This is an outstanding film - plain and simple. I gave it a 10 mostly for it's scope, acting, qualitative value and completeness of the story. It's not flawless, but it's close, for me. I used to be an avid movie-goer who avoids theaters now for the lack of such films. Though it's not perfect, on my harshest day I could not go less than a 9.5 if that were available. So, what in the world did critics expect when they watched this film and treated like a b-budget movie with campy acting and a low grade script?
The "normal" people reviews here clarify the details so I will say no more about that. Instead, I take this moment to question the professional critics and take my conspiracy theory hat for a stroll.
Many film-goers have taken a disliking to critics for years. Nothing new. But there has been a slow corruption (an agenda, if you will) that I've suspected for years, and this film pretty much seals the deal for me. The likes of Leonard Maltin and the old newspaper reviewers clearly had generational and attitudinal biases toward certain cultures. Then the duo acts like Siskel and Ebert created theater and gimmicks out of disingenuous antagonism and debate. After the advent of the Internet came IMDB, Amazon and other online review sites, followed by techie bias and algorithm hijacks that warped the raw data. (If you could see the entire history of Top rated films, you'd know what I mean.) It didn't take long for academia and media worlds to align with that.
So, when I see "professional" critics make the comments they do today, I have to wonder what agenda they're pushing. I've long-questioned some of the media reviewers on Rotten Tomatoes. I wonder what qualifies them to give such biased reviews that seem to highlight their grasp for snarky lines more than their grasp of the purpose and fundamentals of film and story.
Do yourself a favor - ignore the so-called "critic" clowns and watch this film for what it is - a slice of reality and real history, embellished for entertainment. But use common sense and self-honesty in your expectations. Don't expect dramas to make you laugh or comedies to be action-packed. If these "critics" truly believe their reviews, that is likely their only possible excuse - ignorance.
The "normal" people reviews here clarify the details so I will say no more about that. Instead, I take this moment to question the professional critics and take my conspiracy theory hat for a stroll.
Many film-goers have taken a disliking to critics for years. Nothing new. But there has been a slow corruption (an agenda, if you will) that I've suspected for years, and this film pretty much seals the deal for me. The likes of Leonard Maltin and the old newspaper reviewers clearly had generational and attitudinal biases toward certain cultures. Then the duo acts like Siskel and Ebert created theater and gimmicks out of disingenuous antagonism and debate. After the advent of the Internet came IMDB, Amazon and other online review sites, followed by techie bias and algorithm hijacks that warped the raw data. (If you could see the entire history of Top rated films, you'd know what I mean.) It didn't take long for academia and media worlds to align with that.
So, when I see "professional" critics make the comments they do today, I have to wonder what agenda they're pushing. I've long-questioned some of the media reviewers on Rotten Tomatoes. I wonder what qualifies them to give such biased reviews that seem to highlight their grasp for snarky lines more than their grasp of the purpose and fundamentals of film and story.
Do yourself a favor - ignore the so-called "critic" clowns and watch this film for what it is - a slice of reality and real history, embellished for entertainment. But use common sense and self-honesty in your expectations. Don't expect dramas to make you laugh or comedies to be action-packed. If these "critics" truly believe their reviews, that is likely their only possible excuse - ignorance.