Ranting again

I will never understand why movies are measured on an upward scale, with low-brow humor being at the bottom, and “Shakespeare” drama being at the top. As if “aiming” for anything other than Oscar-winning drama is somehow aiming lower.

Case in point, Dolph Lundgren posted this review for The Expendables 2 on his Facebook today:

"The Expendables 2 is far from a perfect film, but it at least has the benefit of knowing what it wants to be, aiming absolutely no higher than being a good old boy romp through various places with all sorts of nifty, mayhem wreaking toys. This Blu-ray looks and sound great and comes with some good supplements. Recommended."
- Jeffrey Kauffman, BLU-RAY.COM

Ok, that sounds like a good review, I suppose. It praises the movie, generally, and points out some good strengths. Fair enough. But why start with “…is far from a perfect film”? What the fuck is a perfect film? I can point out plot holes, bad acting and weaknesses in just about any film, so IMHO there is no such thing. And what about that little “aiming absolutely no higher than being a good old boy romp…” part? What a back-handed compliment. What a condescending pat on the head. As if to say “Yes, you’re a fun little movie, but you’re not real art.”

The problem is that film critics (both formally trained and couch commando types) measure films on a single scale. Invariably, this scale will measure acting ability and artistic relevance, but only in the context of genre. If a movie is a drama, the performances are given more weight. Conversely, in an action movie, the performances are automatically assumed to be lesser. Because if they were really acting, they’d be in a drama, right?

Oh, and of course, if the movie features some kind of melodramatic love-story it gets extra points. And bonus kudos if the male lead sheds tears. Because that is ACTING! That’s high art. That’s class and sophistication. Oh, those explosions and well-choreographed fight scenes and violent death scenes are just…fun. But they’re not real art.

Here’s an idea - why don’t we judge movies based on how well they represent their genre? For instance, if an action movie has a hero that is believable, fight scenes that are exciting and well-choreographed, and a narrative pace that keeps the audience on the edge of their seat, let’s just call that a good movie and be done. No need for qualifiers, no need to place it in the context of it being “only an action movie.” And the same standards can be adapted to other genres. Did that comedy make you laugh? Was the plot logical, the characters relatable? Yes? Oh, then it’s a good movie. Period.

Nothing grates my nerves more than to hear someone give me a laundry list of things they like about a movie, and then finish up with “But I wouldn’t call it a good movie.” Why not, you pretentious prick? Get over yourself. You’re probably not nearly as sophisticated or as smart as you think you are, asshole.

Yeah, I get a little irate about this kind of stuff. Sue me.

Your mom is derivative!

This whole thing started when we watched Real Steel last weekend.  This was a movie that I had wanted to catch in the theaters, but was unable to.  So, we watched it on Blu-Ray, and I was not disappointed.  Suffice it to say, this movie is AWESOME!  I am a sucker for boxing movies, and this one delivers.  Starring one of my man-crushes, Hugh Jackman, it has a familiar, yet timeless story, excellent performances, and FREAKING BOXING ROBOTS!!  If you don't think that concept alone is cool, what are you doing in my country, you pinko commie slime!?!

All that being said, after watching the movie, my wife and I were talking about the similarities to Rocky, and I wondered aloud what Stallone thought of it.  If I were Sly, I'd be flattered.  After all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.  However, in the world of film critics (both professional and armchair), they prefer the word "derivative"; it's not meant as a compliment.

I see this word thrown around a lot when it comes to works of fiction.  And usually it's written with an uppity sneer, as if taking elements form someone else's story, and making them your own is some kind of cheap shot that somehow lessens the original work.

Excrement.

I have a reproduction of this
poster hanging in my house

Personally, I prefer the term "homage" when talking about these kinds of things.  Rocky will always be a classic.  Nothing could ever take away the brilliance of that film.  Not even a shot-for-shot remake (which, thankfully, Stallone would never let happen).  So, the fact that Real Steel borrows many elements from it (and from Sly's critical stinker, Over the Top), speaks more on how much of an iconic film Rocky is, and how Real Steel was made, at least in part, for fans of Rocky.

But the oddest thing I noticed about ALL of these reviews who use the word "derivative" with all of its negative connotations, is that they still give the film a thumbs up/four stars/etc.  They readily admit that it's a very fun, entertaining, and heart-warming film.  They all applaud the great performances, the superior special effects, and the "humanity" in the robots.  For all intents and purposes, it's (almost) universally seen as a great film.  Except, it's derivative.

You people need to get over yourselves.  A good film is a good film.  Watch it and enjoy it for what it is.  And keep your high-brow criticisms to yourselves.