|
I take umbrage at the idea that anyone who likes history also likes Pearl Harbor. If anything liking history just gives you more reasons to hate that piece of poo poo.
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 10:17 |
|
|
Anyone who likes science should also like Armageddon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
Anyone who loves comedy should love Armageddon. Seriously, it's basically Michael Bay doing a Coen Bros. Movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I take umbrage at the idea that anyone who likes history also likes Pearl Harbor. If anything liking history just gives you more reasons to hate that piece of poo poo. As a history graduate student who hates Pearl Harbor, I concur. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
N. Senada posted:As a history graduate student who hates Pearl Harbor, I concur. Adding on to this, I'm a PhD candidate whose field is political history of interwar Britain, and while I enjoyed all the performances in The King's Speech, there is a huge amount of historical revisionism in it that caused me to really dislike it overall. Honestly if anything, being a historian makes me less able to enjoy historical movies, at least ones billed as being straight-up historical films that will be the basis for most of the public's knowledge on certain topics. On the other hand I'm completely fine with "histories" like Django Unchained or Inglorious Basterds.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
Vargo posted:Anyone who loves comedy should love Armageddon. You better believe I do. Seriously though, that bit was no joke. I have had a number of conversations with people who wound up using the "Well I liked that movie because I like history," line. I heard it about Lincoln from at least three different people. But I didn't make up the Pearl Harbor example, either. Somebody actually said that. I don't doubt that an actual student of history might have more to say about history on film; in fact, those are the opinions I'd rather hear anyway. In my experience, though, that line tends to come from people who aren't actually interested in talking about it. Mostly it's a way for old people to shut me up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 14:29
|
|
|
Argo's a really fun movie but is problematic because of its misrepresentation of Canada. It's easy enough to give a pass to ridiculous fictionalization that makes the movie more entertaining - see jeeps barreling towards an airplane as its taking off. But, during the denouement, CIA agents discuss the entire hostage crisis as if Canada were their patsy. The reality is that Canadian forces worked very closely with American forces and arguably Canada was a more significant actor than America in retrieving the Americans. This is not simply dramatized history - see jeeps barreling down a runway - but a historical argument. The takeaway is that American forces used Canada as a tool. As a secondary source, Argo is being uncritical of the complexity of the historical moment. As a history person, people simply being aware of the historical events surrounding Argo is cool and I like the movie for that BUT the implicit argument the movie contains regarding Canada's role is problematic. One can build a similar critique against Mel Gibson's The Patriot for its depiction of black Americans (apparently not slaves, but freedmen) working on a South Carolina plantation. Drawing attention to the historical event is cool, but pushing an uncritical or untrue historical argument causes the people who consume this media to build up misguided narratives about historical events. Alterations to the actual history for film effect - see jeeps barreling down a runway - aren't that bad, it's easy for historians to take potshots at that kind of stuff. The implicit, and sometimes explicit, arguments that history-laden films make are usually more troublesome and should be an object of concern for historians interested in communicating to a general audience.  SEE WHAT YOU GET JAY DUB?! LOOK WHAT YOUR HANDS HAVE WROUGHT!
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
I agree in the case of Argo, and I believe the extended cut amends that oversight, but that's what happens when you look to autobiography to establish a historical record. You're seeing it from one perspective — in this case, Tony's. I still think Argo is a fantastic film. Without consulting the Canadians, the writers did the best they could with a perspective-limited account.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
A Canadian friend of mine always brings that point up, and I always figured Argo covers its tracks by saying that the history books and reports were all falsified because of the confidential information right at the end. Sure it's probably bullshit, but they flat-out tell you "No, this doesn't mesh with Canadian history books, and here's why."
