it's not uncommon for me to find myself at odds with 'the film critics' at large -- that questionably-credentialed clan of cultural tastemakers who determine for -- let's face it -- a lot of us, whether or not we will see a movie.  and considering how many awful movies they have rallied around -- and how many fine movies they have panned -- it might seem strange for me to use 'speed racer' as a platform to finally put them in their collective and respective place.  but i saw 'speed racer' tonight.  i saw it on imax.  and it was great!  but instead of leaving the theater feeling elated -- as i had every right to do -- i left feeling genuinely pissed at the body whose negative reviews were the reason this fine flick made less money last weekend than the stinking stack of celluloid shite that is 'what happened in vegas'.  (though warner brothers' decision to market it as a family film, and then release it while the kids are still in school, could not have helped.  idiots.)

but back to 'the critics'.  'the critics' said 'speed racer' had no story.  'the critics' said the visuals were distracting.  'the critics' said that the racing sequences were uninspired.  'the critics' said it was predictable and flat and empty.  and for the most part, their stunning wrongesse is totally inexcusable.  but let me quickly note: i'm aware of the irony in my use of the possessive pronoun 'their' instead of 'our' in that last sentence -- and in my use of the word 'irony' instead of 'hypocrisy'.  i wouldn't appear to be in a position to objectively badmouth critics.  and maybe i'm not.  so instead, i'm going to make an effort to defend them.  albeit backhandedly.

i think i know why 'they' didn't like it.  it was, quite simply, beyond them.  or above them, or beneath them, or past them, or whatever.  they didn't get it.  for the old critics, it was too fast, too bright, too cool, too shiny, too constructed, maybe even too fake.  and while i would have paid real money to see leonard maltin popping his anti-epilepsy/geritol cocktails as he stumbled out of the theater, i guess i can't blame him for not appreciating it.  i suppose anything that has more colors and spins faster than the Wheel Of Fortune is probably going to be problematic.  and 'speed racer' was fast.  it was fast and colorful and bright and yes, potentially seizure-inducing.  but it was also obscenely creative and undeniably original.  but in fairness, not even creativity and originality can save a movie if it gives old lenny a headache.  so i suppose i can see how our more 'established' critics could have struggled with it.

but what about the young critics?  what about your onions and your slates and your village voices?  well, let's just say the critics who seek to appeal to gen's x thru z aren't gonna win any street cred by endorsing a film that shows the strength of a successful traditional family and throws around morals like 'cheaters never prosper'.  no, we young hipsters are only interested in alternative lifestyles and morally ambiguous anti-heroes that manage to simultaneously stand for something and nothing at all.  but before i officially endorse ron paul as my choice for president, let me clarify.  i love movies that challenge the norm and seek for truth in grey areas.  i am one of those critics.  but i also believe in balance.  and quite frankly, we just don't get big hollywood movies anymore with strong traditional families supporting each other through tough times.  i understand that may be because there aren't that many strong traditional families anymore and the studios don''t want to alienate people.  but while i expect the studios to cater to their audiences, i really wish the critics wouldn't.

so what to do?  well, with regards to the big picture, i think people should take critical reviews with a grain of salt.  (we're not even gonna start on what a problem i have with RottenTomatoes.com.  i mean, the only thing worse than a moron reducing the work of hundreds of artists over many years down to a single paragraph, is reducing it down to just 'good' or 'bad'.  it's condescending, gimmicky, ignorant, and does a colossal disservice to moviegoers.  that's right, ebert and roeper.  condescending and gimmicky.)  anyways, like i was saying, grain of salt.  and that goes for me too.  sometimes our opinions are spot on.  sometimes they are way off.  but our opinions will always be our opinions.  they will never be your opinion.  so read what they/we have to say.  but don't let that be end of your research.  and what to do about 'speed racer'?  well, why don't you go see it?  don't get me wrong.  it's not a perfect movie.  it's not gonna sweep the oscars next year.  but it's big, it's bright, it's campy, it's got a great message, and it also happens to be a lot of fun.  and isn't that why we go to the movies in the first place? -d

('speed' is rated PG for actiony stuff and some mild swears.)

Comments

[Teej]

It's true you really was pissed off, it kind of surprised me. The movie WAS GREAT! So much fun. It has left me wondering, what can the average viewer do to proclaim the brilliance of a movie?!

[Franzeska]

What can the average viewer do? The average viewer can drag all of their friends and relations to see Speed Racer in the theater. Money talks.

[the great and powerful]

i love you, i love you............that's all..............oh, and GO SPEED RACER,GO!