Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Everything on MovieWeb will suck

2013 was the year when I started dreading liking and disliking movies. Inevitably, the response to my opinion is, "How could you like (or not like) that?" This is said with astonishment, disbelief, shock and sometimes a little bit of anger. So now my dread extends to seeing movies. I literally don't want to see certain movies, for fear that I'll like them. Because if you hate something, you don't get challenged. Fun, right? Soon, I'm going to do a post about movies I love that I usually don't admit to loving. And if people want to ridicule it, I'd like to see THEIR lists.

It's time for the Worst Of lists, which is just an excuse to haul out whatever dead horse these people have been beating all year and give it one more good whack. Worst Of lists are so fun! For some reason that I haven't figured out yet. If you have compiled a Worst Of list on your media blog, you are an asshole and you are a large part of the problem. I also hope that none of you have any dreams of working in the entertainment industry. While not everyone will hold you accountable for your words, there are people who will. And your goodwill only extends so far.

Here's a thought experiment. Think about something that you just adore. Something you'd defend to the death. Something that speaks to you personally, or just makes you happy. Now think about anything you've said online (it's almost always online, behind that screen) about something you hate. That's something that someone else loves. Use those same words and apply them to your chosen favorite thing. It sucks, right? I know we all have this sudden sense of entitlement and when something isn't in our wheelhouse, we feel betrayed. Speaking of betrayal, by the way, io9 is SO WORRIED that the pilot Alfonso Cuaron directed, Believe, is going to "let them down." This brutal sense of entitlement is a problem. Everything isn't for everyone. If something isn't for me, I'm not disappointed by it, see? If people could at least start realizing that, maybe some of the fury would die down. 

Anyway, luckily for this blog, some people were dumb on the Internet. Here's a Vanity Fair article (remember when Vanity Fair used to be good?) about how 2013 might be the best year for movies since 1939. And 1939 was a bang-up year for movies, to be sure. Quantifiably the best? No, because you can't quantify something like that. Anyway, there's nothing wrong with an article like this, but if the person writing it hasn't actually SEEN the movies, then there's a bit of a problem:

I haven’t seen any of the following year-end releases but have heard or read excellent accounts from people who have: 12 Years a Slave, Dallas Buyers Club, The Fifth Estate, Philomena, Saving Mr. Banks, All Is Lost, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, and August: Osage County. As far as I know, Martin Scorsese’s The Wolf of Wall Street and David O. Russell’s American Hustle are still under wraps, but judging from the trailer, The Wolf of Wall Street will, at worst, be fun and jazzy in the coked-up way of the last third of GoodFellas. American Hustle re-teams Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence, and just yesterday I saw a still from the picture that showed Cooper wearing pink hair rollers, so you have to have high hopes.

Kind of speaks for itself, doesn't it? Odd that it's in Vanity Fair, especially since this is the kind of shit media blogs have been doing since they began: Judging movies based on pictures or hearsay or the psychic ability to see into the future. Being stupid in a positive sense is just as dumb as being stupid in a negative sense. Although if given a choice, I guess I'd take this dimwitted, amateurish article over this MovieWeb list, which is already gleefully shitting on next year's movies. Also, for your reading pleasure, they incorporate into the article snarky crap from their readership. The height of laziness, folks! Articles constructed from YOUR COMMENTS! So basically, it's a scrum of indignant jerks already not being entertained by something they WILL pay for several times so they can rip it a new asshole.

Beyond the obvious problems, they play fast and loose with their premise. When it suits them, the movie in question will bomb at the box office for Reasons. But other times, the movie will just suck. It's irritatingly capricious, but what do you expect from people like this?

