The Critics are Wrong this Time

Rating: 7/10 (20 May 2006)

Critics have flamed this film and I have to say I think they were wrong and overly biased. This is not the first time this year where professional reviews were just plain off base. Come on, who really thought MI III deserved a 70% on the tomato meter. MI III had to be one of the worst movies ever, and I love action movies and have seen tons of them. I'm usually pretty dead on with critics of my assessment of a film.
Reading all of the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, I just don't buy that the story was flat. Let's face it, the book, although a page turner, was not an action packed thriller. It was more of a slow evolving mystery-thriller. Hello, that's why a 2 ½ hour movie was necessary. Although I do agree that Tom Hanks was wrong for the role and that Ron Howard is a sucky director anyway, this movie did NOT deserve an 18 on the tomato meter.
I saw the movie in Lake Mary, Fla and the audience clapped when it was over. I thought the film did what the book didand that is appeal to the average American audience. I read one review on IMDb that pointed out the lack of European flair, but this movie was made for Americans, by Americans. Who is more American than Opie? So why the crummy reviews? I think critics and movie snobs alike, all got on the band wagon to pick apart one of the most anticipated movies of our generation. Let me say here, that I don't believe this movie deserved a 90%, or even an 80% for that matter. But an 18??? Who are we kidding. The movie was very respectable. It had good pacing and took time to elaborate the details, albeit multiple times, but it was very necessary to get the whole point across.
Everyone that I have spoken too really liked the movie and seemed to get a lot out of it. It may not be a work of cinematic genius on par with the likes of the top movies of last season, but certainly did the book justice.