Movie Critics: So Sophisticated

The easiest thing for show business critics is to trash something, and the more colorful your criticism the better. The implication is that anyone who enjoyed the work had to be a lot dumber than the critic for failing to see how bad it really was. Not liking something is used to show that the critic is more sophisticated than the rest of us. Of course sometimes they go too far.
That’s why it must be an awkward feeling being Scott Foundas of the LA Weekly, this morning. He was the literary genius who called “Crash”, the Worst Film of 2005, finishing safely behind "The Dukes of Hazzard." Maybe if he said it was a bad film, or an overrated film, he could wake up today without being one of the bigger jokes in show business. But calling it the Worst Film of 2005 while the industry picked it as the Best Picture of 2005, is a little bit much. Even for the “her gown looked like dead raccoons” show biz set. He went a snipe too far.
Let’s see how Roger Ebert came down on this….Hmm, he picked “Crash” as the Best Movie of 2005 prior to the Oscars. You could argue he influenced the voting; after all Roger Ebert is a tremendously respected critic - right at the top of the heap. So his opinion might have had an impact on the vote, but maybe, just maybe, he was right, and Scott Foundas was wrong.
Since Roger Ebert appears to be dialed in this year, let’s skip the negative reviews of Jon Stewart and just go to Roger Ebert’s take: “He was smart, he was funny, he was as comfortable and as anyone since Johnny Carson, and I think he could have the job for life, if he wants it.”
I’m going to side with Roger Ebert on this one, and I’m also planning to see “Crash.” Meanwhile Scott Foundas sits down at his keyboard at the LA Weekly and wonders how he’s going to dazzle show business again with his insight and deep, deep sophistication.