|
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?
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 07:39 |
|
|
Not sure it counts, but there's the new Smurf film. Jay Dub will have to suffer that, right?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
Turbo and Epic are slated for this summer, if those count. I already hate the idea of a slug with Aziz Ansari's voice.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 01:27
|
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted: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? Honestly, I'd say no. There's a preconception a lot of people have about art, especially in regards to film, in that most films you'd see in a movie theatre are just popcorn flicks for entertainment without a whole lot of message behind it, and a lot of newspaper reviews and the like tend to go along with that. There's not a lot of discussion on deeper meaning outside of college class rooms, internet forums, and probably film discussion meetings, which all reeks of education (which a lot of people view as bad.) I'd think a lot of people don't really grasp context and subtlety very well. The best anecdote I have for that was Pixar's Up, at the very beginning when the girl lost her baby and was told she couldn't have babies. It wasn't spelled out, and I overheard a lot of people wondering why that scene was so sad. So something even MORE subtle is probably going to go waaaay over their heads. The average consumer probably knows nothing about these things, and to be told about it smacks them in the face as intellectual, which is a four letter word for most people. I know earlier in this thread people brought up the whole thing with Nosferatu and how he was framed and what that meant, and that's the sort of thing a lot of people just wouldn't think of on their own or get without being told as such. Again, there's also the fact that people will dearly enjoy something and want it to mean one thing, and be offended someone took it another way, even though that is sort of the meaning of art and one of those things that there's long rear end classes on. An example is your whole idea with Jarvis; taken within the context of just Iron Man 3, one could take the whole deal in that context. However, someone who has seen all three movies and is a fan of these movies is not going to be judging the story of the film by just one film at a time when someone posits ideas like this. They're liable to go 'UH JARVIS TALKED TO PEPPER IN THE FIRST MOVIE, WHAT THE gently caress BLAH BLAHURH' and get angry or just dismiss everything as idiocy and stretching. I do think that a lot of people have trouble, especially with comic book movies, of judging the films on its merits as a film, instead of an extension of something they love.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
I finally got around to reading that article, and this part:quote:There's also this idea that the big summer blockbusters are critic-proof, meaning that they don't need critics to sell tickets. Well, of course they don't. But no movie is critic-proof in the sense that it can't be somehow illuminated, or opened out, by a writer. In a world of constant marketing, you've basically figured out whether you're going to buy a ticket or not months in advance. We get that. We're not trying to get you to not see movies. (Well, sometimes we are.) That's not our job, and quite frankly, we'd rather be getting you to see a movie you might have passed than skip experiencing a movie you wanted to see because of us. Our goal is to offer other perspectives, to try to explain to you what the movie is trying to say in some way. Most of the time we're on it, sometimes we're way off the mark and it only makes sense to us. (I hate that we keep using Ian's "Cap in the mirror" example, but I saw the Avengers twice and still have no idea what he's saying there.) John Dyne posted:I do think that a lot of people have trouble, especially with comic book movies, of judging the films on its merits as a film, instead of an extension of something they love. The biggest problem with superhero movies in particular, or any film that has a "target audience" is that we live in a consumerist society, and people associate things they like as being a part of them. Therefore, you can't offer any proper criticism of a film to them, because for them, the argument begins and ends with "There is a THING I LIKE on a GIANT SCREEN." I'm not going to give a film a free pass because it's got an audience, and neither should anyone else. If we did that, if we followed Kevin Smith's "Every movie is someone's favorite" then every review ever written becomes "It's the sort of thing you would like, if you like that sort of thing," and that's not really criticism, or writing, now is it? Superheroes are an easy one to pick on because their fans are more vocal, but I remember when "Something Borrowed" bombed, the book's author threw a fit and acted like a total baby on Twitter and screamed that critics "just didn't get it." and the fans were like "Yeah, they weren't the target audience." The thing is, if it's a good film, and the audience members aren't going in trying to fight with the movie, then it shouldn't matter that you're not the target audience. Only a lazy filmmaker only makes films for one group. I'm going to go ahead and be self-promotive here, and remind everyone that I gave a speech on this very subject, in fact EVERYTHING we've been talking about, at a research conference a year ago (while I was dying of a kidney infection, had a 103-degree fever, and couldn't read my notes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h05SpxOvZU DumbWhiteGuy posted: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 think that was the initial idea behind the Minority Reports, but it gets difficult to schedule two movies fr us each week, when we've usually only got about a 48-hour window to do our things anyway. If people cared, we could probably post renbuttals and responses and additional reviews on the Facebook page.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 04:22
|
|
|
Jay Dub posted:Turbo and Epic are slated for this summer, if those count. I already hate the idea of a slug with Aziz Ansari's voice. I think I'd be really excited for Epic if it weren't for the loving slug.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:I think I'd be really excited for Epic if it weren't for the loving slug. That slug loving stops every single trailer I see for Epic dead in its tracks. Also Pitbull and Steven Tyler are in the cast. I have very little hope for Epic.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 04:40
