Ed Burns: My Films Don't Suck, Despite the Opinion of the Rest of Humanity
(”A Sound of Thunder” is briefly mentioned in this.)
In an whiny interview with Men’s Vogue (that begins with the remarkably awful lead, “the luck of the Irish has not always helped Edward Burns,” who by the way is American, not Irish), big-time director Ed Burns whines that all New York critics are out to get him.
But the critics–as one of his blood-runs-green characters might put it–keep busting his chops. “My films don’t suck nearly as bad as the Post and the Times would have you believe,” the 40-year-old Burns was saying recently in a nasal and, considering the subject, fairly cheerful tone. “None of the New York papers ever give me good reviews. Usually they take care of the hometown boy, but for whatever reason that’s not the case. My friend has a theory: ‘You know what your problem is? You didn’t go to an Ivy League school, your old man’s a cop, and therefore they gotta beat the crap out of you.'”
Or let’s look at it a different way. Will Burns admit several things that are obvious: that some movies are bad? That the job of critics is to point this out? That he isn’t important enough for critics to meet in shadows to hash out some sort of scheme to trash him? That “A Sound of Thunder,” in which he starred, was one of the worst movies of the decade?
As for his father, Ed Sr., many New York hacks knew the guy and speak of him fondly. (I haven’t met him.) Being the son of a well-liked spokesman for the police can only help you. How being the son of a popular man could cause irrational dislike of you is known only to Burns.
Occam’s Razor says the simplest explanation is usually the best one, and the simplest explanation here is that critics rip Burns’ films because we don’t think much of them. We have no ulterior motive. I don’t know Burns, have no idea what college he went to, and liked “The Brothers McMullen.” I do know that being forced to watch any other Ed Burns film is a painful experience.
I am not alone in thinking this. All of his recent films are in the “rotten” category at Rottentomatoes.com, with “The Groomsmen” getting a 55 score, “Looking for Kitty” at 39, “Ash Wednesday” at 29, “Sidewalks of New York” at 56, “No Looking Back” at 36.
Now let’s see the US grosses:
The Groomsmen: $129,000
Looking for Kitty $4,500
Ash Wednesday $2,900
Sidewalks of New York $2.4 million
No Looking Back: $223,000.
In short, critics do not like Burns, audiences ignore his work, and the people who have funded his last five films have lost every dollar they gave him. If I were Burns, rather than bemoan the fact that no one likes his work, I would say, “I feel very lucky to still be employed.”]]>
Skip Rotten Tomatoes, they’re biased SJWs too afraid to criticize things like the Ghost Busters reboot. Avoid giving them ad revenue by using the minimalist alternative, Cinesift, for a quick aggregate:
🗣️ Know of another conservative review that we’re missing?
Leave a link in the comments below or email us!
⚠️ Comment freely, but please respect our young users.
👍🏻 Non PC comments/memes/vids/links
👎🏻 Curse words / NSFW media / JQ stuff
👌🏻 Visit our 18+ free speech forum to avoid censorship.
⚠️ Keep your kids’ websurfing safe! Read this.