You can learn a lot from Dummies Part 1
So I got my review at my day job yesterday, not a very good review, shockingly bad actually, my utter lack of maturely and professionalism has lead me to due nothing more than a revenge review on movie critics, mainly Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-times. This issue has been sitting in front of me like a juicy porter stake since I saw him at this year’s Oscars, filling in for Roger Ebert (there’s a fat joke in there somewhere, but I’m sure he’s heard it all, so I’ll move on). A bit “his story” lesson about me. I grew up Northwest Indiana; affectionately refer to as “the Region” by the rest of Indiana. We were heavily influenced by Chicago that I still don’t understand why we just don’t separate from Indiana and latch onto Chicago anyway; Hammond, Indiana to be exact. To me, even at a young age, films and movies were as important as a priority as eating or going to the bathroom. Not really understand English to well when I first arrived in the spring of 1980, I would watch a lot of PBS, you know, all those learning shows; ZOOM (with their stripe shirts signing that lyrically bankrupted song of their’s), 3-2-1 Contact, Electric Company (mainly for the Spiderman segment, because it was cool), and not so much Sesame Street (felt it was a bit too childish for me, yeah, I was too mature at the age of 8 for Sesame Street, go figure), so I came across this show with this rather large guy and a tall skinny balding guy arguing and talking about something and showing movie clips in between. At first, I just thought it was cool to see movie clips on TV (it was the early 80s, give me a break, not a lot to do for an 8 year-old); as I progressed with my English, it started to make sense that they are talking about different aspects of the movie, criticizing it [how cool is that job?], so I watch the show more and more, which at the time was called Sneak Previews with Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel, with the thumbs up-and-down thing. Then they moved from PBS to WGN (channel 9 Chicago) then changed to At the Movies. Their old show on PBS was given to two of the most idiotic film critics ever to set eyes on films (look for their own little review soon), I’ll leave their names of the list for now. Back to S&E, then they moved again to CBS (Channel 2, Chicago) this time simply, Siskel and Ebert, far enough. And once again, they left their legacy with WGN to, even more incompetent critics, Rex Reed and Bill Harris (somebody owes somebody a favor?). Oh, I can’t wait to talk about Reed and Harris, how they gave such a poor and offensive review of Platoon, saying and I quote (I still remember to this day), “the American people just don’t want to hear anymore about Vietnam, we are tired of it, let it go.” I ran out with friend and we snuck into Platoon that very weekend after seeing Nightmare on Elm Street 3. Then a few weeks later, Platoon getting a lot of praises and awards, they had a special episode devoted to how great Platoon was. It does not take a mature mind to recall all the credibility I had for these gods who get paid for writing and talking about their opinions on movies they’ve seen. This is fact, not made up; you are welcome to research for yourself. ACT II, for the most part, S&E were fair, and they made good arguments; some films I disagreed when I was young, then revisited them when I was a bit older and understood more, and then I agreed with them wholeheartedly, e.g. their reviews of Top Gun; flying jets, Kelly McGellis, things blowing up, young Meg Ryan, songs by Kenny Loggins, with the exception the latter, this was gold to an 11 year-old boy (of course I discovered the homoerotic subtext in my later years, but let not digress), but S&E thought the romantic interlude between Cruise and McGillis was labored and pointless. When you like a movie, and you like a critic, you almost which that they too would share the same opinion as you. They didn’t go for Top Gun; but in a form of Johnny come lately, seeing the movie again later in College, completely agree, so these guys actually know what they are talking about, I guess they don’t just give out Pulitzers to anybody. OK. Credibility is high. Then I saw Beyond the Valley of the Dolls…then…Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens (both are written by Ebert…let me ask the readers this, What do you want me to say? I wouldn’t say my respect for the guy dipped, come on, it was directed by Russ “big boobs” Myers (need I remind you again, I was still a relatively young man). Suffice to say that I continue to try and catch their show and reviews every chance I got, even down in West Lafayette Indiana. Then came the 2nd half of the 90s when I moved back home and into the big city. Things didn’t seems to make sense so much; thumbs-up on Speed 2? Thumbs-down on Air Force One? Up for another Jan de Bont flick The Haunting, down for Fight Club. What going on?! ACT III, it was unfortunate for Siskel, personally I felt that I share a personal relationship with these two guys watching them as I was growing and enjoying their, sometimes stagy but fun, verbal fights; though I really thing there was a better movie than Babe 2: Pig in the City for the 1998 year, you gave it the #1 movie of 98, so be it, given your condition and credibility, you’re allowed; besides, Ebert had Dark City, also a good movie, but nothing better that year? I could have sworn different. So Siskel past away, and for a while the chair across the aisle was being filled by unattractive people flanked by unmitigated opinions. No one was smart enough or strong enough to slug it out with the big man, with endless knowledge of movies and Pulitzer under the belt (which he never seizes to remind people), no one really stepped up. Enter Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times.
Labels: Critics Get Bent
