Land of Oz

Critics

Have you ever wondered why critics even exist? My thinking is that they are wannabees who lack the talent for original creation. They need to build off of someone else's work. And it's not just the titled critics I'm talking about.

There's one I know. He spends an inordinate amount of time looking over other people's work and then composes massive badly-spelled feedbacks full of atrocious grammar and nonexistent logic. You know the kind, it goes something like this: On page 5 you said theirs a red bird, but on paige seven you say it's a maroon berd which is correct."

>I've edited some stuff out of here, since someone at work may read it and tattle on me.<

Which brings me, somehow, to movie critics. Can these folks be any further removed from the rest of us? Maybe it's just me, but I've found for the most part, that if I take the complete opposite of a "big-name" movie critic's advice, it'll probably be much more correct. Do these people ever watch a movie just for fun? Do they have to find some deep and emotional meaning in every second of screen time? Do they ever think that some of us watch movies to escape all the deep emotional crap and just want to be inundate with mindless buffoonery or gratuitous violence and sex? This especially drives me crazy when they pick at the science of a science-fiction movie - duh - science-fiction. It's not supposed to be real.

2fers: Rotten Tomatoes and Roger Ebert