JonathanLB
Aug 4th, 2001, 06:53:31 AM
I'm sorry but I have to analyze some of the commentary from critics about Rush Hour 2, mainly just for my own amusement, but possibly you could enlighten me as to why critics just are so dense.
I don't buy this whole "they see lots of movies every year therefore they are cynical" stuff. I see as many movies per year as any critic I bet, though I admit many of them are on video and DVD, not in theaters. Even so, I'm at the theater 75 times per year, so come on, that's a BS excuse. I see all of the "crap" that they see, only most of it isn't crap to me, it's enjoyable entertainment, if not downright awesome work.
So back to RH2.
The film got a very strong A grade from CinemaScore, rather remarkable if I may say so myself. This movie will have staying power a bit better than past films this summer, at least, and there isn't enough competition to knock it down 55% in its second weekend, no way. 45%, sure, maybe, but it could only drop 40% or so, good for the summer I guess.
"A film without any surprises or new ideas."
Ok how is this even REMOTELY relevant to an action comedy film? Is this critic smoking weed or just extremely stupid? NO NEW IDEAS?! What is that supposed to mean? Technically, no idea is new because it's all been done before in some respect, and surprises? What do you want a freakin' plot twist at the end of a comedy film? Get real! Go watch The Game, Fight Club, Planet of the Apes, or something like that, stay away from a great, entertaining movie like Rush Hour 2.
Here's one I agree with "...just not as funny as the original." Correct. It was MUCH funnier than the original, so this reviewer is right.
"How can a movie allow [Tucker] to be so obnoxious and make no acknowledgement that his behavoir is aberrant?"
Oooo!!!! You used a big, new word there, "aberrant," I'm glad that dictionary your mommy bought you was useful, Ebert. Now just work on your awful writing style and terrible grammar and maybe you'll be alright. You fat retard.
"Watching it is a soul-numbing experience, but that probably won't keep it from being a big hit."
Does that make you jealous? You got that little degree that says "Film Production Major," but you ended up being a lousy film critic making $40,000 a year from making fun of work you never could do? Come on buddy, it's going to be a big hit because you're the only one on the planet, besides the other critics, who didn't like the film.
"Comes off as a lot more cynical than comic ..."
Cynical? Do you even know what that word MEANS?! You just used it wrong, so look it up. Ebert has a dictionary, borrow his! Moron.
"Delivers its share of laughs, but offers nothing you haven't already seen."
Well I've seen reviews just like yours ten thousand times, and I'm a bit tired of seeing them too, but does that mean you shouldn't write them anymore? The movie was funny, and that is enough, certainly more than can be said of your idiotic review.
"Primarily appeals to those who don't tire of ethnic jokes and to Chanatics, as we Jackie diehards style ourselves."
You count yourself a Chan fan? Clearly not, or you would have liked one of his funniest movies. What is this "we" nonsense anyway? I guess nobody tires of ethnic jokes since everyone who sees it has liked it.
Ugg, my good buddy Mr. Turan, I cannot be too harsh here given that I have his home address and personal e-mail, haha, but "Lacking in spontaneity and freshness"? Well, movies, professional ones that is, are not spontaneous most of the time, they actually have scripts...
"Nobody expects this to be, say, The French Connection, but it should make a little more sense."
Ok, cool, you've seen some movie called The French Connection, which honestly I've never heard of, nor have my two friends (spending the night tonight), and now you're comparing it to a major blockbuster. You are so cool and so smart for having seen a movie like that. I wish I could grow up and make so little per year writing frickin' movie reviews. Gawd.
Part of a "good" review, "It often feels like the fifth or sixth rather than the second in a franchise."
Explain that to me please. I don't get it. How can it feel like the fifth or sixth? That line makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. What are you trying to say here?! What is this guy saying? Honestly. It feels like the sixth movie? Why, you saw the first one 5 times? I did too man, it was a good movie, but this is Rush Hour TWO! I'm just perplexed by that comment, because it is just as moronic as many of the other ones I've read.
Critics are really funny. If the critical consensus does not match the audience consensus, something is wrong with the critics because there are way too many audience members to say that millions of people are wrong, and a few hundred critics are right.
Do they know more about the film industry? Probably so, well damn I'd hope so because they should, but I'm extremely knowledgeable myself, and not every moviegoer is an idiot (the cynical attitude about the world), so they cannot all be wrong.
"A" grade means Rush Hour 2 rocked, no matter what critics said, so objectively speaking, since you can objectivity opinions (as CinemaScore and Variety do, among other polls), the critics were wrong! From my perspective, critics are not there to tell me JUST what they thought of the film, critics exist to give reviews that guide moviegoers. If those reviews are never accurate for most people, the critics need to be fired. They're not doing their job. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if a critic cannot tell moviegoers what is good, meaning they do not have the pulse of the public, than they should lose their jobs because the ONLY reason such a useless job even exists is to help the less frequent moviegoer find the best films.
If I'm sitting here now trying to figure out what movie to see, I'm going to be screwed over because the critics have told me that Rush Hour 2 is not that good, they've told me Planet of the Apes is awful trash, JP3 is moronic and stupid, AI is a lousy film with a bad ending and it drags too long, and Tomb Raider is just a stupid, silly film with no plot and lousy dialogue. What should I see?! Apparently nothing, because those films all suck. Now, in my book, every one of those films was three to four stars (POTA and AI being the four star films), so the critics misled me. I'm apparently not in the minority given that most people seemed to like the films, at least. JP3 got a B-, whereas I'd give it a B. Rush Hour 2, to me, is a B+ film, whereas audiences gave it a strong A, so that shows apparently my opinion was not even as strong as the average moviegoer. Then again, anything "A" to me means "four stars," so I rarely hand out A's...
