RE: (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews



Message


Monkeyshaver -> RE: (11/12/2009 11:12:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: norman365

"taken on its merits as a film, especially in two dimensions, warrants four stars"

I'm sorry empire but it IS a film and should be judged objectively as one, regardless of whatever form it's in. to give it higher rating solely for the fact you have as FILM reviewers is frankly ridiculous and gives the impression that we should go see as a fairground attraction instead IMHO.

I'm not an avator hater and am willing to give it a chance despite my cyncism towards "3-D" but for me all the credibility I had for you as a magazine and site that I've followed avidly for years has just gone out of the window.

Add to that their insulting claim that if you don't like it then you must be one of those "splenetic internet fanboy types who’ve apparently made their minds up about Avatar before seeing it". In other words you cannot have a valid different opinion on the film?!? Even though, judging by the customary adulation of yet another blockbuster, Empire had clearly made up their mind! Oh & lets not forget the stupid reference to darts.

& this is supposed to be film journalism?!?




Rhubarb -> RE: RE: (11/12/2009 11:16:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: James Dyer

And the prize for the first person to mention Attack of the Clones goes to.... RHUBARB!


Can I make it abundantly clear that I was being glib, and just trying to provoke a reaction out of the idiots for giggles? I genuinely agree with James that it is entirely ridiculous to criticise a film before its come out, or to say that Empire are right. At the end of the day it might be amazing, it might be awful, but I won't know till I've seen it.

Adding a star on for the 3D seems a bit odd to me - but maybe it genuinely does give it an extra dimension so to speak. I hope so, obviously I want the film to be good, I don't want to waste my £8.50 on a bad film!




UTB -> RE: RE: (11/12/2009 11:56:16 PM)

I'm almost afraid to see it now. If I don't like it does that mean I should give up watching films... James? 




jobloffski -> RE: "Flawed" film gets 5 star rating?? (12/12/2009 6:32:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fierce-hairdo

Mr Hewitt tells us the film is "flawed". But surely five star ratings are for FLAWLESS movies...?

And why on earth does he call Von Trier 'a young pretender' and group him with Bay and Emmerich? Von Trier is hardly similar to these blockbuster directors in any way.


Just a thought:

Von Trier often (always?) has something in his films about how shitty human beings can behave towards others more vulnerable than them, and therefore portrays humans as capable of being total monsters. Isn't that the implication of Empire's Avatar review re the portrayal of humans?




MarDev -> RE: Internet Fanboys (12/12/2009 11:17:02 AM)

I read reviews when the movie is ready to be released, but in this movies case, Empire and the internet fans have prejudged this film for the last 12 months at least. When I see the movie, I decide whether it gets five stars. And I don't make that decision a year before it is released because James Cameron invites me to look at a supercomputer and his actors dressed in spotty leotards. Or because I see a picture of a blue skinned computer sprite and don't like the look of it. Seriously, Empire has had a hard on for this movie and everything about it(The Soundtrack Review!, The Video Game Review!, The Action Figure Review!) for months. There was never any doubt this movie would get a 5 star rating. Empire has the cheek to dismiss internet fanboys because they think that as paid film critics their views must be held in higher esteem. The Empire staff seems to be made up of the biggest fanboys only they use a magazine to voice their opinions.




Monkeyshaver -> RE: RE: (12/12/2009 11:20:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: James Dyer
Avatar is an immersive cinema experience without peer. Hate the enviro-ranting and scoff at the CG blue people if you must, but frankly, if you can watch Avatar in 3D, let yourself be swallowed by the world and still not enjoy yourself then you should probably go pick up a book instead because you clearly don't like movies.

Or maybe we just don't like big CG blockbusters?

OK Empire loved it, gave it 5 stars as predicted because the magazine's focus & main interest is in the blockbuster end of cinema. That's fine I guess because the mag has hardly been secretive about its pre-release adoration of Avatar. But the review, & the above comment, seems to be preemptively dismissive of any negative response to the movie! Firstly that is really stupid, secondly it makes the review come across as one of the innumerous online fanboy/non professional reviews that clog up the internet.
Everyone's a film critic nowadays & I'm sure that has an impact on professional film journalism & its future. When I read a review from a magazine, be it in print or online, I expect it to be of a certain journalistic standard, that doesn't mean it has to be overly academic but it does have to be structured, considered & have a clear through argument. & of course I don't have to agree with it!
Unfortunately reviews in general in a lot of film magazines, as exemplified by this Avatar one, seem to be blurring the line between professionalism & amateurism. The craft of film journalism is in rapid decline. Its a worring trend.




