|
I will just say that I'd just find it odd if the most important part of film was something that's not unique the medium nor was it something a film needs to a be a film.
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 02:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 03:36 |
|
|
Here's his review of Kramer Vs. Kramer, which hinges on the performances (to the point that his notes on the script are that it provides the actors with the arcs they need. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19791201/REVIEWS/41004001 Not at all ironically, here's his review of Lincoln, where ALL HE TALKS ABOUT is the performance. I'm sorry if that for some reason means we can't also talk about it or must talk about it in curt, hushed tones, but here it is nonetheless. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121107/REVIEWS/121109989/1005/GLOSSARY Keep reading his site- Ebert is well known for concentrating on performances first, then other aspects as supporting. However, if you need me to find him saying the exact words that performance is the most important aspect, rather than just heavily inferring it (a la a physicist specifically stating gravity exists instead of just assuming everybody's on the same page about that), give me a while, I'll find it. The guy has written a lot. Edit- My mistake, Ebert does briefly mention a few other elements in his review of Lincoln. But the point is still made- he's here to talk about performances. BoldFrankensteinMir fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Nov 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 02:36
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, man. Have you never heard someone say "This movie was bad, but X was great in it" before? It's at least 85% of the appeal of Nicolas Cage. It's not an uncommon or unusual statement in the slightest. Movies are a sum of all their parts, that's why we have five categories down at the bottom of each review. Stop this, everyone. I don't even know what you expect from us anymore. In your opening argument, you condemn Joe because "In fairness, the cinematography and editing are both top notch too, just not in highlighted ways." And then you go on to say that films should be judged mainly by performances. These are two contradictory statements. (Please don't try to explain to me why they're not, I don't care.) Joe chose to emphasize certain points over others for the reasons he chose them. Reasons which have already been explained. Some things are simply more interesting to read and write about than others, sorry if you disagree. It's not dishonest, it's not a slap in the face to criticism, it's basic writing for an audience. Do you want a detailed and annotated list of every point that gets cut out of the resumes and why? Because that would be extremely boring. You do not speak for the readers as a whole, you are not owed an explanation of every decision. Just like we don't feel you owe us an explanation for why someone would continue to read a column they apparently hate week after week so they can nitpick and argue with the authors. You disagree with a man on the internet. He gave you his reasoning, and you still disagreed. Great. There's really not much more that can be done here. Let's move on. Wait, I lied. One more point. BoldFrankensteinMir posted:I had no idea Current Releases was a refuge for film-viewing visitors from other dimensions. Enjoy your audience of 18 people world-wide. 200K per month last I checked, larger on special events like film fest coverage or Twilight movies. Not a huge number admittedly, but enough that we could certainly stand to lose one. Now let's move on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 02:45
|
|
|
What is this guy on about?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 02:47
|
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:What is this guy on about? '80 movies. (Yeah, we didn't forget.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 02:48
|
|
|
poo poo, I mistyped and was basically arguing something else what I meant to type earlier was: "I've never even seen anyone before you say that performance is by far the most important part of film." as in I have never seen anyone claim that the central most important and defining aspect of the medium is the acting. That's what I was finding weird. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Edit: also before you call bullshit this can be proven because what I asked regarding Ebert was this: axleblaze posted:Okay. Link me to Ebert saying that. Link me to Ebery saying that performance is the most important part of film. See. No "a". axelblaze fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Nov 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 02:49
|
|
|
Why do we need to be Roger Ebert? There's already a Roger Ebert who is doing quite well for himself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 02:50
|
|
|
Haha, fair enough. I enjoyed the This Must Be The Place review, for what it's worth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 02:51
|
|
|
BoldFrankensteinMir posted:Haha, fair enough. I enjoyed the This Must Be The Place review, for what it's worth. Nobody cares.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 02:53
|
|
|
BoldFrankensteinMir posted:Haha, fair enough. I enjoyed the This Must Be The Place review, for what it's worth. I'm honored.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 02:53
|
|
|
I promise to gently caress off and stop being a dick about this, but I really would like to know what you guys think about the role of performances in a film's analysis. I had assumed it was generally accepted as the central point by any measure, but apparently I'm wrong. And that's fine. But I'm curious as to what your priorities are if they aren't that. Is that not a fair question? I'm legitimately curious, and will not respond further, if you will please just address this point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 02:57
|
|
|
It really depends on the film. I'm not saying acting can't enhance a film greatly but it usually needs good writing to support it and a good director to the guide the actor. In general, at least for me, visuals go a long way. It doesn't always save a film but there are films I have enjoyed that have lovely everything else. Immortals was an awful film but I still enjoyed is but it was gorgeous. For me half of what was enjoyable about Skyfall were the rich visuals. I can enjoy the crappiest of Dreamworks movie because I can enjoy the artistry of the animators. Really it's a combination of everything though. It's every aspect working together to tell a story or at least forward and artist's vision. It's hard to say that one thing is really more important than others and it varies from film to film what aspects work and if how well they work (or don't work) effect the overall quality of the film.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 03:05
