I was sitting and reading the reviews for the new movie starring The Rock, San Andres and as I read I was very confused by the reviews. Many of the critics hated the movie stating that it was overloaded with action and special effects while being short on story. The reason why this confused is what dI'd they expect to get. Now I acknowledge I haven't seen the movie yet so I won't right a critique of the movie but instead focus on the reviewers themselves.
My first problem comes with the idea that the people reviewing a movie like San Adreas expect it to be full of plot and story development. When you see the previews and read the synopsis and see that it stars Dwyane Johnson and is about an earthquake that sinks Californian into the ocean how much story do you think you will get. This is an escape movie, if you are going to see this you want to escape reality not get lost in a deep story. This happens so much with many action movies. You read reviews all the time that a movie is bloated with explosions and special effects. That is like telling someone eating a Big Mac it is loaded with fat and calories. Really, didn't know fast food was bad for me but thanx for the info.
The second probkem I have is their stubbornness in not comparing the movies to other action movies. Movies like Sharknado have an audience not because they are great movies but because of the entertainment value they carry when compared to like movies and made for a certain audience. How many of us enjoy a good Jean Claude or Stallone movie based solely on the fact we want to see them beat someone up and deliver a cheesy one liner. I say compare them with each other don't compare San Adreas to an Oscars winning movie but to The Expendables and how does it measure up to other action films.
This is also true with superhero movies. We constantly compare them to great films instead of comparing them to each other. When I was a kid Superman 3 an admittedly poor film when I look at it now but as a young kid it was great. You had evil Superman fighting Clark Kent in a junk yard. A woman is sucked into a computer and turned into a robot. Lastly you have Richard Pryor, what more could you want. As a movie made for children with camp and comedy it was great and should be critique in a way that also accounts for the things it does right.
Critics have a place in the world and I acknowledge that I read many reviews of movies. What I want is that before you say a movie has a dumb plot, realize that going to a movie about earthquakes and starring the Rock and expecting deep plot points is stupid itself. Rate the movie based on it's audience and you will be serving the viewing public better.