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 21:28
|
|
|
Jay Dub posted:I have had a number of conversations with people who wound up using the "Well I liked that movie because I like history," line. I heard it about Lincoln from at least three different people. That's almost as funny to me as someone saying they like Pearl Habor for it being history - I live in Connecticut, and there's been a HUGE furor here over the movie portraying Connecticut's congressmen as pro-slavery, with one of our congressman being very publicly angry about it and Tony Kushner basically telling him to gently caress off. At least here, I think it's the only time I can remember that the historicity (or lack thereof) of a historical movie has actually been a big issue in the public eye.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
Vargo posted:A Canadian friend of mine always brings that point up, and I always figured Argo covers its tracks by saying that the history books and reports were all falsified because of the confidential information right at the end. Sure it's probably bullshit, but they flat-out tell you "No, this doesn't mesh with Canadian history books, and here's why." That's a copout answer, especially considering how so much American media thoroughly ignores Canada.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 03:50
|
|
|
Improbable Lobster posted:That's a copout answer, especially considering how so much American media thoroughly ignores Canada. I'm not saying it's a good answer, it's not. I'm just saying they at least addressed it with an in-movie response.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 03:54
|
|
|
It's neat that this conversation is happening now given the film.com article the review crew shared on facebook. When it comes to features like Jurassic Park, it seems banal to nitpick. Is it nitpicking when someone points out fiction in Based on a True Story films? Historical inaccuracies are the easiest flaws to point out in a film and frequently aren't worth noting but the historical claims pushed forward by the films can be troublesome. Several times I've read from Current Releases that you can disagree with the politics of a film but respect the cinema (or at least be entertained by it). Maybe historians are too politically or morally invested into their field?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 05:50
|
|
|
The Argo/Canada thing reminds me of Nick Nolte playing his Roméo Daillaire analogue as a drunkard in Hotel Rwanda. Why belittle Canadian contributors like that? Who the gently caress knows.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 06:27
|
|
|
Cinema has a hard time addressing historical fact within the confines of a narrative because history has to be pared down to fit that narrative, historical facts are frequently subject to debate, and there's an immediate disconnect once a filmmaker tries to recreate history as the act of recreation of subjective truth is itself fictional construction. Then again, cinema has an equally hard time addressing racial and gender issues for similar reasons so we should either forgive cinema its failures and enjoy it for the pure sensory experience — maybe even for making us consider such matters despite its shortcomings — or encourage filmmakers to stop making films that attempt the possible. But, drat, we'd have to disregard some pretty amazing films.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
Keanu Grieves posted:— maybe even for making us consider such matters despite its shortcomings — That em-dash part is the sentiment I have. There are certain spurious claims that Lincoln makes, but it encourages a perspective that does not reduce the American Civil War to a dualistic good guys north & bad guys south. For me the difference is exemplified by the gap between Michael Collins and The Wind that Shakes the Barley. While I prefer everyone would see the latter because it more realistically depicts the horror of the war, I know Liam Neeson's going to bring in a wider audience. Hopefully after watching Neeson be one rad dude, they'll be able to engage with the history surrounding the event. Hell, at least after the movie they know there was a war that happened in Ireland.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
Hey, Keanu Greaves: A: Clerks 2 is that last contemporary movie you're looking for B: You're welcome. I Before E fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Apr 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 11:47
|
|
|
How do you guys determine who sees what movies every week? On one hand, it's probably easier to write a funny review of Scary Movie, but it's hard to imagine anyone wanting to see that over a Ryan Gosling movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
I mistakenly reported that The Place Beyond the Pines didn't open here. That's how I got Scary Movie 5. And Spy Hard is still terrible. Look no further than the writers for proof. You're welcome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
I think it's fair to say that when Weird Al steals your movie with his opening credit song, you probably don't have the best movie on your hands.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
I wasn't that thrilled with Spy Hard 10 years ago when I watched it. I'd probably hate it now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2013 06:17
|
|
|
DumbWhiteGuy posted:How do you guys determine who sees what movies every week? On one hand, it's probably easier to write a funny review of Scary Movie, but it's hard to imagine anyone wanting to see that over a Ryan Gosling movie. I tell these chumps what to watch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
