Sunday, January 29, 2023


March 2, 2012 by · 1 Comment 

Of all the major U.S. newspaper film critics, only one gives Project X a favorable review — Neil Genzlinger, who refers to himself as a “second tier” arts critic for the New York Times. And what a favorable review it is! “The Oscars are swell, but once in a while a film comes along that is so courageous it deserves consideration for the Nobel Prize.” In this case, it’s a film that boldly asserts the 17-year-old’s inalienable right to have “a drunken, deafening, topless, drug filled, sex-crazed, property-destroying, life endangering birthday,” as Genzlinger puts it. This is, he concludes, the “Animal House of the iPhone generation.” Then, as an aside, remarks: “Pretty enjoyable for parents, too.” But not enjoyable for other critics, it would seem. Sara Stewart in the New York Post sums up the sentiment of most of them: “There is no way you could make this movie stupider or more pointlessly noisy than it already is.” Project X is another one of those “found footage” movies, with the footage made to appear as if it were taken by the principal character. But Wesley Morris in the Boston Globe comments that it’s hard to look at it “and not think about how true news video and amateur footage have documented political uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East. Or how, in the 1990s, that footage captured riots in South Los Angeles. In Project X, you see similar destruction and anarchy used to bestow popularity upon three boys and think, ‘What a waste.”’