...the new york times is full of crap...or perhaps the new york times is out of touch with the movie going public
i won't go too much further into my theories about the new york times. i didn't set out to get into politics tonight. i want to talk about film briefly. on friday night, we all left work early to go see an early screening of frank miller's 300 and i have to tell you that every minute that you are not watching the gorgeously adapted 2 hours of stylized violence, you have wasted some time in your life. the times panned it but, it killed at the box office this weekend. now the bastard isn't here to bitch about the all too high browedness of the new york pop culture media (i read new york magazine instead of the new yorker when it comes to local crap, i find it less elitist), i'm here to talk about how the guy who reviewed the film for the times isn't an everyman. that's all. now go see the fucking film. go on. SEE IIIIIIIIIIIIIT!
—the bastard
5 comments:
I saw it the first Saturday it was out--learned a long time ago that reviews are only about as good as the opinion of the reviewer, and you know what opinions can be worth!! I agree--it was the most gorgeously colored, bloodiest, slickest thing I've seen in a good long while--makes this Klingon proud!!
_DoM
i go to sites where anyone can review movies, books or anything for that matter. Critics often end up thinking too much of themselves.
critics sometimes fancy themselves a little too highbrow for popcorn flicks.
one forgets that we're here to be entertained
the times weren't the only ones who panned it. You'll find that most critics panned it. Your just hating on the times.
well the times is where i read it. i could also go on and on about how jim farber is the worst album critic in the world but i don't. i sometimes think that all print movie critics are out of touch. except for that roger ebert. he's seems a little bit more down to earth. mostly because he went to bat for the basketball diaries.
Post a Comment