Can we have Doggie Boogie in the next request-a-terrible-movie poll?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:Can we have Doggie Boogie in the next request-a-terrible-movie poll? No. gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 07:43
|
|
|
Really excited to see Mud. I'm living in France at this moment and the release dates of some movies are pretty random. They'll get the standard blockbusters (i.e. Iron man 3) just like everyone else but otherwise it can be really behind release dates in the US/UK. Thankfully, Cannes gives me the chance to see more artistic films either earlier or at least if not at the same time. The past few years have seen a wealth of great movies based in the Rural United States such as, but not limited to: Beasts of the Southern Wild, Take Shelter, Killer Joe, The Place Beyond the Pines, and now, I hope, Mud. Furthermore, they seem to take place in the South if not the midwest. Any reason for this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
That's an interesting question. From a practical standpoint, it's becoming less expensive to shoot movies in the South. Southern states are starting to offer more tax incentives for production companies, so it's more enticing than ever for people to come here and shoot their movies. (I live in North Carolina, they filmed Iron Man 3 here last summer.) As a result, it's becoming easier for Southern filmmakers to get their own movies made as well. In general, though, I think the interest in rural America on film has to do with with the mood in the country (and the world) in recent years. The economy has been struggling, the political climate has been more ridiculous than it's ever been, and poo poo has just been bad all over. I think it's making filmmakers want to tell more stories about how all these big picture problems affect "regular folk". (But when has this ever not been true?) The South is sort of an easy shorthand for that, largely because to a lot of people, The South is nothing more than a crumbling place filled with poverty-stricken, racist stereotypes. It seems cynical to put it that way, but problems = drama, and the South has a ton of problems. I'm not saying the people who made any of the films you mentioned are exploiting the South necessarily, but for every Mud or Beasts, you'll have a couple pieces of garbage like Hick. "Let's put Chloe Moretz in short shorts and have a bunch of skeevy cowboys chase her around! That'll make a movie!"  And then for some filmmakers, Jeff Nichols for example, the South/Rural America is just what they know, and more of them are getting the chance to put their films out there. I don't know what kind of upbringing Nichols had, but growing up in Arkansas clearly made an impression on him. The comparisons of Mud to a Mark Twain story are pretty apt; you can tell by the way he photographs the Mississippi River that he is absolutely in love with his setting. I'm kinda spitballing ideas here, but I think there's a kernel of truth to it. There's a greater emphasis on films about complicated problems in the lives of 'simple' people. Jay Dub fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Apr 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
What I could say for sure is that at least internationally the American South is one of the most marketable aspects of the United States, at least in the sense that it's well-known. Over here it seems people's general knowledge of the States comes down to New York, San Francisco/L.A., and the Rural/South. The last of those settings is in many ways the most interesting for non-Americans since it encapsulates what they think the true American is like/lives. At the very least these films are more readily viewed here in hopes to discover some aspect of the American psyche.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
I think it's a matter of pre-existing cultural perceptions, as well. There are just as many small towns in the Pacific Northwest or in the Midwest with the same problems as the towns in the South, but people instantly associate the South with Problems, especially Post-Katrina. There's a scene in Mud where Ellis is riding in the back of his Dad's truck, they pass the boats for sail and the pizza place, and we already have our conceived notions about what this town is and what it means. It's easy, they didn't have to spend any time establishing these feelings in us, they already existed. However, dating back to Mark Twain, there's also a sense of magic and mysticism coming from a mouth with a southern drawl, which is why it works so perfectly to have an urban (rural?)-legend like Mud in the South. This is nothing new, there's the mysterious Boo Radley in To Kill A Mockingbird, for example.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
While we're on the subject of regional filmmaking, I'd like to pimp this petition to Sean and I's home state of Oregon to increase the level of funding allocated to the state's film/entertainment industry: https://www.change.org/petitions/students-in-support-of-hb-2267-double-the-allotted-budget-for-the-entertainment-industry-in-oregon
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