Kilo_T_Mortal -> RE: Flawed yet still 5 stars? (12/12/2009 1:31:51 PM)

I can't see how the film can be half as entertaining as this thread, well done everyone.




Felix -> RE: RE: (12/12/2009 7:30:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeyshaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: James Dyer
Avatar is an immersive cinema experience without peer. Hate the enviro-ranting and scoff at the CG blue people if you must, but frankly, if you can watch Avatar in 3D, let yourself be swallowed by the world and still not enjoy yourself then you should probably go pick up a book instead because you clearly don't like movies.

Or maybe we just don't like big CG blockbusters?

OK Empire loved it, gave it 5 stars as predicted because the magazine's focus & main interest is in the blockbuster end of cinema. That's fine I guess because the mag has hardly been secretive about its pre-release adoration of Avatar. But the review, & the above comment, seems to be preemptively dismissive of any negative response to the movie! Firstly that is really stupid, secondly it makes the review come across as one of the innumerous online fanboy/non professional reviews that clog up the internet.
Everyone's a film critic nowadays & I'm sure that has an impact on professional film journalism & its future. When I read a review from a magazine, be it in print or online, I expect it to be of a certain journalistic standard, that doesn't mean it has to be overly academic but it does have to be structured, considered & have a clear through argument. & of course I don't have to agree with it!
Unfortunately reviews in general in a lot of film magazines, as exemplified by this Avatar one, seem to be blurring the line between professionalism & amateurism. The craft of film journalism is in rapid decline. Its a worring trend.


Hmmm...




fierce-hairdo -> RE: RE: (12/12/2009 8:22:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Felix


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeyshaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: James Dyer
Avatar is an immersive cinema experience without peer. Hate the enviro-ranting and scoff at the CG blue people if you must, but frankly, if you can watch Avatar in 3D, let yourself be swallowed by the world and still not enjoy yourself then you should probably go pick up a book instead because you clearly don't like movies.

Or maybe we just don't like big CG blockbusters?

OK Empire loved it, gave it 5 stars as predicted because the magazine's focus & main interest is in the blockbuster end of cinema. That's fine I guess because the mag has hardly been secretive about its pre-release adoration of Avatar. But the review, & the above comment, seems to be preemptively dismissive of any negative response to the movie! Firstly that is really stupid, secondly it makes the review come across as one of the innumerous online fanboy/non professional reviews that clog up the internet.
Everyone's a film critic nowadays & I'm sure that has an impact on professional film journalism & its future. When I read a review from a magazine, be it in print or online, I expect it to be of a certain journalistic standard, that doesn't mean it has to be overly academic but it does have to be structured, considered & have a clear through argument. & of course I don't have to agree with it!
Unfortunately reviews in general in a lot of film magazines, as exemplified by this Avatar one, seem to be blurring the line between professionalism & amateurism. The craft of film journalism is in rapid decline. Its a worring trend.


Hmmm...


Oh dear. Felix, that really is a cheap shot.
I, for one, think Monkeyshaver makes a very valid point, the odd spelling mistake notwithstanding.




gunstar -> RE: RE: (12/12/2009 9:05:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fierce-hairdo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Felix


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monkeyshaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: James Dyer
Avatar is an immersive cinema experience without peer. Hate the enviro-ranting and scoff at the CG blue people if you must, but frankly, if you can watch Avatar in 3D, let yourself be swallowed by the world and still not enjoy yourself then you should probably go pick up a book instead because you clearly don't like movies.

Or maybe we just don't like big CG blockbusters?

OK Empire loved it, gave it 5 stars as predicted because the magazine's focus & main interest is in the blockbuster end of cinema. That's fine I guess because the mag has hardly been secretive about its pre-release adoration of Avatar. But the review, & the above comment, seems to be preemptively dismissive of any negative response to the movie! Firstly that is really stupid, secondly it makes the review come across as one of the innumerous online fanboy/non professional reviews that clog up the internet.
Everyone's a film critic nowadays & I'm sure that has an impact on professional film journalism & its future. When I read a review from a magazine, be it in print or online, I expect it to be of a certain journalistic standard, that doesn't mean it has to be overly academic but it does have to be structured, considered & have a clear through argument. & of course I don't have to agree with it!
Unfortunately reviews in general in a lot of film magazines, as exemplified by this Avatar one, seem to be blurring the line between professionalism & amateurism. The craft of film journalism is in rapid decline. Its a worring trend.


Hmmm...


Oh dear. Felix, that really is a cheap shot.
I, for one, think Monkeyshaver makes a very valid point, the odd spelling mistake notwithstanding.


