|
You know, you mention 'The Wrestler' in the review, yet I don't think you guys ever reviewed it. What did you think of it? It doesn't seem like you guys review many movies that you actually enjoy.
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2011 21:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 14:55 |
|
|
Jay Dub posted:Yes, that's the reason. It has nothing to do with ProfessorClumsy being a sick bastard sadist who likes wasting my money for the sake of comedy. Every review I read of yours is narrated in my head by David Warner, if only because of your avatar.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2011 05:11
|
|
|
They were made for the fans, not critics!  I don't remember your Iron Man review, or even which one it was.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2011 14:45
|
|
|
Vargo posted:For those of you who don't know, Clumsy is the one human being on the planet who liked the hell out of that film. Hey now I liked the hell out of that film. I still made fun of its goofiness, but I certainly liked and enjoyed it!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2011 14:26
|
|
|
Does 'All of Me' with Steve Martin count?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2011 08:19
|
|
|
Affi posted:So this abortion baby that miraculously survived... how did she survive? I mean.. i'm not an expert on these things but going "Uh so yeah the abortion thing didn't work so we decided not to try again, have fun with your crippled child" It was God's will and his love and some other stuff about God.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2012 16:10
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Left Behind is a terrible loving movie. The sequel is only slightly less bad. Somehow, I question a sequel to a movie about the Rapture more than I question a sequel to Weekend at Bernie's. I mean, logically, I can see the sequel to Left Behind more, because it could be gritty and detail life after the end, but can't see one with two dudes using a dead guy's corpse for an extended period of time. Yet Weekend at Bernie's 2 was pretty good and I imagine Left Behind 2 really sucked.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2012 17:40
|
|
|
The plot to the Three Stooges movie sounds amazingly like the plot to the Three Stooges NES game.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2012 04:11
|
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:It's film language. It's not a coincidence thay framed him in the mirror at that exact moment. No, it's not, but as someone who doesn't understand film language as you do or look for it, that scene just struck me as just a badass shot, and one you'd see in a comic book. I guess a lot of the backlash on this is that it's baffling to get a review like this out of something intended to be a popcorn flick. The review is more intellectual than the movie itself is on the surface, and coupled with the knowledge that you went into the movie expecting not to like it (and admittedly having not liked the former movies), it just comes off as either trying to find reasons to not like it, or being just too drat smart for a dumb comic book movie. By God, though, you can write amazingly well. The review was fun to read, even if I didn't see eye to eye with it. e: vv This guy sums it up better than I could. Whedon shot the movie like it was a comic book, which I think conveys film language sort of like how Peggy Hill speaks Spanish. John Dyne fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Apr 30, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2012 12:35
|
|
|
Vargo posted:It can't be both? It can't be a badass shot with some deeper implication to it? Oh, it definitely can be both, but I was only giving how I saw it. I'm not a film critic and I have never taken any film classes. All I have to go by is how the film makes me feel, and that scene did not make me feel like I was to blame for 9/11. If I had thought to catch the (supposed) intent of it reflecting the scene onto the viewer, I would have probably wished I was 12 again so I could get a plastic Captain America shield and save the Chrysler Building myself. I mean, when it's explained after the fact, yeah, I can understand how the shot could be meant to make the viewer see the reflection as themselves as the character, or something to that effect. But I don't believe or agree with the notion that the shot is stating 'YOU ARE THE FAULT OF 9/11. LOOK AT THAT BUILDING, LOOK AT YOU (YOU ARE CAP AND WEAK ON THE GROUND) HOW COULD YOU FOR SHAAAME' If anything, I'd more of see it as 'You are Captain America, AND YOU ARE BADASS GO SAVE THAT BUILDING, THROW THAT FUCKIN' SHIELD SON, RICOCHET IT SO IT PUTS OUT SOME FIRES' Which, you know, is how I think a superhero movie SHOULD make you feel. quote:This isn't a defense. As they've been saying in the Avengers thread, these movies are about war. That's not even subtext. That's text. Not using it as a defense, merely an explanation to the backlash. I can't justly imagine anyone seeing the trailer or the poster for The Avengers and musing, 'Ah, yes, this should be an excellent look into the dynamics of leadership amongst equals and team work, with human reaction to tragedy beyond their control, and beyond the control of their physical, mental, and spiritual superiors. Tragic.' But in defense of the movie and Marvel, Marvel tends to lean more towards liberal thinking than conservative, which is WHY the whole '9/11 is YOUR FAULT' thing is weird. I mean, Iron Man and Hulk both painted the military as 'evil' and just wanting to get a leg up on the other guy via whatever magical