Independence Day: Resurgence

My, that got a reaction! Not out of me. Don't bother caring about my opinion of the film. But the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are absolutely scathing, and that got my attention. The negative reviews this engendered interest me far more than the film itself.

Mostly because they are inexplicable.

Okay, if we are gonna compare it to other popcorn flicks, it's mediocre. But if we are comparing it to the first film (which is the only fair comparison I can make) it's WAY better. Why is that? And why are critics so stubbornly trying to convince readers otherwise, despite the quality clearly having improved?

I have some theories. And this level of critic trolling interests me because it's not just audience review bombs. Legit critics that get paid to write their opinions in legit newspapers and magazines think this underwhelming but inoffensive movie is an utter piece of shit. Again, I asked myself "Why is that?" Is it because movie critics in 2014 are interchangeable with internet trolls? Probably that's some of it, but maybe not ALL of it.

I think a crappy movie like the first film was considered acceptable in 1996 because we all had MUCH lower standards back then. I never liked that film, but my personal standards were definitely WAY lower then, and that was true of everyone. A shitty movie like ID4 could coast on the explosions, Will Smith, and the hype. In 2014, audience's tastes and standards have CHANGED. Even if this is way better than the first film, it's nowhere NEAR as good as a Marvel film (for a contemporary example). Audience's tastes have matured. The good news is the lousy writers have sort of pulled back on their shoddiness as well, and the script is actually acceptable. But not enough to convince people this is a worthy sequel to the crappy original, even if the crappy original was far worse.

I'm not jiving you, or looking to get negative attention. But I watched the first film last week. My perception is not colored by 18 years having gone by between seeing both films. That film was obnoxious. This was acceptable, as least to me.

I love that the crazy doctor Brent Spiner played turns out to have been gay and it's no big deal. The death of his lover is legit sad and Spiner played the hell out of the scene.

I also appreciate that the destruction wasn't done in "beauty shots", or as part of some sort of grand audience spectacle. If that was the ONLY difference between this and the first film, it would be way better based on that fact alone.

Did this movie actually need to be made? Of course not. But that's true of every single movie ever made. Every time somebody criticizes a sequel for being "unnecessary", I think they give the film industry far more weight and respect than it is actually due by claiming that. If most movies were artistic masterpieces, I'd buy the argument. While most stuff continues to be crap, I take any accusations of a film being "unnecessary" with a huge grain of salt. Get a grip, folks.

Is Richard Roeper indistinguishable for a YouTube Neckbeard in 2014? Honestly? Yeah. I think critics have started to see trolls using harsh, ridiculous language against actual pedestrian movies, and think that sounds like a swell rhetorical device. And considering the shit I sometimes spew, you might be a bit surprised to hear that I don't agree, at least not when it comes to underwhelming popcorn flicks. I think using that kind of language for ANY mediocre film, not just truly terrible or offensive ones, debases both language, and the art of criticism itself.

Maybe modern day professional critics believe they need to get down in the muck to stay relevant. Which comes from a place of being unsure of themselves, and weak writing skills. Critics LOVE to believe they are independent-minded gadflies. In reality, if you ever need a third person to join a bandwagon, just have two people say nice or mean things about something in front of a movie critic. They'll enthusiastically convince themselves the praise / bile in question is their own brilliant idea. Most of them don't lead. They follow. It's true of professional critics, it's true of the YouTube Neckbeards, and it's true of internet trolls.

I don't think it's true of me, but if I'm not careful, it could be. I try to be honest and fair and without bullshit. And some people think that makes me harsh or trollish. But I'm giving ID4 2 a healthy four stars out of five. Not because it's amazing, but because there is little actually wrong with it. If I can give a positive review to an unremarkable movie, maybe my standards aren't actually unbearably high. Maybe the truth is the shit y'all see me regularly go into conniptions over sucks so much because it doesn't even pass THAT bare minimum standard. Maybe I'm not picky. Maybe current pop culture is just legit shitty. Food for thought at the end of a review for a universally hated movie I am about to give four stars to. 4 stars.