy). Instead, it often takes shelter under its melodramatic mechanics, so much so that you want to tell it off like a naughty puppy.
“NO! You do NOT do that! Now it’s leaking everywhere! Bad One Day!”
“The movie’s content and style generate all the synergy of fingernails and blackboard.”
Joe Morgenstern – Wall Street Journal
Holy shit! I don’t want to take away how awesome this line is, but that’s pretty darn harsh. Sure, there were definitely some scenes that cried for a synergy between face and palm, but to say the entire thing is of such discomfort is something I can’t relate to.
“Tastelessly tasteful, the movie dwells in some fevered upper-middle-class fantasia where problems of the idly rich are all that matter in the world.”
Corey Hall – Metro Times (Detroit, MI)
I’ll unforgivingly forgive the correctly incorrect paradoxical use of the first two words, but I can’t see why you’d criticise One Day for its set-up.
Is the film throwing ideas familiar to the wealthy? Yeah, of course it does, but the themes are never exclusive to that demographic. I know the world’s more than a little messed up at the moment, but there’s no need to jump on every film for not referring to child poverty.
What I thought:
It was a sweet film that had an intriguing concept behind it. Unfortunately, that same concept messed with the rhythm of the film, dampening most of its emotional impact. In the book, a lot of the character depth was achieved through internal dialog (so I hear). With the movie, it avoids that, and suffers for it. Nonetheless, I found it to still be genuinely likeable.
World Invasion: Battle Los Angeles
35% on Rotten Tomatoes, 37/100 from Metacritic
What the critics thought:
“If the talk had been surgically removed, leaving only the sights and sounds of combat, this could have been a striking, semiabstract display of aggressive energy; as it is, any viewer over twelve will go for the laughs.”
Anthony Lane – New Yorker
That aggressive energy is still present. It’s not like a cob-full of corny dialog dampens it to nothingness. And hell, I needed those laughs in between the opposing lolly-scramble of bullets and plasmas.
“This film feels so much like a videogame your hands keep reaching for controllers — shoot the aliens, shoot the aliens, shoot the aliens. “
Tom Long – Detroit News
He should’ve had a controller in his hands. Makes it so much more enjoyable. Beer helps.
“One part War of the Worlds, one part generic stoic army guy movie from 1957 set during WWII, one part Independence Day, one part goofy dialogue.”
Dave White – Movies.com
This confused me, if only for the fact that he labelled “Independence Day” and “goofy dialogue” as completely separate entities.
What I thought:
Did it cripple my emotions? No.
Did it stimulate my intellect? No.
Am I mature? I have my doubts.
Did it give me a crap-ton of army-alien badassness? Hoo-rah.
Green Lantern
27% on Rotten Tomatoes, 39/100 from Metacritic
What the critics thought:
“If only the fabled emerald ring had conjured a killer screenplay to save the day.”
Nick Stechfield – SFX Magazine
Yeah… the dialog wasn’t that great…
“When Green Lantern does get its green groove on, its quite enjoyable… but the film is left sadly lacking due to the way it fumbles its set-up.”
Matt Neal – The Standard
Yeah… the plot wasn’t that great either…
“It drones on, needlessly complicating the story line with too many character relationships and too many dull stretches.”
John J. Puccio
Yeah… it was pretty draggy…
What I thought:
I’m a strange one with superhero films. For whatever reason, I give them a little more leniency. There are a number of critically panned Marvel/DC films I can easily re-watch: The Punisher (2004), Fantastic Four, Dare Devil (if I skip the part where they fight on the seesaw). Even though I can evidently see these flaws, I’m still guilty of liking them.
Green Lantern’s no different. When the film went to Oa, it ramped up some notches. Problem was, we were never there for long, quickly throwing us back down to Earth to deal with boring Earth problems. But it seems that fluster of intergalactic CG tastiness was enough for me to give it a generic Facebook ‘like.’
How say you, savage? Liked any films you saw this year that nobody else did? List ‘em below, so someone else can tell you why you’re being wrong. But remember folks, try not to be pedantic (*sip*).
