|
WeaponGradeSadness posted:Wasn't he also the guy that wrote that grievously terrible review that was entirely a pissy "parody" of some article that offended him, that had little to nothing to say about the movie itself? Yea http://www.somethingawful.com/current-movie-reviews/ninja-turtles-storm/1/ the spiel about desperately wanting to eat Megan Foxs poo poo got edited out I think.
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:02 |
|
|
100YrsofAttitude posted:They get lazy in regards to movies like Left Behind where I feel they must assume most of their readers are definitely not going to see it one way or another. I know I wouldn't see it anyway regardless of what they had written about it. As for a movie like Gone Girl, I imagine most people know if they want to see it or not. Fincher's a big enough name for those who go to the movies regularly enough that they know if they like his stuff. The same goes for Affleck. So you often get dumb reviews of movies that are going to be seen either which way. The kid's movies reviews are generally the most ridiculous because it's a genre that most of their target audience is probably not going to see. A lot of the time the excuse is 'we know our target audience', but if that were true, why even review the movie if they think no one will see it? If it's actually good and you assume the target audience wouldn't normally see it and you want to convince them to see it, that's a different story, but if you know no one will see it and there's nothing interesting to write about it, why bother? Larry Parrish posted:Hello. I've read Current Releases for a few years now. Please, please, stop searching for symbolism or giving me your random unrelated opinions on feminism and race relations or whatever and just tell me if you enjoyed watching it or not. Did it feel badly paced? Was it original, or stale and overplayed? Nobody is looking for anything else on a movie reviews column. They want to give actual critical film analysis to pop movies and while that can be pretty cool the target audience for it is pretty fuckin' niche, and you have to actually be very good at it. It leads to incredibly varied levels of quality and sometimes the humor gets completely lost in trying to make a point. Clumsy was horrible for this, EVERYTHING had an ulterior meaning to it, and he treated every movie like the directors were using artistic practices last used in movies from the early 20th century and were making a point with literally everything that happens in the movie. Captain America seeing a building collapsing in a mirror? The director is showing how he blames AMERICA ITSELF for 9/11. Giant robot urinating on a cop? Obviously the model of the car is meant for the upper-middle class so this is symbolic of their hatred of blah blah bullshit and farts. Clumsy never realized that sometimes a cigar is a cigar, or that you will always find meaning where you look for it. It's a common thing with artistic criticism. I know they're trying to separate themselves from literally every other review site by doing it that way and have even said that's their intent, but it's really contrived and the quality just goes all over the place. Front page stuff is supposed to be at least a little funny.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Chilled Cap posted:When I posted the Planes review, one of you defended Current Releases by pointing out that Ian Maddison no longer writes for the column (because he was so humorless that the innocuous g0m review trolled him into quitting, lol forever), but the truth is that all of the reviewers are completely indistinguishable from each other. They all seem to get mad about the same perceived identity politics missteps regardless of the content of the movie they are reviewing; I honestly doubt they disagree about one single political position between them. I think this actually is what has been bugging me most lately about the reviews. I literally can't tell anyone apart except I think one of them uses an overwrought time traveler gimmick? Like, I don't know what the point of having a fairly large reviewer pool is if everyone writes in the same way, has the same opinions, and more or less views the world and society that the films are reflecting the same way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
I would also appreciate if the reviews weren't written in an absolutely humorless way. They don't have to be funny, even, but they should at least not take themselves so seriously. My exception is the "minority report" blurb, because every single one of these appears to be trying to make a joke, but the joke makes absolutely no sense. edit: Also can somebody link the g0m review that is apparently very good? i found it - http://www.somethingawful.com/current-movie-reviews/apes-snowpiercer/3/ theflyingorc fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
So as someone who has not read or seen "Gone Girl" nor really paid much attention to the media hype and promotion, was that review supposed to convey any meaning to me? I'm not trying to dogpile here, just want to know if that review's audience was supposed to have already become familiar with the material.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
