Some people like Horror. Some people like Drama. Some people like a strange David O'Russell hybrid that can't even begin to be defined. Different people have different tastes in things. It's common sense. It's what makes people unique and interesting. I wrote about this in a post back in February dealing with how people get different things from books. The same goes for movies. And music. And pretty much everything ever. People are different. Get over it.
That being said, I'm going to tell a little tale for a second. It's about me and my brother. We're alike in many ways - we both love music, theatre, performing, and reading. We're also different in many ways. I won't list all those for your sake. The important thing we disagree on is movies (well, important for this post, at least). He's going to school for film, I'm going for writing. It's safe to say we get different things out of different movies. Don't get me wrong - we agree on a lot of things as well. But recently, that hasn't been the case.
Over our winter break away from college, we went to see American Hustle. He loved it. I didn't. I thought it was too long, too dry, and was trying too hard to be something it wasn't: An Oscar-winner. My brother, on the other hand, didn't agree. He thinks David O'Russell can do no wrong. That's all fine and good. I loved Silver Linings Playbook. Whatever. But when I broke the news to him that I didn't like Hustle, he became super defensive and started throwing questions at me like a baseball-shooting machine.
"What?! Why didn't you like it?! It was perfect! Oh my god. How could you - no. No it was amazing. Don't even."
I listed off my reasons, not trying to change his opinion or anything, just stating what I thought. He stuck out his hand in a very preteen manner, giving me a look, and just couldn't deal. How dare I? Rotten Tomatoes gave it a great rating. That means it's amazing.
Okay, let me press the pause button here.
Rotten Tomatoes is a fairly famous critical site that rates movies on a percent-scale by combining reviews collected by several "reputable" critics (I only put quotes around reputable because Rotten Tomatoes lists them as "top critics." I have no idea how this is determined). Now, I've never been one for critical sites. At all. Ever. I like to watch a movie and form my own opinions without bias before reading what other biased people have to say. My brother practically worships the site. Before he watches any movie, he has to check the rating on Rotten Tomato. It's apparently like the law or something.
It gave Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows a 78%. That's pretty much my main argument there. But, like I said, I'm completely biased. But so is everyone else.
Take, for instance, The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones. As a fan of the books and being within its age demographic, I feel like my opinion is rather valid on the quality of the film. I'm also quite critical of any book-to-movie adaptation so, if possible, I might be at least somewhat qualified to write a review about the film (which I did, btdubs). I liked the movie. I thought it did rather well for a first go at the very complex and detailed world that Cassandra Clare wrote. It was a bit rocky, not sure of itself. But overall, I think it was good and deserved a second go with a sequel.
This is the score that Rotten Tomato gave it:
These are some of the reviews that it factored into its score:
(1)
(2)
(3)
You can also view the page here to read the rest. These are just the ones I can safely and confidently dispute.
(2) This review isn't even about the movie. Keep your opinions of the book to yourself or post them on a book review site. Books and movies are not the same thing. Unfortunatly. (If you want a four-hour Harry Potter movie clap your hands!)
(3) For those of you who don't know, Cassandra Clare is a former fan fiction writer. Harry Potter, more specifically. She then wrote her own fantasy series. Which bares no resemblance to Harry Potter except that it's fantasy. I mean, there are witches and warlocks but the magic is completely different than J.K. Rowling's version. By far. I have no idea why this "Flick Filosopher" called the film out as being a "bad name" to fan fiction when it isn't fan fiction at all. I should know. At least I hope so.
Now, as a counterpoint to these negative reviews, let's take a look at the thing I would recommend paying attention to if you were to check Rotten Tomatoes for a film rec. The audience score.
Granted, this isn't the best score. But I feel it's fair. But again. I'm biased. Everyone is. Chances are that if you don't like mushy teen romance/fantasy dramas, you won't go see it in the theatre. And there's nothing wrong with that. But if you're a middle-aged film critic being forced by your boss to go see some teeny-bopper movie about monsters and magic and forbidden love, chances are you'll be a bit harsher than the movie deserves. There are some films that even lovers of the genre hate (I won't name names) and vice-versa (ya'll know you love that one film with the actors - admit it). I won't get into the great Oscar-debate but I think you catch my drift.
Horror movies appeal to horror fans. Dramas appeal to drama fans. Etc, etc, etc. "Critical Acclaim" is great in terms of award season but in terms of actually sitting down, paying ten bucks for a ticket, and watching some artsy film that all the critics deemed as "the greatest film of the year," it's about as useful as an athlete teaching you how to sing opera. Although there are exceptions for everything, I feel this is a pretty sound mantra to go by when you're debating what film you want to go see. See the films you want to see. Take risks once in a while but don't be surprised if you come out feeling unsatisfied because you knew, deep down, that you really wanted to see Captain America more than Noah.
