tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16113999.post4191445368336562698..comments2023-10-31T12:35:17.907-04:00Comments on Crane's Inanities: "Heckler"Miller Sturtevanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07407592837398461072noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16113999.post-50785025737764405172007-04-14T11:44:00.000-04:002007-04-14T11:44:00.000-04:00Absolutely right. I'm glad to see I wasn't seeing ...Absolutely right. I'm glad to see I wasn't seeing things here. If "Heckler" was going to be a documentary about how dickish hecklers are, cool, do it. But to veer off into hating on small-time critics seems like a massive misjudgment on Kennedy's part. In the short clip of Lucas Kennedy included, Lucas seemed like he was going to once again take all the criticism of the prequels in stride. That's cool. Even if he made a few bad movies, he knows how to be zen about negative criticism. But it seems like Kennedy wanted to get Lucas, a mega-millionaire, to complain about all the regular Joe fanboys out there who thought they fell well short of expectations and said so on the internet. Who could think that's a good idea? And then Rob Zombie, a multi-millionaire musician and film director, whining about mean bloggers? Really? And holding up Uwe Boll's ridiculous boxing matches against his fanboy critics as a heroic or commendable thing? Maybe if Boll concentrated a little less on working out and more on making good movies, he wouldn't have to read so much about how execrable his movies are. Looks like Jamie Kennedy is getting to be as out-of-touch as his faux-gangasta rapper character he played in "Malibu's Most Wanted" (which I actually saw, though I can't remember much about it).Miller Sturtevanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07407592837398461072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16113999.post-67536094186267045302007-04-14T08:59:00.000-04:002007-04-14T08:59:00.000-04:00That trailer makes the movie look really vindictiv...That trailer makes the movie look really vindictive and as mean-spirited as the hecklers they're complaining about. Maybe that's the point, and maybe there's a moment where when talking to the internet critics Kennedy steps back and says, "You realize me calling you a failed filmmaker is basically the same kind of personal jab as what you did to me in your review." But even if that happens...what's the point? What's the message? That we should be less critical? Why? Would the world be a nicer place? Really??<BR/><BR/>The idea of exposing these douchebags who heckle performers and athletes live and in person at their respective events seems pretty fascinating to me. But coupling that with an attack on the personal nature of some critics seems exceptionally petty and shallow. The simple answer as to why some critics come across as overly harsh or personal is because it makes for a more entertaining read. Pauline Kael and David Thompson are as brutal as any critics I've ever read, but I seriously doubt Kennedy would question their integrity. Why? Because their reviews were published in more traditional fare than rottentomatoes.com? And where does he draw the line between what's acceptable criticism and what's deemed a personal attack? <BR/><BR/>I suspect public criticism has always been as harsh and personal as it is now. The difference is that the internet has given a voice to the public. Instead of joking about how bad something is in a bar or outside the theater, people can now do that on a blog or website. If it bothers you Jamie, don't freaking read it dude. After all you came in the limo and the rest of us schmucks are just killing time with our poor, pathetic, and regretful lives as we rot inside with envy of the likes of you.<BR/><BR/>Writing personal criticism like that is enjoyable to the writer, but it's only really personal if the object of the criticism takes it personally.<BR/><BR/>So, lighten up. And know that this movie is just going to make more people ream you in their reviews.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com