I guarantee that the only thing the Current Releases team is absorbing from this is "ugh, stupid FYADs are mad that we care", and that no criticism of their reviewing gimmick is capable of penetrating their protective bubble.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Top Bunk Wanker posted:I guarantee that the only thing the Current Releases team is absorbing from this is "ugh, stupid FYADs are mad that we care", and that no criticism of their reviewing gimmick is capable of penetrating their protective bubble. The fyads are actually pissbabies and shitfucks. Who uses ableist slurs like "stupid" in TYOOL 2014?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:So as someone who has not read or seen "Gone Girl" nor really paid much attention to the media hype and promotion, was that review supposed to convey any meaning to me? I'm not trying to dogpile here, just want to know if that review's audience was supposed to have already become familiar with the material. The audience is supposed to: 1. Already have heard that feminists are angry about the portrayal of negative female characters in Gone Girl. 2. Already be angry yourself and hate the movie in advance because of 1. 3. Cheer on Keanu Grieves' merciless deconstruction of those negative female characters because of 2.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Wow, leftist analysis really gets under your skin, eh? It's bad enough you folks think you're actual writers, but please don't refer to yourself as an analyst of any kind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Wow, leftist analysis really gets under your skin, eh? A lot of the people who dislike these "reviews" are way more to the left than you, if you count it by doing stuff in the real world instead of being anime-marxists with anxiety disorders.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Chilled Cap posted:The audience is supposed to: The author of the book is a woman, do any of the reviews address that or is it just "bad guy is a woman=misogyny"
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
Please never ever post anything from Twitter in this thread again as it's not helpful criticism of criticism and you seem to just want to stir more poo poo into the pot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
platedlizard posted:The author of the book is a woman, do any of the reviews address that or is it just "bad guy is a woman=misogyny" The author also wrote the script based off of her book and the director has among his earlier credits Alien 3 and Panic Room, two movies with strong female protagonists, but to answer your question no they don't mention this and the movie was tailor-made for misogynist rapists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
platedlizard posted:The author of the book is a woman, do any of the reviews address that or is it just "bad guy is a woman=misogyny" It doesn't even mention it's based off a book at all along with many other things that you'd probably expect from even a grade school book report. It's basically just a list of problematic things that one can only assume are in the actual movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:The review seems to basically place the blame at David Fincher's feet, and if you knew nothing else about the movie you might think he came up with the material himself. Yea I legit didn't know it was a book until this thread pointed it out. That's always the sign of a quality review, get so focused on making GBS threads on the Panic Room guy (MY MORTAL FOE) you don't actually say things about the movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
I really liked the review of Frances Ha Vargo did and wish CR was more like that, and less like the Gone Girl review. Have a good day!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Daikatana Ritsu posted:It's bad enough you folks think you're actual writers, but please don't refer to yourself as an analyst of any kind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
John Dyne posted:They want to give actual critical film analysis to pop movies and while that can be pretty cool the target audience for it is pretty fuckin' niche, and you have to actually be very good at it. It leads to incredibly varied levels of quality and sometimes the humor gets completely lost in trying to make a point. Clumsy was horrible for this, EVERYTHING had an ulterior meaning to it, and he treated every movie like the directors were using artistic practices last used in movies from the early 20th century and were making a point with literally everything that happens in the movie. I know that's what they are trying to do. I'm just saying that it's really retarded to always aim for that. A lot of movies have no depth to them like that and it's pointless to search for it. Sometimes people just paint a picture to look nice. If they posted lengthy deep-analysis of movies that actually had some analysis to be done on, it'd be nice, but usually it's as ridiculous as that review about the Wolverine in Japan movie that sucked being all about dicks and the director's pathological fear of dicks. No, it's about Wolverine beating people up. What the gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:I know that's what they are trying to do. I'm just saying that it's really retarded to always aim for that. A lot of movies have no depth to them like that and it's pointless to search for it. Sometimes people just paint a picture to look nice. If they posted lengthy