It's Hard Out There for a (Critic)

It's Hard Out There for a (Critic)

Audiences and critics don't always get along, but this is one thing we should agree on: when you sit down to watch a movie, you want to see the best possible version of it.

Read Full Article

Bob, I will preface this by way of saying I don't always agree with your work, but that doesn't mean we can't share similar experiences.
I've worked the other side of film, what would be considered in magician's terms "the prestige." Yes, I worked for a movie theater. I was able to peek behind the curtain and see just how the Wizard truly looked and... well it was a huge letdown. There's a certain magic that does happen in the theater, and it has lessened with each year as budgets narrow and mortgages rise. Most theaters don't own the building and are so much closer to closing permanently than really making profit that one can actually understand the inflated concession prices. The bottom line, as it is with almost every company, in theaters is top dog. Employees are the last consideration, aside from management, when it comes to the income. Tickets for first-run movies, yeah those theaters don't seem much of those absurdly inflated prices for almost a month. Its like pennies on the dollar, nearly, and most of the ticket price goes straight to Hollywood, to whatever studios produced said movies.
So here's the thing: With a place that's basically functioning by the skin of its teeth, surviving on those hungry enough to pay outrageous prices for food, the one thing those places should pay dearly for, the employees, are underpaid and almost across the board horribly treated. And the caretakers of the film, the projectionists are basically hermits. I don't like to put people in a box, or stereotype them, but every projectionist I've met is at best an obsessive nerdy creature with very poor social skills. And they're just as underpaid as most of the rest of the little people. From what I've gathered, they sleep little, spend a lot of time up in the darkness of the projection booth (which is mostly a creepy corridor that feels like a laboratory) and condescend harshly upon any of the other lowly employees (despite making little more than minimum wage themselves). I can see why they're bitter, why they make mistakes. They get treated like crap, the equipment is poorly maintained due to budget constraints and managers who inexplicably drive fancy cars while profits are barely above the red.
This leads to poorly managed theaters in general. At least in my experience, but a lot of the folks I've talked to who have worked elsewhere both within the company I worked for and others nationwide, its largely similar. The American theater seems like its a few steps from failure, whether thats due to the operating costs and the profit margins being a peak and valley respectively, largely due to Hollywood's profit coming first, or that people are spending less at theater outings hoping to stretch a $20 limit which used to pay for tickets, popcorn, and sodas for two but now barely covers the price of tickets (for 3D.. IMAX is even more expensive).
It is hard as an employee to work to 100% capacity when there's a feeling as if the higher ups don't give a rats ass. They probably don't because they can always hire some young, eager high schooler who doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground.
Its sad because people used to take pride in showing movies to the viewing public, it used to be a lot more flair. It used to be a spectacle. Now I honestly, having worked in the industry, don't go to the big screen except for the few movies I deem worth the ticket price.
Everything else is either Netflix or hell if I'm going to spend damn near $30 on a movie, I might as well wait for BluRay to be released.

Reminds me of when I first went to see Captain America: TWS.

Somehow, they messed up the 3D so that even when wearing the glasses, the image still looked super-blurry. Had to watch the opening scene on the boat three times before they gave up and gave us refunds and tickets to the next 2D screening. And in that screening there was an annoying kid who wouldn't shut up sitting right across from me.

Still loved the film though, can only imagine what it'd be like to watch it for the first time without any of that.

What I have noticed, just as a film-goer and not a film critic is that there seems to be a huge drop is aligning the previews with the genre of the film.

Took my daughters to see Big Hero 6 and ads were for religious films, horror and drama. Nothing really teen related, nothing animated, not even anything else Disney. My kids were bored to tears and were far squirmier during the long, unrelated previews than at any point in the actual movie.

Oddly, we came home to a facebook comment by someone in another part of the country who had gone to a different theater chain and seen a different movie, but had the same disconnected preview experience.

Seems like promoting other reasons for people to come back to your business is a poor place to cut corners.

Well, I guess one advantage of living in the suburbs of the Canadian heartland, where a single corporate conglomerate owns every multiplex for hours in each direction, is that I almost never encounter problems like this. When I do, it's almost always one-off special events, e.g. a live event being streamed from somewhere, or that one-night only screening of a big anime feature, and they're always quick to issue rebates without even being asked.

One quibble:

Imagine if that had happened, say, at the premiere of The Godfather during the restaurant scene!