|
|
|
BoldFrankensteinMir posted:I'm curious as to what your priorities are if they aren't that. Is that not a fair question? I'm legitimately curious, and will not respond further, if you will please just address this point. Movies aren't broadway. They have a few more things to judge them on than how well the actors did. I don't think there's a single critic who is going to look at an Oscar grab sort of movie with a dumb premise, hackneyed dialogue, farty kazoo score, and epileptic cinematography and say 'This was a fantastic film, four out of five stars' simply because Big Name Actor did an amazing job as the time travelling Viper, who has come to vash the vindows that vill save all of humanity. I've seen movies with good dialogue and a great concept delivered horribly by actors who weren't suited for the role, and still thought the movie was worth reccomending to friends. Maybe they shot a scene in an amazing way, but the dry, boring actor just chewed the scenery and had trouble conveying emotion, yet the premise behind the film tickled me in a good way. But yeah, it really depends on the film what exactly is the most important. I wouldn't say performance is as important in a cheesy action film as it is in a tear-jerking drama.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 04:43
|
|
|
this is iomportant to me
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 05:22
|
|
|
BoldFrankensteinMir posted:I promise to gently caress off and stop being a dick about this, but I really would like to know what you guys think about the role of performances in a film's analysis. I had assumed it was generally accepted as the central point by any measure, but apparently I'm wrong. There are movies where the acting is poo poo, but the film is extremely well crafted. It happens. It also happens where a movie that is mostly poo poo is saved BY acting. Acting is not the only thing a film has. Films are a sum of their parts. While one part can elevate the rest, it doesn't mean it's the most important. And please do gently caress off with your "18 readers from another dimension" bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 05:23
|
|
|
BoldFrankensteinMir posted:I promise to gently caress off and stop being a dick about this, but I really would like to know what you guys think about the role of performances in a film's analysis. I had assumed it was generally accepted as the central point by any measure, but apparently I'm wrong. I hope you don't think I've been ignoring you. I've had my eye on the conversation, and a lot of fine points have been made that I won't bother readdressing (oh look, I'm doing it again). Why are you so concerned with our thoughts on performance? Film is a collaborative art form, and an actor's performance is one of many primary tools that a crew utilizes to help tell their story. Performances are usually the most prominent, since many films tend to feature characters, but they aren't necessarily the most important. If they were, SyFy Channel Originals might be a little more tolerable. My original comments were that Daniel Day-Lewis' performance, while genuinely a great one, was negatively impacted by a script and overall production that worked to marginalize him in favor of a larger agenda. That's my opinion, I've already articulated it once and don't see much point in having to do it again. Folks like Sheldrake and BigBudgetSequel offered rebuttals, and while I don't agree with them, they're both still valid interpretations. You're trying to drag us into a semantics debate because there simply must be some ulterior motive to my not liking this film. How many different ways do we need to assure you that we're not being contrarian just for shits and giggles? Actually, no. Don't answer that. Just stop. BoldFrankensteinMir posted:I had no idea Current Releases was a refuge for film-viewing visitors from other dimensions. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 07:10
|
|
|
BoldFrankensteinMir posted:I promise to gently caress off and stop being a dick about this, but I really would like to know what you guys think about the role of performances in a film's analysis. I had assumed it was generally accepted as the central point by any measure, but apparently I'm wrong. No, I refuse. Toddle off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 14:27
|
|
|
BoldFrankensteinMir posted:I promise to gently caress off and stop being a dick about this, but I really would like to know what you guys think about the role of performances in a film's analysis. I had assumed it was generally accepted as the central point by any measure, but apparently I'm wrong. There aren't hard and fast criteria for what makes for a great film. Great films are great for different reasons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 17:08
|
|
|
I like how the perspective of your review team differs from mainstream critics on many major films and I couldn't care less what your motives are as long as the criticism is thoughtful, and it almost always is. For example, the hype about Lincoln was really irking me. Now I know that hype is a big part of films like Lincoln these days, but there was something about the hype around this film that seemed to be entering brave new world territory. There was a Time magazine article all about Day-Lewis's performance before the movie even loving came out. Also, after this presidential election and watching Abe Lincoln Vampire Hunter, I wanted to stay the hell away from presidential movies, let alone ones about Lincoln (The highly positive review of that movie is one of the only ones here I've strongly disagreed with. Also is this poo poo going to have topical Obama/Lincoln comparisons? oh please gently caress no). Sure enough the critics are showering this movie with praise and my brother convinced me to go see it. I saw it, and not surprisingly it was merely 'alright' (good central performance but imo not epic loving amazing like everyone's saying, and the rest was just 'meh'), and then I came here knowing that this group would evaluate it independently. Sure enough your review proved capable of resisting the hysteria and pointing out the flaws. It was the same with Skyfall - I thought it was OK and fairly entertaining