What about a post picking movies you're excited about? Oh, I know, that won't get you many hits. And all you care about is blog traffic. Bashing things before you see them accomplishes only one thing: Creating a snark echo chamber, a morass of negativity that frankly, we don't need anymore. Enough. So to combat your bullshit, here's a few movies I'm looking forward to seeing:

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit -- MovieWeb moans that it's for old people, because of course EVERY MOVIE should be made for people like them, people who already hate movies that they haven't seen. I say well then, I must be old because I love me some Jack Ryan. I don't care who plays him. I've seen them all. MovieWeb also said Kenneth Branagh was a liability and I said uh, what? KENNETH BRANAGH is a liability? Somehow, for some reason, he was the disaster behind Thor. Thor was a disaster? In which universe? Do people really think this? If you guys thought Thor was a disaster, then no wonder this movie doesn't excite you. But look. Not every movie is FOR you. The majority of the movies on your "list" target a specific audience. You don't know what the studio expects. You don't know the marketing budget. You don't know ANYTHING. Also, saying that a movie looks "totally gay" makes you even more of an asshole.

The Monuments Men - holy shit, gentle readers, George Clooney made a movie about the men who tried to save masterpieces during WWII. The cast is unreal, and in the trailer, GEORGE EFFING CLOONEY is standing next to the Ghent Altarpiece, a sight so beautiful that I may die, and proof that George made the movie for me.

Non-Stop -- Liam Neeson is an Air Marshal in a film from the director of Taken. That should be all any of us require.

The Grand Budapest Hotel -- Wes Anderson. A color palette that is positively orgasmic. A weird, funny Ralph Fiennes. Bellboys. Can't wait.

Noah -- I'm not much for Biblical epics but Darren Aronofsky doing one? Yes please.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier -- oh, fuck off. I am capable of seeing superhero movies without my brain melting into goo. Calm down, hysterical people who are trying to save us all by feeding us shakes made out of pages from Ulysses.

Dom Hemingway -- Written and directed by Richard Shepard, who made The Matador, which is one of my favorite buddy movies ever. The buddies in this film are Jude Law and Richard E. Grant. 

Transcendence -- the directorial debut of cinematographer Wally Pfister, it's a science fiction movie about the singularity and transhumanism. I mean, that's pretty much all I need to know. Interesting that these dorks didn't mention this movie, since they went all "NOBODY CAN MAKE ORIGINAL SCIENCE FICTION MOVIES THAT PEOPLE SEE" over every other movie.

X-Men: Days of Future Past -- yeah. Bite me, haters.

Tammy -- Melissa McCarthy and Susan Sarandon take a road trip. TWO LADIES ARE IN A MOVIE!

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes -- because I loved the first one.

Jupiter Ascending -- the latest from the Wachowskis, who are unabashedly great at making giant scope science fiction films. MovieWeb said some nonsense about how the Wachowskis failed with Speed Racer and Cloud Atlas. Apparently my definition of failure is the polar opposite. I'm not a studio head. I don't have to give a shit about how much a movie made, and whether or not a whole bunch of asshole critics decided to sink a film. All I have to care about is quality. If you're just a moviegoer and you think a film is bad because it didn't make enough money, then you have a mean, sad little heart and your purgatory is to never ever love anything. Both Speed Racer and Cloud Atlas were artistic triumphs from two filmmakers who blessedly get to keep making these movies. The fact that they keep making these gigantic movies in the midst of such a rude piling-on is a testament to creativity. I find it ironic that so many of these people who claim to love movies and TV spend so much time trying to destroy the creative soul. Luckily, many of the targets aren't paying attention to you. That must really hurt.

Here's a sample:
We'll have to wait and see a trailer before we even begin to pretend this might be any good, but just going in on what we know, this is destined to stink up the joint.

This was before the trailer was released, so "what they knew" when the article was written is the fucking TITLE.

Also:
Terrible cast, terrible writers/directors, and a beyond terrible plot.

It's actually a premise, genius. A plot is that thing you nitpick for two hours.

Guardians of the Galaxy -- and again, fuck you. Here's some more genius:
Also, we have to look at the fact that Thor and Captain America are two of their most well-known and beloved characters. The numbers for those two inaugural releases weren't huge. Some could even call them disappointing.

Some COULD, although some MIGHT want to consider that America is no longer the center of the movie-going universe, and also that studios rarely make sequels to movies that were "disappointing."

Lucy -- Luc Besson making a science fiction film with Scarlett Johansson. Yep!