|
|
|
Vargo posted:That slug loving stops every single trailer I see for Epic dead in its tracks. Also Pitbull and Steven Tyler are in the cast. I have very little hope for Epic. I'm glad I have no idea who those 3 guys are. And the facebook back/forth thing sounds cool, but use twitter instead so those of us not subscribed to facebook can read it.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 07:45
|
|
|
effectual posted:I'm glad I have no idea who those 3 guys are. And the facebook back/forth thing sounds cool, but use twitter instead so those of us not subscribed to facebook can read it. But... then we're just tweeting about movies we've watched after we watch them. We do that anyway. The other problem is that you'll probably find us agreeing more than you would like. For example, I really enjoyed Mud, but I have absolutely nothing to say about it to add to what Joe already wrote.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
Mud: I liked it. McConaughey ruled.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 07:57
|
|
|
Regarding The Great Gatsby: Probably like a lot of other people here in the U.S., it was mandatory reading in high school for me. It's also the only book I can hardly remember because I found it so ridiculously pointless and uninteresting, especially the second half. The only good things about it were the characters. I'd love to see a movie with similar characters in a different plot/setting, but as it is, I don't see how any director could make an interesting movie out of the plot in the book.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
dpbjinc posted:I'd love to see a movie with similar characters in a different plot/setting, but as it is, I don't see how any director could make an interesting movie out of the plot in the book. This is basically how I felt about it, and from strictly a thematic standpoint, I love Gatsby. But there is honestly no way to make about 70% of that book visually interesting. I also feel that today, a drunk driving hit-and-run is not the shocking plot point it once was. poo poo Daisy's rich enough she'd probably get off pretty easily. We're too cynical for a novel that ends in cynicism.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 19:19
|
|
|
Spoilers!
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
As dreadful as Peeples sounds, I fail to see how it will be the favorite film of MRAs. And yes, Jay Dub, you're an old person inside- my parents liked The Sapphires and they're in their mid-60s. get that OUT of my face fucked around with this message at 23:54 on May 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 23:52
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:And yes, Jay Dub, you're an old person inside- my parents liked The Sapphires and they're in their mid-60s. My dad had been bugging me about it for months. His favorite film critic gave it a nice review six months ago, and ever since he's been asking me if I knew anything about this Sapphires movie. This week, when I told him I was reviewing it, he forgot what it was.  I don't know, dad...I don't know.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 14:20
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:This reminds me that there hasn't been a talking animal movie review in a while. Sign of a trend, or just the calm before the storm? Yeah it's the second one, the calm storm thing. Unless you're talking about movies anyone's actually seen or heard of, in which case you're legally obligated to disregard everything I just said.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 09:03
|
|
|
quote:I'm going to go ahead and be self-promotive here, and remind everyone that I gave a speech on this very subject, in fact EVERYTHING we've been talking about, at a research conference a year ago (while I was dying of a kidney infection, had a 103-degree fever, and couldn't read my notes): I'm finally getting around to watching this, and holy poo poo is that Bevelry Hills Chihuahua plot for real? 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
Benne posted:I'm finally getting around to watching this, and holy poo poo is that Bevelry Hills Chihuahua plot for real? I did not make up a single. word.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 00:21
|
|
|
I kinda feel you about the lack of meaningful character development in Now You See Me, but when I saw it today I just thought it was bleedingly obvious that the FBI and Interpol agents were the main characters. I mean, Woody Harrison's character pretty much straight up says it in the beginning. I totally fell for the ending plot twist, though. I really should have seen it coming, but welp, it's a good movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 10:20
|
|
|
Question for Professor Clumsy regarding The Purge: If all crime is legal, do they explain why the intruders are wearing masks? Is it central to the plot to conceal their identities?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
CopywrightMMXI posted:Question for Professor Clumsy regarding The Purge: If all crime is legal, do they explain why the intruders are wearing masks? Is it central to the plot to conceal their identities? What? Do you want to be an unstylish criminal?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
CopywrightMMXI posted:Question for Professor Clumsy regarding The Purge: If all crime is legal, do they explain why the intruders are wearing masks? Is it central to the plot to conceal their identities? I'm wondering what's stopping the faux-Anonymous group from just setting the house on fire and ending the movie early. Or did they actually address that in the movie?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
CopywrightMMXI posted:Question for Professor Clumsy regarding The Purge: If all crime is legal, do they explain why the intruders are wearing masks? Is it central to the plot to conceal their identities? Just because something is legal, doesn't mean you won't get ostracized in some manner for doing it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
