It is currently October 17th 2019 4:58 am




  Page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Post Posted: May 16th 2005 1:08 pm
 

Join: April 4th 2005 3:20 pm
Posts: 45
Stryke wrote:
I guess I'm wondering why everyone is nitpicking Ebert's review when he gave the film 3 1/2 stars (half a star from a perfect score)? Seems kind of like everyone is doing exactly what they are complaining about him doing to the film.
Just an observation.


The reason why I feel the way that I do about Ebert's review is because it seems really two-faced. I read his review and just by going by what I read it seems like he should have given it 2 or 2 1/2 stars. By him giving it 3 1/2 stars it just seems like he's trying to please everybody. I just feel that it's a dishonest review.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that he gave it 3 1/2 stars in the first place because it will probably get some casual fans to go who were not planning on going. I just wish that a reviewer would just fairly grade the film for what it is without being two-faced or holding some kind of grudge. That's all.

Anyway, I'll be glad when this is over when most of us will get to see it at midnight on Wednesday night. Just a couple of days to go! :heavymetal:


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 1:35 pm
 

Join: April 8th 2005 8:13 pm
Posts: 47
Ok, you NEED to read what a crappy review this is. This is from my local news paper "The Journal News". I don't think they give one good reason why they gave the movie a C+, also note that this paper gave AOTC an A back in 02:

http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs ... 60341/1031

"Lucas' dark finale feels forced"
By KEVIN CANFIELD

"The amount of anticipation surrounding the final installment of George Lucas' "Star Wars" series is remarkable considering that we already know how it's going to end. After all, the key plot twist in the saga — that Darth Vader, once known as Anakin Skywalker, is Luke Skywalker's father — was revealed in 1980's "The Empire Strikes Back." And so, like the other films in Lucas' trio of prequels — "The Phantom Menace" (1999) and "Attack of the Clones" (2002) — "Star Wars: Episode III — Revenge of the Sith" arrives with a side order of anticlimax.

Having written himself into a narrative corner, Lucas is faced with a bedeviling problem: Can he craft an entertaining film built around a storyline that, in terms of its narrative arc, peaked 25 years ago?

The answer is yes. And no. "Revenge of the Sith" is a visually stunning movie. No surprise there. But if, as some are predicting, this sixth — and final, the director promises — "Star Wars" film rides to box-office records, it'll do so in spite of the stilted dialogue and uneven acting that by now are Lucas trademarks.

"Sith" begins with a 25-minute interstellar battle that finds Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) and Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) storming a ship commanded by a creature known as General Grievous. A lanky robot with a hacking cough and a hooded cloak, Grievous has taken the head of the Galactic Senate, a fellow called Supreme Chancellor Palpatine, as his hostage. As hand-to-hand combat ensues, it's clear once again why Anakin is the golden boy of the Jedi army. He has a deft touch with a light saber, and soon enough he has rescued Palpatine and dispatched Grievous to the outer ring of the galaxy.

Returning home to the pregnant Padme (Natalie Portman), Anakin is plagued by nightmares; he dreams that his beautiful wife will die in childbirth, and quickly decides that he'll do anything to keep his vision from becoming reality. (Anakin had similar dreams before his mother died.)

Around this time Palpatine begins exhibiting the classic characteristics of despotism: paranoia and an obsession with consolidating his power, an evil little chuckle. Palpatine reveals to Anakin that he's a Sith, a sect of outer space reprobates whose aim is to destroy — or at least control — the Jedi Order, of which Anakin is a member. Palpatine promises to help Anakin ensure the safety of his wife and child — if, that is, Anakin agrees to take up with the Siths.

Throughout, Christensen is a distracting presence. A slight young man with a lot of hair, he looks less like a roguish space cowboy than he does a sensitive teen living in a dorm room decorated with Belle & Sebastian posters. He seems to believe that scrunching up his eyebrows will make him look fierce, but more often he just seems sleepy.

