I think this is a little bit disingenuous. Yes, it’s a funny article but I’m trying to figure out the point of it. Almost all of the reviewers here are name critics working for big time publications. You can’t tell me ANY of them went into this movie thinking they were going to get Death of a (car) Salesman. They’d all seen the last three films in the franchise and knew what they were getting themselves into.
So what’s the point of these reviews besides an excuse to creatively destroy a piece of pop art? Sure, Alonso Duralde from The Wrap comes up with this great zinger “It’s no doubt going to be good for business, but it’s yet another paper-cut on the soul of the movies,” but then, he could have written that without actually seeing the film. If we know, going in, this is what the film is, why bother reviewing it in the first place? My own philosophy of film criticism aside, why do critics waste their time (and ours) on something we all already know is going to be a 165 minute assault on our senses? The people who want to see it, will. THEY know what they’re in for. Mr. Duralde even says it’s going to be good for business but then claims it’s part of what’s destroying the artistic integrity of film industry. I disagree. I think critics reviewing this is destroying film creativity. They are spending valuable time and space (The link at the top, is a summary of a number of bad reviews the film had garnered) telling us something is bad and knowing it’s not going to affect viewing patterns one bit.
So rather than give me another pithy, snide comment on how much better we are than the movie, why not take the time to tell me what I should be seeing? Why not be out there championing the smaller films. This is like the Westboro Baptist Church and Paris Hilton – If you stop writing about it, people will stop paying attention. Use your forum for promoting good art, rather than taking down the bad.