deep-analysis of movies that actually had some analysis to be done on, it'd be nice, but usually it's as ridiculous as that review about the Wolverine in Japan movie that sucked being all about dicks and the director's pathological fear of dicks. No, it's about Wolverine beating people up. What the gently caress? This is literally considered wrong by various(most?) members of Cinema Discusso. They've embraced death of the author fully, and seem to consider the mental exercise of mapping films to weird alternate readings as not just a fun mental exercise (what if Star Wars is really about the War of 1812!?), but perhaps as the end-all be-all of film analysis. I am not trying to be insulting, but everything I've read seems to strongly hint that "if you say the way I looked at the film makes no sense or is obviously completely outside the creator's intent, you are wrong and should not be allowed to post about movies". This is, of course, how we get that incredibly embarrassing "The Jungle Book is about urban black jazz singers or whatever" post from a few pages earlier in the thread. I'm all for people doing silly analysis of film ("Oh, man, Speed is really about the perils of jumping into a relationship and how many people stay there because it will destroy them if they stop!"), but if you can't say "uhhh...that's dumb." it gets really, really masturbatory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:This is literally considered wrong by various(most?) members of Cinema Discusso. They've embraced death of the author fully, and seem to consider the mental exercise of mapping films to weird alternate readings as not just a fun mental exercise (what if Star Wars is really about the War of 1812!?), but perhaps as the end-all be-all of film analysis. This is quite literally in the rules for the movie forum and a big reason for why it has gone just as far off the rails as the movie reviews for the front page. The lunatics are running the asylum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Someone just needs to sit the internet down and explain that Death of the Author is an interesting thought exercise not divine law.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
Spanish Manlove posted:Please never ever post anything from Twitter in this thread again as it's not helpful criticism of criticism and you seem to just want to stir more poo poo into the pot. If he said the review was super rad and to expect more of the same, THAT would stir more poo poo into the pot. But instead it's kind of like a pot-non-stiring post, like a pot baffle or liquid braking system. I don't know why there's even a pot that you give a poo poo about the speed of rotational momentum, but that's for another forum I guess. Anyway, my SA Front Page Discussion on-topic feedback is that I'm encouraged that Prof. Clumsy does not find the review to be good, as perhaps that could lead to improvements.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
He thinks g0m's good review is bad not any of the terrible ones written by the CR regulars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
CD is good and it's fun to read about readings of movies no matter where they go as long as they use evidence from the film to support their assertions. Yes when you blindly draw two different ideas together and say "this is this (because I said so" then it's dumb. But if you use arguments to support your claim that "this represents this", then other people can read your arguments and decide whether they are good or not... and then talk about it, I guess. Which is what I see people like SMG or that guy with the lovely batman cartoon character as his avatar do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Rannos22 posted:This is quite literally in the rules for the movie forum and a big reason for why it has gone just as far off the rails as the movie reviews for the front page. The lunatics are running the asylum. The opposite reading is true! THE OPPOSITE READING IS TRUE!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
Rannos22 posted:He thinks g0m's good review is bad not any of the terrible ones written by the CR regulars. Oh poo poo, dates... yer right, I suck.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:I know that's what they are trying to do. I'm just saying that it's really retarded to always aim for that. A lot of movies have no depth to them like that and it's pointless to search for it. Sometimes people just paint a picture to look nice. If they posted lengthy deep-analysis of movies that actually had some analysis to be done on, it'd be nice, but usually it's as ridiculous as that review about the Wolverine in Japan movie that sucked being all about dicks and the director's pathological fear of dicks. No, it's about Wolverine beating people up. What the gently caress? Trust me, I agree with you; it's okay when they do it with a film that might have been intended to have alternate meanings, like Frances Ha, but like you said, sticking it to The Wolverine or any other blockbuster film is ridiculous. I mean, I think they should do three kinds of reviews: reviews for movies their audience likely would not watch, but they think they SHOULD watch; reviews for movies their audience is likely to go watch, but they think they SHOULDN'T; and take downs of ridiculous films regardless of audience intent. I just