Empire - kings of the back track (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Feedback] >> Empire Magazine



Message


JIm R -> Empire - kings of the back track (27/4/2007 12:10:02 PM)

Oh Empire

You do it again.

'Oh what's that The Fountain taken a bit of stick between cinema and dvd release, ooh let's conform to public view and give it a bit of a kicking to be seen to tie in with public opinion...

Oh what's that, we gave it fours stars originally, let's hope nobody noticed.  Oh.. we did with star wars, the matrix as well.

What's that - we need to grow a fucking spine and stand by our convictions, yes... yes we do don't we'.

Empire, whilst I commend you for seeing your error all those years back with a five star review of Episode One, placing someone who clearly didn't like The Fountain to write a DVD review of a film that is so not a one star film was a) badly considered and b) as per original point, sadly lacking in balls simply to tie in the 'in thing to do' which you collectively as a magazine always do, you are just like the NME who have their favourite band (of the week) until the next new thing come along.
 
Empire, fall in love I ask you, just don't divorce within a few months, that's all.
 
Regards
 
Jim




Felix -> RE: Empire - kings of the back track (27/4/2007 12:11:29 PM)

Was this review by the same person who reviewed it at the cinema?




Mikey C -> RE: Empire - kings of the back track (27/4/2007 12:12:54 PM)

The Fountain is pretty divisive, though. I went to see it with a friend who told me it was the best thing ever and amazing etc... I hated it. 




Olly Richards -> RE: Empire - kings of the back track (27/4/2007 12:30:28 PM)

It's not a backtrack. As another poster said, the film was divisive and that was reflected in the Empire office, so it was fair to represent the opposing view. Those who loved it when they saw it at the cinema, including myself, still love it, but this review represents the alternative view of Ian Nathan. The original 4-star review is still online for anyone who wishes to read it.




talpacino -> RE: Empire - kings of the back track (27/4/2007 12:33:43 PM)

Is the dvd review online? I havnt got my copy of this month's issue yet. Did it get 1 star?




Monkeyshaver -> RE: Empire - kings of the back track (27/4/2007 12:34:55 PM)

I'm not in favour of films being re-evaluated but when a movie gets a dvd release its the perfect opportunity, & makes perfect sense, to give a different take on the film from a different reviewer.




Neth -> RE: Empire - kings of the back track (27/4/2007 12:36:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JIm R


Empire, whilst I commend you for seeing your error all those years back with a five star review of Episode One, placing someone who clearly didn't like The Fountain to write a DVD review of a film that is so not a one star film was a) badly considered and b) as per original point, sadly lacking in balls simply to tie in the 'in thing to do' which you collectively as a magazine always do, you are just like the NME who have their favourite band (of the week) until the next new thing come along.
 
Empire, fall in love I ask you, just don't divorce within a few months, that's all.
 
Regards
 
Jim



The mag never gave Phantom Menace a five-star review, did it? I thought it only received four stars back in July '99?

Or are you talking about an entirely different Episode 1?




JIm R -> RE: Empire - kings of the back track (27/4/2007 12:38:11 PM)

I stand correcterd, yes, four stars it was sorry, but I still stand by the point.
 
1 star for a film of that quality is not on frankly.




Felix -> RE: Empire - kings of the back track (27/4/2007 12:42:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JIm R

1 star for a film of that quality is not on frankly.


You're completely missing the point of a review. Ian Nathan obviously doesnt think it is a film of any quality.




ilovebeerme -> RE: Empire - kings of the back track (27/4/2007 12:44:11 PM)

Honestly, it's subjective for god's sake! [:D]




JIm R -> RE: Empire - kings of the back track (27/4/2007 12:44:44 PM)

No, my point is that Empire have a tendancy to review a film on release and heap muchous praise on it then if the film happens to be disliked or not very well received they then back track and say 'oh we hated it all along' simply to fall in with public opinion, regardless of who reviewed it.

That's my point.

Jim




Neth -> RE: Empire - kings of the back track (27/4/2007 12:45:44 PM)

I haven't read the review yet, but one star does seem a bit harsh, but I'm sure the words in the review (why does no-one ever concentrate on them instead of the star rating?) justify his opinion...

As Mikey and Olly both already stated, The Fountain is a film that split opinion wildly. What disappointed me most about it was that I neither adored nor loathed it - I merely found it "alright". And in some instances, indifference can be far worse than either loving or hating something.




ilovebeerme -> RE: Empire - kings of the back track (27/4/2007 12:46:04 PM)

It's wrong though, eh?




rikkie -> RE: Empire - kings of the back track (27/4/2007 12:46:52 PM)

At least you lot got to see the bloody film - it didn't come within a 100 mile radius of me.  Toss.




Mikey C -> RE: Empire - kings of the back track (27/4/2007 12:48:14 PM)

I had to go to Krakow to see it, rikkie... [:D]




Felix -> RE: Empire - kings of the back track (27/4/2007 12:48:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JIm R

No, my point is that Empire have a tendancy to review a film on release and heap muchous praise on it then if the film happens to be disliked or not very well received they then back track and say 'oh we hated it all along' simply to fall in with public opinion, regardless of who reviewed it.



They're not saying that though. They're saying that when it came out at the cinema, Helen thought it was worth 4 stars and when watched on DVD, Ian Nathan thought it was worth 1 star.

You do realise that you can still enjoy a film if Empire only give it 1 star dont you. Or are you afraid you'll have to change your mind now?




Helen OHara -> RE: Empire - kings of the back track (27/4/2007 12:52:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JIm R

No, my point is that Empire have a tendancy to review a film on release and heap muchous praise on it then if the film happens to be disliked or not very well received they then back track and say 'oh we hated it all along' simply to fall in with public opinion, regardless of who reviewed it.

That's my point.

Jim


I assure you, Jim, all those negative reviews were already out before we went to press on the cinema review. This isn't a case of backtracking at all - it's a four star film, and the In Cinemas review stands. This is just a case of giving Ian Nathan a chance to express his view, however wrong we may feel him to be. [:D]




jonson -> RE: Empire - kings of the back track (27/4/2007 12:54:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Felix


You do realise that you can still enjoy a film if Empire only give it 1 star dont you.



You're joking right? Surely not?

Cool, I'm off to Play now to buy Freddie got Fingered. I've always wanted to see it.




JIm R -> RE: Empire - kings of the back track (27/4/2007 12:55:02 PM)

Felix, I assure you I won't be changing my mind, it's a beautiful, emotional film that I will take the cinematic experience of watching to my grave, so no I won't be doing an empire ! [:D]




Rgirvan44 -> RE: Empire - kings of the back track (27/4/2007 1:06:22 PM)

Well after reading the review I get the feeling Mr.Nathan has a thing against art students. [:D]

I liked it well enough, maybe a three star film, but one star seems to be more about making a point than anything else. Which is fine - but surely the visuals were brilliant?  The review spends a lot of time complaining about fans of the film rather than what he felt was wrong with it -  a little more depth in the criticism would have been nice, at the very least it was trying to say something - unlike an AVP or Ultraviolet for instance.

Although the zit comment was gold.




Chris Hewitt -> RE: Empire - kings of the back track (27/4/2007 1:17:06 PM)

As Helen says, the review is Ian N's opinion. He's well grumpy!




ilovebeerme -> RE: Empire - kings of the back track (27/4/2007 1:24:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris Hewitt

As Helen says, the review is Ian N's opinion. He's well grumpy!


He is too!  It even says so on Wikipedia...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_%28magazine%29




Mikey C -> RE: Empire - kings of the back track (27/4/2007 1:26:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ilovebeerme

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris Hewitt

As Helen says, the review is Ian N's opinion. He's well grumpy!


He is too!  It even says so on Wikipedia...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_%28magazine%29


You wiki-vandal, you!




ilovebeerme -> RE: Empire - kings of the back track (27/4/2007 1:31:02 PM)

I got a jolly good ticking off! [:(]

"Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Empire (magazine). Readers looking for serious articles will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write (almost) whatever you want. Thank you. Dweller 12:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)"

[:D] - Bloody good response time from them i must say. 




Chris Hewitt -> RE: Empire - kings of the back track (27/4/2007 1:35:15 PM)

That was fast. I went on there to see what you'd written and it had already gone. But hey, I didn't even know we had a Wikipedia entry! We've made it! FAMOUS!




ilovebeerme -> RE: Empire - kings of the back track (27/4/2007 1:36:43 PM)

We're talking jape of the century.  I put 'well grumpy' in brackets after Mr Nathans name.  I know! 

Maybe if I provide a reference.....[:D]




Felix -> RE: Empire - kings of the back track (27/4/2007 1:36:59 PM)

You've got one too Chris!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Hewitt [:D]




Mikey C -> RE: Empire - kings of the back track (27/4/2007 1:37:50 PM)

Nazi mods.

Back on track - one star is obviously a bit of daft rhetoric. You don't have to take star marks so seriously.
I didn't like it but I'd probably give it 3 stars since it is well made and, at the very least, interesting.




Jasper -> RE: Empire - kings of the back track (28/4/2007 1:31:41 PM)

You could rent The Fountain, turn up the volume, close your eyes for 100 minutes and have a wonderful time. The sountrack by Clint Mansell is a masterpiece, even if the film itself is merely bloody fantastic.  




MohadGlub -> RE: Empire - kings of the back track (28/4/2007 2:03:51 PM)

My thread was blocked because it was insulting?? when Ian Nathan in actual print insulted everyone who enjoyed the film by calling them fountainheads and making derisive comments....

If you are going to censor my opinion because it makes Empire staff feel uncomfortable, rather than actually standing up to debate, then I'm very dissapointed in the representatives of a magazine which I enjoy a lot. Surely the mature thing to do would be to reply in a manner which showed me some small manner of respect.

