On the whole, I’m a big fan of the Metro free paper that you get on the buses and trains these days. It keeps me up-to-date with the news and sport, and includes a Sudoku puzzle to wake up my brain the mornings. However, I have always been a little bemused by the film reviews. Today, however, the confusion ended, and I was just plain mad.
The 300 is a movie I’ve been interested in for a short while now, particularly since I’ve been hearing rave reviews about it from friends in the States. It’s a film based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller (of Sin City fame), based one of the legends of Sparta. Stylistically they’ve gone for the same kind of look as Sin City, and the trailers look brilliant.
The review in the Metro covered this. In fact, it seemed extremely positive until it started talking about the political bent of the film. Now – there’s been a fair few column inches talked about this, and about whether or not it’s racist and/or homophobic and/or fascist and/or something else. Without actually watching the film, I can’t tell you whether or not I agree. What I _can_ tell you is that I disagree with a review who extols the virtue of the cinematogrophy, and then proceeds to give a film 1 star (out of 5) based purely on a political stance that she disagreed with.
When I read a review, I want to know a few things:
- What does the film _look_ like – is it well shot?
- What is the plot like – is it basic, tangled, or gripping?
- What is the action like?
- What is the acting like?
The Metro review seemed to be relatively positive about all 4 of these things, and yet slated it for it’s supposed political leaning. And I think that this is what has been bothering me all this time about their reviews – some of them are far too subjective, which means that their ratings become inconsistent, rather than basing it on objective factors and providing a useful review.
mrBen
[edit]The offending review is now online here[/edit]
