The Last Word

Ahh, Flixster. Facebook's answer to populist movie criticism has grown exponentially in popularity over the past several months, with everyone from your wacky stepfather to your 13-year-old cousin opining about the artistic and aesthetic merits of David Lynch and Stanley Kubrick films. As someone so famously once said, "the inmates are running the asylum." \nWhen discussing Flixster and its varied users, there is a great risk in sounding like an elitist who thinks only those with the proper background in film knowledge and criticism should be allowed to throw their hats in the critic ring. After all, the world of film criticism is essentially a collection of individual persons' opinions, and, like assholes, we've all got 'em. \nBeing a strong proponent of free speech, no matter how offensive, I'm still so often aghast at so many of the reviews I see on Flixster by those I've affectionately dubbed "Flixstiots." There is a measure of irresponsibility involved when Owen McCarthy from London, Ontario boils down Milos Forman's 1975 classic "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" to "this was an odd movie but it wasn't that bad I've heard that the book was better.....but meh I dont read often." \nMy central issue with Flixster, and amateur film criticism in general, is this: Why discuss film, or any art for that matter, in a public forum unless you have something even remotely significant, or even mildly enlightening, to say about it? Ian Haberman of Wisconsin-Parkside, violates this principle in his review of Terrence Malick's "The Thin Red Line: "7 dudes in a bush talking about how bad war is, but they don't really do anything but sit in a bush until the end. So, I guess they assumed war was bad, and then got sick of sitting in a bush... I think. Dumb movie."\nWould he so flippantly dismiss the smile of "Mona Lisa" as a "shit-eating grin" or Picasso's "Guernica" as "black and white chicken scratches"? Maybe so, and that's the fundamental dilemma. When discussing art in a public forum, exactly how much power and influence do we afford the peanut gallery? Don't misunderstand my argument as a call to ban anyone who regards films as entertainment rather than art (a notable divide that seems to grow wider year to year) from discussing a film's merit. It's simply a plea for those who feel the need to discuss a work of art to have something -- anything -- of value to say about it. \nPenn State's Zach Sheakoski, in discussing "The Godfather," one of the greatest American films ever made, clearly doesn't: "I am giving it 2 stars because for how it is, the killing scenes were OK, other than that, I have never hated a movie more than this one ... from beginning to end i was bored, this movie was awful." Sheakoski's opinion, I realize, is no more or less valid than mine. But in the end, doesn't one at least owe a recognized work of important filmmaking more than just a tossed-off hate rant? \nAdmittedly, in the cinematic arts, some films aim lower than others. A few petty asides hurled the way of "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" aren't gonna rile me up, but when Andrew Montano of Nassau County, NY says of "Punch-Drunk Love," Adam Sandler's only attempt to break his own sophomoric comedy mold, "didn't see what all the fuss was about with this movie. saw it expecting another 'Click' or '40 first dates' masterpiece and instead i sat there watching a way too sub par movie with a weird story line and a corny ending," I hang my head in shame. Maybe, after a million or two more reviews of this caliber, the Web masters at Flixster and Facebook will start filtering out such comments, and letting those who love film discuss it meaningfully. \nUntil then, I'll slide the soapbox over to Sian Jones, of no network, for her thoughts on Peter Jackson's 2005 remake of "King Kong": "i know King Kong is all aboug gorillas and stuff like that i just hope it does'nt invole animal crelty." Me too, Sian. Me too.