Issue date: 2/21/08 Section: Editorial/Opinion

I would like to start off by apologizing. Last week, in my review of "Love Me If You Dare," I claimed that it "attempts to mimic films like 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' and 'Science of Sleep'" and the headline for the review read "'Dare' to see a copycat." The fact of the matter is, putting "The Science of Sleep" in that sentence was wrong and a flat out mistake on my part.

As for calling it a copycat and comparing "Love Me If our Dare" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," I can only say that when I did my research of "Love Me If You Dare," I made the inadvertent mistake of looking at when the film was released in the United States, which was on May 14, 2004. Likewise, I looked at when "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" was released and that occurred on March 19, 2004. Observing these dates on my part did not take into account when "Love Me If You Dare," a foreign film from France, was first released, as most foreign movies generally are, prior to their U.S. release.

Given the fact there were 56 days between both films' U.S. release, I did not deem it implausible to think that "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" had influenced the way "Love Me If You Dare" was made. Movie production length, especially with low budget films such as "Love Me If You Dare," tends to be short, somewhere under 56 days, and that definitely factored into my decision to make the claim. I would also like to point out that at no point in my review did I accuse any one person involved with the film of doing the copying. In researching "Love Me If You Dare," I could not find when production began, so currently I am still unaware if it is plausible to still think it somehow copied "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind." However, I will stand by the reasons which caused me to make the statement, whether the statement is right or wrong. The two films are strikingly similar in the way they are shot, and although some may not see it, I do not speak on what others may feel when I write my reviews.

But what the hoopla surrounding my statement brought to my attention was the misunderstanding of what a movie critic does and should be to you, the readers. It first needs to be understood that nothing written by me, or most other film critics, is ever meant to be disrespectful. People sometimes ask if I have a grudge against the University Activities Commission, to which I quickly inform them that despite my opinions on the films they show, I firmly believe their film series is one of the best things the campus has to offer. I am a full supporter of anything that allows lesser known films, whether I like them or not, to be shown for a mass audience to experience and decide if they like or dislike for themselves. Because of this, I do my best to provide an opinion and then back that opinion up by explaining my thoughts thoroughly. Based upon what I provide, a reader should then be able to determine whether or not they will like the movie.

For instance, if one looked at my movie review of "Love Me If You Dare" and immediately realized that I was wrong in my statements, it should have given them a hint as to what my thought process behind my feelings of the movie was. Because I felt, at the time, it mimicked other movies, I did not like the movie. Anyone who knows for a fact that it wasn't mimicking the movies I mentioned could just as easily believe that they would like it because it was an original. And for viewers who were under the wrongful assumption, like I was, that "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" was made prior to "Love Me If You Dare" and therefore was the inspiration for much of what is in "Love Me If You Dare," then they would be able to reason how the film would likely make them respond. And for the record, despite these new developments, I still hate "Love Me If You Dare."

This is the No. 1 reason I wish readers would read movie reviews completely, not just stop after reading my introductory paragraph or after looking at the number of stars I give a film in order to take a personal bash at me just because of how I felt following the viewing of a film. And let it be known, I do not at all have a problem with people disagreeing with me when they fully understand my opinion and they have reason to back up theirs.

I also fear the people who were angered by what I wrote have additionally missed out on a key factor in reading a movie review, and that is knowing the actual critic. I can't knowingly say whether or not the people who were outraged over my choice of words were devoted readers, but I would be surprised to find out they had read nearly all of my reviews and did not just stop to check out one on a particular movie they wanted to see or had seen prior to the review being printed.

When one reads a reviewer's thoughts week in and week out, they come to understand that reviewer's voice and taste in movies. By doing this, readers can better judge if they would be likely to like or dislike a film even before seeing it. I know one of my personal favorites, Entertainment Weekly movie critic Owen Gleiberman, is fixated on the appearance of actors in their role, and if he explains he was distracted by a character's hair, I understand that because this distracted him but won't distract me, I will likely enjoy it more than he did. I also can say the other Entertainment Weekly movie critic Lisa Schwarzbaum tends to not like movies with gore in them, and since that is something I can handle, I will likely enjoy a movie more than she did if it contains that element.

I would invite everyone who reads my movie reviews, whether it's once in a while or hardly ever, to read it more regularly and come to understand what I look for in a good film. I can summarize my basic movie desires by saying I'm a sucker for underdog stories and characters who demand my sympathy will get to me every time. I also strongly hate close-ups and am turned off by anything other than a medium-close shot, and if Johnny Depp or George Clooney are in it will probably love it more than I should. Yes, even "Batman and Robin."

But those are just a few of the many things I look for when I'm seeing a film. In order to get a better understanding of what I look for beyond that fraction of a list, you have to read it regularly and not just look at the stars or the catchy headlines that accompany the reviews and are almost always created by Scene editor Adrian Northrup (I would like to make it additionally clear the headline and sub-head for the "Love Me If You Dare" review was my idea and not hers). So if you, the reader, understand that I take full responsibility for my error and can accept my apology for making an inadvertent mistake in my last review, I promise to strive for the kind of accuracy that is contained in my year's worth or reviews leading up until last week's "Love Me If You Dare" review. If you can do this, I see a great relationship ahead, one that could offer a mutual understanding and hopefully some passionate responses from you the readers.

Hansen is a sophomore print journalism major and chief copy editor of The Spectator.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools