Internet criticism: There is a lot of it. An increasing number of people do reviews in video format nowadays, because who wants to read? But also, video reviews lend themselves well to a certain type of criticism, exemplified in this video by critic Confused Matthew:
In Eating the Dinosaur, Chuck Klosterman talks about Prince’s strategy for giving interviews to reporters, which is as unique as it is dickish: Prince will not allow reporters to use a recording device or take notes during interviews, essentially making it impossible for Prince to be quoted out of context, or quoted at all. The reporter probably doesn’t come away from the interview with any of the exact wording that Prince used, just an overall impression of the conversation.
This is kind of the way most reviews are written. Reviewers are allowed to take notes of course, and most will comment on specific scenes or lines of dialogue in movies, or specific lyrics in songs, or whatever, but they generally give you the overall impression they took away from the experience, or at least that’s what the grade or star-rating is based on, and that’s all anyone cares about, because again, reading sucks.
But Confused Matthew and his ilk do something different! Here, we get a minute-by-minute account of what the EXPERIENCE of watching 2001 is like. As it turns out, it’s kind of incredibly boring! I saw 2001 once, but until I watched this review, I guess I completely forgot about these interminable early scenes. If you asked me what I thought of the movie I’d probably have a mildly positive overall impression based on the things that did stick with me: the innovative art direction and the nifty “man vs. technology” theme.
That’s the way it is with a lot of things that are favorably regarded. People forgive glaring flaws because, you know, they don’t remember ‘em! As Charlie Kaufman learned in Adaptation, the third act forgives all sins! Don’t get me wrong here, I’m sure there are some hardcore Kubrick fanboys ready to defend the half-hour’s worth of nothing that kicks off 2001, and I’m sure that all of those defenses would contain the word “atmosphere”. But does it hold up as a piece of entertainment you can recommend? Will it stand up to the intense scrutiny recommendation invites?
Strangely, this brand of critical analysis seems to be most entertaining when applied to the Star Wars prequels, particularly The Phantom Menace. Logically, applying laser-focused scrutiny to such a shitbomb seems like it would be a colossal waste of time; it’s not like any sane person came away from The Phantom Menace with some sort of a favorable impression. How could you? There wasn’t even that third-act redemption to leave you with a good taste in your mouth! There were plenty of individual flaws about it that stuck out, sure, but there seemed no need for anyone to pick apart this owl pellet. The movie, as a whole, just didn’t work.
But when Phantom Menace came out on DVD and people were able to actually attempt to parse the shittiness, it quickly became obvious that there was more going wrong here than in your average shitty movie. This wasn’t a plane that crashed because a few instruments failed, this was more like aircraft made up of a bunch of random shit hammered together by a 5 year-old. There may well be something wrong with every frame of this movie!
You could say it’s just a case of unimaginative nitpickers going for the lowest of low-hanging fruit, but I think there’s something to be said for the deconstruction/destruction of The Phantom Menace. The Star Wars prequels are to dudes who make fun of bad movies on the internet what the “Aristocrats” joke is to comedians, what “My Favorite Things” is to jazz musicians; it’s a rich palette for interpretation in one’s own style, a great springboard for a lot of observations on the fundamentals of storytelling and how badly they can be fucked up. Something like that.
At any rate, Red Letter Media attracted a lot of attention for a review of The Phantom Menace not that long ago, and rightfully so! Talk about deconstructing the movie, this review is almost as long as the friggin’ movie! If you’re not put off by the serial killer shtick there are a lot of great points being made here. And if you ARE put-off by the serial killer shtick I got something for you, too: The aforementioned Confused Matthew did a series of reviews that touched on a lotta the same points (and did it first!)
Are you done watching all that stuff? Welcome back! And hey, it looks like Red Letter Media just did a follow-up vid on of Attack of The Clones! If you not only liked but loved the serial killer shtick from their Phantom Menace review, you’re really in luck, because they went bananas with it this time! Beyond that, the guy does a pretty good job of peelin’ the rotten onion - this video delves deep into the layers of shittiness that lurk beneath Attack of The Clones‘ veneer of mere staggering ineptitude. For example, most casual viewers were probably too distracted by that painful, cringe-worthy dialogue between Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen to realize just how insanely implausible their entire romance is. Again and again, Anakin says and does things that would be complete deal-breakers on a real date with anything even remotely similar to a human female. Red Letter Media does a play-by-play of this disastrous courtship, highlighting the many, many instances in which Anakin says and does things that make him seem arrogant, whiny, or just downright creepy.
To say that more thought went into this analysis than went into the script for Attack of the Clones is an understatement on par with saying that Mark Hamill’s 70’s haircut has aged more gracefully than Hayden Christensen’s hilarious rat tail. I guess that’s what is so appealing about these videos! I mean, sure, it would be nice if this amount of thought and care went into the prequels while they were being made, but hey, better late than never! At least somebody thought about something at some point, right?