It's no secret that 90% of action movies suck (or they're clearly below average). However, when trying to review and grade an action film, the first things people begin discussing are the special effects, sound effects, and believability and excitement from the various action scenes.
I hate this.
I also often find myself giving action movies a "pass" when it comes to reviewing them because of the above criteria, as if these films and these criteria affect my objective judgment in different ways than other films, and thus the focus of my review or my initial feelings and reactions to said films is just naturally different.
This is b.s. pure and simple. I am not a worthwhile human being if I allow my judgments about things I see/hear/absorb to shift. Obviously there is no perfect objective measurement for "art" like cinema, but everyone has their own standards and beliefs, and I would be remiss to ever compromise those standards by subjectively saying a piece of crap film is actually "okay" because it was an action film and I shouldn't have expected so much from it. Movie critics of the world, STAND YOUR GROUND and call crap out for what it truly is.
*This post inspired by:
-Roger Ebert's summary of "G.I. Joe" - "It is sure to be enjoyed by those whose movie appreciation is defined by the ability to discern that moving pictures and sound are being employed to depict violence."
-A.O. Scott's editorial in the NY Times about the dumbing down of American cinema
1 comment:
I agree to an extent. But on the other hand, switch genres and you'll see that different standards simply MUST be taken into account in some instances. For example, if a drama movie had the same "quality" (cinematography, acting, etc.) as even a GOOD comedy typically has, I would consider it something of a failure.
But, you are indeed correct that action movies should not be held to a lower quality standard.
Post a Comment