Offkorn posted:Just because something is legal, doesn't mean you won't get ostracized in some manner for doing it. "Once something has been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral" - Reverend Lovejoy
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
Haephastus posted:I kinda feel you about the lack of meaningful character development in Now You See Me, but when I saw it today I just thought it was bleedingly obvious that the FBI and Interpol agents were the main characters. I mean, Woody Harrison's character pretty much straight up says it in the beginning. I totally fell for the ending plot twist, though. I really should have seen it coming, but welp, it's a good movie. This was one of those moments like Insidious where I realized in the middle of writing it that one of the things I was complaining about was actually the point of the story, but if I explained it, I was giving away too much of the story. That's why I included this line: quote:From a thematic point of view, this makes perfect sense, because it's more Dylan's story than it is the Horsemen's, but it still feels like a series of missed opportunities Because it's true, and it's about as much as I can actually say about it without massive spoilerage. I just would have liked to have seen more interaction with the Horsemen, that's all. You put together such a fun cast, and then don't afford them any time to play around. It seems like a waste.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
CopywrightMMXI posted:Question for Professor Clumsy regarding The Purge: If all crime is legal, do they explain why the intruders are wearing masks? Is it central to the plot to conceal their identities? Well, I think it's supposed to be a kind of cult of personality, the unnamed ringleader removes his mask and the masks looks like him so they're like his disciples or something. It's never explained, but I think that's what we're supposed to take from it. Offkorn posted:Just because something is legal, doesn't mean you won't get ostracized in some manner for doing it. The film starts with Ethan Hawke listening to a radio phone-in show. "We have Larry on the line, what are you planning for Purge Night, Larry?" "I'm going to hunt down my boss and kill him." "Sounds like everyone's busy this year." There's a little bit about people buying and displaying blue flowers to show their support for Purge Night too. There is no indication in the film that anyone is looked down upon in any way for "Purging."
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
If I heard correctly, isn't it also the case that the government actively arrests and executes people who try to resist the Purge, or just oppose it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:If I heard correctly, isn't it also the case that the government actively arrests and executes people who try to resist the Purge, or just oppose it? That's not in the film, not sure where you heard that one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
Since the odds of me ever seeing The Purge are extremely low would you mind spoiling the way they repeatedly solve problems for me?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
The Moon Monster posted:Since the odds of me ever seeing The Purge are extremely low would you mind spoiling the way they repeatedly solve problems for me? I think he mentioned somewhere in some thread that the character not currently onscreen always saves the day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:Well, I think it's supposed to be a kind of cult of personality, the unnamed ringleader removes his mask and the masks looks like him so they're like his disciples or something. It's never explained, but I think that's what we're supposed to take from it. Thanks for the info. Everything I hear bout this movie makes me hope it gets a comedy sequel.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
I have a blog now, for those interested.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 14:00
|
|
|
Deep Thoughts with Professor Clumsy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
We have a new batch: check em out! I just have one request: explain the title of Frances Ha. Based on the review I can only imagine the meaning behind it is going to be really obnoxious, but I won't be able to sleep until I know what the "Ha" is supposed to be. Is that laughter? The character's last name? What? Someone put me out of my misery.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
Tuxedo Ted posted:We have a new batch: check em out! It's super-stupid, but I'll spoiler tag it anyway: Her name is Frances Hawthorne or Halloway or something like that. In the last scene of the movie, when Frances finally grows up and starts to get her poo poo together, she finally gets a steady job and her own apartment. She begins to write out her name tag for the mailbox, then discovers that the only amount that will fit in the mailbox slot is "Frances Ha." The last shot of the movie is the mailbox with Francis Ha written on it and the credits roll and ugggggghhhhh....
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
For the last time, Marty: It's Frances.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
Vargo posted:It's super-stupid, but I'll spoiler tag it anyway: Her name is Frances Hawthorne or Halloway or something like that. In the last scene of the movie, when Frances finally grows up and starts to get her poo poo together, she finally gets a steady job and her own apartment. She begins to write out her name tag for the mailbox, then discovers that the only amount that will fit in the mailbox slot is "Frances Ha." The last shot of the movie is the mailbox with Francis Ha written on it and the credits roll and ugggggghhhhh.... That's horrible. I'll be skipping this one for sure. However, cannot wait to see the Iceman. Michael Shannon is the best. Loved him in Mud.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
https://www.somethingawful.com/d/current-movie-reviews/man-of-steel.php "This is a cinematic Pillsbury Grands Biscuit: It has many layers, but they're all just shallow and white-bread." Amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
So is this easily the worst year for movies since Current Releases started?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 07:39 |
|
|
quote:Man of Steel is arguably Zack Snyder's first non-satirical, non-self-critical film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 02:01
|
|