Go see RH2, it's the funniest movie in a long time -- definitely funnier than Scary Movie 2 or Evolution, both good films, but not that funny next to this.
I don't buy this whole "they see lots of movies every year therefore they are cynical" stuff. I see as many movies per year as any critic I bet, though I admit many of them are on video and DVD, not in theaters. Even so, I'm at the theater 75 times per year, so come on, that's a BS excuse. I see all of the "crap" that they see, only most of it isn't crap to me, it's enjoyable entertainment, if not downright awesome work.
So back to RH2.
The film got a very strong A grade from CinemaScore, rather remarkable if I may say so myself. This movie will have staying power a bit better than past films this summer, at least, and there isn't enough competition to knock it down 55% in its second weekend, no way. 45%, sure, maybe, but it could only drop 40% or so, good for the summer I guess.
"A film without any surprises or new ideas."
Ok how is this even REMOTELY relevant to an action comedy film? Is this critic smoking weed or just extremely stupid? NO NEW IDEAS?! What is that supposed to mean? Technically, no idea is new because it's all been done before in some respect, and surprises? What do you want a freakin' plot twist at the end of a comedy film? Get real! Go watch The Game, Fight Club, Planet of the Apes, or something like that, stay away from a great, entertaining movie like Rush Hour 2.
Here's one I agree with "...just not as funny as the original." Correct. It was MUCH funnier than the original, so this reviewer is right.
"How can a movie allow [Tucker] to be so obnoxious and make no acknowledgement that his behavoir is aberrant?"
Oooo!!!! You used a big, new word there, "aberrant," I'm glad that dictionary your mommy bought you was useful, Ebert. Now just work on your awful writing style and terrible grammar and maybe you'll be alright. You fat retard.
"Watching it is a soul-numbing experience, but that probably won't keep it from being a big hit."
Does that make you jealous? You got that little degree that says "Film Production Major," but you ended up being a lousy film critic making $40,000 a year from making fun of work you never could do? Come on buddy, it's going to be a big hit because you're the only one on the planet, besides the other critics, who didn't like the film.
"Comes off as a lot more cynical than comic ..."
Cynical? Do you even know what that word MEANS?! You just used it wrong, so look it up. Ebert has a dictionary, borrow his! Moron.
"Delivers its share of laughs, but offers nothing you haven't already seen."
Well I've seen reviews just like yours ten thousand times, and I'm a bit tired of seeing them too, but does that mean you shouldn't write them anymore? The movie was funny, and that is enough, certainly more than can be said of your idiotic review.
"Primarily appeals to those who don't tire of ethnic jokes and to Chanatics, as we Jackie diehards style ourselves."
You count yourself a Chan fan? Clearly not, or you would have liked one of his funniest movies. What is this "we" nonsense anyway? I guess nobody tires of ethnic jokes since everyone who sees it has liked it.
Ugg, my good buddy Mr. Turan, I cannot be too harsh here given that I have his home address and personal e-mail, haha, but "Lacking in spontaneity and freshness"? Well, movies, professional ones that is, are not spontaneous most of the time, they actually have scripts...
"Nobody expects this to be, say, The French Connection, but it should make a little more sense."
Ok, cool, you've seen some movie called The French Connection, which honestly I've never heard of, nor have my two friends (spending the night tonight), and now you're comparing it to a major blockbuster. You are so cool and so smart for having seen a movie like that. I wish I could grow up and make so little per year writing frickin' movie reviews. Gawd.
Part of a "good" review, "It often feels like the fifth or sixth rather than the second in a franchise."
Explain that to me please. I don't get it. How can it feel like the fifth or sixth? That line makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. What are you trying to say here?! What is this guy saying? Honestly. It feels like the sixth movie? Why, you saw the first one 5 times? I did too man, it was a good movie, but this is Rush Hour TWO! I'm just perplexed by that comment, because it is just as moronic as many of the other ones I've read.
Critics are really funny. If the critical consensus does not match the audience consensus, something is wrong with the critics because there are way too many audience members to say that millions of people are wrong, and a few hundred critics are right.
Do they know more about the film industry? Probably so, well damn I'd hope so because they should, but I'm extremely knowledgeable myself, and not every moviegoer is an idiot (the cynical attitude about the world), so they cannot all be wrong.
"A" grade means Rush Hour 2 rocked, no matter what critics said, so objectively speaking, since you can objectivity opinions (as CinemaScore and Variety do, among other polls), the critics were wrong! From my perspective, critics are not there to tell me JUST what they thought of the film, critics exist to give reviews that guide moviegoers. If those reviews are never accurate for most people, the critics need to be fired. They're not doing their job. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if a critic cannot tell moviegoers what is good, meaning they do not have the pulse of the public, than they should lose their jobs because the ONLY reason such a useless job even exists is to help the less frequent moviegoer find the best films.
If I'm sitting here now trying to figure out what movie to see, I'm going to be screwed over because the critics have told me that Rush Hour 2 is not that good, they've told me Planet of the Apes is awful trash, JP3 is moronic and stupid, AI is a lousy film with a bad ending and it drags too long, and Tomb Raider is just a stupid, silly film with no plot and lousy dialogue. What should I see?! Apparently nothing, because those films all suck. Now, in my book, every one of those films was three to four stars (POTA and AI being the four star films), so the critics misled me. I'm apparently not in the minority given that most people seemed to like the films, at least. JP3 got a B-, whereas I'd give it a B. Rush Hour 2, to me, is a B+ film, whereas audiences gave it a strong A, so that shows apparently my opinion was not even as strong as the average moviegoer. Then again, anything "A" to me means "four stars," so I rarely hand out A's...
Go see RH2, it's the funniest movie in a long time -- definitely funnier than Scary Movie 2 or Evolution, both good films, but not that funny next to this.