Maybe it's been changed in later releases, but I don't remember that scene ever having subtitles. I think Coppolla wanted to make it clear Michael isn't there to talk, so he doesn't actually care what Solozzo is saying. He's resolved to come out of that washroom and kill those men.

That's...really surprising. In a world where presentation, PR and image is getting more and more important, that treatment just seems so counter-intuitive. Why do the big film studios not incentivize the multiplexes to put on a better front? Make showing critic pre-releases a juicy monetary prize that'll help their bottom line. At least for critic only releases. I know there must be hundreds, if not thousands, of critic-only pre-releases for larger movies, but with the ludicrous sums some movies spend on marketing, shouldn't they be shilling out at least a portion of that to make sure that the people who generate, oh, I don't know, at least A THIRD of the movie's eventual customers, have a glorious experience in order to get them in as positive mood as possible...? Film quality may not be something they can change, since a pre-released movie might only really be available on DVD, but effort to make sure that DVD presentation is impecable surely can be made. And questionaires sent to regular critics - 'did you enjoy the experience, yes, no explain' - 'was the cinema up to the task of making you comfortable and showing you the best experience, yes, no, explain why we shouldn't offer this gig to another multiplex' - should also help overall quality over time.

This seems so obvious that it makes me wonder. Surely some Big Studio number cruncher has already gone to town on those stats to try to figure out where best to spend marketing money. Personally I know there's only two or three movies a year that I go into virtually sight-unseen (already made up my mind before hearing critics), while the other ten to twelve I'll see, I'll only see if they seem to have good reviews. But maybe I'm in the minority and regular movie goers are more influenced by advertisement than critic reviews, and thus that's where the money goes...?

Also, not to hurt MovieBob's feelings, but is there tier to critics...? The successor to Ebert gets the premium treatment, internet bloggers get the cattle-class showing. Though with metacritic, you'd think that'd be getting democratized by now.

Imperioratorex Caprae:
Snip

Well, that was a slightly depressing read. Here in Montreal the demand for screenings is so high we've opened several new megaplexes over the past few years. My brother is currently working at a theatre that's been around for about 30 years now and the only complaint he has is in regards to is a few individuals he takes exception to. Though it could be that we have a more "going to a show" type mindset since our theatre and comedy scene is also much more active then most major cities on this continent (what with the world class operas and being the comedy centre of the world).

No, it makes perfect sense. Of course the theatre doesn't care about the critics' screening, the critics, quite likely, didn't pay. Given the option between spending time on the critics' screening or spending time on all the other paid movies going on at the same time, they're gonna spend their time on the people who can ask for their money back.

And honestly, unless you had to sign NDAs or something about where you saw it, you really need to directly call out the theatres giving you a crappy experience. They aren't going to improve their quality until a (real or perceived) lack of quality affects their bottom line.

Zontar:

Imperioratorex Caprae:
Snip

Well, that was a slightly depressing read. Here in Montreal the demand for screenings is so high we've opened several new megaplexes over the past few years. My brother is currently working at a theatre that's been around for about 30 years now and the only complaint he has is in regards to is a few individuals he takes exception to. Though it could be that we have a more "going to a show" type mindset since our theatre and comedy scene is also much more active then most major cities on this continent (what with the world class operas and being the comedy centre of the world).

It depends too on the location and general welfare of the patrons as well. There are really really upscale theaters that do dinner and a movie (you eat 1/2 an hour before the film and sit at your table on a balcony above the normal seating) and they're managed well, staffed well and I've never heard a complaint about them yet (except that one guy who shot the other guy on his cellphone there...) but overall its a nice theater, just expensive as hell.
But a lot of the theaters in low income areas (and middle income as well) are barely holding on because despite what spin the media puts on things, the American economy is not nearly as strong as it was before 2008 and our workforce is still lower than it should be. So people spend less money on movie outings which hurts the bottom line and that means the employees are the ones hurt most by layoffs, less hours and degenerating work conditions.

ChroniclerC:
No, it makes perfect sense. Of course the theatre doesn't care about the critics' screening, the critics, quite likely, didn't pay. Given the option between spending time on the critics' screening or spending time on all the other paid movies going on at the same time, they're gonna spend their time on the people who can ask for their money back.

And honestly, unless you had to sign NDAs or something about where you saw it, you really need to directly call out the theatres giving you a crappy experience. They aren't going to improve their quality until a (real or perceived) lack of quality affects their bottom line.