but rather flawed as a movie and you guys were spot on with how it all seemed incoherent and disconnected. For example, I can't even figure out if it's supposed to be a reboot, or taking place in the bond universe but in the future when he's like 50? I guess it doesn't really matter but man I miss bond movies that at least tried to have a theme or plot you would care about (but the villain WAS loving amazing, I love that guy). Now I've learned to ignore mainstream criticism about these mega-hyped movies because it feels like the critics are in bed with the movie production companies - criticism has just become an extension of the advertising for the movie except it's after the movie has been released. Big time conspiracy theory with no proof but that's just been my impression. Granted, I am not a big-time movie buff nor do I check out things aside from rotten tomatoes / imdb / basic internet meta-reviews, but that's why I come here because you do good work for me! If there's one criticism I could level at the reviews here, it's that they could be even more analytical and insightful. Of course sometimes you guys aim for that and end up being way off the mark according to some people, but I say don't give a poo poo and do it. Your perspective on Twilight, for example, or A-Team, is just loving genius. I also really enjoyed Clumsy's follow up for Prometheus, because now suddenly that movie makes a lot more sense. CowOnCrack fucked around with this message at 08:03 on Nov 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2012 08:00
|
|
|
I had the exact same reaction as you to Silver Linings Playbook, Ian. FINALLY, an honest movie about living with mental illness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 17:10
|
|
|
Senior Woodchuck posted:I had the exact same reaction as you to Silver Linings Playbook, Ian. FINALLY, an honest movie about living with mental illness. It's something that so few films do. Usually films stop short at telling you that mental can cause problems, but they never seem to acknowledge that a lot of people deal with these issues on a daily basis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 16:20
|
|
|
CowOnCrack posted:I like how the perspective of your review team differs from mainstream critics on many major films and I couldn't care less what your motives are as long as the criticism is thoughtful, and it almost always is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 20:01
|
|
|
Fun fact: I've screened Marmaduke over 100 times. The day I reviewed it was simply my most lucid day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
Jay Dub posted:Fun fact: I've screened Marmaduke over 100 times. The day I reviewed it was simply my most lucid day. What kind of sin could a man commit in a single lifetime to bring this upon himself?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 02:21
|
|
|
Command Ant posted:What kind of sin could a man commit in a single lifetime to bring this upon himself? Welp, I hosed up that joke.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 04:44
|
|
|
Jay Dub posted:Welp, I hosed up that joke.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 10:31
|
|
|
Keanu Grieves posted:You know, I honestly wondered about the veracity of your statement too. But then I remembered you've seen it 1,000 times. Me IRL: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 14:53
|
|
|
Jay Dub posted:Me IRL: See? I'm no monster. I gave him eyedrops.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 14:57
|
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:See? I'm no monster. I gave him eyedrops. And now he pukes when he sees a dog. Good going, Professor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 03:13
|
|
|
JayDub, the next day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaWtWAvUb-4
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 04:35
|
|
|
I'm very excited for this weekend's Christmas gift guide. It's been fun to work on and I hope some of you find it helpful, even if it is just for ideas on something to get yourself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 15:11
|
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:I'm very excited for this weekend's Christmas gift guide. It's been fun to work on and I hope some of you find it helpful, even if it is just for ideas on something to get yourself. This really seems like the kind of thing you should let the
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 00:55
|
|
|
Vargo posted:This really seems like the kind of thing you should let the That's funny. You're a funny guy, Melvin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 02:25
|
|
|
What the hell? Who spilled all these beans?!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 19:07
|
|
|
A couple of links in the gift guide on page three are, well, mis-linked. The wooden film reels link to something that's been bought, the Plan Nine one links to the wooden film reels, and the necklace links to the Plan Nine earrings. Don't know if you care THAT much about it, just figured I'd point it out in case you do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 02:17
|
|
|
CantDecideOnAName posted:A couple of links in the gift guide on page three are, well, mis-linked. The wooden film reels link to something that's been bought, the Plan Nine one links to the wooden film reels, and the necklace links to the Plan Nine earrings. I don't know why the Etsy links have been so difficult. We'll fix that. It's a shame becuase the necklace is really pretty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
Vargo posted:I don't know why the Etsy links have been so difficult. We'll fix that. It's a shame becuase the necklace is really pretty. Don't bother with Etsy. You can get the pendent straight from the source!
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 03:26
|
|
|
Wandering Knitter posted:Don't bother with Etsy. You can get the pendent straight from the source! But it's not persssonnnaallizzed. (Yeah, thanks, that's a good tip.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 03:42
|
|
|
Vargo posted:But it's not persssonnnaallizzed. (Yeah, thanks, that's a good tip.) All in a day's work.  This sort of thing pops up a lot on Etsy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 03:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 03:36 |
|
|
Wandering Knitter posted:All in a day's work. I just realized that the link you posted literally requires you to buy 240 necklaces minimum. I think we'll stick with Etsy on this one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 04:33
|
|