Anakin morphs into a zero-sum tyrant, and in one scene Lucas seems to be using him to comment on contemporary politics. Late in the film Anakin says, "If you're not with me you're my enemy." The statement is almost the mirror image of George W. Bush's stated position with regard to the war on terror: "Either you're with us, or you are with the terrorists."

Yoda, voiced by Frank Oz, adds plenty of levity, however. A small green creature with big ears and three fingers on each hand, his unusual way with language — he inverts traditional prose structure so that a sentence's predicate comes before its subject — drew many laughs from a theater full of fans at a recent screening. Anyone whose earliest film memories include Chewbacca, the massive fur-covered Wookie from the first "Star Wars" movie, will find themselves chuckling when Yoda declares, "Good relations with the Wookies, I have."

It's telling that the film's best bits of dialogue are spoken by space creatures. Lucas has never been very interested in human beings. But this film's weaknesses are also its strengths; bored with dramatic, scene-setting soliloquies, the director spends most of his time parading his newest and neatest creations across the screen. There's an angry, yelping dragon, a motorcycle with one huge wheel, a river of molten lava and a crack medical team ready to outfit Anakin with a spit-shined Vader helmet. Lucas isn't a great storyteller, but as an inventor of overgrown toys, he's the best we've got."

I just thought this review explained nothing as to why they thought the movie wasn't that great. I dunno, am I wrong to think this way and they're right or are these completely ridiculous reasons.


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 3:08 pm
 
User avatar

Join: June 20th 2004 7:19 pm
Posts: 330
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/ ... 5450.shtml

Hopefully they'll take the time to get the Episode number right.


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 3:24 pm
 

Join: April 4th 2005 3:20 pm
Posts: 45
Wrath Mania wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/16/opinion/main695450.shtml

Hopefully they'll take the time to get the Episode number right.


I swear that some people are born without brains. We've only been bombarded with Episode III advertising for the past two months yet they can't get the Episode number right, let alone their review.

NEWSFLASH: George Lucas doesn't write great dialog!

Really? I never knew that! That's it, I'm not going to Episode VI: Revenge Of The Sith!

And zero stars? Wow, that has the word grudge written all over it.


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 3:59 pm
 
User avatar

Join: March 6th 2005 5:16 pm
Posts: 95
Location: Germany
Quote:
Later, a defeated Yoda sighs: "Into exile I must go." You half-expect him to be followed by six other dwarves chanting, "Hi ho, hi ho / Into exile we will go . . . "


Come on, at least this part of the Weekly Standard review is hilarious! :lol:

Quote:
Like all great villains, the Darth Vader we saw in the first Star Wars actually loved being a bad guy. He enjoyed being able to choke annoying underlings by pinching his thumb and forefinger together. He relished his swordfight with his old mentor Obi-Wan Kenobi. He didn't even mind slicing his own son's hand off (in the second film) just to prove a point.

But the Darth Vader we see at the end of Revenge of the Sith hasn't been seduced. He's been tricked. He's not a villain. He's a schmuck.


Hmmm... That doesn't sound too far fetched, does it? It'll be interesting to see how the seduction plays out in the movie.


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 4:02 pm
 

Join: April 4th 2005 3:20 pm
Posts: 45
Rawhead wrote:
How do you move a movie forward without decent dialogue? I mean if the movie is as good as advertized (or any movie for that matter) what else can move it forward...besides dialogue. It can't all be action.


True. While ROTS probably won't have mind-shattering dialog it will be just as good if not better than AOTC (which I didn't have any major problems with).

If the dialog in ROTS was truely as bad as some of these reviews say it is then we'd have a flood of bad reviews and very little positive. Since the opposite seems to be happening so far I'd say that those who do pick on the dialog are being too nitpicky. It's either that or they have some sort of a vendetta against Lucas.


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 4:09 pm
 
User avatar

Join: March 6th 2005 5:16 pm
Posts: 95
Location: Germany
Rawhead wrote:
20 years with sids...thinking your wife an chillins are dead...what the fuck do you expect.