Don't think I mentioned it but I really do look forward to reading your weekly round-up. Best honest opinions to be found on the web concerning movies. Also, just got back from seeing Mud and I thought it was terrific. It's been a very nostalgic last 3 films for me what with The Place Beyond the Pines, Jurassic Park, and Mud. The first's scenery just reminded me so much of my native Connecticut that it made want to leave for it right away. Jurassic Park was much better than I remembered (read scarier) and its special effects hold up to today's standards. Lastly, though and most freshly, Mud made me think about being a teenager again. It wasn't touched upon too much in the review by Nichol's really represented the nature of a best friend. I remember my best friend and I at that time getting into plenty of silly poo poo and exploring our neighborhood and swamp marshes in way like Ellis and Neck. Maybe I've been unlucky but those type of friendships don't quite last into adulthood, or maybe we just go on less adventures the older we get. At any rate, these last 3 movies have made me want to go home and be a teenager again, how's that for good film-making?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
An interesting article I think you guys would be interested in. I would ALSO like your two cents on it: http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2013-05-09/film/iron-man-3-analysis/ Keep in mind that one quote that may make you close the browser immediately quote:(Remember all those male critics refusing even to engage with the Sex and the City movies, as if the fantasy those films peddled is somehow more repugnant than the violence of the latest boys-only action thriller?) SITC2 was a terrible film and gently caress this guy for trying to justify it's existence
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 05:31
|
|
|
As requested, here's some unrelated thoughts on that bit of correspondence. I haven't seen Sex and the City 2, although I did watch the first season of the show and it was meh. I didn't hate it and it was occasionally amusing, but I'll never go out of my way to watch its big-screen progeny because shopping in Dubai is so far outside of my realm of interest, I'm the last person anyone would want to provide an educated, fair opinion on a film about shopping in Dubai. Or screwing in Dubai. Or whatever the hell they were doing in Dubai. I've seen Iron Man 3, which is the best of the Iron Man movies, and I've seen The Avengers, which I loathed. Ironically, I love that the events of The Avengers have left Tony Stark with crippling anxiety because, well, how would you feel after you get a peek at all the nasty stuff (Outer Gods and the like) waiting behind the curtain? That's an unexpected dimension (no pun intended) for a marketable superhero and the kind of thing that should get Stephanie Zacharek excited, if she cares about characters regardless of genre. On the whole I don't like superhero movies, but the ones that dig deeper -- The Dark Knight and Iron Man 3 seem to be the only examples that spring to mind -- are as deserving as any film of critical appreciation. We should be thankful when any Hollywood director shows a little respect for the audience's intelligence and strives to deliver something more than explosions. Considering most people in the target audience for comic book movies will never see Super, a little respect is the most we can get. I don't really have a beat at Current Releases, although I'm usually tasked with reviewing horror films. I love the genre even though I dislike most new horror. Why? Because, regardless of genre, most films just aren't very good. That's been true since the dawn of cinema. poo poo, since I started this gig, I've seen more bad movies in theaters -- most recently, Scary Movie V -- than I'd ever planned to. On the other hand, Ian, Marty, Joe and I tip each other off to movies that were unexpectedly great, all things considered: Insidious, Fast Five, Footloose, etc. That's part of the pleasure of being a critic: You see so many movies, it's easy to lose touch with the opinions of the date-night filmgoer, but you catch glimmers of intelligence just beneath the porous brown surface of the dumbest turds and wind up loving some of the same movies as Joe Q. Multiplex for entirely different reasons. Getting back to Sex and the City 2, I never saw it because nothing in the marketing hooked me and no one's told me it's worth seeing for unexpected qualities. It appears to be exactly as advertised: A movie about shopping in Dubai. As someone who's, like, neurotically preoccupied with race, gender and class in cinema, I'm disturbed that the most successful movies are built on such antiquated notions -- that, for women, the ultimate fantasy involves taking a platinum card to Dubai or, for men, the only universally recognizable tragic flaw lies in a self-destructive rich boy with delusions of grandeur and maybe a drinking problem. Or that a skintight suit of leather or latex is sensible fighting attire. I do agree with Zacharek and Scherstuhl that, as movies grow more focus-grouped and more people expect a decimal score, the audience is paying less attention to what a critic says than some arbitrary number. That's why I like the Current Releases rating scheme: It's flexible enough that we can make up categories to emphasize aspects of our reviews, introduce entirely new criticisms or give movies negative scores. And I also agree with them that no movie is critic-proof, but I do wonder why the critical establishment wastes so many words on conventional, predictable readings of conventional, predictable films. A movie like Sex and the City 2 -- or Iron Man 3 -- has a built-in audience that's probably going to see "their" movies before many reviews are even out (God bless Thursday nights, am I right?). I don't want to toot our own horn too hard, but since we come out on Sunday, it doesn't seem like we waste a lot of time urging people to see movies they've probably already seen. Rather, we're more likely trying to prevent people from seeing bad films or urging people outside of a movie's target audience to see that movie for unforeseen qualities that may appeal to them. That's my completely uninformed 3:45 a.m. take on the future of film criticism anyway. We're going to have to focus more on after-the-fact analysis to give films context, rather than trying to guide audiences to a good fit. But I'm just plum excited to keep watching a poo poo ton of movies and finding under-the-radar films that are just as entertaining as the bigger-budget fare without expressing as many of the racist, sexist, classist messages that drive most Hollywood films -- even the good ones. Keanu Grieves fucked around with this message at 11:51 on May 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 11:48
