It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Generally reviews for movies/music are okay and reviews for games are... uh, slightly less than okay. But sometimes, I see a work that has something extremely important within its context that isn't mentioned in any reviews at all.
Mass Effect 3 is the obvious example, but I'll go with another to prevent this from becoming a discussion about gaming journalism: Battleship.
Yeah, it's a pretty bad movie. The acting is okay at best, terrible at worst, the plot isn't terribly engaging, and it's mostly a dick-waving context for the CGI artists that are upset there won't be another Transformers movie. But looking at the reviews for it, not a single one mentions the rather important fact that it's an anti-war film and not, as many people expected, a US Navy propaganda piece with aliens.
For one, the aliens are hardly unsympathetic; their technology allows them to distinguish between civilians and soldiers. It's used completely idiotically in the movie, but it's definitely something the writers thought about. Secondly, there is a scene meant to evoke either 9/11 or some other terrorist attack where it occurred through miscommunication between the two sides. Which is ballsy for a Hollywood blockbuster, if executed rather incompetently. Finally, the song they play over the credits is freakin' "Fortunate Son." So my question is: why did not a single review mention any of this?
Comments
Because it's a badly played out subtext. And even then the movie's third act does involve typical American patriotic sentiment with the whole Last Dance of the USS Missouri thing.
I actually did enjoy the movie because I got to watch the Friday Night Lights cast having fun. All two of them.
Hey, I never said it was done well. I just found it odd that not a single review mentioned any of it at all.
Well, yeah, but it turns out that reviewers are fallible beings too and if the subtext doesn't play out well, they don't notice it. Hell, I didn't notice it in my review and I'm still doubtful that there even is that subtext in the first place.
Maybe the reviewers just didn't feel it was worth mentioning. Just because there's a poorly delivered anti-war screed doesn't make the movie any less shit. It just makes it shit and pretentious.
Besides, having an anti-war message in a run and gun CGI-splosionganza speaks to me of wanting to have one's cake and eat it too.