True.
And "once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny." All in all I was pleased with the script so I guess it'll work.


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 4:11 pm
 
User avatar

Join: April 20th 2005 5:08 pm
Posts: 111
/\/\ The guy actually tries to make some sense, but ruins it by giving it ZERO fucking stars. I mean, you have criticisms, that's obvious. The dialogue is bad. Ok, lit major. You don't buy why Anakin turns to the darkside....ok, you're entitled to your opinion BUT, yeah, fear of losing a wife is not a reason to do irrational things. Wars have been fought for MUCH fucking less.

So, this guy can't find ONE redeeming quality in this movie. The SFX aren't incredible, or the fight sequences exciting, or Yoda's digital acting (without a reference character, unlike Gollum [who is still amazing, don't get me wrong]) is not outstanding? Give me a fucking break asshole. NO ONE can be so fucking jaded with movies and "Lucas raping their childhood" that they give the final Star Wars film ZERO FUCKING STARS.

What a dork.


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 4:20 pm
 
User avatar

Join: March 6th 2005 5:16 pm
Posts: 95
Location: Germany
Sith 77 wrote:
Wars have been fought for MUCH fucking less.


The Trojan Wars come to mind.

Quote:
NO ONE can be so fucking jaded with movies and "Lucas raping their childhood" that they give the final Star Wars film ZERO FUCKING STARS.

What a dork.


Maybe he's afraid of some potential subliminal messages, messages we discussed extensively in this thread. Or something.


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 4:23 pm
 
User avatar

Join: April 20th 2005 5:08 pm
Posts: 111
Yeah, what I was trying to say, and I don't think I accomplished it very well :oops: is that Capt. Dumbass has an agenda. I don't think Gigli got any zero star reviews. C'mon.... :roll:


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 4:30 pm
 
User avatar

Join: March 6th 2005 5:16 pm
Posts: 95
Location: Germany
Sith 77 wrote:
Yeah, what I was trying to say, and I don't think I accomplished it very well :oops: is that Capt. Dumbass has an agenda.


Nah, you accomplished it well, I just wanted to state the obvious once again. Besides, I'm still so proud of my first selfmade gif-avatar that I had to post something more. :mrgreen:


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 4:39 pm
 
User avatar

Join: June 20th 2004 7:19 pm
Posts: 330
Der Graf wrote:
Quote:
Like all great villains, the Darth Vader we saw in the first Star Wars actually loved being a bad guy. He enjoyed being able to choke annoying underlings by pinching his thumb and forefinger together. He relished his swordfight with his old mentor Obi-Wan Kenobi. He didn't even mind slicing his own son's hand off (in the second film) just to prove a point.

But the Darth Vader we see at the end of Revenge of the Sith hasn't been seduced. He's been tricked. He's not a villain. He's a schmuck.


Hmmm... That doesn't sound too far fetched, does it? It'll be interesting to see how the seduction plays out in the movie.


Anyone who has a problem with Vader being duped here and not being a true villian misses the point of the entire saga.

And guys, I don't think the review was literally out of four stars or whatever. That was just the title.


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 4:39 pm
 

Join: January 23rd 2005 6:08 pm
Posts: 94
What the hell is someone from the Weekly Standard doing reviewing a movie? What possible insight could this guy bring to the table?


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 4:43 pm
 

Join: April 4th 2005 3:20 pm
Posts: 45
Nightmare721 wrote:
What the hell is someone from the Weekly Standard doing reviewing a movie? What possible insight could this guy bring to the table?


He probably heard about the Palpatine/Bush comparison in other reviews and thought it was his duty to trash this film ;)


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 5:00 pm
 

Join: January 23rd 2005 6:08 pm
Posts: 94
Freudian slip, anyone?

And I thought the IGN review was asinine. I have read some absolutely terrible movie reviews in my life, and the Weekly Standard one is by FAR the most recent ;)


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 5:10 pm
 

Join: May 16th 2005 2:29 pm
Posts: 3
Location: portland
A friend of mine just wrote this for Radar magazine. It's a review of peck's review from the observer, inspired by this site. Thought you might dig it.

http://www.radaronline.com/the-wire/200 ... ire_000499


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 5:14 pm
 

Join: January 23rd 2005 6:08 pm
Posts: 94
That is hilarious!


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 5:16 pm
 
I am Jack's bowel cancer

Join: May 2nd 2005 4:19 pm
Posts: 447
Location: NorCal
Man that Peck guy has got to be one of the biggest asses in all time!
Image

Out of the way peck!


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 5:41 pm
 
User avatar

Join: March 10th 2005 6:55 am
Posts: 158
Location: Los Angeles
"Like all great villains, the Darth Vader we saw in the first Star Wars actually loved being a bad guy."

The great dramatic villians don't see themselves as bad.

For completely failing to grasp the most basic principles of drama, I give this critic zero out of 5 stars.


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 6:58 pm
 

Join: May 16th 2005 2:29 pm
Posts: 3
Location: portland
who was the talk show host?


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 9:27 pm
 

Join: September 16th 2004 5:12 pm
Posts: 318
When that review starts, I think that guy is 60. Then about half way through I begin to think he's 12. Some of his facts are wrong, and a lot of his viewpoints are childish. I'm glad people like him don't like ROTS. I don't want them to be happy.


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 9:31 pm
 

Join: March 29th 2005 6:50 pm
Posts: 111
Location: Stevens Point, WI
Okay, so his review makes no sense, but what the hell was he talking about here:

Quote:
So much here is guaranteed to cause either offense or pain, starting with the nineteen-twenties leather football helmet that Natalie Portman suddenly dons for no reason


Maybe I'm picturing it wrong, but that seems very strange.


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 9:46 pm
 

Join: March 7th 2005 4:07 am
Posts: 44
Yeah, I posted that New Yorker review a page back. Never thought I'd hear someone want to stick Yoda in a blender. :what:


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 9:55 pm
 
User avatar

Join: March 25th 2005 8:34 pm
Posts: 42
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Yeah, apparently he would have liked (most everyone's favorite SW film) TESB a lot better if Yoda was less prominent, and there were more scenes of people eating and using the toilet instead (i.e. Dumb and Dumber and American Pie.)

And you have to love his brilliant criticism of the alleged plothole regarding Padme's not getting an ultrasound...even though the pregnancy (and related marriage to fellow celebrity Jedi Knight) was completely forbidden and needed to be kept secret.

Or perhaps it was all a miserable, failed attempt at cynical humor.


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 10:02 pm
 

Join: April 28th 2004 8:45 am
Posts: 300
I gotta take a shit guys. BRB.


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 10:13 pm
 

Join: April 28th 2004 8:45 am
Posts: 300
Okay, I'm back.

I just heard that Bill O'Reilly liked the film. But I haven't seen the review yet.


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 10:27 pm
 
User avatar

Join: March 10th 2005 6:55 am
Posts: 158
Location: Los Angeles
It's all just a lot of separation anxiety... what the world needs now is just a big hug. It's going to be okay.


Post Posted: May 16th 2005 10:47 pm
 
User avatar

Join: January 14th 2005 4:42 pm
Posts: 279
not my most eloquent of posts but The New Yorker critic comes off as a small, no imagination, must draw attention to my review at any cost, prick.


Post Posted: May 17th 2005 1:15 am
 

Join: May 12th 2005 12:40 am
Posts: 35
Jason@Star-Wars.net wrote:
Okay, I'm back.

I just heard that Bill O'Reilly liked the film. But I haven't seen the review yet.


Where'd you hear that from. I'm curious.

From http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156637,00.html

"The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day

Time now for "Most Ridiculous Item of the Day"...