science Stark or Banner had. Then there was the arc of Civil War, where the government tries to impose legislation to control and have way too much information on super powered beings, and Captain America fighting back and discovering America's priorities and views aren't the clean cut, denim washed version he used to uphold, and that they would merilly give away liberties and rights for convenience and safety, and that this is a Bad Thing. And yes, the superheroes fight and go to war with random threats, but that's what they DO. If the next Batman movie was just about Bruce Wayne's daily life managing his company, it COULD be an excellent movie, but it'd be a major disappointment to the fans. There doesn't HAVE to be subtext or even text beyond 'HULK SMASH' if it's Banner fighting a loving rhino or anything; sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes Mr. Hyde uppercutting a Norse deity is just Mr. Hyde uppercutting a Norse deity. quote:This is the sickest burn and I am determined to work it into conversation today. Thank you. I try. And also watch too much King of the Hill.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2012 16:43
|
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:So what is the difference between art and entertainment? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcReu_d9h4o When most movie goers think of 'art' in films, they think of things like that. They think of Oscar winning movies for best actor and best script, or thinks that might bore them to tears. Art, as stereotyped, is typically something unique and difficult to grasp. They think of, like your example, Nosferatu, a vampire movie more focused . But Nosferatu is from a different day and age, and it is difficult to fathom that similar techniques used in a film from the 1920's can be transcribed to an era of CG special effects, short attention spans, and the want for instant gratification, particularly in a genre generally aimed towards that sort of audience, and especially when the source material is taken into consideration. I will not and, frankly, can not deny that a shot may mean something to someone. To me, that shot of Nosferatu more of shows to me that he is imprisoned by who and what he is. Particularly when it is taken out of context (he dies moments later, which gives leverage to your interpretation.) Farts are art. Le Petomane proves this. He did something unique, he did something remarkable, and he did something that is beyond comprehension.  Art, ultimately, is also subjective. If it were objective, it would not be art. So while I or anyone else may disagree with your view of the Avengers, it is how it is to you. Though frankly, given the context it's a superhero movie, the shot in question is pretty well a trope at this point, and has occurred since the 70's at least. Someone like Spiderman gets the poo poo knocked out of him, he hears people in trouble, looks straight at the fourth wall, and heroically performs beyond his previous limits to reach the people in trouble and save them, just in the nick of time. Does that mean it isn't about 9/11? No. But it shades the meaning to those who aren't looking for some deeper meaning, whatever they may ultimately take from it.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2012 00:19
|
|
|
Angela Christine posted:What is not art? What isn't not art? http://www.somethingawful.com/d/current-movie-reviews/bully.php I actually enjoyed this review, and it's made me want to go see the film. I didn't even know it was coming out, and it actually seems like it'd be an interesting documentary.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2012 15:57
|
|
|
You know, I'm surprised TDKR didn't lose any points simply for how stupid it assumed the audience would be. Particularly in regards to Catwoman's MacGuffin. 'Oh she's got a huge record, she can't be a good master thief with a record, she's looking for Clean Slate.' I mean the name of the program and her determination to get it, backed by her issues, should have spelled it out. Nope. Instead, she gets to the guy who was supposed to give it to her and he's all 'oh are you looking for the CLEAN SLATE, the computer program what will erase all of your records which are making your life difficult and will give you no record and make life better and give you a CLEAN SLATE, do you mean that CLEAN SLATE?' I just really didn't like the writing, and I don't mean anything related to Batman canon; it just feels like they were expecting everyone to not pay attention to anything but the pretty explosions. Bane's jaw not moving when he talked also bugged me, but I may have just been imagining that. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2012 06:56
|
|
|
Honestly, somehow I misread Here Comes The Boom as a movie where Kevin James is heavily into MMO instead of MMA, and that made a hell of a lot more sense.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2012 16:29
|
|
|
BoldFrankensteinMir posted:Why? Why can't the same point be elaborated upon, or expanded upon, or examined? Why does it appearing elsewhere mean you, apparently obviously, shouldn't talk about it? That smacks of strange priorities to me, especially in a field that is, as you point out, an art form. I read Current Releases BECAUSE it's NOT just a funnier version of Ed Siskel. If I skim Rotten Tomatoes for film reviews I'll see the same points rehashed in almost every article, and then I come here and find them focused on something entirely different that I wouldn't have caught unless I went to see the movie myself. If you're writing for a newspaper or a major website, by all means, your target market is likely not to be checking other reviews to see how it stands up; your word will be law to a lot of your readers, and you are aiming to cover the most important points to the widest number of readers. But when you're just a little subsection on a website, you are going to want to be able to target things other people won't or don't, and stand out for it. Rehashing the same points literally every other critic is won't do it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2012 00:11
