Scott's Pet Peeve #5847
Amy Austin | January 17, 2005
Present company excluded, Scott, I really do believe that movie reviewers are one of THE biggest wastes of time, money, & air to breathe... and I also happen to detest Roger Ebert. I mean, what a bunch of overpaid free-loaders! Yes -- part of it is jealousy, but I am in total agreement with you about someone wasting my time with a plot summary... don't need it!
One of the best-ever movie experiences that I had happened to be "Ocean's Eleven" -- in Singapore! Why? Because I had been underway long enough to know *nothing* about it -- no trailers, no reviews... NOTHING. I didn't even realize that the movie was a re-make at the time. My chief & I went to see it -- completely on a whim, basing our choice on nothing more than the starring actors -- and we both thoroughly enjoyed the gradual unfolding of a really terrific plot... kind of made me wish that all movies could be sprung like that!
Incidentally, one of the worst-ever experiences was the last movie I saw in San Diego. I dragged E to it, based totally on the trailers that we kept seeing at other features, and I thought it looked like a really cool flick... my kind of thing. Well, I tell you -- I really hated admitting to him afterward that I had made a gross error of judgment. We both squirmed uncomfortably through the torture, made all the worse by the comments of a jackass sitting behind us. Talk about "peanut gallery"... Anyway, the movie was "Birth", and I haven't read any reviews of it, but I am fairly certain that Nicole Kidman must have gotten ripped for her acceptance of this role in at least one... YIIIII!!!
Denise Sawicki | January 17, 2005
Roger Ebert always seems to get plot details wrong when he reveals the plots of movies. For instance he claims that April in "Pieces of April" used to be the favorite daughter, when it's explicitly stated in the movie that her parents cannot remember any good times with her. I've seen this kind of thing in many different reviews. Does Ebert watch different versions of movies than the rest of us? My personal opinion is he must have watched so many movies that it addles his brain :)
Amy Austin | January 17, 2005
LOL!!!
Jackie Mason | January 17, 2005
[hidden by request]
Amy Austin | January 17, 2005
Amen to THAT, Jackie!
Scott Horowitz | January 17, 2005
I heard on the radio the other day that a congressman in Connecticut is trying to pass a law forcing movie theaters to advertise movie start times instead of commercial/preview start times
Amy Austin | January 17, 2005
Oh, NO... then I'd always miss the actual movie start!!! (And get even MORE grief from E on the way to see a movie!!!) No, thanks. We Americans just need to adapt the "fashionably late" attitude that Europeans have about shows... they know that the real show won't start at that time!
Scott Horowitz | January 17, 2005
Previews don't really bother me. I hate the fucking commercials. Do I need to sit there and watch a commercial about vaginal yeast infections before a fucking movie?
Anna Gregoline | January 17, 2005
Oh, I hope Illinois would pass that law too! I want to get to the movie when it starts, not watch hours of commercials and previews before it. One or two previews are fine, but not commercials I skip over at home. On time should mean on time to me.
Amy Austin | January 17, 2005
I hear you, Scott -- most people WANT to see the trailers. I don't particularly care one way or another, but DEFINITELY I can live without pre-movie COMMERCIALS!
Jackie Mason | January 18, 2005
[hidden by request]
Lori Lancaster | January 18, 2005
[hidden by request]
Anna Gregoline | January 18, 2005
It really doesn't help those of us who are always early to everything (ME).
Amy Austin | January 18, 2005
I think Scott was exaggerating a wee bit for humor, Jackie... but you make *exactly* the point that pisses me off the most -- movies keep getting more & more expensive, and yet we keep getting inundated with ads! Not to mention the cost of concessions... I am ALL FOR taking a bag full of your own stash to a movie -- I don't care if it's not allowed or seems "cheap" -- but E almost always buys something, which has softened me somewhat... in behavior only, though, NOT in principle! I see it as absolute robbery to charge over $3 for a frickin' soda!!!
Scott Hardie | January 19, 2005
I've said it before, I'll say it again: The high prices at the concession stand are the movie theater's only real source of income, since the movie studio takes nearly all of the ticket price. That's not to say that I pay four friggin' dollars for a cup of Coke very often, but I don't resent them for needing to stay in business; times are still very tough for exhibitors these days. The advertisements also go to the movie theaters. What do they pay for? Giant multiplexes, stadium seating, digital projectors, Dolby surround sound, access for people with disabilities, all the trappings of a modern movie theater. Almost everybody would rather go to the big, brand new multiplex rather than the beat-up old two-screener downtown, even if they have to pay more for concessions and watch commercials beforehand. In other words, the changes have come about naturally in the market.
Amy Austin | January 19, 2005
Actually, I know this about theatres, and it doesn't change my feelings any -- I resent the multi-plexes, because *I* was one person who *did* prefer the "beat-up old two-screener downtown"... I miss the old theatres, *especially* when a perfectly good multi-plex that was home of the local dollar movies gets torn down for an "Office Max" to go up. Just because the new "plaza" theatre shows a dozen new movies in the same place... whoopee!
In addition, I'm none too impressed with the cardboard construction of these monstrosities, when I can hear the booming bass of the Dolby surround sound... in the theatre next to the quiet movie I'm watching. Yep... I still resent $3-4 Cokes.
Scott Hardie | January 19, 2005
Well-put. I agree.
(I'm going to stop giving the old Exhibitor Economics 101 lecture every time this subject comes up; even I'm sick of hearing it.)
Amy Austin | January 19, 2005
Well, I had never heard it from you, specifically, and so I didn't mind...;>
But I do really miss that old dollar theatre in Gainesville, FL (even though I'm not even there anymore!) -- it had that really cool '70s-Las-Vegas-old-school-casino feel to the atmosphere, and I loved it. Not to mention the price -- perfect for a college kid with no money to spare! I think it was called "The Royal" -- and the seats ruled, too... especially considering the age!
