|
Just for a moment, let's compare Professor Clumsy's review to the two negative blurbs the film has garnered on Rotten Tomatoes. While Clumsy had this to say...quote:Maybe this film is a deliberately regressive proponent of right-wing revival or maybe it is forcing us to come to some kind of understanding. Maybe they're telling us that we can't have the superhero fantasy without every political implication that comes along with it. Here's what the negative RT reviews said... Sam Bathe posted:It was right the Avengers shouldn't gel right at once, but how that get-to-know-you period is played out in the script gets massively out of hand. Amy Nicholson posted:Apparently, bootleg copies of Transformers 3 made it to Asgard. I've linked to their full reviews, but you can probably guess the general reactions sight-unseen. "Oh the dialogue is funny and the action is cool, but the plotting is sluggish and it rips off the ending of Transformers 3". (They both even point out that last part.) That's great and all, but what does it tell us? That the naysayers didn't completely hate it, but found it generic and lacking. Nothing more. Nicholson touches on the idea of Holocaust survivors standing up to Loki, but that's literally the last line in her review. Holy hell, I want to know more about that! What are the implications of a scene like that? How does that frame a villain like Loki in the grand scheme of the Marvel universe? Or better yet, how does that frame Loki in the grand scheme of real-life villainy? This is a conversation worth having, and it's tossed off as the endpoint of an otherwise generic review. Why is the entire critic community trying to sweep discussion of this film under the rug in favor of a "100% Fresh AvengerPalooza"? Is it all in some weird push to make sure that everyone in the world knows that this hugely expensive movie isn't a massive turd? I'm pretty sure the movie's gonna make money regardless of how good it is. Maybe the film really is great and Ian's just being a stick in the mud; I don't know, haven't seen it yet. But maybe there really is some troubling political subtext that demands to be explored, and the people we actually look to for these conversations aren't addressing it. That is why I appreciate Clumsy reviewing these films. I was the one who wound up reviewing Captain America, and while my opinion of it still pretty much lines up with Vargo's (or vice-versa  ), I'm willing to admit that that review doesn't delve into how the film deals with propaganda as in-depth as it maybe could have, and I'm certainly coming at these films as someone who does actually enjoy some of them. Professor Clumsy's opinion exists outside the popular echo chamber, and it's a perspective I'm glad we have.
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 01:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:52 |
|
|
Vargo posted:The point of the movie reviews is... to review movies, and throw a few jokes in there. I disagree: the point of movie reviews is to inform consumers about whether or not they would enjoy a product. This is accomplished by the writer being thoughtful, observant, and most of all consistent. Which is why Clumsy is so drat good. I will put this out there with zero hesitation- I loving hate the man's guts, and he would probably hate mine, and we disagree on absolutely everything. Which is why his reviews are great- I know his grain of salt, I can use what he says to make informed decisions on which films I go see, and I know he's telling the truth about it. He has accomplished his craft's goal 100%. If you wanna read something gushing and hyperbolic about the Avengers, just read the review fragments on the back of the box when it comes out on DVD and see it then. Otherwise, go to the professor and grit your teeth and learn.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 07:34
|
|
|
Wait, he was serious about Joss Whedon blaming us for 9/11 because of Captain America's reflection in a motorcycle? He wasn't taking the piss? What the gently caress. If I want to read a bad review of The Avengers, I'm sure Roger Ebert will oblige, and his will at least be less contrived.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 09:58
|
|
|
forums poster posted:Wait, he was serious about Joss Whedon blaming us for 9/11 because of Captain America's reflection in a motorcycle? He wasn't taking the piss? What the gently caress. It's film language. It's not a coincidence thay framed him in the mirror at that exact moment. My job as a critic, in my opinion, is to interpret film language. It's not like you can't make up your own mind about seeing The Avengers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 10:09
|
|
|
A negative review about a movie you like or are interested in seeing is not necessarily a personal attack on your taste in movies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 10:16
|
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:It's film language. It's not a coincidence thay framed him in the mirror at that exact moment. No, it's not, but as someone who doesn't understand film language as you do or look for it, that scene just struck me as just a badass shot, and one you'd see in a comic book. I guess a lot of the backlash on this is that it's baffling to get a review like this out of something intended to be a popcorn flick. The review is more intellectual than the movie itself is on the surface, and coupled with the knowledge that you went into the movie expecting not to like it (and admittedly having not liked the former movies), it just comes off as either trying to find reasons to not like it, or being just too drat smart for a dumb comic book movie. By God, though, you can write amazingly well. The review was fun to read, even if I didn't see eye to eye with it. e: vv This guy sums it up better than I could. Whedon shot the movie like it was a comic book, which I think conveys film language sort of like how Peggy Hill speaks Spanish. John Dyne fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Apr 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 12:35