If it happens to you (in a movie you payed for) will you complain?

Imperioratorex Caprae:

Zontar:

Imperioratorex Caprae:
Snip

Well, that was a slightly depressing read. Here in Montreal the demand for screenings is so high we've opened several new megaplexes over the past few years. My brother is currently working at a theatre that's been around for about 30 years now and the only complaint he has is in regards to is a few individuals he takes exception to. Though it could be that we have a more "going to a show" type mindset since our theatre and comedy scene is also much more active then most major cities on this continent (what with the world class operas and being the comedy centre of the world).

It depends too on the location and general welfare of the patrons as well. There are really really upscale theaters that do dinner and a movie (you eat 1/2 an hour before the film and sit at your table on a balcony above the normal seating) and they're managed well, staffed well and I've never heard a complaint about them yet (except that one guy who shot the other guy on his cellphone there...) but overall its a nice theater, just expensive as hell.
But a lot of the theaters in low income areas (and middle income as well) are barely holding on because despite what spin the media puts on things, the American economy is not nearly as strong as it was before 2008 and our workforce is still lower than it should be. So people spend less money on movie outings which hurts the bottom line and that means the employees are the ones hurt most by layoffs, less hours and degenerating work conditions.

Yes economics does play a large part in it all. Here in Quebec, at least in the Greater Montreal Area and the South Shore outside of it we're pretty well off. Sure there's more poverty then we'd like and we aren't as well off as Alberta, but overall we handled the 2008 crisis well and we're definitely in good economic times now. It's saddening to hear about how things are south of the boarder though, but I'm also not as surprised as I feel I should be. Don't take this the wrong way but in my travels around the US I've always felt like the economic disparity between regions was like that of the EU, where some whole countries make as much as one fifth as much per person as other places.

I think there's a major logistics issue here. For the food critic example it's literally a 1:1 relationship between the restaurant/cook and the critic. With a movie theater you need to stage a critic viewing in every major city across the continent. I've been to screenings in two different cities, the big budget movie was in a big theater while the lower budget was in a smaller out of the way theater. Didn't have any significant problems, but I guess it varies from city to city. Also considering they give out tons of comp tickets to the public it means there usually aren't enough critics to fill a theater, unless you're somewhere like New York Or LA.

I do know what you mean by the mistakes though, as I've been to a number of indy screenings where it just takes some time for them to get things to work.

It's one of the most depressing developments of digital projection that films no longer have a projectionist to actually check that the film starts properly.

I don't know, besides the subtitle complaint, which legitimately affects your understanding of the movie, I don't necessarily understand what the issue is. I don't really expect it to be a trip to the Ritz, I'd expect a person to study the quality of the movie. If the dialogue is good, the music is well orchestrated, an the acting is top notch, then you should be able to form a valid opinion. This was an interesting look into the business, though, I'll give you that.

Some of these statements have merit, but I would hardly say it's "hard" out there for a critic.

I think a lot of the reason for this is that the movie critic is reviewing the movie, whereas the food critic is reviewing the restaurant.

Although now that I think about it, given how expensive a trip to the cinema is and how wildly variable my experience as far as sound/image/popcorn quality has been reviews for cinemas doesn't sound like a bad idea.

Zontar:

Yes economics does play a large part in it all. Here in Quebec, at least in the Greater Montreal Area and the South Shore outside of it we're pretty well off. Sure there's more poverty then we'd like and we aren't as well off as Alberta, but overall we handled the 2008 crisis well and we're definitely in good economic times now. It's saddening to hear about how things are south of the boarder though, but I'm also not as surprised as I feel I should be. Don't take this the wrong way but in my travels around the US I've always felt like the economic disparity between regions was like that of the EU, where some whole countries make as much as one fifth as much per person as other places.

I've traveled the states myself and seen a lot of the same issues. Hell in my home state of Florida it really depends on what county you live in, or city you're most near (and even the bigger cities are full of rot somewhere). I still love the country, just am not happy with the way its been run for years now. Too much focus on promising handouts, but no attempt to stem the ebbing tide of jobs being shipped out of the country.
Can't sustain ourselves on ideas alone, we do have to produce things here to keep up. I don't have an answer, but I feel sometimes the US needs to "close for renovations" for a bit just to let the dust settle and rebuild.