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Rugoberta Munchu posted:What if I simply have that many necks? Or just plain want to wear that many necklaces? Jay Dub, the film critic version of Flava Flav. Complete with Marmaduke clock around his neck that farts out the hour and has someone groan, 'Oh, Marmaduke!' and that wah wah wahhhh horn effect.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 19:57
|
|
|
Vargo posted:Maybe pitch the idea to Garbage Day or Lowtax of having a weekly TV version of Current Releases? There's probably someone on this site that's qualified to do this, but it ain't us. Maybe there's someone on TV/IV that doesn't call Skyler White a vapid oval office. (hahahahahahahano.) Vargo embarks on solo career covering television, Current Releases staff throw massive party and laugh behind his back. Professor Clumsy is quoted, saying, "Oh that poor, dismal fucker. They are going to chew him up and spit him out."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Jay Dub posted:I am genuinely ashamed of myself for not catching them. As punishment, nothing but talking animal movies until Oscar season is over. Which I figure you were getting, anyways.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2013 06:30
|
|
|
Jay Dub posted:"Party on, dudes!" At some point there must be a white-bearded, hunched over Kung Fu master who will judge them and then exclaim, 'EXCERRENT!' and air guitar with them with KARATE MAGIC that makes actual guitar sounds. What's Alex Winter up to these days?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:If you can make it in Hollywood with a name like "Imogen Poots," then I can become president. I'm a juvenile little poo poo because I looked her up and saw her full name was Imogen Gay Poots, and I choked from laughing so hard.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
corker2k posted:Why did he leave, anyway? Nine hundred and eleven creative boner differences.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 14:55 |
|
|
Senior Woodchuck posted:From what I understand, a lot of the "advice" is stuff that the heroine actually does in the movie. After reading the Wikipedia page on the movie it is apparently 100% everything the heroine does in the movie, and the reactions the rest of the cast has. Even the wine bottle thing. And the movie is getting pretty good press; it's like a 90% on Rotten Tomatoes and none of the reviews mention how stupid some of the plot twists are. The CR 'review' is an article meant for people who have already seen the movie and dislike the movie and its plot points. As a 'review' it's completely useless because if you didn't KNOW this stuff about it already, it gives no criticism. It's all 'hurr de durr check out this dumb poo poo.' It could've been just another throw-away satirical article if it weren't linked to a movie. It could've been a Daily Dirt. 100YrsofAttitude posted:This is a good idea. I would say though for movies you want to see, just go see them! Who cares what they thought of it? You are allowed to make your own opinions. Usually in those cases, when I'm certain I'm seeing a movie, I'll read the review afterwards so I don't go in with a bias. I mean it's lovely when you have a bad time at the movies, but it's nice to be able to make your own opinion about a film. Reviews are to help you make up your mind, at least to me. I wanted to go see TMNT cause I'm a big fat nostalgic idiot who went and saw the animated one almost ten years ago and enjoyed it, and I had hoped it'd at least be like the first Transformers where it isn't complete poo poo but also isn't a cinematic masterpiece, but I checked reviews first and saved myself 10 bucks. The opinions of others help when you're on a budget with both time and money. It also helps me find something my wife and I can go to. I can't remember which film it was she was interested in seeing here awhile back, but we read the CR review on it and found out it was a complete turd and so we went and saw Magic Mike and were much happier with our new choice, especially after hearing people bitch about the first movie on the way out of the theatre. It's why I used Drive as an example; the trailer for that seemed like it was going to be more action oriented with fights and chase scenes and poo poo, but the film itself was pretty slow paced and more dramatic. I mean it was still really good but I was disappointed about it, cause I was basically expecting Transporter with Ryan Gosling. Still it only helps if they're actual reviews and not 'hrm yes there are ninety instances in the movie that could be a reference to phalluses and show the deep-seated resentment towards cisnormative society' style over-analytical bullshit. I've got CD I can read for that. I want jokes and an actual down-to-earth review and analysis on the front page. Maybe not so much 'if you like explosions, you'll like this movie!' but at least let me know if the trailer is telling me something different from the movie but, hey, I'll like the movie anyways for these reasons. John Dyne fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 16:34
|
|