MJ sent me this article covering the historical aspect of Arthur. She was sending it for the pictures of Guinevere who also happens to be one of the things a lot of people don’t like about the movie, “what the hell is she doing dressed in leather straps?”. But read the whole thing and you can see why I was looking forward to it, it’s a whole historical spin on the fairy tale. I haven’t seen it yet so it might still suck, I don’t know, but at least this journalist does some research and takes the movie for what it is. He (she?) doesn’t go in with a set idea and then write that the movie sucks because it doesn’t fit with that idea. Something that a lot of reviewers seem to do.
Speaking of reviews, I pretty much don’t read them anymore. For the above reason and because I don’t want to put myself in the same position, i.e. having a preconseption. I still do have one of course, can’t really help it even if only because of the previews I’ve seen but I try to keep it blurry and imprecise, keep the opinion for in the theater.
Which is why I like Metacritic, it averages out hundreds of critics and just gives a number. It’s normally pretty good at determining if it’s good or crap but without going into details that might direct your opinion. I have noticed though that in almost all cases if you look at the bottom of the list you see Salon and The Village Voice, do these guys like anything? Spidey for example at some point had 8 reviews at 100/100 and two at 40/100, guess who they were? That’s another thing some reviewers do; go against the grain just for the sake of being different. Yeah, that really helps me guys, thanks.