Perhaps you're looking at the movie differently than the filmmaker intended?
In other words, I'm doing my job then by viewing it from other angles.
Simply put, it's not realistic to presume that a film made for one single demographic will only ever be seen by that demographic. Anyone who presumes otherwise does not understand this simple fact.
The point of the film is not about whether you can see where the cuts/edits are, it's more about why they choose to shoot in that style.
Think about the people who post pictures of what they eat online. Look at the people who make it a point to show off their most artistic food in the most artistic method possible. Do they actually talk about how it tasted, if they felt full afterwords, or if it fouled their stomach? Or do they just leave it at the pictures.
That's what's happening with a lot of these films nowadays.
For example, the "Jem & The Holograms" movie may have had all sorts of glitz and glamour, but it was
less progressive than the original 1980s cartoon. (1) They basically took the generic teen musical movie formula and slapped an existing brand on it without understanding what made that brand such a hit in the first place.
Or the "A Wrinkle In Time" film may have been a visual feast with the computer effects used, but it's a soulless adaptation of the source material that completely disregards the philosophical points the material was trying to make.
This is in contrast to, say, films like "Upgrade" (a bloody but well-written who-dunnit with a legit shocking twist and some very pertinent questions about technology) or "No Escape" (a worthy successor to the original "Assault On Precinct 13" in terms of selling everyday people thrust into horrific circumstances) that delivered the goods but were critically lambasted for one thing or another.
Quite jarring, actually.
It's enough to take a person out of the film during the transition bits.
Nonetheless, if you're going to bill yourself as entertainment writer/film critic, you can't exclude films simply because you haven't seen them.
Did you really just tell me that I need to be talking up films I've never actually seen? Because that's how it's coming across.
The films critics I read and watch still talk about films they haven't seen, of course not rating the films, but they are at least aware of the films that have been released, what circuits they've been shown in (i.e., wide release, limited release, film festivals, etc.), as well as awards they have won, and why any such films are receiving any buzz.
Yes, you did.
By that same logic, I could easily go on about movies that were pivotal, influential, or otherwise worth discussing in regards to such-and-such area of film-making, deliberately pick films a lot of folks - including you - likely never heard of if they haven't been following a particular niche or genre, and then level the same accusation of unprofessional behavior if no one knows what I'm talking about.
Consider, for example, the film "Robot Carnival", a 1989 science fiction anthology movie:
Robot Carnival - Wikipedia . This film played a pivotal role in making anime
globally popular, but here in the United States it's been largely forgotten about because the license was left in legal limbo after importer Streamline Pictures suddenly went bust; it was 20 years before Discotek did a proper license rescue and began releasing it again. Even though it's arguably a niche film, I could - following your logic - turn around and accuse anyone who had no knowledge of the film of being unprofessional.
Or you've got "Heavy Metal Parking Lot", a 1986 documentary short feature:
Heavy Metal Parking Lot - Wikipedia . The film was a major influence on the underground and indie documentary scenes, and reportedly influenced bands such as Nirvana. It also served to demonstrate the power of the "keep the tapes circulating!" mindset among fans of cult classic material, as the film
was not legally available for most of the first decade of its existence due to rights issues.
I have two different versions of the former in my collection (a circa 2004 Southeast Asian bootleg that was being sold in the US via Canada, and the first Discotek DVD release), and the latter is readily available online. Should I feel superior to other critics for having seen them?
When your entertainment writing only revolves around what you personally like,
All critics are influenced in some way, shape, or form by their own tastes. I've literally seen critics pass or fail films on the sole basis of whether or not the work under review agrees with their socio-political views.
And no, I don't pick and choose movies to review solely based on personal interest. For new movie reviews, I've gone in to see films simply because they were the only new release of the week or because someone really wanted me to go see the film with them even if I wasn't keen on it. For my "retro" reviews of older movies, a *lot* of what I have in queue is there simply because I could get my hands on it cheaply, including things I got from $1 bins.
(1) In the original cartoon:
*It was an
adult Jerrica who was vying for control of Starlight, not her boyfriend.
*Rio was Rio Pacheco, one of the few non-stereotypical Hispanic characters on television at the time.
*Pursuant to the above, the relationship between Rio and Jerrica was one of the first inter-racial relationships depicted on American children's television, coming only a year or so after "Robotech" gave us Roy Fokker (Caucasian of German descent) and Claudia Grant (either African-American or actually from Africa depending upon which source you go by) and the "G. I. Joe" cartoon gave us Quick-Kick (Chinese-American) and Amber (Caucasian).
*Sunbow being Sunbow, they frequently used the series as a platform to talk about social issues and then-current world issues with their famously deft hand, breaking things down so that kids could understand without being preachy.
The movie paved that over completely.