Expect a mountain of publicity for the new "Star Wars" movie which opens next week. There will be nowhere to hide from all of that. Now, not too many people know this, but I used to be a film critic when worked down in Dallas at the start of my TV career. So, next Wednesday, I will review "Revenge of the Sith (search)" right here on “The Factor” which could be major league ridiculous, but we will give it a shot. -- Be here next Wednesday."


Post Posted: May 17th 2005 3:09 am
 
User avatar

Join: March 24th 2005 12:17 am
Posts: 216
"Hi, I'd just like to say that I'm from the New Yorker and I don't like the names of the imaginary places and people in Star Wars. As such, I will totally disregard any merit of the movie and proceed to show my ignorance to culture and the art of storytelling. Please buy my paper! :) "

Diediediediediediedie :mad:


Post Posted: May 17th 2005 3:15 am
 
User avatar

Join: May 19th 2004 1:42 am
Posts: 65
Listen to Ebert & Roeper review.

050516-star_wars_revenge_sith.mp3


Post Posted: May 17th 2005 4:50 am
 

Join: April 3rd 2005 7:06 am
Posts: 21
I would put Kenneth Turan's in the positive pile, particularly as it reads eerily similar to Ebert's 3.5/4 review.

However, yet again another 'review' is graced with the word 'stilted' and a half a page rant on how these films don't live up to the OT.

Do these reviewers have a check list of lucas rants that must be used in every review of the prequels. For a change, I would like a bit originality and reviews minus vile rants from these so called professionals (I'm talking to you Travers, Chaw, Podhoretz & Lane) .

EDIT: On closer inspection Podhoretz's position at Weekly standard should be revoked for faggotry.

How the fuck can you seriously consider Attack of the Clones one of the worst scripts of all times. Obviously this guy hasn't read the script for Interceptor force or Critical mass, which make Attack of the Clones almost god like in comparison.

Equally obvious is a realisation that this review in his eyes is seen as a ticket to fame.


Post Posted: May 17th 2005 9:42 am
 

Join: April 11th 2005 9:59 am
Posts: 44
Location: Rhode Island
I doubt this is even noteworthy (and no I don't have a link) but in my local paper today (the Providence Journal) -- they had a review of Episode 3.

They gave it 5 stars (perfect score)...

:chewbacca:


Post Posted: May 17th 2005 10:44 am
 
User avatar

Join: March 10th 2005 6:55 am
Posts: 158
Location: Los Angeles
5 stars? A perfect score?

Representing the absolute finest in storytelling, oscar-caliber, masterful performances, flawless editing, visual effects and an iconic score?

RIGHT. 5 stars is as ridiculous as 0 stars for this movie.


Post Posted: May 17th 2005 11:02 am
 

Join: April 11th 2005 9:59 am
Posts: 44
Location: Rhode Island
HarpuaFSB wrote:

Here's the review
http://www.projo.com/movies/content/projo_20050517_starwars.201fd0a.html

Projo has some BugMeNot cockblocking so here's the review...



Hey, thanks for providing a link -- I hadn't had time to search for it, only read the hardcopy of it at breakfast.....and 5 stars may not mean much, but it was good to see....


Post Posted: May 17th 2005 11:02 am
 
User avatar

Join: March 10th 2005 6:55 am
Posts: 158
Location: Los Angeles
5 Stars is absurd, period.

The one unifying thing about gushing, nob-flogging reviews, and spittle-emitting hate-filled reviews is they are the surest signs that Star Wars is now permanently, indelibly, part of historical world culture. Like all significant events, people, and achievments, it brings out debate and opinion at the very threshold of passion in both directions.


Post Posted: May 17th 2005 11:15 am
 

Join: April 4th 2005 3:20 pm
Posts: 45
mverta wrote:
5 Stars is absurd, period.

The one unifying thing about gushing, nob-flogging reviews, and spittle-emitting hate-filled reviews is they are the surest signs that Star Wars is now permanentlly, indelibly, part of historical world culture. Like all significant events, people, and achievments, it brings out debate and opinion at the very threshold of passion in both directions.


