The Mummy, King Arthur, and why critics aren’t always right

The world of art is a strange one: some folks get paid to be haters. Let me rephrase that: some folks, who never held a brush or took it upon themselves to write a book or shoot a movie, get paid to be haters.

In any given field, you are required to walk the walk, so to speak, in order to be considered an expert.

Imagine some guy being considered an expert in quantum mechanics for reading Q&A’s on Quora. And a couple Wikipedia articles.

That being said, critics aren’t always right.


Because they belong to a group of people who like to take themselves way too seriously.

I watch a lot of movies. I read books. Listen to music. I even collect paintings and drawings. And I do all this with the sole purpose of entertaining myself. To amuse myself a bit. To escape reality. Sometimes art is just about that: makes you forget about yourself for a while, makes you see a bigger picture; so you don’t take yourself too seriously and end up shooting yourself in the head one fine morning.

That’s why critics fail at the most crucial aspect of art. Especially commercial art.

Take King Arthur, for instance. Classic Guy Ritchie. Fun, fast paced, enjoyable. A certain kind of cinematography. Witty dialogue. Bizarre characters.

And it delivers.

And it is a fun movie. Well worth watching because it’s entertaining.

Now, about the Mummy. A horror movie that is a lot less scary than it was supposed to be, I am sure. First hour, it’s fine. But then even Russell Crowe starts playing badly(and I’ve never seen him do that) and the whole thing becomes ridiculous.

Wanna know why that movie failed?

It wasn’t sure of itself, of what it was supposed to be doing and what its true message was.

What form of entertainment it was offering the audience.

That was all.

But critics always take themselves too seriously and try to demolish a movie for not being what they would have wanted it to be.

It’s like disowning your own child for becoming a writer instead of a doctor, as you’ve always wanted him to be.

7 thoughts on “The Mummy, King Arthur, and why critics aren’t always right

  1. I really like this post! Recently took my mum to see the Mummy for her birthday and we loved it. We loved it simply because we had fun being together and seeing an action adventure. We neither expected nor wanted our paradigm or meaning of life to be fundamentally altered, which is what it feels like critics expect out of every new movie these days.


  2. Spot on. I really thoroughly enjoyed King Arthur because it did not take itself too seriously, and knew it wasn’t going to be some epic, monumental film. It was just fun, quirky, and yet still dark.


  3. It’s not always a good idea to listen to critics, no matter how detailed they are in their reviews, it’s always subjective so it’s up to individuals to decide whether they like a film or not.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I agree with you. I love King Arthur, especially the music. The Mummy was good, but you’re right about Russell Crowe’s character- really bad idea. What did it even have to do with the story?


    1. I think they wanted to make the Mummy as a sort of first installment for an extended universe as the ones from DC and Marvel. They also tried to do that with that Dracula Untold movie, then decided against it, and even against a sequel apparently.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply to curioushart Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.