Interstellar -- the new Christopher Nolan film, but apparently we are all supposed to hate him now? Sorry. Didn't get the memo. Aside from it maybe involving wormholes and alternate universes, nobody knows what it's about. I'm sure that infuriates the fanbase who thinks they deserve to know every single plot point of a film before it starts filming.

Some of you hold director Christopher Nolan in high esteem, mostly because of his Batman movies. He can do no wrong, which only means it's a matter of time before he crashes and burns. Will this be it? His big failure?

Okay, let me see if I've got this straight. Due to the law of averages that you are making up on your website, Christopher Nolan is due for a movie to fail? Actually, that's not how it works. That's why Rosencrantz keeps getting tails. And it's convenient that you don't go back to your previous premise that nobody will go see original movies when talking about the filmmaker behind Inception.

We also feel the secrecy surrounding the project will help do it in.

So you're just pissed off that Nolan didn't give you the script, then. Honey, you don't need to know anything. You really don't. This notion of needing all the information is ruining discourse. It's ruining entertainment. And it's ruining my patience. You can go get spoiled all you want. I know it makes you feel Big and Important, which you apparently crave. But let me have my Mystery Box, or I'll pull a gun out of it and shoot you. Actually, the amount of Mystery Box employed by a filmmaker may be proportional to how much they are loathed by the gimme fans who think they're owed everything, always want some kind of story twist, and then get pissed off because they think everything is a trick.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay -- the first part of the last book. The movie can't be as internal and Katniss can't be as passive as she is in the book. Interested to see how this one works.

McFarland -- no way I'm not seeing this. First, it's a Disney sports movie. Second, it's set in the 80s. And third, IT'S SET IN GODDAM MCFARLAND, which is near where I grew up. 

Unbroken -- Angelina Jolie directing a Coen Brothers script starring Jack O'Connell? All the way, bitches.

What they said about Maleficent:
But Disney has a pretty spotty track record as of late, and Jesus Christ was Alice In Wonderland hard to sit through. What a bore.

Disney wouldn't make the movie if they thought that. Also, they're making an Alice sequel. And there's precedent for what Disney thinks is a disaster. One reason John Carter had the Mars taken away was because Mars Needs Moms didn't make money, and Disney decided that women wouldn't go see a movie with Mars in the title. But go ahead and ignore how that sank a terrific film. There's no story in THAT. Just keep bitching ludicrously.

Suck it, MovieWeb. You don't love movies. You hate them.

1 comment:

Albert Muller said...

I like to think I'm a pretty easygoing guy, but the shit you quoted from those douchebags makes me want to punch somebody in the fucking neck.
(exhale)
I don't understand the world of fandom. Like, AT ALL. When did everybody decide this is how this is supposed to work? When did the single greatest thing about pop culture become HATING it?
I love this stuff.
LOVE IT.
I don't ask for much. A good story. Or amazing mind-blowing spectacle, sometimes. I'll never complain about something that moves me, either. If I get a mix of all of that I'm ecstatic. Mostly I want an hour and a half that's more entertaining than listening to someone tell me all about how they hate shit.
We don't hear enough conversations start with "I love," and not just in pop culture either. Yet assholes will spend HOURS ranting about what pissed them off or metaphorically raped their eyeballs last night.
Know what I do if I'm pretty sure I'm not gonna like something? I DON'T GODDAMN WATCH IT. LIFE IS TOO SHORT.
Plus there's probably 50 channels showing something I WOULD like. So I watch that. Hating shit is exhausting.
I know, because I hate this and I'm fucking tired of it.
Try to be happy, assholes. Find some joy, if you're still capable of it. Jesus.
I'm sorry to rant, but MAN.
(exhaling again)
I remember, and will never ever forget, my dad taking me to see Raiders when I was six. Those 2 hours changed my life and I've been chasing that ever since. It's what made me want to tell stories.
And thinking that if that movie was released today...the things people would more than likely say just because? Ugh. Sickening.
Anyway, as usual...you = awesome. Please keep telling it like it is, and know that you're not the only one. Even if it sometimes feels like it.