I’m proud of TPN:: Box Office Weekly. I believe the editorial and critical content on these pages is of a generally higher level than most media-news blogsites. At the end of the film Ratatouille, the food critic Anton Ego put forth a splendid little summary of what criticism truly is. I’ll excerpt it here:

In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talents, new creations. The new needs friends.

Sure, we both take swipes at things that are bad or silly or excessive, but these criticisms are generally leveled at systemic problems (goodie bags, tiny video, labor issues, popcorn prices) or the personal shortcomings of the celebrated (Amy Winehouse, Kate Hudson, Sofia Coppola). We generally leave movies alone to live or die by their own lights, sniping only parenthetically or, in the case of the podcast, through brief, witty, withering wordplay.

What makes me proud of the site is the fact we take the time to highlight new discoveries (”Life on Mars,” “Torchwood,” the Heroic Cheerleader sub-genre, The Met in HD). One of the more satisfying aspect of the general editorial direction here– completely unbidden, mind you, just something Dan and I do– is re-evaluate and recommend older works (Brute Force, Lolita, Basic Instinct). It may not seem like it when the articles are skimmed, but one of the hallmarks of TPN:: Box Office Weekly is a generally positive approach to the creative works of others, reserving harsher criticism for the business itself.

Having said all that, I have to break precedent and go after a film based solely on it’s preview.

Based just on said trailer, The Love Guru™ looks like one of the worst movies to come along in quite a while. Watch the preview if you don’t believe me, or the annoyingly web 2.0 home page. Whatever comedic magic Mike Meyers had has been dissipated: Whatever new or original ideas he brought to his movies seem to have abandoned him. It is also offensive on it’s face, with midget jokes and Indian stereotypes mis-fired by the bushel basket. Meyer’s “Guru Pitka” seem to be another variant on an Austin Powers-type character, a vaguely 60s-era pastiche.

Am I judging The Love Guru™ by it’s trailer? Yeah, for two good reasons: Hey, if you’re marketing a comedy aren’t you supposed to put the funniest parts of the film in it? If this is a Hollywood verity, than something has gone seriously off the rails here. Secondly, from what I could glean (First saw the trailer a few night ago on broadcast: it thudded so loudly, this article had to be created to counter it) this thing is so stunningly reprehensible I believe this break from our editorial practices is something of a public service.

Namaste,

–Skot C.

This entry was posted on Saturday, April 26th, 2008 at 7:22 am and is filed under Ancilliaries, Digital Wonderland, General, Hosts, Internet, Marketing, Motion Pictures. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.