|
|
|
Well, I'm a film student (well, I was - now I'm a BA), so I know where you're coming from with the whole "film language" thing. It's a reading. I'd even say a valid reading. Forced as all gently caress, but valid. I mean, you've seen the thing, I haven't, so I can hardly rule your interpretation out altogether without being a gigantic presumptuous prick. But seriously? Joss Whedon as right-wing propagandist? I'll believe that when I see it, hear it, and have it confirmed from the fat ginger horse's mouth. Twice. It just seems to me that at best you're bringing a whole load of your own baggage to the movie, sniffing around for the potential semiotic significance of everything short of the precise RGB index on the green of the Hulk's skin, and fitting square pegs into round holes to make associations that probably weren't there in the first place. At worst, you're actively looking for interpretations that you can spin to fit your own narrative. Joss Whedon blaming America for 9/11? You've got yourself in a position where you genuinely believe that? You either need to relax and stop overworking those antennae, or otherwise just get over yourself because you won't impress anyone worth impressing that way. And yeah, you're right, I'm still going to see it no matter what some guy on the Internet thinks. Or overthinks. forums poster fucked around with this message at 12:39 on Apr 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 12:37
|
|
|
So what are some alternative readings?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 12:44
|
|
|
forums poster posted:But seriously? Joss Whedon as right-wing propagandist? I'll believe that when I see it, hear it, and have it confirmed from the fat ginger horse's mouth. Twice. Well, he did make an extremely popular piece of Lost Cause propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 13:58
|
|
|
John Dyne posted:No, it's not, but as someone who doesn't understand film language as you do or look for it, that scene just struck me as just a badass shot, and one you'd see in a comic book. John Dyne posted:I guess a lot of the backlash on this is that it's baffling to get a review like this out of something intended to be a popcorn flick. John Dyne posted:conveys film language sort of like how Peggy Hill speaks Spanish. And no, Joss Whedon is not a right-wing director/writer by any means. However, many people have argued that Marvel makes films by committee, and the film is not 100% his. All of the Marvel films, especially Iron Man, have had a distinct conservative/capitalistic bent to them. Whedon may not be right-wing in the slightest, but it's not a stretch to say some of those elements may have sneaked in there. I mean , friggin Transformers 3 used 9/11-evoking imagery, why SHOULDN'T the movie featuring the man dressed in an American flag? Actually, "9/11 was our fault" is a decidedly UN-conservative notion, come to think of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 14:42
|
|
|
I can just see the face of the acne-ridden 13-year old as he walks out of a screening of The Avengers. He's sobbing uncontrollably, blubbering something about the Hulk smashing his worldview. When the manager of the theater notices, he walks up to the boy, grabs him by the shoulders and says "What's wrong? What happened?" The boy looks up and wipes away his tears. "I did 9/11! Nick Fury told me so!" 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 15:03
|
|
|
Vargo posted:It can't be both? It can't be a badass shot with some deeper implication to it? Oh, it definitely can be both, but I was only giving how I saw it. I'm not a film critic and I have never taken any film classes. All I have to go by is how the film makes me feel, and that scene did not make me feel like I was to blame for 9/11. If I had thought to catch the (supposed) intent of it reflecting the scene onto the viewer, I would have probably wished I was 12 again so I could get a plastic Captain America shield and save the Chrysler Building myself. I mean, when it's explained after the fact, yeah, I can understand how the shot could be meant to make the viewer see the reflection as themselves as the character, or something to that effect. But I don't believe or agree with the notion that the shot is stating 'YOU ARE THE FAULT OF 9/11. LOOK AT THAT BUILDING, LOOK AT YOU (YOU ARE CAP AND WEAK ON THE GROUND) HOW COULD YOU FOR SHAAAME' If anything, I'd more of see it as 'You are Captain America, AND YOU ARE BADASS GO SAVE THAT BUILDING, THROW THAT FUCKIN' SHIELD SON, RICOCHET IT SO IT PUTS OUT SOME FIRES' Which, you know, is how I think a superhero movie SHOULD make you feel. quote:This isn't a defense. As they've been saying in the Avengers thread, these movies are about war. That's not even subtext. That's text. Not using it as a defense, merely an explanation to the backlash. I can't justly imagine anyone seeing the trailer or the poster for The Avengers and musing, 'Ah, yes, this should be an excellent look into the dynamics of leadership amongst equals and team work, with human reaction to tragedy beyond their control, and beyond the control of their physical, mental, and spiritual superiors. Tragic.' But in defense of the movie and Marvel, Marvel tends to lean more towards liberal thinking than conservative, which is WHY the whole '9/11 is YOUR FAULT' thing is weird. I mean, Iron Man and Hulk both painted the military as 'evil' and just wanting to get a leg up on the other guy via whatever magical science Stark or Banner had. Then there was the arc of Civil War, where the government tries to impose legislation to control and have way too much information on super powered beings, and Captain America fighting back and discovering America's priorities and views aren't the clean cut, denim washed version he used to uphold, and that they would merilly give away liberties and rights for convenience and safety, and that this is a Bad Thing. And yes, the superheroes fight and go to war with random threats, but that's what they DO. If the next Batman movie was just about Bruce Wayne's daily life managing his company, it COULD be an excellent movie, but it'd be a major disappointment to the fans. There doesn't HAVE to be subtext or even text beyond 'HULK SMASH' if it's Banner fighting a loving rhino or anything; sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes Mr. Hyde uppercutting a Norse deity is just Mr. Hyde uppercutting a Norse deity. quote:This is the sickest burn and I am determined to work it into conversation today. Thank you. I try. And also watch too much King of the Hill.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 16:43
