Picking back up on our film criticism thread—specifically, critics versus reviewers. As previously discussed, the defining difference between criticism and reviews is the intended audience. Criticism is (or at least should be) directed at people who are, to some degree, familiar with the subject. Reviews, on the other hand, are primarily intended to provide information for those who are considering watching, reading, or listening to a work of art. I previously mentioned that the best movie reviews came from the team behind the Leonard Maltin’s Movie Guide—back when that was still a thing. Here's one of my favorite examples, which also ties into our earlier discussion about art versus good trash.
With Eraser, a critic has little to work with. There's nothing to talk about here thematically or aesthetically. There's no attempt to push the medium, no psychological insights, no social commentary. To the extent that important issues are touched upon, it's strictly for the purpose of providing convenient situations and stock villains. Everyone in front of and behind the camera turns in solid, professional work, but, with the possible exception of the stunt choreographers, there are no interesting or unexpected artistic choices.
We could always play film school dropout and analyze what does or does not make a given scene effective -- if we wanted to go down that road, we could probably kill half an hour just on the airplane sequence -- but in terms of criticizing this movie as a work of art, there's simply nothing to say—and that's okay.
So how about the other side? Is there something a reviewer should say about Eraser?
Yes. Exactly what they wrote. Not a word more, not a word less. This is a perfect review. It tells potential viewers exactly what they're in for—and not in for—and gives them a clear sense of whether or not they'll enjoy the film.
And I love that closing sentence.
I have a social comment I can make that comes from Eraser! The evil corporation was named Cyrex, and it was Cyrex through the entire shoot, until at the last minute a chip company named Cyrix said that was harmful to them and objected. They had to redub everything as Cyrez and digitally paint -ex'es into -ez'es wherever it appeared.
ReplyDeleteI only heard of this at the time on a talk radio show, mostly as filler, but I would've happily read a good critic writing about: there's only so many people who know how to make a movie, much less redub audio and (in the late 90s) digitally paint a film -- is "not harming Cyrix" how we want them spending their time? Given the empty-calorieness, isn't it bad enough how much artisan effort went into the Cyrex version, and now we gotta double down on a Cyrez version, too?
Fun anecdote.
DeleteReminds me of one of earliest examples of digital post-production retouching. After Disney had completed shooting of their Herbie reboot with Lindsay Lohan they realized it had a lot of cleavage for a G rated family flick so they spent a ton of money on a virtual breast reduction for the star.
MP