I see your point but I don't think giving Episode III a perfect rating is really as absurd as a zero star rating. I mean, anybody who gives a zero star rating to Episode III obviously has a vendetta.

On the other hand, what if I see this movie and think that it's the best thing I've ever seen? I doubt that I'll think that but it's a possibility. If so then I'd have no choice but to give it a perfect score.

See? A perfect score really isn't that absurd. :cool:


Post Posted: May 17th 2005 11:24 am
 
User avatar

Join: March 10th 2005 6:55 am
Posts: 158
Location: Los Angeles
Yes, but a good review can be substantiated by more than a throbbing sheep boner. Sooner or later, you have to be able to defend that the actors delivered their lines with masterful believability, interest, and craft, directed so by a director with supreme sensitivity. And that every other discipline was equally well represented.

It's not a popularity contest, it's a critique. And I, for one, am always wary of grading on the curve. Especially when it seeks to lower the collective standard. At some point, if crap gets 5 stars, then 5 stars has no value anymore, does it? But I'm neither suggesting Sith is crap, nor that we can't love it to pieces even with 3 stars... but a critique of the full spectrum of its execution has to be accurate to be worth anything. And Sith is not an across-the-board achievement in mastery of all aspects of filmmaking, as any 5 star film must be.

We just love it anyway.


Post Posted: May 17th 2005 11:29 am
 

Join: April 4th 2005 3:20 pm
Posts: 45
mverta wrote:
Yes, but a good review can be substantiated by more than a throbbing sheep boner. Sooner or later, you have to be able to defend that the actors delivered their lines with masterful believability, interest, and craft, directed so by a director with supreme sensitivity. And that every other discipline was equally well represented.

It's not a popularity contest, it's a critique. And I, for one, am always wary of grading on the curve. Especially when it seeks to lower the collective standard. At some point, if crap gets 5 stars, then 5 stars has no value anymore, does it? But I'm neither suggesting Sith is crap, nor that we can't love it to pieces even with 3 stars... but a critique of the full spectrum of its execution has to be accurate to be worth anything. And Sith is not an across-the-board achievement in mastery of all aspects of filmmaking, as any 5 star film must be.

We just love it anyway.


Okay, I see where you're coming from. Thanks for straightening me out.

*Sits back down and shuts up* :oops:


Post Posted: May 17th 2005 11:34 am
 
User avatar

Join: October 12th 2004 9:34 pm
Posts: 2549
Location: Toronto, Canada
But then there's the ever subjective question: What constitutes a great film? Entertainment? Unique style?

What constitutes a great performance? Believeability? Dramatic flair?

No 5 star rating is universal.

I would tend to judge each film on a basis of 'does this film accomplish what it intended to do successfully?' I take into considerations flaws in style, plot, acting, score etc to make a judgement, but other's don't have a similar scale.

There's cockflobbing based on what your tastes are....If I go to Vanilla Sky and say 'This is the worst piece of shit I've ever seen' the next guy could say it's a masterpiece. Just as easily that same guy could go see Star Wars and think it's a mockery of cinema and I'll say 'Wow.'


Post Posted: May 17th 2005 11:40 am
 
User avatar

Join: March 10th 2005 6:55 am
Posts: 158
Location: Los Angeles
Well, look... this isn't about you or anyone getting pwned, it's about preserving value. Everybody benefits when the bar is kept high. We all know there are no shortage of baloney-eating, helmet-wearing, short-bus-riding window-lickers who will play for hours with whatever shiny object you hand them, but that doesn't mean it's actually any good. In some slowly erosive, subtle, but powerful way, the success of crap has long-lasting destructive social implications that we all have a duty to combat.

Fuck, this Star Wars shit is heavy.


Post Posted: May 17th 2005 11:43 am
 
User avatar

Join: October 12th 2004 9:34 pm
Posts: 2549
Location: Toronto, Canada
It's best not to dive into the depths, I've found. It's scary.