Yes, I insulted Ian Nathan, but he was very insulting in his review, and so I believe I'm justified. And whether I'm justified or not, I think its quite cowardly to ignore the bulk of my criticism which was quite civil, and which took me serious consideration. The fact of the matter is, the reviewer in question has been spared from a justified attack on his somewhat petulant methods because offence was taken to mine (which weren't petulant). Offence can be generated from a great many posts on this forum, and if a grown man is going to feel mollified by being called a moron by one of the readers of his review, I would consider it a greater question of his insecurities (or the insecurities of whoever stepped in to represent him) than of my insult.

My comments (posted below) were a mature and dignified responce which still demands some form of reply, and not petty censorship.

With all due respect,







(From my earlier blocked thread)






This thread is an attack on Ian Nathan, who reviewed The Fountain, for its DVD release in this month's magazine (June)- giving it 1 star and a damnably childish, cynical pout that frankly shames any man that's ever constructed a decent argument/review.


I won't post up the article; because the um… ahem... hard fruit of your labour is not something worth getting into any legal issues over (I don't really know the situation with posting up articles or fragments of). I shall, however, quote you and hope this doesnt tread on your pompous toes.




I believe that a good critic will possess two basic qualities: a sharp wit and an interesting aptitude of language as well as an objective eye. Sadly you are not particularly acquainted with either as your review of The Fountain clearly shows. You debase yourself into constructing immature, desperately bitter comments disguised as superior cynicism. There is no actual criticism in the review; merely invalid analogies one after the other with no purpose other than to make unsubstantiated mockery of a perfectly respectable picture.

It's amusing that you have taken something designed to be deep and thought-provoking, and (regardless of whether you think it is or not) produced a mundane, patronising denial that favours arrogant dismissal over actual critical judgement. Surely if this piece of "pretend art” has failed so spectacularly, the very least you could do would be to explain why in a manner which suggests that you are indeed a "free-thinker” from "the land of reason” rather than from the land of frantic small-mindedness.

"Imagine enduring a 98-minute poetry recital from a manic-depressive art student who sprung a mega-zit on the morning of a date with a girl like the one from Constantine.”
I'm not sure what you're trying to do here, because it looks to me like you're using the review as an excuse to single-handedly criticise poetic films, depressive films, art students and anything of a certain genre of the artistic spectrum. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you wouldn't stoop to such small-mindedness, and take it that you completely missed the entire perspective of the film. The Fountain is by no means "manic depressive”; in fact it is wholly the opposite, it is a very uplifting journey of discovery and fulfilment that encourages us to live our lives fully; go roll in the snow, spend each moment to the full...

"Its thoughts are cranky and juvenile, its execution languid bordering on mopey, its cinematography the colour of sea water.”
I don't know what part of the coast you have had experience of, but by god I want to go there…. If sea water is saturated in rich golds and bright ethereal white, if sea water is as vividly visually stimulating as the joys of The Fountain's moving spectacle, then I must be living in a very dull, disappointing fantasy and witnessing reality upon entering The Fountain's theatre. Your venerable perspective of reality is greatly received. Perhaps next time I see something beautiful I shall tell myself fervently, 'its just sea water… its just sea water'.

Cranky and juvenile are words which are so completely invalid when forced into a review of The Fountain that it makes me wonder if they are there by mistake. The Fountain, however you believe its execution is managed, is heavy, meaningful stuff- it tackles powerful themes on life, love and death- it draws in a whole pile of eastern spirituality and presents it in a glorious package of philosophy and thought-provocation. Juvenile is not at all the word to describe such a film, and your error in vocabulary is disturbing, especially considering the manner in which you are giving your impression upon keen movie-goers looking for fair analysis.

Said movie-goers will be dissapointed to follow any word you might have on the matter, though you would hardly care from your "clear-minded” position as a "free-thinker”- calling any fans of the film "Fountainheads"  and taking their understanding of the film as proof of 'air headedness' and offering further proof of critical immaturity both through this approach, which lacks ALL objectivity and through your use of words which would be better suited for a trashy, simple-minded tabloid rather than a self respecting specialty magazine.

Another, very desperate method you use to attempt to influence people to your way of thinking is by referencing the film's box office and budget- two factors which are, as I'm sure you're very much aware, in no way related to the film's artistic and cinematic worth. In full knowledge of this fact, you have to admit that the jibe was nothing more than a spiteful and banal comment to throw in amongst all the others you've conjured unduly.


Throughout the review you try so hard to convince readers that your one star rating has been awarded on a superior analysis, that cuts through the 'fountainheaded' nonsense and delivers your 'freely thought' judgement from whatever grand podium you have placed yourself upon. The fact of the matter is, all your unfounded cynicism, all your childish comments betray a frightening misinterpretation of the film's message, a message which has clearly gone well over your head (quite a feat considering how inflated it is off the ground)


Do reply.....





Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.09375