I work at a theater, and not in any way that will affect you dedicated movie critic (I sling alcohol). But I often get complaints of movie quality/I complain about movie sound quality [protip: if I can hear the movie from behind closed doors some forty feet from the theater itself, it might be too loud].
The sad state of affairs is that, at least for me in a theater that is on neather coast but in a city bigger than any other in the breadbasket, the management tries to care but there is often too many other problems going on/too much change over of the management staff in any given month, to even notice anything is wrong instead of business as usual.
Also we only have 1 projectionist (for 21 screens) who works 5 days a week (also who is leaving the company for greener pastures and sweet baby Ra do I not blame him even a little) they pay him the same as everyone else (not enough). But let me tell you, the days he isn't there, the movie problems always somehow seem to double or even triple.
Somehow I doubt things will change. I get everything for more-or-less free since I work there and can very easily con my fellow employees into giving me things for free, but there isn't enough caring to go around.
I can only speak for myself, a bartender and lover of all things cinema, and I try my damnedest, but the minimum wage employees who actually contribute to your movie going experience, they might not be inclined to try to so hard, and I can't really blame them.
The movie-going experience should be better than it is, but as long as the company can get away with paying me $4 bucks and hour and charging $11 a beer, then somehow I doubt things will change at all.

Mark Kermode (UK film critic) has often talked about the death of the projectionist for years as a skill to respect.


With DVD screeners being more of a thing for critics, it makes sense for all those issues when seeing review screenings at a cinema. So I empathise.

The only time I've seen a movie outside of final cinema releases is film festivals but for some reason, every single film I've seen was on top form for presentation. I guess that makes sense as lots of critics and people will be coming over to see it, versus just review screenings for critics in smaller numbers.

Much like videogame critics, do film critics ever put a disclaimer about the state of the review copy with the bugs they encountered?

o_d:
It's one of the most depressing developments of digital projection that films no longer have a projectionist to actually check that the film starts properly.

When the deuce did that start happening?! What are movie theaters coming to when they can't even be arced to make sure the movie's running properly?

Apologistic nonsense and desperate attempts at objectivism by this hate-monger?

No thank you!

softclocks:
Apologistic nonsense and desperate attempts at objectivism by this hate-monger?

No thank you!

What are you babbling about? I'm pretty sure I know all those words, but what they mean together in relation to this column I have no clue.

I know that feeling from the other side Bob.

Worked at a theater for three years that used to put on critic screenings and it was pretty much a mess every time. Mostly exacerbated by the fact that we didn't have a projectionist. The company had replaced all the film cameras with digital cameras that ran off of a timer and streamed video from a hard drive, or occasionally (I shit you not) a dvd disk. We only knew how to switch the hard drives and disks, and nothing about adjusting the cameras (cause they fired that guy). Even worse, it was a big theater in a low income area, meaning we didn't sell much concessions to get an overhead that corporate was happy with, meaning that we were constantly running a skeleton crew. At best 7 people were working at a time, at a very busy theater.

The quality of our theater sucked, and I know it sucked, and we were never given the resources to fix any of the issues you brought up. In fact it took customer complaints to corporate to get the place bug sprayed, which they had been telling corporate to do since before I had worked there. The theater system as it is now is a goddamn mess.

MovieBob:
Audiences and critics don't always get along, but this is one thing we should agree on: when you sit down to watch a movie, you want to see the best possible version of it.

Actually this is probably why I don't get along with most of what you make. I think this is a skewed view nestled in the self-grandeur of being a reviewer, as someone who sets "the taste" for the plebs and peasants who don't have an education or have taken courses in movie academia.

By that I mean the subjective value of a movie, where there's only one version and that's the one that portrays the intent of the content.

As for the technical and very objective part that this article describes I can only say "suck it up" or do something else.
Should this be as clear and picture perfect as when the movie comes out proper? It would be nice, but as a professional reviewer you're supposed to look beyond those bumps and see the content for what it is.

If this is to garner sympathy, you will find none from me. You make a living off of your opinions and dismiss anything that doesn't resonate with your own. This is something you have shown time and again, even in the face of facts that disprove whatever you're currently saying.

The only other option you have is to walk out and set an example, that this is not acceptable. Not for our sakes, but for setting a standard of a proper environment for these screenings.
Start a union, make a consumer organization, write the responsible parties and do your best to improve the status quo, but don't take the whine to people who have no stake in this. In the end, we'll just find someone elses opinion to listen to.