Here here! It's a perfectly valid post. Spelling mistakes? On an open forum? Who'd have thunk it? It's no reason to rubbish the sentiment within the post. If you don't agree, why not post with a rebuttal?




Hdent -> RE: RE: (12/12/2009 9:10:06 PM)

.




Felix -> RE: RE: (12/12/2009 9:43:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fierce-hairdo

Oh dear. Felix, that really is a cheap shot.
I, for one, think Monkeyshaver makes a very valid point, the odd spelling mistake notwithstanding.


Some of us are just bored of those posters on here who only seem to post to take unfounded jabs at Empire.




Rinc -> RE: RE: (12/12/2009 10:07:50 PM)

Here here Felix.

The craft of journalism is in decline? I for one think the opposite. Journalists are having to try harder than ever to contend with the amount of online 'journalists' and vitriol directed at them.




DaveTheStampede -> RE: RE: (12/12/2009 11:42:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rinc
...
Journalists are having to try harder than ever to contend with the amount of online 'journalists' and vitriol directed at them.

Granted.

However, do you think making supremely arrogant statements that effectively nullify the possibility of debating opinions of a film helps combat the vitriol?

By saying that if you don't enjoy yourself whilst watching Avatar you are not a fan of film is so frustratingly pathetic I really can't find the words.  Even if I were a die hard Avatar lover, I would despise such a sentiment.  Surely what makes us fan of film is that we DON'T enjoy watching the same things.  Otherwise what would be the point?

Yes, professional journalists do have a lot of vitriol directed at them.  But when they make statements like that, I can't help but feel it deserved.

Perhaps Avatar is the greatest movie since the invention of cinema, but that doesn't mean EVERYONE has to enjoy it.  And nor does it preclude those that don't from being fans of film.




Felix -> RE: RE: (13/12/2009 12:50:00 AM)

Dave, I think you're taking James and Chris far too seriously.




artilleryman -> RE: Flawed... (13/12/2009 11:49:11 AM)

Let's be clear here. Empire doesn't employ journalists. Not these days. Their writers are more like glorified publicists for all the objectivity they bring to their reviews. You shouldn't expect anything less than a glowing review from them because how else can they guarantee continued studio co-operation, set visits and the like?




DaveTheStampede -> RE: RE: (13/12/2009 11:51:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Felix
Dave, I think you're taking James and Chris far too seriously.

Perhaps.  But that comment just annoyed me.  A lot.  I really hate those sorts of comments, even for things I love.

Apologies if I took it the wrong way, however.  But I still stand by what I said.




fierce-hairdo -> RE: RE: (13/12/2009 12:51:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Felix

Dave, I think you're taking James and Chris far too seriously.


I'm struggling to take Chris' review seriously at all...




sanchia -> RE: RE: (13/12/2009 1:01:49 PM)

Isn't it rather difficult to pick holes in a review until you have seen the actual film?




fierce-hairdo -> RE: RE: (13/12/2009 1:33:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

Isn't it rather difficult to pick holes in a review until you have seen the actual film?


Of course, to some extent you are right. I'm reserving judgement on the film itself. But there are certain comments in the review that lead one to question the conclusions and are certainly deserving of at least a question:

According to Mr Hewitt, in Avatar there is a "fair amount of unintentional laughter to be had"...in this 5 Star masterpiece.

His pre-emptive strike on naysayers as the "made-their-mind-up brigade" is uncalled for and seems odd given the relentless hyping of Avatar by Empire for months suggests you're the ones who've made-your-mind-up prematurely. And lets face it, Empire has form on this, a long list of mega-hyped movies that Empire rushed out gushing praise for only to re-review in a calmer fashion come the DVD release - Mr Hewitt's original (now deleted) 5 star Attack of the Clones review being a case in point.

Then there is the very odd way he compares Cameron with "the Bays and the Emmerichs and the Von Triers". The "Bays and Emmerichs"makes sense - both purveyors of the action packed blockbuster, like Cameron. But Von Trier?? Has he ever made a blockbuster? Or an action film?

And then finally to say that the film is "flawed" and "warrants four star" but still wack it up to five stars because of the 3D experience undermines the integrity of the review and smacks of film industry appeasement.




Gazz -> RE: RE: (13/12/2009 3:33:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Felix

Dave, I think you're taking James and Chris far too seriously.


