(Mr. McCarthy writes movie reviews among other things I imagine for variety in Hollywood CA.)
See Todd McCarthy's review at : http://www.variety.com/VE1117937497.html?query=Hancock
07/04/2008
Dear Mr. McCarthy,
First and foremost , and with all due respect, I believe that you miss the entire point of this movie and in general most critics (seemingly including you) do not understand why people go to movies in the first place. My wife, my son and I went to see this movie ("Hancock"- starring Will Smith and Charlize Theron) last evening. I see a lot of movies, probably at least 2 a month. I've pretty much seen all the last 10 years of big releases. This was a great movie. Great acting. Pretty good 90 minute story, too short for all the plot points, but that's a decision made by money and marketing not the actors. It had sufficient texture and was fun to try and figure out. The whole theatre clapped at the end. Everybody clapped. Seemed to flow pretty well. We in the theatre seemed to all understand it pretty well if you ask me. Overall, I was entertained. We talked about it all the way home. Would love to see a sequel. Heck, I'd like a MIB III also.
Tonight I searched out reviews about this film and among others, found yours on Variety.com
As I read your review (and others) and then tried to make any sense out of what the critics (and you) were thinking about as they wrote them, or tried to understand what it is they think the public expects of them , I was taken by one thought. Critics who write movie reviews for a living must be a bunch of jaded, dark hearted souls, who wouldn't know a good movie if it smacked them in the face. They wouldn't know a good performance if it was imprinted upon their skulls with a laser. They couldn't buy a clue if they were Sherlock Holmes on "Wheel of Fortune" and Vanna White was their client. Reviews like this are a disservice to the movie industry, the actors and to the movie going public. You guys almost always get it wrong and I am not sure who you think the audience is for your review, cause it sure ain't the person who goes to see them.
I can almost read the reviews first, find out which one the reviewers said would blow and go to that movie secure in the knowledge that it will be a (good to great) movie and I will have a good time watching it. You guys (and girls) are wrong that often. The only conclusion I can come up with is people who write movie reviews for a living must have some gross misunderstanding of why movies are made in the first place, beyond making sure big stars get big paychecks, and I do not care even a little about that.
Its either that or being a critic is a fill in job until you get to write about more important stories maybe. Maybe it is where the interns start, I have no clue.
Movies are made for the entertainment value to the ticket buying public.
Period.
End of definition.
I can't remember the last time I went to a movie expecting for the flick to explore some deeper reality or explain the meaning of life to me. I do not go to movies for spiritual guidance (and I'd be hard pressed to name anyone who does) or life advice, genre study, or character development or any of the other points that reviewers write about.
Does your boss really say to you "Go watch this movie and then rate it against our scale of genre studies, story development and reality metrics".
Not very likely, I think.
You said in your review :
"Even in his derelict state, why would the presumably super-studly Hancock have no lady friends?
Why would humiliated criminals ever think they could strike back at their nemesis?"
Huh? Did you see the same movie I did?
Have you ever seen a Superman flick?
Ever heard of Lex Luther?
Would you date a self destructive booze bum (or would you want your sister to date him)?
Was he supposed to have a beer swilling, tube top wearing, trailer park mama for a sidekick in his trailer?
What exactly is your point in writing this thought for millions to read, in Variety of all places, in the first place?
Yeah I had to suspend belief, and I know I can't fly or knock helicopters out of the sky with cars, but that's why they call it a movie, and not reality !
If digression was your point, you scored.
Listen, all the critics (including you) got the plot explanations right, all of them (including you) basically tell you what the story is about. Just about all of them (including you) accurately portray what the main characters are about. I think just about everyone of them (including you) got it wrong when they went off on a tangent talking about how it measures the superhero genre or points that don't get tied up and finished or why certain things happen the way they do. Generally speaking I don't believe this generation of movie critics understand their job (including you), and certainly they do not understand the audience that buys the tickets (including you). Don't get me wrong, I suppose that many do. Sometimes they get it right. Occasionally, a movie sucks so bad you can't help but see it too.Personally, I'd be thrilled to be a critic and I think it would be exciting and a generous way to spend my time. I would use the word "pedestrian" to describe what I see from most critics in today's media though.
Most of the time though, whenever a critic says a film is mediocre, they are wrong. For example, They said the latest "Die Hard" movie was bad, they were wrong. Coincidentally, "The Sixth Sense" was a great movie as well (nothing to do with the lead actor- Bruce Willis). The reason they were good movies is because they were entertaining. Why else would you write about it? Why do I care about the analysis of special effects, or at what minute point something happens. I mean I know who the Cohen Brothers are, but not many people go to see movies based on who directed or produced a show as a main reason for buying a ticket (unless maybe it was Spielberg or George Lucas or Robert Rodriguez and possibly the late great Stanley Kubrick) . If I could see a movie reviewer (like you for example) judge a movie first just by this one element (Is it entertaining?), I could accept pretty much anything else you had to say.
Using all the "self important, make it up as I go , let me look artsy-fartsy" definitions as a reason or an excuse to write a bad review is not my idea of how you look at a movie in the first place. It is not main priority. Lets face it, this is not investigative reporting, and your probably not doing the job to go into this "lets kill this film discussion". It should be more like a book report than an obituary, I would think. If you don't like writing movie reviews or don't like being a critic, I humbly suggest you then write something else or get a better job you do like.
I pretty much don't give a rats ass if John Wayne made a movie about a stagecoach and this movie is about one too. Why is that important? Should this film have been compared to every other Super-Hero/Action Hero movie ever made? Does it mean if I make a western, then it should be reviewed and judged against every Clint Eastwood , John Wayne film ever made if it has a similar plot?
Of course not.
Here it is and it is real simple. Start right here first.
Movie is entertaining = Good Movie. Big Sales.
Movie is not entertaining = Bad Movie. Low Sales.
Not much else needs be said, but feel free to expand on this theme and then beat the crap out of the dingy theatre that you had to see it in and the lousy or great marketing job that was done to promote the film. Save the movie metrics for the film schools and your presentations to the film industry.
Movie is not entertaining = Bad Movie. Low Sales.
Not much else needs be said, but feel free to expand on this theme and then beat the crap out of the dingy theatre that you had to see it in and the lousy or great marketing job that was done to promote the film. Save the movie metrics for the film schools and your presentations to the film industry.
P.S- If you are reviewing movies for the general public, you give them too much credit in using a word like "Dramaturgy" in your review. It was an unnecessary literary stretch and I am guessing you had to use a thesaurus to actually use the word correctly or maybe you won a bet by being able to actual write it in a sentence and get it published. I am really surprised your editor did not strike it and make you use a word that every one would understand. I had to look it up to be certain of its meaning. I suspect it is one of those insider words that only movie people or academics know or use. I would love to see a poll of theatre goers who actually knew what it meant.
But I digress.
Just one man's opinion. I guess you get what you pay for.
cc to :
Dana Harris
Editor, Variety.com
dana.harris@variety.com
Editor, Variety.com
dana.harris@variety.com
Olivia Hemaratanatorn
Managing Editor, Variety.com
olivia.hemaratanatorn@variety.com
Thankx for reading my rant !
bigmike
Visit my blog online at http://bigmikerant.blogspot.com/
I encourage you to leave your own comments or reactions to my rants (even if you don't agree with me) in the comments section on each post.