Smilomaniac:

As for the technical and very objective part that this article describes I can only say "suck it up" or do something else.
Should this be as clear and picture perfect as when the movie comes out proper? It would be nice, but as a professional reviewer you're supposed to look beyond those bumps and see the content for what it is.

Nope, one of a critics jobs is to judge a film on all its components. (also how is say the story supposed to be judged if a pivotal scene is subtitled and the subtitles aren't visible). But the other aspects are also often vital. Plenty of films muck up the brightness and/or contrast and you either miss details that were supposed to add to the scene or see ones that were supposed to be mostly concealed (say seeing what made that movement). In a great film they all work together so get one wrong and you noticeably diminish from it.

How are you supposed to judge an artist if you aren't viewing what the artist actually did? There is a reason that they bother with 250Mbit/sDCPs in decent cinemas over 36Mbit/s Blurays (Which again stomp over most streamed and broadcast versions). It would be a lot cheaper not to...

A Professional reviewer can only judge whats in front of them, an important part of that is that they are shown whats actually intended. An analogy from film post production, every time you apply an effect you will lose some information (a bit like generational copies) the human mind is similar each time you compensate for a flaw you lose something.

Smilomaniac:

The only other option you have is to walk out and set an example, that this is not acceptable. Not for our sakes, but for setting a standard of a proper environment for these screenings.
Start a union, make a consumer organization, write the responsible parties and do your best to improve the status quo, but don't take the whine to people who have no stake in this. In the end, we'll just find someone elses opinion to listen to.

Writing articles to kick up a fuss is doing something. The point of this isn't to whine, he's not even just trying to improve his experiences but ours, unless you think an out of focus picture that isn't all on the projection screen, is in any way acceptable for an experience which is supposed to be the pinnacle of viewing quality. We absolutely have a stake in this, even if it was only the press screenings he worried about, as if the others opinions are based of these poor screenings we aren't getting their best either.

Smilomaniac:
Actually this is probably why I don't get along with most of what you make. I think this is a skewed view nestled in the self-grandeur of being a reviewer, as someone who sets "the taste" for the plebs and peasants who don't have an education or have taken courses in movie academia.

A critic who has the viewpoint of a critic?? Whoa, weird, what is this strange new world!

Seriously I can't believe you're arguing for excusing poor quality. If I pay the already exorbitant fee to see a movie, I'd think I should get to see a good version of it, not whatever they decided to throw out. Movies aren't that important to me, but the point is that they should be that important to them. It's kind of their business.

Steve the Pocket:

softclocks:
Apologistic nonsense and desperate attempts at objectivism by this hate-monger?

No thank you!

What are you babbling about? I'm pretty sure I know all those words, but what they mean together in relation to this column I have no clue.

Its called trolling. There are quite a few people around the escapist these days (mostly the anti-SJW crowd) who hate Bob with a passion and attack anything and everything he does with the same pre-planned stock responses without actually reading the articles in question.

On topic: No real way to say it other than this; this sucks. I always loved going to the movies when younger, but I am not paying those prices for crap like this.

Wow. I had no idea. I get annoyed when I find a video online that claims 1080p resolution but is actually only 720. I don't thin I could handle some of those screenings you described.

I wonder why they sometimes show critics poor quality versions of the movie, is it that they would rather the critics focus on the poor quality and hope they don't notice how bad a movie it is?

In Denmark it's exactly like going to the cinema (Probably thanks to Nordisk Film, the distributor), only early in the morning with a free cup of coffee and without any annoying commercials. My only "complaint" is that i've heard that they also get a free bagel in Copenhagen, something i haven't seen in my town... It sounds like a better deal than what is being described here, and these screenings aren't even being seen by many, there are usually between 3-7 (Unpaid) critics and maybe 1-2 employees of the cinema at the screening.

I don't know why people always complain that critics are negative though, last time i checked most beloved movies often get pretty good scores on Rottentomatoes.

008Zulu:
I wonder why they sometimes show critics poor quality versions of the movie, is it that they would rather the critics focus on the poor quality and hope they don't notice how bad a movie it is?