I think he has a point though. Not about the state of journalism (It's not in rapid decline and i quite liked the review myself) but about the comments that have been made here by admins in response to the obvious troll posts. At the end of the day you can't fight stupid with stupid and comments suggesting that anyone who dislikes Avatar simply doesn't like film are indeed just as stupid as those discounting the review despite not seeing the film in question.

As for Avatar... I can't wait and this review has got me pumped. I've already booked tickets to see the film twice (one on normal 3d screenm the other on IMAX) so it better be good [:D]




Felix -> RE: RE: (13/12/2009 4:37:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fierce-hairdo

Then there is the very odd way he compares Cameron with "the Bays and the Emmerichs and the Von Triers". The "Bays and Emmerichs"makes sense - both purveyors of the action packed blockbuster, like Cameron. But Von Trier?? Has he ever made a blockbuster? Or an action film?



Seriously? I give up, I think you should go read Sight and Sound if you cant see they're joking.




Gazz -> RE: RE: (13/12/2009 4:50:45 PM)

I too fail to see how people are missing this obvious joke. It just seems to be inexplicably flying over heads.




fierce-hairdo -> RE: RE: (13/12/2009 5:18:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Felix


quote:

ORIGINAL: fierce-hairdo

Then there is the very odd way he compares Cameron with "the Bays and the Emmerichs and the Von Triers". The "Bays and Emmerichs"makes sense - both purveyors of the action packed blockbuster, like Cameron. But Von Trier?? Has he ever made a blockbuster? Or an action film?



Seriously? I give up, I think you should go read Sight and Sound if you cant see they're joking.


Doh!
Yeah I see what you mean... but then again it's hard to tell the jokey bits from the serious bits...




Deviation -> RE: RE: (13/12/2009 5:43:38 PM)

The joke was rubbish and fell flat though. The Von Trier bit wasn't even the punchline (it came in the middle) and you couldn't feel a sense of irony. No precision, no proper thesis or antithesis that lead to a synthesis that explains that the Von Trier part was a joke, especially since it wasn't in the last part of the sentence, no set-up, no wit, no humour. That was rubbish Hewitt.

2/5, 2 because I'm being generous Chris.






I'm reviewing a review. I'm hardcore MAN. META HARDCORE.







Sorry Mr. Hewitt.[:D][:)]







warren7355 -> RE: RE: (13/12/2009 9:16:15 PM)

Sat here watching The Abyss for the first time, and y'know what? It's not bad (so far, although the similarities with Alien are startling, civvie crew doing something ordered by the 'company', mercenary attitude, general set design etc etc). I also love Aliens and The Terminator. However i cannot pass up a sneaking suspicion that Cameron is another Lucas. I mean this in the way that his past films are only great due to the limited budget and technology available to him. When given unlimited funs and fancy tech he seems to pull a Lucas and become blinded by the starry CGI and gimmicky fads, to the detriment of the film itself.

Limit him to the budget of District 9, and then you'd have the next great Cameron film.




Gazz -> RE: RE: (13/12/2009 11:38:09 PM)

I can't disagree more Warren and nor do I see the Lucas comparison when high budgets are concerned with Cameron films. Yes he's great on a limited budget and has managed to produce such classics as The Terminator and Aliens on modest budgets but it's this money know how on smaller pictures that's allowed him to produce such films as Terminator 2 and (arguably) Titanic on large budgets (T2 was first to cost $100 mil+ and Titanic $200 mil+). Though both films are rather special effects heavy they're about the characters at their cores and aren't as reliant on CGI as your latest Lucas efforts. Avatar is obviously much more reliant on special effects and "fancy tech" than your average film but you have to spend money and utilize these new tools in order to produce some fresh and new cinematic experience. I'm confident enough in Cameron's abilities as a filmmaker and storyteller to think that he wont lose sight of the story like so many have when faced with high budgets. His proven that in the past when blockbuster budgets are concerned and I hope he will continue to do so.




DJ Rob C: Mark II! -> RE: RE: (14/12/2009 1:12:37 AM)

It's to be expected that the thread is 6 pages with about 2 people having seen the film, but it's just silly... maybe the film is really a 5/5 film... just because it's hyped, and not everyones convinced from trailers et al doesn't mean that automatically someone is being biased by giving it a good review... [8|]

King Kong and Superman Returns being two I genuinely thought got the right rating




warren7355 -> RE: RE: (14/12/2009 10:11:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gazz I can't disagree more Warren


Each to his own [:)]




Gazz -> RE: RE: (14/12/2009 10:14:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warren7355

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gazz I can't disagree more Warren


Each to his own [:)]



Oh aye. I may disagree but it's all opinion at the end of the day.v[:D]




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.078125