What is the role of the film critic? Personally, I view him/her to be Tenzing Norgay. I want my critic to Sherpa me to the summit, not run ahead of me and point out the reasons why I won’t make it. See, I am on a quest. I want to find and watch the perfect movie. It hasn’t been made and may never be but I have to struggle to reach that pinnacle. There are dozens of reasons to abandon this lunacy but as long as I don’t harm myself or others, let me get frostbite on my extremities.

I like this site for a very good reason: It reviews. I like the role of reviewer rather than film critic. Look back down thru the last 100 years and see what harm the critic plays with film history. Until Hedda Hopper and Louella Parsons arrived, people just went to see movies. Any movie or all movies. Those two shrews really worked for the studios and papers and were more interested in sordid gossip rather than report honestly about a film review. Who gave a crap about Joan Crawford’s inability to stay married? I mean, really. Even if she and Bette Davis decided to brawl on Oscar night, what did it have to do with Baby Jane?

Pauline Kael still haunts my waking hours. I feel that she, along with the likes of Rex Reed ,ruined many a viewing for the populace. To think that a person’s vision for their film could be made or broken on the knee of someone who suggested that their vision was blurry is wrong. It’s a movie, it’s the way the director sees it. Okay, so the director has cataracts. See it anyway. With very few exceptions, any film has something that redeems it. Judge its merits for yourself and that way, when you lemming over the cliff, you are following your own heart and not the ass of another lemming.

Roger Ebert is the only one I read or listen to. He never once has made me feel that I was doing myself a disservice by going to see a film. Even if it was “Speed Racer.” Sure, he calls them stinkers and gives them the thumbs down but you never get the vibe that if you see the film, he will disapprove. I have disagreed with him many times, including “The 13th Warrior”, a film I never tire of watching. But his opinion I respect and our tastes and likes parallel.

Here’s something I learned at the feet of Mr. Ebert: Movies are a metaphor for sex. I don’t mean the films themselves, I mean WATCHING a film. They are like one night stands or girlfriends. There are those that you see just one time and it’s thrill that you never forget. When it’s over, there’s glow that you feel, you are euphoric and wish it would have lasted longer or that you could see it again right away. There are the ones that are so unsatisfying, the Coyote Date films where you’d just as soon chew off an appendage and slink away into the night. Like an ugly girl you dated, you hope it will never again cross your mind or stray into your path. Last are the ongoing affairs you have. The films that you see again and again, sometime right after another. At times, it turns into an orgy, one viewing after another. Heck, I’ve looped “The Big Lebowski” for days on end, just reveling in love I have for the Dude.

The role I want for a critic is to say “This is the film. This is what I saw. This is what I didn’t like or did like.” Nothing more than that. If I had a refund for every time I let myself get suckered into a “Zatoichi” experience and groaned and threw popcorn, I’d build my own movie house. But I saw it and I went because I researched the film and knew what to expect. Yet what about my experience with a movie like “Uncle Buck?” I did not like this movie the first time. In fact, I did chew off a toe just to take my mind off of what I was watching. But it is now one of those films that, the more I watch it, the more I like it and even recommended to friends. If I had gone along with the reviews at the time, I’d have missed seeing John Candy at his best.

Film critics do provide a service. They help glean some of the marl out of the water and I am all for that. But I want it should come down to me saying “seven come 11!” and taking my chances rather than being hogtied to the hood of Pontiac and driven to my living room by Fascists.

I don’t really think that film critics are like that, I just wanted to use the word “fascists”.

As an aside, I know I use a lot of sarcasm and try to be funny. That is my intention, Evan, to be funny. I know opinions can cause tempers to flare and debates run hot as a result. But this is friendly board and there are lots of jibes thrown around in the name of fun. So, while I was kidding with Luke’s review, I meant no offense. If it might have seemed as such, I apologies. He writes very well and is most fair.

I have been known to go too far. Please don’t hesitate to publicly smack me on the head with any handy object to bring me back in line. This is a great place to vent and I hope to hang around for awhile.

I’m curious, Maurice. Given the above comment, especially in the context of Luke’s review, what is your opinion on the role of a film critic? I’m sure Luke will have further thoughts, although he’s just switched jobs and is no longer in front a computer all day (as he used to be), so he probably won’t stop by till this evening.

Regardless, entertaining as always, Mr. M.

I want to go after Luke for a second because he, apparently, dosen’t feel it necessary to read my stuff. Oh sure, I have slogged thru countless reviews he has done and laughed along with the audience at his crude attempts at slapstick up there on the stage. But we all know that it was that same, uncomfotable laugh we do in church when the pastor tells some joke he heard that morning in the 3rd grade Sunday School room. Nobody thinks it’s funny, we just wanted to be polite so that God didn’t rain down fire on our way home from the service. I say all of that with tongue firmly planted into my cheek. God won’t rain down anything but rain.

That said, Luke’s slapstick is lousy.

First, I appreciate Luke attempting to glean at least a couple of nuggets of worth out of this astoudingly lousy film. It’s not a loser on scale with “The Love Guru” or “Semi-Pro” but it is a clunker. So, kudos for trying to make this pig ear into at least a rayon purse, but it is a wasted effort. It’s not fun. It’s not even a loveable clunker.

My Dad had a loveable clunker, a 1969 Chevy and we loved that truck. We would pile cheerfully into it, wondering if it would start or if we would have to get out an push start it. I liked to push start the best because when Dad popped the clutch, the truck would lurch and stagger and belch out a cloud of smoke as it started. Then we would all run to catch up to the beast and leap into the front seat or into the bed. Which was cool cause you’d shoulder roll into the back like we all saw Chis George do on an episode of “Rat Patrol.”

The problem with the Zohan is that it’s not a truck we pushed, it’s a plance. It’s munitions plane that is filled with C-4, TNT and pipe bombs and the fuel tanks are full. So, instead of a funny cloud of smoke, the thing blew up. And Adam Sandler is gonna blow up as well if he doesn’t stop letting Rob Schnider book his films.

There are few actors who’s films are so up and down than this guy. Here are some ups:

Punch Drunk Love
50 First Dates
The Wedding Singer
Spanglish

Here are some downs:

Little Nicky
The Water Boy
Happy Gilmore (apparently, Bob Barker is the real star in this piece of nonsense.)

Like a yoyo, baby. Just like a yoyo. Whooa. Sorry. I channeled the Osmond Brothers there for a sec.

Back to Luke. He is not the movie police. Nor is he the Adam Sandler Police. He’s not even the Church Police. It’s not his responsibility to me or others to ensure that we only see quality films. He’s just a reviewer on a site for movies and he tries to do us all service by posting a review. While I am want to smack his head with a Zohan DVD case and then rub his nose in it like I would a puppy that whizzed onto the carpet, I will refrain and instead, thank him for being as honest as possible and trying to do what is right.

Still, if he read my posts, he could have saved us all a lot of aggrevation.

Keep it up Luke. Never give up. Never surrender.

Whew, that was a load off my mind…

For me, there were only scene in which I had a genuine laugh was when the Prickly Palestinian (Rob Schneider) was trying to dial the Phantom’s phone number.

ANYWAY, yeah, Zohan was weak, save for some decent cameos. Your last paragraph says it all.

I kinda liked that movie…it’s not Sandler’s best, but it definitely has the best alterna-pop soundtrack ever.

(Been years since I last saw it, though.)

But. Most of his films have been awful. I like him, but I can miss this one. The trailer scared me off.