F(ile) U(nder): Borelord of Mars

DVD Talk has added a feature where we can now see Facebook comments people make when they link to our reviews. This, of course, just opens up more avenues for hilarity. It's amazing how many people link to a negative review so they can comment, "I can't wait to see this!" I'll also 'fess up to hitting "like" on really harsh comments left in connection to my work out of some sick hope that the person who made the comment will be totally confused by my response. 

This recent thread on my John Carter review was perplexing, irritating, and amusing in so many ways. The ironic thing about the accusations of "bandwagon jumping" that critics in general are receiving for the film is that the backlash against us is its own bandwagon. Plus, most of the reviewers I know, even when negative, were fair; and there were also plenty who came to John Carter's defense.

You can read my piece again and judge for yourself, but here is what one respondent had to say [I will not use his name here, and ask if you see his comments on the review, avoid engaging with him in a negative manner, please]:

What a snarky, condescending review. I think this reviewer (Jamie S. Rich) went into this with prejudice. My friend and I enjoyed this movie a lot; the acting was good and the pace was fine. My eight-year-old nephew told me he loved it! A movie can't be boring if it keeps the attention of a kid. I think JC became the unfortunate victim of a critics' bandwagon hate-fest. Critics love to snear and turn their noses up at just about anything that doesn't star Meryl Streep (one of the few A-list stars deserving of their endless fawning), especially when it comes to science-fiction. Ignore this review.

I am not sure what my prejudice was, but the defense that an elementary-aged child wasn't bored isn't much of one. My nephew is a little older than this guy's, but he likes some truly terrible movies. (Chipmunks, anyone?) I had awful taste when I was eight.

Also, I think my fawning over Meryl Streep, if it ever began, ended when I declined to see her last three films: The Iron Lady, It's Complicated, and Julie & Julia. If there's one thing I've noticed, people who get mad about a particular review rarely have any history with me as a writer. They tend to take the one review that irked them and use it to create generalities about my opinions as a whole. I rarely agree with any one writer all the time, but I tend to trust the ones I agree with--or even disagree with--over an extended reading relationship, not ones I read once.

Anyway, one of Respondent #1's friends actually had something to say in reply:

I don't know [redacted]. I was kind of disappointed with the movie. It looked so good and we were really waiting for it to come out, but when we were watching it we couldn't wait for it to be over. Lol The previews really over hyped the movie. Made it look way better than it was.

A pretty fair disagreement. But Respondent #1 was undaunted! Well...kind of.

It's definitely not going to be a classic, but it had a tight story. I was reading a review on a British website saying the movie made no sense at all, which isn't true. Like I said, I think critics are just jumping on the bandwagon because not even one wants to admit they liked the movie and they're simply reveling in their viciousness because their cronies will back them up. Not everyone's cup of tea, but would you agree it's the worst movie you've ever seen? 

They probably wait to see what powerful critic says and then the rest fall in line. For example, I haven't seen The Artist yet, but I got so sick of critics creaming themselves over a silent B&W movie just for the nostalgia of it. I haven't even accidentally heard what the movies supposed to be about! 

What fops.

Yes, indeed.

We also love to fawn over Norm MacDonald. Thusly.

Current Sountrack: Ministry, Relapse