Some of the kinder negative adjectives used by critics to describe the XXX Olympiad Opening Ceremony in London: Quirky, Twitter-y, Eccentric, Scattered.
Naturally, there were die-hard Anglophiles who raved on and on about it, as thought trying to convince themselves ("Bloody brilliant," exclaimed a Huffington Post critic) that greatness should be the English way by default, if for no other reason than their immense cultural contribution to the world.
Even though I have a soft spot in my heart for what makes up the majority of my ancestry, I found the London Opening Ceremony to be a yawn-fest, replete with moments of embarrassment--for the Brits--and just plain, "What were they thinking?" and "Didn't they actually consider who that would look?" Overall, as unattractive a hodge-podge of disjointed skits as I have ever seen packaged together in my life. Bad choreography. Ugly, dull colors through the first half and messy chaotic colors in the second half. I tried to explain to my nine-year-old why this Olympics Opening was so awful--"It's a small nation," and "They do tend to be a bit dull." But where was at least the ATTEMPT to impress? Where was the epic? And why, oh, why did we have to look at those seven men dressed in top hat and tails in the Victorian/Industrian sequence for so, so long?
Danny Boyle, you let us down. Did you not have enough time to get your act together? Were you not interested in beauty? In pageantry? In color? I would have kept the few and the cool moments--the queen heli-jumping was adorable. The girl-meets-boy skit was interesting, but should have been condensed down to about 25% of what it was. Start the ceremony off with a major splash and work that tedious agrarian skit somewhere in the middle--reducing it to a tolerable few minutes. Add liberal doses of color and extravagant music. Highlight more of the English greatness and less of the English tedious pompousness.
Some critics who agree with me:
Okay--what did you think?