Post Posted: May 17th 2005 11:51 am
 
User avatar

Join: March 10th 2005 6:55 am
Posts: 158
Location: Los Angeles
CoGro, my brother... not to stand with too much righteous indignation, but that is the ultimate artist cop-out: "Who's to say what's good?"

Let me tell you a little something about commercial success: there is a 90% out there. No matter what your target demographic is, no matter what your business is, there's a collective, mass-majority take you can plug into. There are hamburgers that "most people" think are tasty. There are movies that "most people" think are good. And being able to hit that 90% reliably requires not only a mastery of your craft, but a thorough understanding of human nature. When you understand people, you can sell to them; communicate with them. You just must also be a master of your craft so you can adapt to whatever the task's needs are to do that.

Good is not subjective. Good is a combination of collective consciousness, and carefully guided brainwashing by those in control. That sounds nefarious, but "those in control" can be virtually anyone, from individuals, to societies at large. In advertising, we create a perception first, of what is good, and then provide it. We tell people, for example, "Bigger is better!" and then show them a giant SUV. Perception is reality, and thus reality is malleable. And most people, I assure you, think as they're told to.

That's why we have to be careful what we're telling people is good.


Post Posted: May 17th 2005 12:17 pm
 

Join: March 29th 2005 6:50 pm
Posts: 111
Location: Stevens Point, WI
But there are so many ways to look at movies. I think the average movie goer, or at least most the people I know, would much prefer a movie like Star Wars, or even shit like The Core to a supposed masterpiece like Million Dollar Baby. Most people don't look that deep at movies or appreciate the more subtle things like editing and style. It's kind of funny seeing people suddenly become conscious of simple things like different editing styles or camera shots in my movie classes. It's like people see them, but it doesn't really regiester. When it finally does, there's a whole new level of appreciation.

I guess it's like abstract painting or poetry. At first it might seem like shit, but the more you learn about it and understand it, the more you come to appreciate it. Hey, maybe it's just the people I hang around with, but they swore that The Core was the greatest thing ever put on screen.

So I think a lot of critics grade more on the "Hey, it's enjoyable" scale than the get deep and insightful with their reviews. Maybe they're afraid of the public backlash. I don't know. Hell, a lot of movie fans know MORE than they do about movies. All a lot of them are trying to do is give the average movie goer a sense of if they'll enjoy it or not.

I totally see what you're saying mverta, especially with the whole lowering the bar thing. Maybe that's why people seem to like so much crap. I could go on, but since I pretty much agree I'll just keep the rest to myself. :)


Post Posted: May 17th 2005 4:02 pm
 
User avatar

Join: October 12th 2004 9:34 pm
Posts: 2549
Location: Toronto, Canada
mverta wrote:
CoGro, my brother... not to stand with too much righteous indignation, but that is the ultimate artist cop-out: "Who's to say what's good?"

Let me tell you a little something about commercial success: there is a 90% out there. No matter what your target demographic is, no matter what your business is, there's a collective, mass-majority take you can plug into. There are hamburgers that "most people" think are tasty. There are movies that "most people" think are good. And being able to hit that 90% reliably requires not only a mastery of your craft, but a thorough understanding of human nature. When you understand people, you can sell to them; communicate with them. You just must also be a master of your craft so you can adapt to whatever the task's needs are to do that.

Good is not subjective. Good is a combination of collective consciousness, and carefully guided brainwashing by those in control. That sounds nefarious, but "those in control" can be virtually anyone, from individuals, to societies at large. In advertising, we create a perception first, of what is good, and then provide it. We tell people, for example, "Bigger is better!" and then show them a giant SUV. Perception is reality, and thus reality is malleable. And most people, I assure you, think as they're told to.

That's why we have to be careful what we're telling people is good.