I'd guess it's resentment and irritation actually. Critics of all stripes tend to be viewed as a bunch of elitist, hipster, bottom feeders. Exceptions exist, but they are by and large seen as a necessary part of doing business, but one nobody much wants to deal with. Studios and creators would much rather let their PR machine do the work for them. The problem isn't helped by the fact that nowadays all you need to be a critic is to build up a following through social media, it's not quite what it was where critics tend to be in any way qualified, and are otherwise sponsored by a media source like a newspaper or television network to begin with. What's more they can come and go as popularity waffles, and kissing the butt of some dude right now is not only offensive in the short term, but quite probably meaningless when the same guy might not even be relevant in a couple of weeks. To a lot of media producers these guys are vultures who are finagling a way to see your product for free, and make a living talking about it, and that they can potentially cost you money just adds fuel to the fire. The response tends to be to make these people generally uncomfortable, and rely on the fact that they do it to everyone to even it out. The producers have an advantage in that without events to attend and material to criticize your critic is out of business, and on an individual level it's easy to ostracize a few of them and then just have the rest of them pick up the slack, and none of them want to be the critic who gets shunned so they generally play along. Now the exceptions tend to be well heeled critics who are as objectively qualified as possible to be an expert on the subject, oftentimes people those being criticized have some respect for to begin with. Some fat guy who eats a lot, or some dude who watches a lot of movies and has an amusing style of ranting about them online are people your average person in the business could give a crap about when it comes to their resteraunt [SP] or movie, and might entertain as a necessary evil. On the other hand get some guy who is a world class chef who has run successful establishments, and suddenly a guy running a resteraunt cares, ditto if say the film critic has experience in the industry or say is an expert who teaches directors and such at school. There are other things that apply of course, but when you look at the qualifications of some of the big time critics (which many tend to lead with) you'll find they are people who have been around the industry they criticize and oftentimes done the jobs they talk about first hand even if they weren't very successful or well known in that capacity. There are some people just like as well of course, but the point is these tend to be the rare exceptions that get the red carpet treatment. Of course there aren't very many of them.

The point is that as I said, I think critics are looked down on, and the threat posed by any one of them individually is minor as long as they treat them all more or less the same.

It doesn't help that even in making statements about not being all that, Bob points out "well, people like me were never suited to doing normal work" and even in pointing that out he's referring to a white collar cubicle job. As a former blue collar worker (Casino Security) I find that attitude kind of offensive, and as I've said before in other contexts I really think working a few years doing serious security work, or grunt labor, would do people like Bob
some good. Given that this attitude goes along with being a critic which feeds into the whole "elitist hipster" thing it feeds a lot of the resentment. Bob is a lightweight as well compared to some of the attitudes I've seen coming from critics over the years.

That said he's sort of right about the treatment, while I haven't dealt with movie critics for the most part, the casino where I worked did host a lot of events, including modeling shows and the like, and people coming in as critics "for the media" tended to receive a mixed bag of treatment. For the most part my dealings with them came down
to them demanding access and telling them 'no' however.

Oh and just for the lulz, I will point I have indeed "done a turn on the catwalk" albeit goofing off when there was pretty much nobody around between shows and such. :)

Wow, the only thing like that that's happened to me is they forgot to play Avatar in 3D for the first, 5-10 minutes.
It was even funnier because I was seemingly the only one who noticed, as evidenced by the "oooh" that resulted from the crowd when my complaint to management was serviced.

I'm like a drunk reviewing booze. I base my opinions around what I have seen and liked. For games than means whatever the score is by fans or critics I halve because medicorely average is a 5 or 2 in my book. Personal bias will add a point or 2 and rarely dose it hit 8+ or 4+. With films I go with the flow till I am rammed into things. Like some of the stuff in Nolan's Batman, most of the things in MOS,Robocop014, Xmen, Spider man ,ect.

edit
Critics have it much worse as they need to try and balance form and function with whats average, because they see so much they can see more nuances and thus the lower common denominator stuff tends to be bad.

PS
Love ya Bob keep up the good work. ^^

I commend Bob on this pretty solid piece. It made me appreciate the critic's perspective; and it kept me engaged all through-out the monologue. Except for the punchline. The argument of "get to watch the best version possible of the movie" is valid and the whole point in understanding the critic's frame. But it was used too much all over the piece and when it came back, reduced to "get to watch the movie", it fell flat. No real impact there. A crunch-less sog. Everything that mattered had already been said, and the final thought didn't really add any more relevant information nor it was entertaining enough. Should have closed with a solid joke. 9/10 ;P -written from my pager in Morse code.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here