Rush Hour 2, easily the best movie of the summer, had me in such stitches that I went and saw it again the same weekend. Consensus seems to be that it is better than the original with which I heartily agree.
I was disturbed in noting how the general public has been responding to this film in comparison with the critics. Everyone in the cinema was rolling with laughter and on a high after the movie ended, unanimously talking about how great it was. In contrast, half of the critics seem to be giving it great reviews and half bad ones.
Let's turn the tables on the critics.
It is to be expected that some will love a movie and some will hate it; but what is startling is seeing the same movie on a critic's Ten Best List for the Year show up in another critic's Ten Worst List of the Year. This was the case for several movies last year.
Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly regarded "Dancer in the Dark" as the best movie of 2000, while Time Magazine listed it as the worst movie of the year. "O Brother, Where Art Thou" was seen by Michael Wilmington of the Chicago Tribune as the best movie of 2000, while EW's Owen Gleiberman regarded it as the year's worst movie. Gleiberman listed "What Lies Beneath" in his Ten Best List of 2000, while Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun Times listed it as one of the worst of the year. The fact is that these people can't agree on anything.
It is appalling also that critics obsessed with a paralysis by analysis end up contradicting themselves. The aforementioned movie critic Roger Ebert gave as his primary reason for disliking "Rush Hour 2", a scene where the Chris Tucker character distracts a small army of security guards, by making a big stink about being treated unfairly because of his race, so that the Jackie Chan character can infiltrate the back rooms of a casino. Ironically, this was EXACTLY the same tactic that the Danny Glover character used in a scene in Lethal Weapon 2, a movie which Ebert gave 3.5 out of 4 stars. Go figure folks.
So ignore the critics and go out and enjoy Rush Hour 2.
I was disturbed in noting how the general public has been responding to this film in comparison with the critics. Everyone in the cinema was rolling with laughter and on a high after the movie ended, unanimously talking about how great it was. In contrast, half of the critics seem to be giving it great reviews and half bad ones.
Let's turn the tables on the critics.
It is to be expected that some will love a movie and some will hate it; but what is startling is seeing the same movie on a critic's Ten Best List for the Year show up in another critic's Ten Worst List of the Year. This was the case for several movies last year.
Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly regarded "Dancer in the Dark" as the best movie of 2000, while Time Magazine listed it as the worst movie of the year. "O Brother, Where Art Thou" was seen by Michael Wilmington of the Chicago Tribune as the best movie of 2000, while EW's Owen Gleiberman regarded it as the year's worst movie. Gleiberman listed "What Lies Beneath" in his Ten Best List of 2000, while Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun Times listed it as one of the worst of the year. The fact is that these people can't agree on anything.
It is appalling also that critics obsessed with a paralysis by analysis end up contradicting themselves. The aforementioned movie critic Roger Ebert gave as his primary reason for disliking "Rush Hour 2", a scene where the Chris Tucker character distracts a small army of security guards, by making a big stink about being treated unfairly because of his race, so that the Jackie Chan character can infiltrate the back rooms of a casino. Ironically, this was EXACTLY the same tactic that the Danny Glover character used in a scene in Lethal Weapon 2, a movie which Ebert gave 3.5 out of 4 stars. Go figure folks.
So ignore the critics and go out and enjoy Rush Hour 2.