Yes and no. That sounds alot like Noam Chomsky's 80-20 thesis. :)

I think that we're associating film here in the classic type. In which case, you're bang on. Classical filmmaking is geared towards the masses, therefore it's up to them to determine whether a film is 'good' or 'bad'. Though I do think there are problems within that. For example, why is the acting and writing in Spider-man praised on the basis that it's supposed to duplicate a comic book, but the acting and writing in Star Wars trashed though it's supposed to duplicate the style of 1930s serials? Why do some people love Adam Sandler and others hate him? How can Michael Bay get away with blockbuster after blockbuster? People being stupid, or different opinions?

I think in today's society though, more and more people are being exposed to experimental films and new styles in cinema. Some people have taken to it, some have not. I think now that popular cinema is starting to inch toward experimental films these divides in taste will become more apparent.

Of course, there's other ways to illustrate people's difference in taste - box office can be an indicator, but I really think people aren't as close to unanimous as you think when deciding what makes a good movie. GREAT movie, maybe you'll have a better case, but good....there's way to thick a line to really divide people on that definition.


Post Posted: May 17th 2005 6:48 pm
 

Join: April 2nd 2005 9:01 pm
Posts: 14
HarpuaFSB wrote:
Here, Lucas has dispelled whatever doubts anyone might have had back in 1999 when Episode I -- The Phantom Menace opened to a general chorus of disappointment 16 years after its predecessor, Revenge of the Jedi, had left us panting for more.

Christensen, so wooden in The Phantom Menace

*****


Okay, the first slip up I can forgive - perhaps it's a typo or a small, but forgivable, mistake. The second one shows that this reviewer is completely careless or has little idea what he's talking about. Couple these with the fact that he gave five stars, and you've really got to question his critical factions.


Generally speaking, I agree with mverta (aside from his views on subjectivity ;)) - a good review, positive or negative, is one that delves into the film's context, the motivations and influences behind the film, the way the story is conveyed on screen, as well as its individual components, and supports its conclusions with well-considered analysis. I've not really read too many reviews by 'professional' film critics that are 'good' in that sense of the word, regardless of what their views on the movie were. I thought Roger Ebert's TPM review was pretty close though - and sometimes A.O. Scott can come up with the goods too.

Off the top of my head, I seem to remember a series of articles on space.com (or something like that) back in 1999 about The Phantom Menace that really drew out some terrific ideas about the film.

Any arsehole can weigh in with their opinion on whether or not they liked a film or not - but reviewers, with their required knowledge of and appreciation for film history and craft, have the ability to use their own craft to add depth to your appreciation of a movie, by contextualising it and reflecting on the thought process of the director, or postulating ideas on what the moving image conveys that is not immediately apparent.

Anyway - my point is, a good review will heighten your appreciation for a film, even after you've seen it. If I've seen a movie I like, I'll look out for decent reviews of it to try and build my own appreciation. Reviews that are entirely based on the opinion of one person, with no acknowledgment of their own pride and prejudice, are useless. :)

[Sorry for the rant, but I liked the discussion we briefly had going on.]


Post Posted: May 17th 2005 7:10 pm
 
User avatar

Join: March 10th 2005 6:55 am
Posts: 158
Location: Los Angeles
Hey Cod Doc...

Fuck you.


Post Posted: May 17th 2005 7:12 pm
 
User avatar

Join: October 12th 2004 9:34 pm
Posts: 2549
Location: Toronto, Canada
That av needs to go.


Post Posted: May 17th 2005 7:26 pm
 
User avatar

Join: March 10th 2005 6:55 am
Posts: 158
Location: Los Angeles
...and its user, who is the sort of low-life, hate-filled, tea-bag-licking human garbage that would use a symbol of such evil to get off a little cutie on a website is goddamn lucky he's not anywhere near me and a woodchipper.


Post Posted: May 17th 2005 7:28 pm
 
User avatar

Join: February 4th 2005 1:36 pm
Posts: 145
A reviewer can only critique technical aspects on an objective basis. Everything else is indeed subjective, because it doesn't take a cinematic prowess to enjoy a movie. And likewise, a film will not succeed based purely on technical merits.


Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next



Jump to:  




millenniumfalcon.com©
phpBB©