I have never liked a movie review, or, by the way, any review which uncovers the plot in the first sentences. Actually, I quite hate these sort of reviews. I like to be surprised by a film, or book, or whatever masterpiece which was made exactly for that, it was conceived to throw me and you out of our-self with laugh, grief, or gore, one never knows. Then some pretentious “famous” critic spoils it for me, because he’s “smart” and doesn’t stomach the author, or the star in the movie he dissects.
In that case him, as a pompous and famous critic (especially because he works for a “prestigious” publication owned by news editors which are paid by event manipulators), dares to be obnoxious with the readers. The sad thing is when the readers are praising him for his obnoxiousness, mistaking it for “genius”.
An apparently sparkling insult is not a form of genius, it is pomposity. It is genius only when one shows its disagreement with delicacy and humor, not sarcasm or insult. If a critic doesn’t like a movie, he shouldn’t affront everybody. It’s even worse when him, as a critic, doesn’t understand the movie because he is actually a superficial being, praising only people or creations of people whom he has dinned with, or he had other social encounters with.
Lindsay Duncan, the critic having a revelation in Birdman
[source: youtube]
Of course there are exceptions, when the action or the plot has been made after public events, where at least the outcome is common knowledge. It only matters for him to be erudite, to be “creative” in his critic, and writing just for the sake of it, depending on his relationship with actors, producers, artists, etc… It’s a shame to disrespect his readers, poor critic. It’s rare to have mystic revelations like the gall in Birdman, usually he only knows how to cleave the work, for his own fun and his worshipers’ dumb praises.
This is a short essay about any “top” critic who is famous because of his employers. It shows my contempt for mediocrity masked with social validation supported by the artificial pattern and beliefs people is fed from childhood. “If he were not good he wouldn’t work at the BBC, at CNN, at the The New York Times”, or at another gigantic aggregator, you name it… These publishers are rarely challenged by the masses, because they have years of social engineering behind them.
I don’t name anyone here because it’s not relevant and these are my personal opinions, not always “politically correct”. “PC”-ness is another artificial notion created with radical division in mind, and spread by the superficial media giants who employs maneuverable ignorant toys, filled with unmeasured egos. When we don’t “sing” with them, they say we are against them, we are their enemies and they can make us look as enemies of the state.
This is not a pamphlet, but can be considered as pure theoretical material. Any resemblance with anyone alive or dead in the branch is far from being accidental.
If you liked what you read (and for that I humbly thank you for your patience), subscribe to this blog by Email! Follow this blog on Twitter, and on Facebook! For a joyous day, check out my pins on Pinterest or my grams on Instagram 😄. I hope you like this blog so much that you think it’s time to take a step further by becoming yourself a blogger; in order to do that have the kindness to read the Own Your Website offer I have prepared for you! You won’t regret. Thanks for passing by 😄 Speak your mind, don’t be shy!
