Here's a little "in defense of" moment I thought I'd never have - I absolutely loved Your Highness. I know it might not be the most shocking revelation to hit the Internet, but given the serious lashing it received from critics, you might think so. So negative were the reviews that I actually had no intention of ever seeing it. Imagine my surprise when I decided to frequent a second run theater - drawn in more by the lure of pizza and beer to accompany a cheap film than the actual entertainment - only to find myself laughing for two hours straight. Yes, the humor was extremely lowbrow - but that's exactly what the film promised to deliver. I don't believe the director, producers or actors were aiming to enter the 2012 Oscar race (even though there was a recent Oscar recipient and an Oscar host in the lead roles).
My point? Why not review movies based on what they're actually trying to deliver? For example, to slam a film for references to weed when it's clearly stated in the title seems like an effort in futility. And, frankly, what does it matter? Rate the film for it's supposed to be - not what you want it to be. The same goes for Thor - a delightful big budget romp. I didn't expect anything else from the experience and I didn't leave disappointed. Shooting down a movie for being exactly what it promised? Hell, take that energy and turn your sights on our government. Now there's a system worthy of some criticism. And yes - I am aware this post makes me sound like a grouchy old woman engaged in a letter-writing campaign with her local newspaper.
