an interesting article

Andrew Leonard at Salon.com was the lucky one to pick apart a conservative column and today’s lucky recipient was David Brook’s New York Times' article “Relax, We’ll Be Fine.” and not the whole article, but one specific paragraph. In the paragraph the Mr. Brooks is stating his opinion that Americans make great pop culture and there will always be a desire for pop culture. That’s it. That is the entire point that he is trying to make. He uses some big words to to try and class it up and I guess that is what Mr. Leonard has a problem with.

Mr. Leonard’s article perhaps is weakened because he chose to quote Mr. Brooks. If he had just made his point without actually showing Brooks’ words it would have been easier to follow his argument. As it was I was able to see that what Andrew Leonard was trying to say had nothing to do with what David Brooks was saying.

Here is a fundamental flaw in criticism; you never know what the reviewer is bringing with them to the piece. I am bringing with me the thought that Andrew Leonard is a liberal/democrat who does not like David Brooks because he is a conservative/republican commentator and that it would not matter what Mr. Brooks said but Mr. Leonard would mock it. I am probably wrong in this assumption, or at least am letting it way my review more heavily than it should. But there is little I can do about it other than tell you what I am thinking and let you judge my critical thinking (and hopefully not me or my own political beliefs which might surprise you) for yourself. That does not make for as entertaining of a read as pointing out how wrong someone else is though.

Should a review of a remake reference the original? And why is a comic website reviewing a movie?

Ok, the recently hacked Newsarama has not been solely a comic book site for some time now but the first question still stands. A remake or an adaptation is a work of art separate from whatever the inspiration for it may have been and deserves to be reviewed as such as well as being viewed as such by the audience. Of course this may be impossible or even what the adaptor wants. Obviously one of the reasons for revisiting material is to evoke some of what the original did and present it to a new audience or dazzle the first audience.

That is the prerogative of the creators involved and should not be the basis for the entire review of a film, which is exactly what Michael Avila did with his review of Clash of the Titans. The review/comparison does offer some insights into the creative process of director Louis Leterrier and the process of deciding to do the movie but this is too much for the review and bogs it down. Mr. Leterrier’s comments do not really offer much and definitely do not add to the review’s purpose.

A combination of review and interview does not save this from being a lackluster attempt to praise the movie and offers me little that is not handled better in other pieces on the movie and the director.