Scott Hardie | January 19, 2005
I'm happy because the local art-house theater is opening a new location in 2006, with an actual parking lot instead of an alley, stadium-style seating instead of something that feels like a wooden folding chair, and around a dozen screens instead of three. The best part is, they'll be less than a mile from the office and my apartment, instead of all the way downtown. It's all the perks of the multiplex without having to see "Van Helsing" to get them.
Amy Austin | January 19, 2005
Awesome.
Lori Lancaster | January 19, 2005
[hidden by request]
Amy Austin | January 19, 2005
I wish more builders were concerned with restoration -- that's great!
Lori Lancaster | January 19, 2005
[hidden by request]
Amy Austin | January 19, 2005
Ooooh, I love the '20s -- I can imagine just the style you mean!
I am so proud of my father and what he's doing these days, and I think he finds it very gratifying as well. He works in development -- the commercial kind -- and he has a long history of that sort of work... consulting, procuring land/investors/permits, interacting with lawyers and architects... all the yucky things that go with building a commercial site. Usually, his projects have been strip malls/shopping centers -- but now he works with a guy who takes historical landmark buildings that are no longer in use and/or "condemned" and turns them into modern living arrangements (i.e., really cool/expensive condos with a bit of character!). I guess there's mucho tax credits to be made in it, but I'm just glad that it's about keeping the cool old buildings around, too!
Dave Stoppenhagen | January 19, 2005
the Arcada is now a Brew and View. $2 movie and $3 drafts
Lori Lancaster | January 19, 2005
[hidden by request]
Dave Stoppenhagen | January 19, 2005
I believe it is called the brew and view but I could be wrong.. I'm not downtown St. Charles very often
Anna Gregoline | January 19, 2005
There is a "brew and view" in Chicago, but I've never been! I've always wanted to though.
Dave Stoppenhagen | January 19, 2005
Found it online, it is still called the Arcada and they have raised the price to $4 for tickets. Still not bad but the movies they play are usually not current, right now THE INCREDIBLES is playing and the Brew has been cancelled.
Lori Lancaster | January 19, 2005
[hidden by request]
Scott Hardie | January 19, 2005
The only thing I didn't like about the Arcada, post-renovation, was the lack of adequate padding on the walls. The sound reverberated off of those concrete bricks and paint, and I had to leave the conversation-heavy "Dead Man Walking" because I literally could not understand what the actors were saying. But, at a dollar-fifty per ticket back then, it was no big loss. The grown-ups in the theater were probably glad to see my party of noisy teenagers file out anyway. :-)
Lori Lancaster | January 20, 2005
[hidden by request]
Scott Hardie | January 20, 2005
I remember Jason and Kelly were in the party because they walked out with me. One or two others stayed behind and I forgot who it was. We had to sit in the car and wait for them to come back but it was more fun.
Lori Lancaster | January 20, 2005
[hidden by request]
Kris Weberg | January 20, 2005
Moreau.
And in Durham, there's an arthouse Brew 'N' View. I watched Sideways and had an Amstel Light.
Anna Gregoline | January 20, 2005
We always call it "The Island of Dr. Morose" when someone is sad. =)
Kris Weberg | January 21, 2005
If we keep stretching threads, shall we rename is 'The Island of Dr Moreover?"
Huh? Huh?
Amy Austin | January 21, 2005
And speaking of "stretching", Kris -- seems to me that you've had a number of playful urges lately, since you've pointed out more than one attempt to make funny... I like it. I like the joke, but I don't plan on visiting. ;>
Something tickling your funny bone???
Kris Weberg | January 21, 2005
"I like the joke, but I don't plan on visiting. ;>"
I feel the same way about the moon.
Want to participate? Please create an account a new account or log in.
Scott Hardie | January 17, 2005
It drives me crazy when movie reviews summarize the plot of the film. To give it a sentence or two is fine, especially if that's necessary to set up some point the critic is trying to make, but I have seen far too many reviews that give half of their length (or more) to telling us what happens in the film. This is A) pointless, since either we will see the film and discover it for ourselves, or we will not, B) wasteful, since most reviews have a set length and the space could be better given to opinion & analysis, and C) dangerous, since it often gives away spoilers that people really should not know. I realize that I have a unique opinion on this subject, since I do not depend upon reviews when deciding whether or not to see a film and thus plot information is irrelevant to me, but the waste of space still drives me up the wall. It's like when you order a drink at a fast-food restaurant and the kid fills it up with ice; the cup only holds so much and you'd like to get the most out of it.
I bring this up today because I think I've read a first: a review that is so devoted to plot summary that it is completely devoid of opinion. (link) Roger Ebert is the best reviewer in the business, though I usually avoid his reviews until after I see the film because he's reckless with spoilers; when he loves the ending he just can't seem to help himself. Anyway, I will probably not see "Coach Carter" and so I decided to read the review to learn what Ebert thought of it. What did the review contain? Two paragraphs describing Samuel L Jackson's strength as an actor (in general, not in this role), then one paragraph on a tangent about rappers starring in movies, then seven paragraphs summarizing the true story that plays out in the film. There is not one single sentence in the review that indicates whether Ebert thought it was a good movie or not, no consideration whatsoever of its directing or acting or screenplay or cinematography or art direction or mise en scène or music or anything else. Well? Is it fucking good or not?! Ebert (not unreasonably) detests the star rating that the newspaper imposes upon him and recommends that people read his reviews without regard for the star rating, but without those three stars I would have no idea what the man actually thought of this picture. What a waste of 750 words.