I have muttered and complained to my friends about Cranky Hanke's movie reviews for a long time. He really frustrates me. I recently read the letter from Hannah Clarkson (age 10)[“Young Movie Reviewer is Ready to Help,” Aug. 25 Xpress]. [She] rightly calls out Hank for not understanding the roll of a movie critic.
A movie ought to be judged by what it seeks to accomplish. For example, if I am going to read a movie review about an action flick, i.e. Arnold Schwarzenegger, I want to know if there are good explosions, car chases, non-stop action, etc. I don't need to hear that his acting ability is lacking, the plot was too simple and [that the movie was] a waste of time to see. I like all types of films; I loved The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (foreign subtitled) and I love Will Ferrell movies (stupid humor). It all depends on what mood I am in for. I want to know if the story line is coherent and does the movie deliver what it promises. That is key: does the movie deliver. What it is delivering is what ought to be reviewed. Cranky Hanke, Hannah Clarkson and [I] all have different tastes. All three of us are going to enjoy different types of movies. I think that a movie reviewer has a duty to view a movie from the perspective of the intended audience. Will a ten year old girl enjoy the latest Hannah Montana film? If you like Jackie Chan, was The Karate Kid a good flick? I am tired of listening to Cranky Hanke rant about what a terrible movie he saw when I actually enjoyed the same movie. I have gotten to the point that I rarely read his reviews before seeing a film because I don't want his perspective to make me frustrated.
Hank, just relax and watch the film from the intended perspective. If you can't do that then pass the job onto someone who can. Hannah and I would be happy to take your job.
— Cody Kelly