|
|
|
Keanu Grieves posted:A movie like Sex and the City 2 -- or Iron Man 3 -- has a built-in audience that's probably going to see "their" movies before many reviews are even out (God bless Thursday nights, am I right?). I don't want to toot our own horn too hard, but since we come out on Sunday, it doesn't seem like we waste a lot of time urging people to see movies they've probably already seen. Rather, we're more likely trying to prevent people from seeing bad films or urging people outside of a movie's target audience to see that movie for unforeseen qualities that may appeal to them. This ties into Scherstuhl's original question, which is what responsibility do we as critics have to a film's built-in audience? I've been thinking about for a while and the only answer I can come up with is that we really don't have any. I agree with the article that simply saying "If you're a fan of X, then you'll probably enjoy Y" is not what we're here to do. That's an easy assumption that anyone can make, and the fans who've already made up their minds aren't going to notice anyway. I think our responsibility is not to any given fanbase, but to our readership as a whole. One of the facts that we're constantly forced to reaffirm with Current Releases is that none of our opinions are fake. When we go against popular opinion on these big tentpole movies (or any movie, for that matter), we're not trying to troll readers or piss off its fans. We're being completely honest. It's easy to think otherwise because you're reading it on Something Awful, but I'd like to think that over the course of four years, our readers have come to know our respective tastes in movies, and that when we do go against the grain we generally have good reason. And I completely agree about video game reviews ruining film criticism. People get so hung up on the scoring rubric and how to quantify the quality of each individual part that it takes away the fun of being able to take in a film (or video game, for that matter) as a single unified experience. If there's any one part of our reviews that I don't take very seriously, it's the score. The final score generally reflects my feeling on a film, but the categories are more fluid. In my mind, at least, it's an attempt to steer readers toward the body of the text rather than immediately to the final score. Jay Dub fucked around with this message at 15:38 on May 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
Jay Dub posted:When we go against popular opinion on these big tentpole movies (or any movie, for that matter), we're not trying to troll readers or piss off its fans. We're being completely honest. I'm glad to hear this, and sort of expected it, but the fact people seem to constantly be given their least favorite kind of movie (Clumsy and superhero films, you and talking animal movies, etc.) makes it seem like they're at least paired with films that will give the most amusing reactions, which tend to also be the most negative. Professor Clumsy being the biggest example of this of them all, simply because he delves so much deeper into the films than most people would care to or even expect. Usually I just simply disagree with some of his assessments or boggle at the logic he used to get to them, and rarely do I ever believe he's just plain wrong, but the whole vibe he gives is like he's treating a big budget film as an art house film and making poo poo up just to give it a bad review and annoy comic fans (the easiest target of them all), when in reality he's just judging the films as he would any film. He's really good at breaking apart a movie, but it's in such a way that it almost seems like it's talking down to the film's target audience, and can be so out there that it seems like he's trying to be fake-intellectual just to insult us. The whole Avengers thing with Captain America in the mirror is the best example. Which I know isn't true; several of the things he pointed out in the Ironman 3 film made sense cinematically, even if they wouldn't have made sense with the Tony Stark character. The only one that really struck me as 'wait no' was the whole thing with Jarvis, but that's only incorrect if you take the other two films into consideration as well, which isn't exactly right for a film that is supposed to be standalone and is judged on its own. You guys are doing an amazing job, though, and I agree that video game journalism is pretty well hurting all other entertainment journalism; it's not just the numbers thing, but it's written towards an audience that more and more just wants to know, 'DO I WANT TO SPEND MONEY ON THIS YES/NO'
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 15:57
|
|
|
