You could have written the review for S.O.A.P. yourself, before you ever saw the movie. If you liked the trailer, you would probably like the movie, and if you didn’t like the trailer, then you probably wouldn’t see the movie. This might explain the high movie rating at imdb.com. So there is little point in mentioning the acting, the FX, the audio, or the plot (well, take a guess at what the plot is….) because what matters most is your own expectation.
If you and your friends made Star Wars: Episode One in your backyard on a budget of one hundred thousand, I would hand you a great big thumbs up. But when George Lucas does it for a bazillion dollars with all marketing guns blazing and the unavoidable happy meal hype – I tell him his thumbs were up his ass when he could have been making a better movie.
When S.O.A.P. promises a plane-full of snakes, and then shows us a plane-full of snakes, I’m there to drop eight-fifty. When Peter Jackson promises the movie of the year, and hands you King Kong, I’m there to drop a black mamba in his bathtub.
In both cases, the movies would still be the same, so what’s the difference? The difference is the difference between the movie being ‘better than you thought’, versus it ‘not living up to the hype’.
S.O.A.P. delivered better than I expected, and therefore I give it eight out of ten cottonmouths.
Is it sad that my movie ratings are based on how much the movie Doesn’t Disappoint? What did you think? Leave your thoughts in the comments section.