Samuel L. Jackson kicks asp in 'Snakes' Sorry, I just can't join the fang club for this slithering messssss

Did the author fail to realize the reason this movie got so big and popular was because everyone knows it would be so bad?

I posted this comment on my article (it's in the Doppelganger, if you're interested) after I read your comment on the article you've seeded -- and Latino's comment.

I would also note that people who review this movie poorly are automatically accused of "not getting it" and "unfairly comparing it to better movies" etc.

I think there's nothing worse than being told that you didn't like something because "you didn't get it."

(Similar to when Dave Chapelle said that calling people "crazy" is the worst thing you can say to a person: It's dismissive.)

I see no reason to believe that people didn't go in -- and see a movie that was no better or worse than any other silly horror movie. That is to say -- they saw a movie that wasn't as good as the hype made it out to be -- even though they saw it through the lens of a hyped-up crowd.

Telling that person that they don't know what they're talking about or that they expected too much out of the movie is certainly just as wrong as saying that people expect too -little- from their entertainment.

This is sort of why I said I don't like the precedence that has been set:

It's far easier to hype a movie and build an experience around it than it is to take the time to craft a well plotted and timed thriller. Now that they know that opening things up to the internet does half the work for them -- we stand to be bombarded by half-assed crap that we'll love because of our pre-release involvement.

I've said the same thing about the summer blockbuster -- I hate it when people say: Oh, it's just an action-fest with special effects and things blowing up -- it's not supposed to have good dialogue or a plot.

And I say to that: What sort of bull@!$%# sandwich have we been fed?

I would also note that I see nowhere in the article where the author has made any statements about the movie needing to be "another gone with the wind" -- he seems pretty clear in saying that it doesn't rise above movies in it's genre, even. Without they hype -- there's nothing more than any other run-of-the-mill horror film on the quick.

While you're free to disagree with that -- I think dismissing it is the wrong way to do so.

I agree, Brian.

At most, this reviewer was expecting "a "Jaws"-like white-knuckle ride," which can be reasonably expected, given the movie's premise. He accurately outlines the inherent anxiety of that premise in the first paragraphs of his review.

Not being disappointed by schlock is why we're continually fed schlock. There's the "action-fest summer blockbuster," as you mentioned, with its typical selection of cardboard characters and lack of realism. (Yes, even if the action is on another planet it needs to portray "reality" as we live and understand it.)

And there's "reality" TV, which has run amok for so many years, and seemingly taken over so many cable channels, that the simple sound of the tube flicking on makes me nauseous.

They're catering to us, to what we've shown--either by lack of rejection or absent praise--we want our "entertainment" to be.

Anybody else notice that the author of this review posts his phone number at the bottom of the page... Now thats just asking for trouble...

It really is a very BAD movie, and not in a good way.

Wait for the DVD - and rent it - is my recommendation.