Got Shorty?
I think that was the name, the prequel to “Be Cool.”
At one time, I had a good reputation, real street credibility, which came from the observed phenomena that I usually read the book before I saw the movie. Which ruins a lot of good books. But I’ve not read a lot of Elmore Leonard’s canon of work. No real excuse, just haven’t gotten around to it yet.
I remember “Get Shorty” as a funny film. Saw its sequel Saturday night, amidst some confusion about who was where when. Typical Mercury stuff, visiting family, didn’t make the hook up, “We don’t lead that European life you’ve got, Kramer.”
So anyway, “Be Cool” has pretty much been universally slammed by the critics. I’m beginning to get this idea that if a critic, especially a local film critic, pans a film? It’s probably good entertainment. I’m suggesting that typical media folks don’t understand what entertainment is all about.
“Be Cool” was just cute enough without being too cute, and as always, the venue added a great depth of dimension. The food was good, but the trailers before the film? Amidst the mainstream film trailers, the Pulp Fiction trailer ran. Which was good. Or even better. Since the opening sequence in “Be Cool” was so self-referential, and preceding that with a “Pulp Fiction” trailer? The lead-in was delicious.
The movie itself was cute, funny, cute, feel-good, and had lots of guns going off. So I’m wondering, I mean, I was highly entertained, but the professional media critics all said it was a bad movie.
So I’m starting to wonder why I spend any time at all reading what the critics say. According to them I wasted money on tickets to the film. Me? I loved it. Hint: it’s not like it’s deep material, it’s a stupid film with a bunch of half-literate jokes, all the while poking fun at itself. So it was fun. Not deep or meaningful, but who cares?
