Art doesn’t work that way?
I think, insofar as literature or film are considered art (let’s not get carried away calling this movie “art”), it absolutely works that way.
If the NY times savaged “Passion of the Christ” I would be very interested in WHY they savaged it - what they did not like about it - and I would take note.
If they loved “Letters from Iwo Jima” I would do likewise.
When I read liberal commentary on Maya Angelou I know I can skip her. Likewise I have familiarized myself with their attacks on one of my favorites - Rudyard Kipling - so as to be better prepared to defend him.
And that CAN also be extended to other non-literary forms of art.
There is a bronze statute of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin outside a restaurant in Atlantic City called RED SQUARE. It is certainly art and the libs love it it. The world famous photograph of Che Guevara is, actually, a stunning bit of photography artistically speaking. Ya won’t find replicas of either of these in my home.
So when I read a review from NRO and somewhere else (I must admit I forget at the moment) which call the movie WALL-E watermelon dreck (green on the outside - red on the inside) and I read about libs at Kos or DU drooling over it, my desire to see it becomes something less than “I don’t think so”.
We can throw in for good measure the non-ideological fact that, based on the plot, it is the ballsiest piece of cinematic hypocrisy in a long time (a commercal movie, from DISNEY(!!!), with gazillions in kid-targeted marketing potential, lamenting consumerism and corporations).
Just making a point.
This film is absolutely Art and as are all great films. I tend to seek out good critics as opposed to those who’s opinion I don’t esteem. The NYT has exactly one good film critic and he reviews DVDs mostly of classic films.