want to know if a movie I wasn't interested in seeing is actually worth seeing, or if a movie I wanted to see isn't worth seeing, in terms that suit the audience. I don't care that comic book movies don't meet the standards of Schindler's List, I just wanna watch dudes shoot lasers out of their eyes and blow poo poo up and eat over priced hot dogs and nachos. I DO wanna know if the overtly Christian film I was ignoring because it seems like another Lifetime original is actually a good piece of cinema on its own, or if a film whose trailer makes it seem really awesome is actually Drive levels of slow and tedious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Crimpolioni posted:A lot of the people who dislike these "reviews" are way more to the left than you, if you count it by doing stuff in the real world instead of being anime-marxists with anxiety disorders. Tatum Girlparts posted:Someone just needs to sit the internet down and explain that Death of the Author is an interesting thought exercise not divine law. I thought death of the author was about NOT assigning dumb interpretation and intentions into everything
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 01:59
|
|
Corridor posted:I thought death of the author was about NOT assigning dumb interpretation and intentions into everything Barthes's argument in the original essay is that it's impossible to believably assign a single authoritative meaning onto things, and so it's not really what anyone does, in CD or elsewhere.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
I recall Professor Clumsy being so offended by Redline, an animated film about cool car racing, that he dedicated the entire review to talking about penises. Even Zorak called him out on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:So as someone who has not read or seen "Gone Girl" nor really paid much attention to the media hype and promotion, was that review supposed to convey any meaning to me? I'm not trying to dogpile here, just want to know if that review's audience was supposed to have already become familiar with the material. I agree this was a real problem. I haven't seen any movies or followed current releases in a while and I read this weeks to see what was in theatres since I don't know any more. When I read that review I legit thought I had clicked on the wrong article since it didn't resemble a movie review. I read it and came here because I genuinely didn't know if the movie or the review was real. I'm going to have to also say it was a bad review since I still I don't have a clue what the movie is even about also I needed to read this thread to confirm that it was a review of a movie. I think it is possible to talk about subtext and symbolism without this sort of thing happening to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
COBRARocky posted:I recall Professor Clumsy being so offended by Redline, an animated film about cool car racing, that he dedicated the entire review to talking about penises. Even Zorak called him out on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
tentative8e8op posted:You lose any comprehension by attempting to argue every point with your own separate points, and such stilted hard-to-read messes simply make you seem shamefully autistic or schizophrenic. Fair enough, I won't break up individual posts anymore, although I do worry about some of y'alls ability to figure out what I am responding to, since a common complaint seems to be that CR is allegedly unclear or duplicitous (while simultaneously being too dumb or basic, even to the point of being childlike). Effectronica posted:It's amazing how your subversive "reading" comes within the orbit of deliberate choices by the filmmakers and camp readings without ever actually touching them. Meh, it was a quick idea off the top of my head meant to serve as an example. It's certainly not a strong one. th1nk posted:If I may make one further request of your brilliant analytical mind and stunning, nay, inspiring grasp of the appeal of various mediums, who would you consider the target audience for Current Releases, and how does this audience compare to that of the rest of the front page? If you believe they are similar, could you explain the ways in which both appeal to this audience, with a focus on current releases. In this case, I would also be interested to hear whether or not you would agree that there is nonetheless a marked difference in tone between the two, and then ask why this does not affect their target audiences. If they are not similar, what are your arguments as to why this inconsistency is superior to the relatively consistent tone used by the vast majority of similar websites, and how large would you consider these two audiences relative to each other? The target audience is anyone who interested in what movies are coming out and what some goons thought about them. It is the same audience that reads other front page material, the same that reads the forums. You and me and any other terrible nerd. I have not noticed a “marked” difference between CR and other features. The reviews are usually straight, with the occasional experiment (like the Gone Girl one) and some that outright mock the film without any attempt at review. But even the serious ones still fall within the general dorky point-of-view that is Something Awful. Sometimes they are good and I agree, other times they are good yet I disagree, and yes sometimes they are bad (like the Gone Girl one), but those aren't often enough to elicit much emotion from me. WTF D&D is pretty consistently creative and funny imo, but some of them are boring too. It happens. Don't forget, if you don't like the CR review about it, there is usually a thread in CD where other people with widely different opinions and notions are talking about the movie. If you don't like something, you should definitely criticize it, but try to criticize it well. A lot of the previous noise was not good criticism, because they were not attempting to explain what was wrong with the review of a given kid's movie, but just expressing endless incredulity over the fact that a kid's movie was reviewed at all. And there are several main and sub forums on here for people to blow off steam with low effort insults, if that's all they want to do. This thread as near as I can tell is intended for constructive (or what passes for it) feedback. Now some of y'all are being coaxed into doing so, that's good! quote:there is only the barest minimal attempt, or sometimes none made at all, discuss cohesion, plot development, believable characters, cinematography, or overall enjoyability. I don't think the reviewers in question are capable of discerning these things past their outrage. it seems like it must be very exhausting and upsetting to be these people, and see attacks on personal freedoms everywhere you go, and I don't particularly want to be a part of their world view. it's the reason I prefer to go to comedy websites instead of blogger's personal manifestos. only now, for some reason, they seem to be part of the same thing. This is what I mean about bad criticism – it appears like you didn't really read any review. The infamous Boxtrolls review (for example) discusses all of these things that I bolded. Feel free to check if you think I'm lying, which brings me to the paranoia: lesbian baphomet posted:Very many of the excepts posted in this thread read as though the reviewers are perhaps not giving you insight into their real emotional responses at all, but rather giving you a canned and exaggerated outrage out of a perceived social obligation, or a college essay-style response upon later reflection with respect to their well-meaning but often misplaced political views. And both of those tell me nothing about how well a movie might appeal to me, since they are too fake to be meaningful. Corridor posted:this is a good post, and should be read by everyone. the reviewers who writes these articles obviously went into the movie with the thought foremost in their minds: what here is going to be problematic? then the review is written from the place of fear and anger that this thought inspired. the reviews have nothing to do with feminism and equality, and everything to do with fear and overreaction. Tatum Girlparts posted:Ok I'm going to try to honestly explain the problem with this poo poo. Tatum Girlparts, you understood the Gone Girl thing correctly. So did I, and I haven't seen the film nor am I interested in doing so. It's one thing to fear being mislead by the reviewers, but don't you even trust yourself? I don't really think CR is very “leftist”, the reviewers as a group seem to have both progressive and conservative opinions. And in spite of being a crazy gay retard, I'm not the one trying to ascribe weird motivations/inner thoughts to others. You could be right, but it's more likely that we can safely take them at their word. Criticizing anyone's politics is good, but ranting about vague left-wing bias, well, you should know how that comes across as. How do we know the reviewers have a “perceived social obligation” and are “outraged”, that they decided a movie was “problematic” before they saw it? It's far more likely they enjoy watching and thinking about film, and call problems as they see them. Chilled Cap posted:It is fine to explore the themes, messages, and symbolism behind a movie if the movie merits this sort of exploration. How do you determine this merit? I hope you don't use “pre-approved” opinions Chilled Cap posted:Every review uses deconstructionism from the point of view of a humorless, hyper-sensitive identity politician with all of the pre-approved progressive opinions. ... the truth is that all of the reviewers are completely indistinguishable from each other. They all seem to get mad about the same perceived identity politics missteps regardless of the content of the movie they are reviewing; I honestly doubt they disagree about one single political position between them. There's that paranoia again. They are colluding with the “leftist” hivemind! I bet that gamer girl is involved somehow, perhaps she cuckolded the film industry as well! John Dyne posted:Captain America seeing a building collapsing in a mirror? The director is showing how he blames AMERICA ITSELF for 9/11. Giant robot urinating on a cop? Obviously the model of the car is meant for the upper-middle class so this is symbolic of their hatred of blah blah bullshit and farts. Clumsy never realized that sometimes a cigar is a cigar, or that you will always find meaning where you look for it. It's a common thing with artistic criticism. Your first reading is actually pretty good. The second falls apart, but you did that on