May 6, 2003

It’s good to know that anything Ain’t It Cool News can do, Time Magazine can do better…

That’s really what it is all about, isn’t it?  Being first.  Ain’t It Cool News was first by running a review from some guy whose friend took him to an exhibitor’s screening last week.  Time Magazine was first by getting a traditional preview screening for a major mid-lead magazine and running perhaps the most heinous and abusively complete two week early review of a movie in the history of the industry, diminishing not only Time Magazine, but the venerable Richard Corliss in the process. 

Time reached a new rock-bottom low behind Corliss’ byline, already having tainted Richard Schickel with last year’s prematurely moist Star Wars: Episode Two – Attack of the Clones review, which Schickel co-authored with the now-at-People Jess Cagle, despite having never seen the film.  Maybe that wasn’t a review either.  And maybe that wasn’t Schickel being quoted all summer long.

But the word is, from Time and maybe even Warner Bros., that the Time review is not a review.    And if you chose to parse language to a degree that would make Bill Clinton look like a piker, you could agree. 

What is a film review?   In this era, it is a rough version of the story of the movie, a few points about what is good and bad, and some clever bon mots, positive or negative.  I suppose that you could say that the most complete pre-release explanation of the characters and plot of a major motion picture in the history of publishing is not a review.  Or you could say it was one of the most disgusting displays by a major publication in modern history.  You make the call!!!

The first 240 lines of the “feature” is about the history of the first film and the process of getting to the second film.  How do I know how many lines it was?  Mr. Corliss counted them for me.  They became his lead in to the second section…

“You've been very patient, waiting for four years and wading through 240 lines of this story. You deserve a full description of the new movie.”

ARGH!!!!!!!

The middle section of the “feature” is a very, very specific telling of the story of The Matrix Reloaded, unconcerned with such basic issues as the fact that Time is a weekly and that there is nothing in this description that will ever do anybody good, other than to spoil the movie going experience.  Spoiler reviews, clearly marked and aimed at audience members who will likely consult the material after seeing the film, have significance when they actually attempt to bring in-depth insight to a complex work.  This thing is nothing but ego… ego a mature outlet like Time should be above.

But is this a review?  It is true that Corliss never says exactly what he thinks of the film.  But then again, he does…

“If you thought the ___ ___ ___ were the high points of the Star Wars films, you'll love this part of Reloaded. The red-meat brigade will have to wait a bit for their action satisfaction.”

“Smith was always more warped than we gave him credit for.”

“a desiccated ****** dandy”

“____ ____ is a _____out of the Bush Administration bestiary”

What more could a “review” tell us that Corliss’ asides in exposing every bit of the story in a national newsmagazine that primarily services the “wanna sees” of moviegoing and not the “must sees?” 

In the third section, continuing what has become one of Time’s most disgusting habits, Corliss uses the alleged reactions of others to offer a critical opinion that the magazine does not have to take credit for.  To wit –

“At a screening for exhibitors, the courtyard fight and the big car chase raised the room temperature but didn't earn the spontaneous gasps and applause that mark a movie sensation. The reaction was less "Wow!" than "Huh?" Some thought it was half a terrific action movie—the second half—with a sluggish buildup. A few compared the film unfavorably to X-Men 2. That's unfair for a film as ambitious and demanding as this one.

Reloaded is a six-month cliff-hanger: the plot points in its slower early scenes may pay off in Revolutions.”

A well-respected, veteran film critic at a major newsweekly is now quoting buzz from screenings instead of offering his educated opinion.  And in this context, it seems like it should carry some weight.  What kind of moron takes the word of a nameless, faceless, untested person who makes the choice to send in reviews to AICN, the only benefit of which, for that person, can be an ego massage?  My 13-year-old nephew loved The Matrix Reloaded and has not the slightest idea of all of the subtext that’s going on in the film.  Should that be my basis for review?  He also loved Jurassic Park III and Planet of the Apes.  And I love that he loves movies.  But outside of suggesting how some children will react to a film, how could I ever let his opinion inform my primary work?

And ask yourself this?  Do you think you could write Corliss’ review based on just these small snippets from his “feature?”  If you can’t, it can only be because you are illiterate or cannot type.    (But your bottom dollar that it’ll be Schickel reviewing… another way of pretending that this was not, at its core, a review.) 

Ironically, I have heard that some other journalists have accused me of reviewing the film in this column last Friday. I suppose that the fact that I didn’t go into details about the characters, the plot or any specifics about the execution of the production meant nothing.  Nor did my closing comment - “So are you confused yet?  I hope so.  I don’t want to get in the way of your experience of this film.” 

I must confess, in all my obliqueness, I did offer an opinion of sorts.  I called the film “amazing.”  Anyone who has ever read me more than once knows that I am incapable of that kind of intellectual brevity.   My review, which I am still keeping under wraps, trying to allow the dust to settle around the Time debacle, will be far more detailed, in both non-spoiler and spoiler sections.  That you can count on. 

ON A LIGHTER NOTE:  I ran into a website called “Rob's Amazing Poem Generator”.  You put in a URL and it makes a poem.  If you try the same URL more than once, it will give you different poems.  I tried two URLs…

The Matrix Reloaded
By Richard Corliss, Time Magazine

Hoping lightning could strike
thrice, the bunch.
Trinity sleeps next month #151;
nine short computer game; or in
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon .
The Oracle and take it
The Architect he wrote a dvd package
called the first
Neo grabs some thought it stinks .

 

The Matrix Reloaded
By David Poland, The Hot Button

The divide and this
movie had a film
This is going to
get in that fans of
the multiple Smiths
in this is going
to piece of
a sequel…The Wachowskis use is
in the new ideas constantly throughout the
climax of the original film we thought
we will find the success
of the silent Darth Maul
fight in for the question “
What Frank Darabont or Steven Spielberg or
Ridley Scott etc etc. etc.
etc. etc. etc.

 

READER OF THE DAY:  S&ME writes:  “The thrill-spilling Time review (well, I assume what is spilled is thrilling, I have no plans to read it until May 16th) of The Matrix Reloaded points out definitely the hypocrisy and general inaccuracy of the mainstream press vs the online fringe element.  While sites such as AICN or Dark Horizons will often post spoiler-laden news or reviews, they always, ALWAYS will give the reader ample warning to avoid said articles is they so wish.  Yet, it is the mainstream publications that ruin surprises and divulges unfounded gossip without warning. 

It is Variety that spilled the finale of Pay It Forward right as Haley Joel Osment and Kevin Spacey had just been cast, nearly a year before the film was released.  It is USA Today that spoiled the season finale surprise of the seventh season of The X-Files, three days prior to airing, in the middle of a seemingly mundane article about the show.  It was countless print publications and "above the fray" journalists who wantonly spoiled, without warning or context, the would-be surprise ending of X-Men 2 while the online people such as yourself or Knowles made a point to either not divulge the material or give ample warning to articles that did.  It was countless print critics who spoiled the main third-act twist for Identity (I know you haven't seen that one, but know that many critics compared Identity to another film, a comparison which was completely revealing to anyone who had seen the mentioned earlier film).  And it is you and Knowles that warned people like me not to read the article in Time Magazine, an article that I might have otherwise read, not thinking that it would divulge the entire film. 

Time after time, it is the online publication that bears the brunt of criticism for allegedly spoiling the fun for moviegoers, yet more often than not, it is the mainstream, allegedly professional journalists who spring spoilers without warning, without cause.  Truth be told, the allegedly scruple-less online sites have displayed a much higher code of honor when it comes to allowing readers to make their own choices about what they wish to know about what movies or tv shows.”

E ME:  What is a review?