I'm not assessing what people will or won't like. I'm assessing the quality of the writing. As a professional critic, that's my job, because I can't tell you what you will or won't like. I don't know you or most people who will read my social posts or my actual reviews... Whether they end up liking the film or not is of no consequence to me... I don't work for the studios... and I've never understood the public's preoccupation with box office numbers, as if that's useful information to anyone but the studio heads and shareholders.
And I'm not judging the film on its technical knowledge, only the amateurish way in which they go down the laundry list of Wikipedia timeline events and key people in such a stilted manner, amidst higher level ideating dialogues that sound like every character is Sorkin. That contrasts with the writer actually their job and formulating a narrative that flows with substantively contrasting styles of dialogue instead of having these jarringly novice writing faux pas.
An important part of a critic's role, or any critique that one desires to be heard, is to try to persuade viewers to believe that they deserve more than they're willing to settle for.
Last edited:
