|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 10:59 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
Black Bones posted: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.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:What the gently caress happened? Legitimate feedback.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
Ruddha posted:I'm a lycanthrope aroooo What does this say about the patriarchy?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:A wise philosopher once said, "Be careful what you wish for, because you just . . might . . get it." you are the worst
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
quote:You know, like in that boardgame "Battleship." The film actually dares to suggest that you should put down your Xbox controller and play one of your grandfather's games where you might learn a lesson in humility. are you kidding me edit: Basically, these dummies have lost the point of criticism, paraphrasing Ebert - "How well does a movie do what it set out to do?" Rather than judging the Avengers on "was it a humorous actiony fun movie" he's seriously discussing the film about spandexes punching aliens as "having contempt for its audience." Straight up judging art by what it isn't rather than what it is, which is the most basic error you can make in criticism. I would like anyone who thinks like that "opinion" article to shut up for a long time. theflyingorc fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
100YrsofAttitude posted:Why not have "fun" with such an article though? I imagine the majority of people were going to see Avengers anyway regardless of their opinions, and ticket sales proved that anyway. Yeah it's dumb and overwrought but I doubt anyone would've cared if he had said, "It's good go see it," or otherwise. Then again it's clear few really care what they think, so at that point what does it matter what they write? You don't have to read their articles and it's not like they're getting paid for this (I'm not sure about this actually but I figured front page writers weren't paid). quote:If anything they're successful at getting people to talk about what they've written even if it's to tear it apart. No such thing as bad publicity and all that. quote:Anyway it's a moot point to get on Prof. Clumsy's case because he doesn't write for CR anymore, and if last week was any indication they must actually be taking the criticism to heart since we only got reviews from Vargo and Jaydub who critique movies on the criteria you guys are demanding and for what it's worth I find they are consistently good. Also, regardless of if they're funny or not they do try to make jokes. So there's that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:Ebert was wrong about a lot of things. Not about criticism as a discipline, he wasn't. Works of art should be judged on two criteria: how well they do what they set out to do, and whether what they set out to do was worth doing. There are as billion other things that can be discussed about them (including stupid death of the author personal readings), but in assessing a work this is what you should do if you aren't a big dummy
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:On the other hand, appealing to authority about the purpose of film criticism isn't the way to go here. There are numerous worthy points to be made against Current Releases without pretending that Ebert's word is somehow final. I disagreed with Ebert about tons of stuff, but if you think there's something seriously wrong with his "what movies should be judged on" mantra you are a very stupid person IMO
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:He was absolutely right, but it's not enough to just cite him when you're dealing with someone who clearly has the opposite mindset from the beginning; that's not going to go anywhere. He was only one guy - it's the ideas themselves that matter, and they're right on their own merits. quote:Still, saying, "Current Releases is really bad by Roger Ebert's standards, and you should pay attention to what Roger Ebert says about criticism," is infinitely better than Pirate Jet's "NUH-UH ACTUALLY HE WAS WRONG not that I'll make any points of my own" bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
It's also really, really hard to be effective at something you didn't set out to do in a work of art. I've never seen a comedy that made me have an existential crisis, I've never been entertained by the high-intensity action of a British Period drama. Citing a film like Blade Runner that where two people involved have a different opinion on it's ambiguity basically shows that the movie succeeded in it's aim of being ambiguous. (Fine, the creative team succeeded, if I can't use metaphor and shorthand for some weird reason).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 10:59 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:So does it make equal amounts of sense for Casablanca to be interpreted as: It's actually a very avant-garde porno
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 22:34
|
|