"If you are basing your evaluation of this film on acting and dialog you are completely missing the point. It’s obvious that the actors are amateurs, that they’re improvising most of their dialog, that there is no polish on this production. This film is like an infected wound, it hurts and it’s not pretty to look at. However, it’s a crucial film for our times that packs a powerful punch and is almost guaranteed to stir up a lot of trouble in a couple of months"
This is from a review on Ain't It Cool News about Brian De Palma's "Redacted", a movie that has gotten generally mixed reviews. Maybe it's a misunderstood masterpiece, I don't know. I haven't seen it. But what bothers me about this review is that it assumes a movie being important means it doesn't have to have a good screenplay or good performances from its actors. If a movie sounds like a bunch of amatuer actors are making crap up as they go, I'm not going to see it, no matter what important MESSAGE it's trying to convey.
Just because a movie wants to teach me something, doesn't mean it doesn't also have to succeed on a basic level of film making.