|
|
|
When the judgement day comes and Joss Whedon himself descends from Heaven and declares that all who believed in his complete lack of a message in The Avengers to have followed the right path and everyone who felt it meant something, anything, that it was even a piece of cinema that used film language and told a visual story, were completely wrong and will be sent to Hell to watch Skyline on a loop. Skyline is objectively bad, see? All I'm saying here is turn off your brain. Cinema is dead; a lifeless husk that looks like it might be alive from a distance, but it is quite dead. You killed it, forums poster. You killed cinema.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 18:02
|
|
|
People sure do like bringing up cigars. I myself hate the taste of those buggers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
forums poster posted:Well, I'm a film student.... Bully for loving you. I'm a film student too, and guess what, I think Clumsy is 100% right to say what he has said. Now, do I agree with him personally? I don't know, I haven't seen the film. I imagine I'll disagree on some points with his review, I often do...but it doesn't make his review something that is wrong. "you won't impress anyone worth impressing that way." is your input? Seriously. Go gently caress yourself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 18:19
|
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:So what are some alternative readings? Give us a week and we'll be glad to, but right now anybody stateside is SOL unless they want to watch an illegal European camrip. You guys picked the one combination of film and reviewer that you KNEW would promote massive amounts of backlash and discussion, but you did it before a massive chunk of the audience could legitimately answer. It's either really sly or incredibly cowardly, I'm not sure which. Professor Clumsy posted:All I'm saying here is turn off your brain. So we're to do what you say, not what you do? To a fault? Professor Clumsy posted:Cinema is dead; a lifeless husk that looks like it might be alive from a distance, but it is quite dead. You killed it, forums poster. You killed cinema. Yeah! We did it! It's been a long road guys, but it's time to celebrate- let's go dance in the urine puddles forming atop the grave of Yasujirō Ozu! Yeeee ha. BoldFrankensteinMir fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Apr 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
BoldFrankensteinMir posted:So we're to do what you say, not what you do? To a fault? Do always inversely the opposite of what I do not say.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 18:47
|
|
|
Current Releases posted:gently caress you!/reductio ad absurdum/so forth Way to have a civil argument there, champs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 19:21
|
|
|
Meltman posted:Way to have a civil argument there, champs. What else is there to do? Can you guys make Clumsy go see it again when The Avengers comes out in the states? Make him write a second review, and we'll discuss that. It'll be great- he'll either have a change of heart or get really vitriolic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 19:28
|
|
|
Meltman posted:Way to have a civil argument there, champs. I'm sick of this argument. It's the same argument everywhere! "I'll believe it when Whedon confirms it." That's not how art works. BoldFrankensteinMir posted:Can you guys make Clumsy go see it again when The Avengers comes out in the states? I'd like to see them try.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 19:35
|
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:I'd like to see them try. Aww, c'mon! You can smuggle a tattered comp-book into the theater in your filthy trench coat's breast pocket and spend the film furiously scribbling down more wild baseless conspiracy theories relating to random observations that may or may not actually be there. "If you look carefully, Cap's shield occasionally has six points to its star- continuity error, or ZIONIST BRAINWASHING PLOT!?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 22:11
|
|
|
That's exactly how I watch and review films, clearly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
I can not WAIT to read your Henry Darger-esque masterpiece about the homosexual undertones of The Fantastic Four. The nude watercolor paintings of Franklin Richards, museum-quality stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 22:43
|
|
|
You're scaring me, Professor Clumsy. 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 03:20
|
|
|
I was actually disappointed in an aspect of the Avengers review: Clumsy never mentioned if Joss Whedon managed to get Scarlett Johanssen's shoes off and her feet magnified to whatever ridiculous resolution he could achieve with his cameras.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 04:21
|
|
|
Nucular Carmul posted:I was actually disappointed in an aspect of the Avengers review: Clumsy never mentioned if Joss Whedon managed to get Scarlett Johanssen's shoes off and her feet magnified to whatever ridiculous resolution he could achieve with his cameras. I thought Tarantino was the one with the foot fetish?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 22:57
|
|
|
CantDecideOnAName posted:I thought Tarantino was the one with the foot fetish? Look who never watched Firefly or Serenity.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2012 07:19
|
|
|
