But I know what some of you are probably saying, and it's a criticism I've heard before. "Of course you didn't like the movie; it wasn't made for you." True, but I like to think I'm versatile enough to imagine myself in the place of someone who would like it. With that in mind, I wholeheartedly recommend HSM3 to all viewers who got a kick out of the first two movies. As for the rest of us, I wouldn't drink the Kool-Aid just yet.
While the film certainly has a little pep in its step, don't expect it to be as a result of the acting. I'm sure these kids are a spirited bunch of performers, but the monotone manner in which they enact their respective teeny-bopper dramas makes any Dawson's Creek episode look like Citizen Kane. The music is even worse off, a stream of soul-sucking pop flavorless enough to make the Backstreet Boys weep, all accompanied by hilariously awful dance routines. Only the final number comes across with any real energy, but by that point, it's far too late. The wiser audience members will already have one foot out the exit.
While not as inherently evil a film as last year's Bratz, High School Musical 3 is cinematic junk food at its gnarliest. I'm surprised so many parents give it a free pass and allow their kids to fall victim to its insultingly simple story and even more basic soundtrack. I'm willing to bet most of these folks never actually took the time to watch a High School Musical feature; if they had, then you'd see a lot more people using the DVDs as skeet shooting ammo.
Article comments
1 - godonlyknows
I honestly believe that you have no idea what you are talking about. If you can see it through the eyes of kids everywhere, you'd say it was the best of the three!
Critics are only worth something if they can honestly keep you away/ get you to watch something. Even though your criticism honors a two-thumbs down, people are still going to watch it again and again
2 - A.J. Hakari
I must respectfully disagree.
The way I see it, the job of a critic is to relay his or her feelings about a film in such a way so as to serve as a barometer for the reader's tastes. If a critic gushes about a film in such a way that might mirror how the reader would react towards it, that reader might buy a ticket. Just the same, if a critic condemns a stinker that sounds like something a reader would like, the reader might go anyway. In any case, what's important is that the critic articulated their thoughts in a way that lead the reader to make some sort of decision.
In short...I believe I've done my job. :-)
3 - Elle
I liked HSM 1. I enjoyed bits and pieces of HSM 2. I loathed HSM 3. None of it was memorable. All of it was crap.
Dad's toupee sent me into supressed gales of snickering. I was seated next to my 2 daughters so I didn't want to upset their or anyone else's movie enjoyment, but I am amazed I didn't cause myself internal injuries trying not to laugh at all that was ridiculous about this movie.
4 - jaaaaaaaa...
what does that "critic" know? Doing his job...yeah right. I agree with godonlyknows, it was the best out of three! it was the most dramatic, the most exciting, the least lame for sure. i actually think that hsm2 was crap. Not number 3.
5 - Jordan Richardson
jaaaaaaaa...
The critic's job is not to merely agree with you or with popular sentiment. Instead, it is to present an informed, educated, and fair opinion. This article has done that.
Besides which, get over it. You're talking about High School Musical. Nobody's gonna remember this shit in five years.