purpose. “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.” - Freud “Yeah? And sometimes it's just a big brown dick in your mouth!” - Carlin Actually, both the psychologist and comedian are wrong (or only half right). It's always both. And that's ok, seriously. Penises are good. Vaginas too for that matter. Fear them not, goons. theflyingorc posted:seem to consider the mental exercise of mapping films to weird alternate readings as not just a fun mental exercise (what if Star Wars is really about the War of 1812!?), but perhaps as the end-all be-all of film analysis. More paranoia. If someone is actually saying they are the end-all be-all of anything, that's life giving you a big hint: ignore this person. Your silly Speed analysis is great, and not dumb at all. Of course you are free to say that it is, as I am free to say that it isn't. No one is silenced, unless they silence themselves. Don't give in to weakness. Masturbating is fun and healthy (don't overdo it though. I shouldn't have to say that, but y'know, nerds). And I never said the Jungle book was about King Louie (this is what im talking about when I mock reading comprehension). It's about Mowgli becoming a man. Louie is definitely the most interesting villain, as opposed to the tiger and snake, but the story isn't about him. His quest for weapons of mass destruction is a subplot, at best. But it wasn't a strong reading, as I admitted, so whatever Rannos22 posted:This is quite literally in the rules for the movie forum and a big reason for why it has gone just as far off the rails as the movie reviews for the front page. The lunatics are running the asylum. DUDE! Someone should tell the mods/admins! WE CANT THEY'RE PART OF IT! What?! Alas, we did not heed the warning of Nolan's Batmen
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Fair enough, I won't break up individual posts anymore, although I do worry about some of y'alls ability to figure out what I am responding to, since a common complaint seems to be that CR is allegedly unclear or duplicitous (while simultaneously being too dumb or basic, even to the point of being childlike). You sound like an insane person who thinks they're clever and I'm sorry that this is the life you must live.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Fair enough, I won't break up individual posts anymore, although I do worry about some of y'alls ability to figure out what I am responding to, since a common complaint seems to be that CR is allegedly unclear or duplicitous (while simultaneously being too dumb or basic, even to the point of being childlike). I didn't read any of that, but I still know you're probably a huge retard due to its length
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Fair enough, I won't break up individual posts anymore, although I do worry about some of y'alls ability to figure out what I am responding to, since a common complaint seems to be that CR is allegedly unclear or duplicitous (while simultaneously being too dumb or basic, even to the point of being childlike). Stay away from your keyboard please
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Tatum Girlparts, you understood the Gone Girl thing correctly. So did I, and I haven't seen the film nor am I interested in doing so. It's one thing to fear being mislead by the reviewers, but don't you even trust yourself? So to be clear because I was able to gleam two plot elements from the coy little 'tee hee I'll write about a woman asking for advice about an abusive boyfriend and she'll get an answer of 'stay with him' instead of a real one' level humor it was a successful review? Because my point was that it wasn't a successful review because it was so far up its own gimmick's rear end it didn't actually SAY anything. I'm sorry if this wasn't clear. Like, what does it actually say? Is the writer actually implying that by having an abusive character in a movie (and now I have to go on trailers I've seen rather than an actual reviewer who's seen the movie, but I think part of the point of the movie is to show the gray area in these spouse vanishing cases and about how easily manipulated people can be) the movie is endorsing staying with your abuser somehow? I've learned nothing about this movie other than 'maybe the male lead smacks her?' How much of that joke answer to the Dear Abby column is a persona and how much is them talking about the movie? Gee if only there was an easier way to do reviews, but as the great Siskel and Ebert said, the only way to review a movie is by doing a lovely parody of an advice column. I still remember Ebert's hilarious spoof of a household tips segment when reviewing Jurassic Park.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
Wait poo poo I just replied to the crazy guy who thought the jungle book would be good if it was seen as a kinda racist 'what if all the animals are stand-ins for black people wink wink' thing. Ya got me, Black Bones, ya got me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:02 |
|
|
Black Bones posted:Fair enough, I won't break up individual posts anymore, although I do worry about some of y'alls ability to figure out what I am responding to, since a common complaint seems to be that CR is allegedly unclear or duplicitous (while simultaneously being too dumb or basic, even to the point of being childlike).
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 04:28
|
|