Nucular Carmul posted:Look who never watched Firefly or Serenity. I have, just...not in years. 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2012 21:03
|
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:It's film language. It's not a coincidence thay framed him in the mirror at that exact moment. My job as a critic, in my opinion, is to interpret film language. It's not like you can't make up your own mind about seeing The Avengers. Speaking for the majority of people reading your reviews I know almost nothing of film language, it'd be awesome if you guys could have a "film language" mini-guide or something up on the frontpage some time instead of reviews.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 07:49
|
|
|
Affi posted:Speaking for the majority of people reading your reviews I know almost nothing of film language, it'd be awesome if you guys could have a "film language" mini-guide or something up on the frontpage some time instead of reviews. Funny you should mention that: http://wagthemovie.net/2012/04/04/understanding-the-language-of-cinema-part-one (By Professor Clumsy himself)
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 08:31
|
|
|
What I have learned from Professor Clumsy's review and from seeing Avengers is that I should never ever loving figure out what film language is because I will never enjoy movies again. Ignorance in this case is truly bliss and I don't envy you and your bizarre gift. Well, I guess I shouldn't say you don't enjoy movies, you certainly enjoyed Skyline 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 09:10
|
|
|
I am gonna come in and say I totally disagree with Clumsy's thing about Captain America in the mirror being somehow related to 9/11. I tried to see it that way, but, nope. Could not do it. The rest of his review isn't far off though. Lampost and cars, oh my. TheBigBudgetSequel fucked around with this message at 09:44 on May 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 09:37
|
|
|
I'm not saying Clumsy's review was bad or doesn't have a place, I still enjoyed the read. But I will say you have plenty of time to pick out weird esoteric bits like that when you clearly don't care about the characters and what they're doing, which has been obvious since his first review of a Marvel movie. I'd still prefer to read his reviews over anyone else though, he does at least think his opinions through and writes very well. My local paper is poo poo, and I don't bother going anywhere else on the internet.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 09:42
|
|
|
Affi posted:Speaking for the majority of people reading your reviews I know almost nothing of film language, it'd be awesome if you guys could have a "film language" mini-guide or something up on the frontpage some time instead of reviews. You know more than you realise, being able to follow a plot and respond emotionally to the events of a film requires an understanding of film language. To get really into the nitty gritty of film language you need to look at the technical side of how a film is constructed first, editing techniques and narrative rules (and the breaking of those rules) and then narrow it down to the individual images both in and out of context. You can learn everything you need to know for a rudimentary understanding of film language from this one single shot from Nosferatu...  Who is Count Orlok looking at? In the context of the scene, he is looking at Ellen - this shot is from her POV. Out of context, he is looking directly at us. After he has killed Ellen and heard the cock crow, he looks directly at the camera again. In the context of that scene he is looking at nothing, surely? But by breaking the fourth wall like this the film is giving us a message: "You are going to die one day, possibly today." That's film language. TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Funny you should mention that: http://wagthemovie.net/2012/04/04/understanding-the-language-of-cinema-part-one (By Professor Clumsy himself) That is the first part of a series of essays I have been writing for wagthemovie.net and it gives some details about structural and technical rules, the second part is here and that deals with symbolism (primarily phallic symbolism) and part three will be done sometime very soon, in that one I will deal with the ideas of cinematic space and the fourth wall (not with Nosferatu though, with Hulk and Hugo). Professor Clumsy fucked around with this message at 11:43 on May 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 11:39
|
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:You can learn everything you need to know for a rudimentary understanding of film language from this one single shot from Nosferatu... That is interesting, and yea I guess I could have recognized the hidden message.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 12:21
|
|
|
Messages are for IMs and phone calls. Movies are for entertainment. Sure, some are art but not all of them by any means. I'll watch just about any type (except rom-coms) once, because by-god somebody thought it would be worth making. If I get entertainment out of it, I'll be more than likely to watch the next director/screenwriter/actor's effort. If I don't I'll be a lot more wary of their work.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 15:48
|
|
|
So what is the difference between art and entertainment?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 16:05
|
|
|
Some movies aren't art? And here I was thinking that all movies were art, and that some art is good and some art is bad. Boy, are my eyes opened.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 18:02
|
|
|
Humbug Scoolbus posted:Messages are for IMs and phone calls. Movies are for entertainment. Your opinions on opinions confuse me. Are you saying romcoms are below consideration because nobody thought they were worth making?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:52 |
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:So what is the difference between art and entertainment? Paychecks.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 20:15
|
|