Invalid Movie Criticism: What Doesn't Hold Up?

Hey film fanatics! Let's dive into a topic that's sure to spark some debate: invalid movie criticism. We've all been there, right? Reading a review and thinking, "Wait a minute... that's just not fair!" Or maybe you've heard a friend rant about a movie, and you're left scratching your head. Movie criticism is subjective, sure, but some common criticisms just don't hold water for me. So, grab your popcorn, and let's dissect some arguments that often miss the mark.

The 'It's Predictable' Complaint

One of the most common gripes you'll hear is, "The movie was predictable!" While I understand the frustration of seeing plot points coming a mile away, this critique often feels incomplete. Here's why: predictability isn't inherently bad. Sometimes, a film's beauty lies in its execution, even if the plot beats are familiar. Think of classic fairy tales, the hero's journey, or any well-worn genre conventions like romantic comedies. We know the general structure – boy meets girl, they face challenges, and hopefully, they end up together. But the magic comes from the characters, the dialogue, the chemistry, the cinematography, and the specific details that make the story unique. To dismiss a film solely because you predicted the ending is a shallow analysis. It ignores the other elements of filmmaking that contribute to the overall experience. Instead of saying "It was predictable," try to pinpoint why it was predictable. Was it lazy writing? Did the plot rely on tropes without adding a fresh spin? Or was the predictable outcome a deliberate choice to highlight something else – like the characters' emotional journeys or the thematic undercurrents of the story? Consider a film like Titanic. Let's be real, we know the ship sinks. But that doesn't diminish the emotional impact of Jack and Rose's love story or the historical drama. So, the next time you're tempted to use the "predictable" card, ask yourself: what else did the movie offer? Did it deliver in terms of character development, visual storytelling, or thematic depth? Because a predictable plot can still be a powerful and engaging experience. Think about how directors like Christopher Nolan use complex timelines and narrative structures. Even when the ultimate goal might be apparent, the journey is what keeps us hooked. The complexity and the way the story is told can transcend the issue of predictability.

This criticism also frequently overlooks the genre. Some genres, like thrillers and mysteries, rely on twists and turns, and the audience expects to be surprised. If a movie of this genre is predictable, that's a valid point, but even then, the execution matters. The clues, the red herrings, the way the suspense is built, and the reveal itself can all contribute to a satisfying viewing experience, even if you saw the ending coming. In other genres, like romantic comedies or action movies, predictability is almost part of the charm. We want to see the hero save the day or the couple fall in love. It's the journey, not the destination, that counts. Moreover, what's predictable to one person might be a surprise to another, depending on their viewing habits and experience with the genre. Someone who watches a lot of thrillers might be able to predict the plot twists of an amateur movie, but a casual viewer might be completely surprised. Context matters! It's a very different experience to go to a movie you know little about, versus a movie you have been looking forward to for months with the trailer having given away much of the plot. Sometimes, anticipation is a part of the enjoyment, and the predictable plot is just the vehicle. In conclusion, the next time you think a movie is predictable, remember that the plot isn't the whole story. Look beyond the plot points and assess the movie's other elements: the characters, the direction, the music, the overall tone. A good movie should have more to offer than just a surprise ending.

The 'Bad Acting' Argument

Okay, let's talk about "bad acting." This is another one that often gets thrown around, and while I agree that poor performances can ruin a film, the issue is often more nuanced than a simple declaration of "bad acting." What exactly makes the acting bad? Is it the actor's fault, or the director's? Or is it simply a matter of taste?

First of all, what does 'bad acting' even mean? Does it mean the actor flubbed their lines? Did they deliver them in a monotone way? Are their facial expressions unnatural? Are they not believable in the role? All of these are potentially valid criticisms, but often, the issue isn't just the actor. Think about the director's role. They're responsible for guiding the performance. If an actor is giving a lackluster performance, it could be because the director didn't provide clear direction, or failed to cultivate a good relationship with the actor, or didn't give the actor enough guidance. It's a team effort. Blaming the actor solely for a bad performance is often unfair, unless it's glaringly obvious that the actor simply wasn't prepared. This can be the case with big-budget projects where the actors may not have had sufficient rehearsal time with the rest of the cast. Or, perhaps the actor wasn't the right fit for the role, but it's not always the actor's fault that they got cast. The casting director has a big role to play, and the film studio can be at fault for casting a popular actor who isn't right for a role in order to boost ticket sales. Sometimes, an actor may be playing against type or taking on a role that challenges them, and their performance might seem