John Dyne posted:I'm glad to hear this, and sort of expected it, but the fact people seem to constantly be given their least favorite kind of movie (Clumsy and superhero films, you and talking animal movies, etc.) makes it seem like they're at least paired with films that will give the most amusing reactions, which tend to also be the most negative. Okay, that might be completely true. That's sort of where the SA-ness of Current Releases comes out. Think of it this way, though: If we did the opposite of that, then we'd potentially be giving glowing reviews to everything. Unless it's Alvin and the Chipmunks or something. And how interesting would that be? quote:You guys are doing an amazing job, though, and I agree that video game journalism is pretty well hurting all other entertainment journalism; it's not just the numbers thing, but it's written towards an audience that more and more just wants to know, 'DO I WANT TO SPEND MONEY ON THIS YES/NO' Yeah, I can at least understand why games journalism is the way it is. It evolved out of the world of consumer electronics reviews, where they try to weigh the pros and cons of a product because those tend to be expensive investments. But now that the gaming industry is a serious rival to the film industry, we're shoving the two writing styles against each other and the result sure as hell isn't pretty. Jay Dub fucked around with this message at 16:42 on May 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 16:09
|
|
|
Jay Dub posted:Okay, that might be completely true. That's sort of where the SA-ness of Current Releases comes out. Think of it this way, though: If we did the opposite of that, then we'd potentially be giving glowing reviews to everything. Unless it's Alvin and the Chipmunks or something. And how interesting would that be? Oh, no, I agree fully. But it gets the whole 'if you hate it so much why are you reviewing it' and 'why not get someone that LIKES these kinds of movies' schtick going, which leads to believing it's trolling because of the whole 'there is no way anyone ever could actually dislike a movie I like so they must be wrong and doing it to make me mad' mentality. I mean, I figure if Vargo reviewed some of the Marvel movies we'd see something completely different and more on the level with what a comic fan would want to read, covering how accurate the character is to the books and other such nonsense. But they also probably wouldn't be as interesting since it's a review catered to the target audience of the film. Also, I'm personally guilty of using reviews to see if movies are worth spending money on or not. v  v Limited time and limited funds means I want to know if I'm going to even remotely enjoy something before I go in, though I usually only check them on things that I'm on the fence about, like Django Unchained. Films like The Big Wedding and The Croods I already know where I stand on watching them, which is why reading the reviews dismantling them were really interesting and entertaining and gave me the same amount of entertainment my 15 bucks would've gotten me without having to get my feet stuck to the floor by old soda.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
Yeah, I guess we do sort of bring it on ourselves, don't we?John Dyne posted:Also, I'm personally guilty of using reviews to see if movies are worth spending money on or not. v Don't take that the wrong way. There's nothing wrong with using reviews to decide how to spend your money. I'm just saying that video games have been reviewed as a consumer product for so long that they're struggling to break out from that now that Games Journalism is becoming a thing.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
John Dyne posted:
As a reminder, I have Captain America's shield permanently inked into my skin, so I probably come to this with some bias as well.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
Have you guys ever thought about having more than one person review the same movie? Either as like a back and forth conversation, or two completely independent reviews. I miss At The Movies
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 10:17 |
|
|
I always write from the assumption that my readers know what they like and can make up their own minds. People don't need to be reassured that they might like something even if I don't. I know I'm the "I hate superheros" guy, but I have to go into every Iron Man film with an open mind or I wouldn't be doing my job. I can perfectly understand the desire to treat these like consumer advice columns because, to some extent, they are. If we have a film on the roster that isn't getting a lot of marketing exposure then it stands to reason that the information we give here should give an idea of what it is and whether it's worth checking out. As for treating blockbusters like they are art films, I think a lot of big money movies get special treatment from critics where they basically ignore anything the film has to say and just focus their review on whether the already hyped target audience will enjoy it uncritically. Of course they will, they're twelve-year-old boys in 25-year-old bodies. I find the kind of non-analytic approach to The Avengers rather troubling, in fact. My Avengers review got a lot "No, it doesn't mean that, it doesn't mean anything" responses. I find that rather alarming; the reluctance to find meaning in the things you like. Are these people afraid of what it will say about them? I agree with Sean that the future of film criticism lies in after-the-fact analysis. Today, the value of timeliness is questionable, when every blogger and youtuber has a review out on release day saying Iron Man 3 is awesome because it's Iron Man and there are Batman fans willing to send death threats to anyone who will damage a potential 100% tomato rating. I want to burn the tomatometer to the ground, but I've already written about that.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 23:20
|
|